Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M who wrote (9191)	2/22/2003 1:05:24 PM
From: N. Dixon	Respond to of 10293

Naked short selling has the prospect of creating an unlimited stock float. That virtually guarantees the outcome of a small company's stock against a well organized stock manipulation effort. The market place is supposed to be about legitimate company's ability to come to the capital markets to raise the money to manage capital needs. Not whether the share price of a legitimate business can be pulverized before they reach their stride. The SEC attempts to enforce against boiler room operations and fraud companies(not as effectively as one would like), but is toothless to protect against organized naked shorting. Some form of controls on this issue is essential. Well said. Investors are aware of "pump and dump" but not many are aware of the "short and distort" campaigns that people like wexler and asensio have waged against legitimate companies. Fortunately for REFR investors the company is past the R&D stage and had already raised cash for the many years it took to develop this kind of technology and now have revenues starting from a few of the licensees with MUCH more to come. The EC companies took government money to work on their switchable window but their technology is just not durable or fast enough to compete with SPD. We're one of the fortunate companies who weren't affected (except for the hit on the stock price) by the short attack. Other companies have to fold because of lack of funding and I'm sure that many of those companies had legitimate projects that, if realized, might have created jobs or bettered the lives of people. That is what is disturbing. Frauds should be exposed and punished but that is not what has been going on with Asensio and his hedge fund clients. There's plenty of evidence from the HEB and CCSI trials to prove it. Just look at the court documents. asensioexposed.com ND

To: Mike M who wrote (9191)	2/23/2003 9:30:29 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Well then how do you explain the fact that, particularly during the bubble era, that these Canadian brokerages were frequently subject to "buy-ins" on heavily shorted stocks? If they never borrowed the stock to begin with, how could that have happened? On related issue, certain companies now have "single stock futures" that trade on their common stock, effectively permitting the taking of as large a negative position as one wants, without the need to borrow stock. How come these companies' shares don't implode as a result of unlimited supply? Finally, with regard to this: The market place is supposed to be about legitimate company's ability to come to the capital markets to raise the money to manage capital needs. But the markets are NOT intended to be bottomless feeding troughs for non-productive companies to pay their owners millions a year just by being able to convince a new group of suckers to pony for the company's story every few years. Making a public offering to grow a business, or make an acquisition, is one thing. Making a public offering because the company will go bankrupt if they don't raise cash is another. We need more of the first and a LOT less of the latter.