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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (186)	4/20/2005 10:49:30 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 5034

4. Posted Apr 17, 2005, 5:53 PM ET by hhill Why can't you see that failing to deliver securities that have been sold (whether a long or a short sale) is simply fraud? If the failed stock sale were bought in on T+4 after the trade, there simply wouldn't be a problem large enough for the SEC to give a free pass to previously existing fails. The Treasury bond market is going exactly the opposite direction: On the recommendation of the Bond Market Association, they are moving to tighten buy-in on fails to just 15 minutes. That's right -- 15 minutes! It seems that the integrity of what is arguably the most important capital market in the world is so important that the participants cannot tolerate failure to deliver.... Why should any stock seller get a free pass? If their brokerage firm has lent out too many shares to shorts, then let the brokerage firm call the shares back in from those shorts, or buy in the position when the fail occurs. If it's the customer's fault, charge the cost to the customer. If it's the brokerage's fault, then let the customer fight that out with the brokerage. But let's not make every other shareholder pay by letting some sellers dilute the stock. Simple, really. Now why can't the SEC tell us how many shares are failed, even after more than two weeks have passed? Why can't the SEC tell us how many shares of these stocks were failed, and for how long, before this toothless new regulation went into effect? Why don't you care about these issues, Mark? Here's the dictionary.com definition of fraud, which seems to fit the act of selling stock and not delivering it pretty well: "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Does calling it "strategic fail to deliver" make it any less fraudulent?