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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (54950)	3/1/2006 12:59:45 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Date: Wed Mar 01 2006 11:38 trotsky (@naked shorting) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved a considerable amount of ridicule has been heaped on people complaining about the 'naked shorting', or 'fail-to-deliver' scamarama, and truth to tell, i've always reserved a certain degree of skepticism regarding the allegations as well. not least because OSTK's vocal CEO comes across as a complete wingnut in interviews ( he rambles on about 'Sith lords' and similar stuff, which basically makes him look like a delusional paranoid. one has difficulty to take him seriously after listening to his rants. ) . also, it is well known that short sellers have traditionally always been blamed when some overpriced cr*p stock finally went where it belonged, taking the 'true believers' down with it. they've been identified as the fount of all evil as far back as the 1930's - people use them as a convenient excuse for their own bad investment/trading results ( many , if not most, manipulation allegations are a result of the psychological need to blame someone else in order not to have to face one's own responsibility for bad decisionmaking ) . all that said, one needs to keep an open mind regarding the evidence. OSTK's critics always point to the company's disappointing performance ( note though, when you compare the company to other Nasdaq listed mania stocks, it looks like the ideal candidate for a big rally - no earnings, but huge revenue growth rates ) , and no doubt this PoV has merit. however, they also continually evade addressing the evidence regarding the amount of delivery fails in the stock. Alan Newman has put together some of the evidence in the following article, and one must admit, this DOES look like there's a real problem. if similar stuff happens with many other listed stocks, then it's a HUGE problem. see for yourself: cross-currents.net