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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Magrathea who wrote (215070)	10/26/2006 1:22:35 PM
From: aleph0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

// Where is the indignation of Fidelity and their ilk? // Fidelity just dumped 43% of their AMD holding at end of Q2 BTW ! nasdaq.com BTW.. Insti-Holdings still at 118.8%. Despite all the speculation on IV , I think this is just part of the ATI merger numbers-chaos , i.e. not yet properly accounted for in the NasDaq website. The presentation ( which I posted earlier Message 22937602 ) is a MUST for everyone to go through. The hosting website has no links to the presentation - I actually got the link from buyins.net Still, the Guy presents letter/documents from the SEC ( some are too small to be able to read them of course ). It certainly looks legit ! As you know, I've been convinced that AMD is probably the most manipulated stock since I started trading them in 2001. The presentation is actually like "medicine" .. as I can now stop trying to convince the non-believers. It has also always been my contention that the WS mob can move AMD's price anywhere and anytime they want to, ...which is why I have given up taking too much notice of what TA or FA says about AMD, but spend more time watching the "trading/pricing/block-size patterns of the ticker" for clues as to where AMD is going next. I'm usually right BTW .. but normally don't take action on my own hunches !

To: Magrathea who wrote (215070)	10/26/2006 1:25:18 PM
From: plantlife	Respond to of 275872

1. Who is the author(s) of the presentation? Seems like a glaring omission to me. Anonymous, witness protection program? (Only half kidding).

To: Magrathea who wrote (215070)	10/26/2006 4:29:17 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Magrathea: One obvious way to stop FTDs is to insist on getting the stock certificates. Now you have proof of ownership and you can have it authenticated. Since I am a long term AMD investor, I have done this for all of my shares. I would change brokers if they don't do this or charge too much to do it. Its a good low cost insurance against FTDs. Pete

To: Magrathea who wrote (215070)	10/26/2006 5:24:07 PM
From: Magrathea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The author of the "Darkside" presentation is Dr. Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com bobosrevenge.blogspot.com Dr. Patrick Byrne of OSTK has finished the second installment of his groundbreaking, "Dark Side Of The Looking Glass" animated slide-show presentation, and it is stunning (it is on the upper left side of the screen at Businessjive.com). an interesting comment from the blog: the PURPOSE of Reg-SHO was to INTRODUCE the grandfather clause. The grandfather clause could never be introduced on its own, so it was wrapped in the tasty and candied shell known as Reg-SHO. antandsons.com Overstock and Patrick Byrne Continue Naked Short Selling Jihad, 11/8/2005 ...According to the Financial Times, Refco (NYSE: RFXCQ) has over ten billion dollars worth of securities sold, that have not yet been purchased. It is rumored that these dollar amounts represent massive naked short sales, currently under review by major regulatory bodies. The same Refco that went bankrupt. When looking into the Securities and Exchange Commission legislation that should be able to enforce naked short sales, Regulation SHO, with its threshold security list, appears to be a miserable failure. This can be shown through Overstock's presence on the list for well over 100 straight days. In an exclusive interview that Ant & Sons conducted with the President of Overstock.com, Dr. Patrick Byrne, said that he agreed. Rebuttals: from:http://www.dtcc.com/Publications/dtcc/mar05/naked_short_selling.html A Q&A "Puff piece" with the @DTCC newsletter and the DTCC General Chairman Larry Thompson. <edit> @dtcc: One of the allegations made in some of the lawsuits is that the Stock Borrow program counterfeits shares, creating many more shares than actually exist. True? Thompson: Absolutely false. Under the Stock Borrow program, NSCC only borrows shares from a lending member if the member actually has the shares on deposit in its account at the DTC and voluntarily offers them to NSCC. If the member doesn’t have the shares, it can’t lend them. I added this piece for two reasons. One is the denial of Byrne's contention that naked short selling causes counterfeiting of stocks. But it doesn't say that. Thompson denies the "Stock Borrow program" results in counterfeiting. Naked Short Selling is when you sell and make no attempt to borrow. So it is a change-the-subject denial. The following series of statements I view a pure flim-flam. In bold is my emphasis: Thompson: Currently, fails to deliver are running about 24,000 transactions daily, and that includes both new and aged fails, out of an average of 23 million new transactions processed daily by NSCC, or about one-tenth of one percent. In dollar terms, fails to deliver and receive amount to about $6 billion daily, again including both new fails and aged fails, out of just under $400 billion in trades processed daily by NSCC, or about 1.5% of the dollar volume. The Stock Borrow program is able to resolve about $1.1 billion of the “fails to receive,” or about 20% of the total fail obligation. Oh, I see.... 0.1% of transactions. But 1.5% of dollars. Then FTD are not randomly distributed across all transactions. FTD's happen more commonly on large transactions. Not a 'Mom & Pop' type of trade. Good heavens. What check clearing house could long stay in business with a record even 10x better? Our elections have better accuracy. Some more flim-flam here: There can be any number of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” many of them the result of investor actions. An investor can get a physical certificate to his broker too late for settlement. An investor might not have signed the certificate, or signed in the wrong place. There may have been human error, in that the wrong stock (or CUSIP) was sold, so the delivery can’t be made. Last year, 1.7 million physical certificates were lost, and sometimes that isn’t discovered until after an investor puts in an order to sell the security. There are literally dozens of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” and most of them are legal. [wait for it..] Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally “naked short” shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails. We can’t do anything about them but what we are doing: that is, report all fails of more than 10,000 shares in any issue to the marketplaces and the SEC for their action. All the emphasis on the 'investor' when the market maker is really to blame and there is "nothing they can do about it". And just what are these 'market making responsibilities' of an MM to sell shares the MM doesn't have and cannot borrow at a price lower than what other people ask? -Magrathea

To: Magrathea who wrote (215070)	10/27/2006 5:33:10 AM
From: ChrisBBo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Every year a publicly held company has a stockholder's meeting. They send Proxy statements to every listed shareholder (even if they have a "IOU" from the short seller). It would seem to me that at least once a year that every company would get some idea of how many FTD's in their stock are in circulation. Are you sure ? How does a company know about the IOU's that really are fake stock issued by crooked BDs ? If they did, they would immediately know that their stock float is bigger than the amount issued by themselves. Effectively, that someone is issueing stock in the company's name - stock that the company could have issued to raise funds, instead of having to go to the banks to borrow money. I doubt a company would let themselves be continously robbed if they knew about it. Does a company even know about the legit IOU's that are backed by real stock ? I thought all this was handled by the corrupted, not-really-regulated system of the DTCC and the BD wild-west. What I thought scary, was the estimated percentage of all traded stock that might be FTDs. I think the author should have considered that the FTD concept only is really effective for stock that doesn't pay dividends. So, if dividend paying stock is excluded from the calculation, what percentage of your average, non-dividend stock might be FTDs ?