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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: upanddown who wrote (88954)	8/8/2007 5:43:15 PM
From: aerosappy	Respond to of 206151

<<I am not sure why "failures to deliver" are now referred to as naked shorting since the word naked has a much different meaning when used in selling options.>> Naked shorting = Failure to Deliver = problem for company and regular shareholders. Imagine a company with 100m shares issued and outstanding. In the legal approach to short selling, assume that hedgies sold 5m shares that were "borrowed" from shareholders (most often those holding stock in street name). Outstanding shares = 100m. In the illegal naked shorting (FTD), the hedgies selling 5m shares do NOT borrow the shares. Effective outstanding shares = 105m. This will be much more of a problem with the removal of the uptick rule that prevailed since the mid-1930's. Until July 9, 2007 or so, if you wanted to sell short (except ETF's) you could do so only when the stock went up at least $0.01. [We could always sell short OIH and comparable at any time]. Now, under the new rules, short sellers can keep hitting bids without waiting for an uptick. Match that with the prevailing Failure to Deliver, you can see where stocks can get hit hard and fast. The whole damn thing is going to collapse....

To: upanddown who wrote (88954)	8/8/2007 6:12:22 PM
From: Ed Ajootian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206151

JohnTC, BPZ Energy (BZP) -- the following answers are to each of your questions in sequential order. Yes its a stretch. Not many would have had the guts to try this. This is the first I've heard about ample coal being nearby. Maybe you hit onto something. Maybe you should contact the IFC and give them the bad news that they just threw a cool $20 M down the drain. Facetiousness aside, I had similar questions as you about this initially but put these to rest when IFC cut the check for $20 M to invest in BPZ stock, and made the follow-on debt financing commitment. Note particularly that when the IFC made these decisions (December) no oil had been discovered at Corvina yet, just gas. For more background about the customers and distribution part of their business plan see message #77131, which has excerpts from the Morgan Keegan report on BPZ. No, the stock is way overvalued if you give no value to the gas.