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 : Gold & Gold Stock Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (12206)	2/24/2008 9:05:34 PM
From: jimsioi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29622

George and TheVet..naked short list If naked shorting was behind this strange aberration we've seen in the ebbs and flows of gold in and out of the GLD ETF, at some point we'd see an increase in the short position and if the shorts were naked shorts, then eventually an appearance of some increasing number of shares of over due delivery on the SHO list... Are we in agreement on that?? So far, while a significant short position does exist, failure to deliver information is not showing up for GLD on the SHO list...Is that all correct??? TheVet, do you maintain that the naked shorters are inside large institutions whose naked shorting action would not show up in the SHO statistics...? You've probably answered that but I'll ask again as the way I figure it it's the clinch pin to your theory on what is transpiring here.

To: aknahow who wrote (12206)	2/25/2008 12:47:25 AM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29622

Now come on George, you are not paying attention again ... LOL.. You asked "I keep finding myself wanting to ask, just want to, have not actually asked, how the SEC can have a naked short list if naked shorts are not counted." But I had already explained that the SEC only produces the reg SHO list after more than a certain maximum of non-deliveries of stock sold by short sellers hasn't been delivered after being 13 days overdue. Even then they don't release the actual count of shares sold naked short, just the fact that the number of shares sold to longs in a particular stock that haven't been delivered to the buyers 13 days or more after the due delivery date, exceed their critical threshold for reporting that fact. There is no count of the actual number of shares actually sold naked short or any reference to who sold them, to whom or when.. Non-delivery infers that stock was sold naked but it doesn't prove that it was and nor does it provide a count of the number.. All very transparent and above board???? ... don't you think!