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 and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Vet who wrote (60417)	7/19/2008 3:52:44 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78438

My only comment on this is that from my experience the whole "failure to deliver" issue is usually in thin hard to borrow securities where there is a lot of controversy and REALLY SMART people dying to be short but finding it hard or impossible to borrow... NOT in large companies like this with only 10% of the shares out short. It's probably not even on a hard to borrow list (I'm guessing, but I bet that's right). The idea that there are "uncounted naked shorts" makes no sense... why do that and risk your licence/business when you can borrow the stock? Sounds like a disgruntled long. OTOH... whassup with the stock... should we buy it?? dAK

To: The Vet who wrote (60417)	7/19/2008 10:35:14 PM
From: AlphaRomero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78438

TheVet: what/where is "Mish's board". I think I need to add that to my daily reading list...

To: The Vet who wrote (60417)	7/19/2008 11:07:05 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78438

<The additional 66.5 million short sales effectively raise the traded float by the same amount and so there are at least 616.5 million shares of CDE in long shareholders accounts.> All this means is that if every share is lent out he is equating that to the stock float doubling. Presumably there would be more 'longs' to sell. This has always been the case, so who cares... when it was a bull market the same situation would be contrued as twice as many people clammering for the stock! <Under current rules as allowed by the SEC, market makers have no need to carry any inventory and can operate a no cost, cash positive book by permanently running a naked short stock balance on every stock for which they are making a market.> This has always been the case. If a specialist (MMaker) is bullish he's long, if bearish he's short. Can you imagine being a market maker in Amazon.com that had to ride a long position down 400 points as a 'favor' to the company... or his "duty"? What market maker in his right mind has been long any financial stocks over the past several years? As a former options market maker and specialist I can tell you that this is nothing unusual or sinister unless those involved are unusual or sinister (which may very well be the case in small crappy little stocks. There is NO DOUBT a MM wants the stock to go his way and will try to make it happen. OTOH, from experience I can tell you that in "real" stocks, the specialist or MM is a 2 bit player... he's nobody... no way is the specialist in a stock with a reasonable float able to create a bear market in a real stock... no way. There is a graveyard at the end of Wall Street filled with folks that try that. --ggg- <Most MMs are provided with stock by the company as a "float" and are expected to maintain a balance of stock in order to "smooth out" trading fluctuations.> Wowa... I'd like THAT deal!! Comany gives 'em free stock eh?? Naw, what happens is in new companys that get listed the specialist or MM "might" be able to get in on the underwritting and are expected (as part of the listing deal... ie. they BEG to get new listings) to keep the stock stable for a period of time. This was a BIG DEAL when tech stocks were wiping specialists out one after another during the tech run. Imagine the latest hotest .com POS with a 5 letter acronym gets listed and YOU get to be the specialist... OH GOODIE! The offering was $10 and you got a whole 100k shares... you come in that morning ready to knock 'em dead in your new tech stock... NOT! All the partners are there hoping to keep losses managable and make the money back in the long run plus a boatload. There's 500K shares to buy and you feel ashamed opening it @ $13 a share taking your measely 300K profit knowing the exchange officials are watching... there was some flippers who sold out on the opening... a whole 100K leaving you short 300k now... the next 10 orders are buy orders and you're short 1/2 million now and it's trading @ 15... by @20 your short 2 million shares and the partners are coming down from upstairs, Christmas bonus just evaporated and you're just hoping to be in business on New years... There are no selllers on the books and partners are calling every one who owes them a favor and anyone who might do THEM a favor looking for some sellers... get some clients out with their nice profit, whataever... they get exchange officials and beg to close the stock "order imbalances" and it's granted...Last trade $30 a share as everyone goes downstairs to Harry's to get drunk and hopefully get the clearing company executives drunk as well to let you rope a dope for a week or so and keep the doors open and pray some sellers show up over the weekend to take profits. Got it figured out... get it to open down $5 and we live to fight another day! Whopeeee! <No wonder that they are forever coming forward with their mindless experts declaring that short selling is an essential part of the market. It is, for them to continue to make their obscene profits, but it is not for the investing public.> Yea, right... there would BE NO market without short selling. And anyone who thinks it's going away just doesn't understand the way it works. That said... there is plenty of sleazy stuff to clean up FOR SURE... no doubt about it. DAK