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 : Floorless Preferred Stock/Debenture -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (89)	10/4/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1438

Barbara: "I'm not sure how these folks find their shares, but they do. Some suggest that they have arrangements with market makers and the shares are sold naked. Some suggest that it is done off shore, out of the purview of the SEC. Shorting naked would not be as risky as it seems, since the share creation to cover a short is guaranteed." I looked at the legality of this, and it looks to me (although I'm no expert in this area) that if you have a fully hedged position, you are exempt from the normal buy-in after 10 days if there is a "fail-to-deliver." Here is an extract from SEC Release 93-53: New Section 71 of the UPC requires the short seller's broker/dealer to close out a short sale of specific securities 10 days after the normal settlement date if delivery of securities has not occurred and the transaction is not exempt. Securities subject to the close-out requirement are those with an aggregate “clearing” short position of 10,000 shares or more that equals or exceeds one half of one percent of the total shares outstanding. The NASD will identify these securities daily based on data from the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and will compile a “restricted list.”2 Any subsequent short-sale transaction in a security on the list that is not completed by delivery of shares within the prescribed time frames will be subject to mandatory close-out if a “fail-to-deliver” situation exists 10 days after normal settlement date. The rule applies to customer and proprietary short sales, but exempts “bona fide” market-making activities and short sales that result in a “bona fide” fully hedged or arbitraged position3. (Excerpted from the NASD Manual, which is available on the web: nasdr.com So it looks to me that it's legal for the convertible holders to short "naked" without borrowing the shares. I don't know how the resulting imbalance would be cleared, though. Peter

To: Mama Bear who wrote (89)	10/5/1998 5:30:00 AM
From: Neil Stewart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1438

I've been away and, thus, missed the opportunity to respond to your comments which, evidently, began with my message #82. I think you've missed the point here. I'm not interested in defending “Floorless Converts,” in general, but rather the issue by ID Biomedical (“IDBEF”) and others in similar circumstance. Your prognostication of a downward spiral is predicated on the presumption that the “floorless” holder will “go short.” I can't refute that possibility. However, I will point out that that option is available in the absence of the “floorless convert:”. Inasmuch as IDBEF's convert is fully redeemable by the company for cash at any time, it removes the possibility of “going short” without risk, except for the existence of the 300,000 warrants. In this instance, the Institutional Investor can go short 300,000 shares and not be at risk; however, given the current stock price, I submit that the greater profit potential for this investor exists if the stock appreciates. Not only that, the Institution can avoid the ugly possibility of a buy-back induced short squeeze should they be tempted to exceed the 300,000 share "limit". {See message #59 on this board for the possible consequences.} I'd also point out that this is not an issue that would be easy to “short” in size and, at its current price, not the most attractive "short prospect" in the universe. Furthermore, it's hard to see how this issue benefits management, if, in fact, it is detrimental to the company, since they are among the largest shareholders. Whether ID Biomedical succeeds or fails will not be determined by the particulars of this security issue, but, rather, by quality of the company's scientific work. Although this security has some inherent, potential disadvantages, on balance, they are outweighed by the potential benefits given the company's near-term prospects.