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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: antibash who wrote (11154)	11/10/1998 2:06:00 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 26163

No I have no problem with marcos. You are merely spinning a new reality to compensate for the facts that are so obviously running against you. So what do figure here for AZNT, another month of this and then the bill collectors close in and close it down or will that be the SEC that does that? We haven't had audited financials here in how long - almost two years now?

To: antibash who wrote (11154)	11/10/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Antibash, you lying plagiarist... Here is the series of posts on Yahoo from which you stole your "material". I have bolded the text where you plagiarized outright. Not a single line of yours even tries to be original. ===== Wayne's World at the DTC -- Part One by: halfcreek1 58654 of 63261 Thanks, Wayne, for posting your DD on the DTC. I think that it will help move the discussion forward and make more clear the cert pulling process. I appreciate your contribution but could have done without the scolding of the board while playing "I've Got A Secret." The most useful parts of the post were the glimpse it gave us into the bowels of the DTC -- the cubby holes in the underground vault -- and the information into the DTC buyin process. The information on the accounting with the two lists is helpful if one keeps in mind that most participants in the stock market pay little attention to the relationships between certs and shares. On the actual process I can positively say that Wayne's active trader is just wrong on the way the process works. I have talked to Eva, the head of Securities Tranfer Dept for Schwab, a Senior Rep in the Chairman's Division, the transfer dept for Everen, and numerous brokers who ALL agreed that the INITIAL process in the cert pulling process is the one described below. A number if others on this board concur. (Pete, IMHO new cert pullers would be much better served by reading flightlessbird's series than they would reading Wayne's post.) The client calls the brokerage firm and DEMANDS their certs. The firm sends the client's request to the DTC, where a DTC agent goes into the innermost depths of the DTC and ferrets out a certificate from the JAWS cubby hole holding all of the certs in street name. The most likely denomination is for 10,000 shares. (Don't want to have them in too many lower denominations as they wouldn't fit in the damn cubbyhole.) The DTC agent records that is being withdrawn in the name of XXX brokerage and is sent to the TA. messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Eva voids the cert and issues two new certs, unless the cert pull was for the exact 10,000 shares in which case one cert is issued to the shareholder. If the request is less than the face value of the cert, one cert is made out to the shareholder and the other for the remainder is made out in street name. The certs are returned to the DTC which records the shareholder's cert and sticks the streetname cert back into the cubby hole. The shareholder certs are then sent out. This accounting when the certs come back from the TA gets tricky and this explains why the sending out process takes a day or two and the recording process when the certs come back takes a week to 10 days. Sending out means grabbing a cert from the cubby hole -- the accounting isn't done at this point except to record that certs in street name were taken out on behalf of XXX brokerage from the common pile of street name certs in the cubby hole. It is not tied to their account at that point -- that happens when the DTC gets the certs back. At that point they reconcile the cert pull with the brokerage. There is where it gets tricky. An E-trade client has pulled certs but they do not have any claim on that pile in the basement. The accounts for certs were determined by the original list of MMs that the company gave the DTC when Eva shipped the pile of street name certs for the cubby hole. Since E-trade is not on the original list the DTC has to force E-trade to buy in from the E-trade owing sellers list to account for the physical certs issued to the shareholder. And here the process Wayne's source told him comes into play. I would keep in mind in reading it what Calvin_Coyote found out about the 45 days, and more, that brokerage firms have to deliver certs once the pile in the JAWS cubbyhole in the basement disappears: "1. The DTC contacts the oldest seller on the owing list and requests delivery of certificates within 3 days. 2. If delivery of certificates from the seller is not made within 3 days, the order is sent to the settlement desk of the DTC. 3. The settlement desk buys-in the seller to settle the owed certificates." This is the standard for the settlement of all shares at the DTC. But now the DTC has to account for certificates as opposed to just shares and this is why it is taking so long for the brokerages that are not on the original list of those with a claim on the street name certs in the cubby to get certs requests filled. The DTC has to buy in the owing seller to get those certs. For those whose brokerage is on the original list, the cert pulls take about 4 weeks allowing Eva a week to process them. After E-trade gets the buyins to get the certs for their customer those are deducted from the bought in brokerages' original account. What happens to the 6,000 street name certs coming back to the DTC as change? Do they go back on the pile downstairs into the common pool of street name certs? If the DTC bought in only enough to cover the E-trade shareholders' cert request, then there would be no adjustment to the original list. If they bought in for more, then E-trade would get a credit. IMHO DTC has been forced into keeping two lists one for shares and one for certs perhaps for the first time in the history of the DTC. NEVER before IMHO have they faced the prospect that a pile in any cubbyhole in the basement would run out because of individual shareholder's requests. Most piles are gathering dust even in the pristine air of the underground vault. NEVER before again IMHO have they had to face the problem of reconciling their electronic accounting of shares with the pile of certificates in the basement. RARELY have they had to confront the effects of a massive naked short position in their electronic system. See the Yahoo news for AZNT on 9/11/98 for another example. Always before -- since the advent of electronic accounting -- they were able to not have to deal with the discrepancies on their books between the total shares owned by their clients -- the brokerage firms -- and the number of certs in the basement. With legal shorting the number of electronic shares and the certs downstairs should remain roughly equal. messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com However, when a naked short is introduced a discrepancy builds between shares and physical certs. This discrepancy doesn't exist on the individual brokerages two lists mentioned by Wayne's trader. It exists between electronic shares and certs. The DTC never dealt with this discrepancy before, because it is irrelevant until the guy going into the basement begins to say that the pile is getting mighty low. (In the AZNT it was a court action that forced the DTC to reconcile the discrepancy between shares and certs -- not the pile getting low.) The reason they don't confront it is that the companies' have two sheets mentioned in Wayne's post: "The number of shares held by each brokerage is kept by electronic entry and the aggregate total does not have to match the number of certificates actually on hand. Each brokerage account at the DTC for each company has two numbers..physical certificates on hand and certificates owed with a list of sellers owing the certificates." Here again we need to focus on the distinction between certs and electronic shares. What the DTC reconciles every day is the electronic shares bought and sold. The list of the buys must add up to the same number on the list of owing sellers. A naked short would show up as a buy on Schwab first list and a owning sale from the shorting MM on their second list. The numbers for the buys and sales for a stock for the day are reconciled. A separation has occurred between the electronic shares and the certs. The short has collected the money from the brokerage and gone on the electronic list of owing sellers. The short has produced a commodity -- an electronic share -- and sold it on the market and the transaction is recorded on the electronic scoreboard. The shorts can do this indefinitely as long as they can keep the DTC guy from going into the basement too much. Their trouble begins when the DTC has to go to the first seller on the owing seller's list and say that they have to produce certs to XXX brokerage to meet a cert pull request. The shorts IMHO have had to face a few buyins recently to deal with the certs. It has been infrequent because many at the head of the list of owing sellers were the original MMs who have plenty of credit for that pile in the basement. Schwab had plenty of credit, but knew that Nuts' 1mm request would cut heavily into their ability to satisfy the buyers' (of the first shares) demands for certs. Down the list aways, and we are probably now at that spot, we begin running into naked shorts who now head various brokerages' owing sellers lists from which they make their demands for certs. Hence the shorts' panic and the SD article and the shaking of the tree when they have to produce certs. When someone like Ease, who is holding certs, falls into their hands, it is indeed ripe fruit -- bananas, I guess. (Not knocking you ease. I understand your sale, but not your need to continue to justify it.) It is in my mind a slow, but steady buyin that is underway, but which is just gaining momentum which will continue to build. The real fun will begin when the basement guy says, "That's it. The pile is gone and the JAWS cubby is empty." miamisammy -- I ain't no guru, but that's my take on Wayne's post. SLOG ON TO 3D halfcreek messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com ===== For comparison, your "original" post: ===== When a naked short is introduced, a discrepancy builds between shares and physical certs. This discrepancy doesn't exist on the individual brokerages. It exists between electronic shares and certs. The DTC never dealt with this discrepancy before, because it is irrelevant until the guy going into the basement begins to say that the pile is getting mighty low. With AZNT, a court action is forcing the DTC to reconcile the discrepancy between shares and certs.. not the pile getting low. What the DTC reconciles every day is the electronic shares bought and sold. The list of the buys must add up to the same number on the list of owing sellers. A naked short would show up as a buy and a owing sale from the shorting MM. The numbers for the buys and sales for a stock for the day are reconciled. A separation has occurred between the electronic shares and the certs. The short has collected the money from the brokerage and gone on the electronic list of owing sellers. The short has produced a commodity--an electronic share--and sold it on the and the transaction is recorded on the electronic scoreboard. The shorts can do this indefinitely as long as they keep the DTC guy from going into the basement too much. Their trouble begins when the DTC has to go to the first seller on the owing seller's list and say that they have to produce certs to xxx brokerage to meet a cert pull request. The result will be a slow and steady buyin, which will continue to build momentum. The real fun will begin when the basement guy says "That's it. The pile is gone. anti+ANTI #reply-6309951