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: tonto who wrote (19928)	2/22/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Dull day, so let's try this again. We all remember that Titan Investments and Gary Sylver lent Andy Mann 480,000 shares of AZNT sometime early this year, right? Why did AZNT agree to this loan? According to Mike Sylver: 14 A. Yes. Mr. Mann asked the Titan Investments if he could 15 borrow 180,000 shares and deposit it into an account that had 16 to be opened up with him at First Concorde, and then he sent a 17 letter. He said he would only need the shares for 60 days, and 18 that he would pay $90,000 for the rent, basically, of those 19 shares. 20 Q. Okay. Did you ever receive payment? 21 A. He paid $72,625 towards the rent of those shares. He owes 22 a balance of $17,000 and change. 23 He then asked to borrow -- well, before the 60 days and the 24 money had to come due, he asked -- he said he needed another 25 300,000 shares of stock in order to show the people in England ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 16 SYLVER - DIRECT 1 that he was serious about doing this investment. 2 And then my father -- he wrote a letter, and my father 3 signed it that he borrowed 300,000 shares from my father to be 4 returned in 60 days. Is this really what Andy said? He hasn't commented, nor has he shown up in court. But what did he actually do with the stock in question? He shorted against it. Isn't that the whole point of borrowing stock? The present language of the provision does not require that the delivery for which the securities are borrowed must be on a transaction which the borrower has himself made, either as agent or as principal; he may borrow under the provision in order to relend to someone else for the latter person to make such a delivery. However, the borrowing must be related to an actual delivery of the type specified--a delivery in connection with a specific transaction that has already occurred or is in immediate prospect. The provision does not authorize a broker to borrow securities (or make the related deposit) merely in order that he or some other broker may have the securities ''on hand'' or may anticipate some need that may or may not arise in the future. strategicbanker.com