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.

Technology Stocks : JMAR Technologies(JMAR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/27/1999 3:26:00 PM
From: jeff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

Alright then why dont every body call there broker and ask to have their shars put in there own name, will that help squize the shorts

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/27/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: Starlight	Respond to of 9695

Michael - Re: your example -- I believe that's called "hypothecating".

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/27/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: real_time99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9695

The latest short interest report came out today. It shows a very small increase in the short interest from 686,235 to 688,774. (See The Nasdaq Page at www.nasdaq.com, type JMAR and go to the Fundamentals page. There should be a button that says "Short interest") I understand from a securities lawyer friend(?!) of mine that SEC rules prohibit covering a short position with shares which were originally issued as restricted shares, even if they later become freely tradable (either because they were later registered, as was the case here, or because the Rule 144 holding period has run). The SEC apparently takes the position that the shares must have been freely tradable at the time of the original short, not just at the time the short is covered. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this, but it may be that the SEC goes back to the date of the original short sale and takes the position that what you sold (even if in fact you have "borrowed" other shares at that time) represents the sale of the shares ultimately used to cover and that they must have been freely tradable at the time of the short sale. In any event, my buddy says the SEC rulings are clear on this point. The question I have is whether someone can effectively (and legally?) cover their short position with the formerly restricted shares in a way which does not involve using the restricted shares directly? Is there some kind of "crossing" in the market that can occur? It obviously makes a difference whether the Swiss can cover using shares they already have or whether they have to arrange to purchase other shares in the market to do so and then separately sell their original shares. Any thoughts on what the different scenarios are in how the short position gets eliminated?

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/27/1999 9:17:00 PM
From: Richaaard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

Have you ever considered writing one of theose "dummy" guides? It would be called Michael's Dummy Guide to shorting.

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/27/1999 11:42:00 PM
From: Angel Medina	Respond to of 9695

Michael: When you hypothecate (pledge) stocks as collateral you can only borrow a percentage of the total value of the stock, based on volatility of the issue in question, capitalization, and most importantly, the actual certificate MUST be "stockpowered" to the lender, the certificate must be negotiable at the time of transaction otherwise no deal. (Speaking from a commercial bank's point of view however).

To: MRothaus1 who wrote (7860)	4/28/1999 8:56:00 AM
From: Sprocket	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9695

In your example, your shares would only be "lendable" by Merrill Lynch if you had signed a margin agreement with ML and were in fact borrowing cash from them and using those securities as collateral. If the shares were held in a fully paid for cash account, ML cannot lend those shares to short sellers. They are restricted from doing so according to SEC "seg" lockup requirements. However, there is nothing to prevent them for locating an external source of borrowing to cover the short sale - the shares do not have to come from within ML. Also, shares do not have to come "out of" street name in order to satisfy a short sale/borrow cover. Ron