Comments on: Bernard Madoff, the Mafia, and the Friends of Michael Milken http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/ Independent investigations into illegal naked short selling. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:47:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: John Sandman http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-147249 John Sandman Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:24:18 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-147249 What about Sid Belzberg, CEO of Toronto-based Belzberg Technologies? He any relation to Walter, Sam and Hymie? What about Sid Belzberg, CEO of Toronto-based Belzberg Technologies? He any relation to Walter, Sam and Hymie?

]]> By: queen of thain http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145936 queen of thain Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:11:40 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145936 krauss & thain sittin in a (goldman) tree... http://moneyistheway.blogspot.com/2008/05/peter-kraus-i-aint-missing-you-at-all.html krauss & thain sittin in a (goldman) tree…

http://moneyistheway.blogspot.com/2008/05/peter-kraus-i-aint-missing-you-at-all.html

]]> By: Email Exposes Short Seller Plot to Destroy a Public Company | Deep Capture http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145554 Email Exposes Short Seller Plot to Destroy a Public Company | Deep Capture Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:11:25 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145554 [...] Read Part 2 [...] [...] Read Part 2 [...]

]]> By: Davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145428 Davidn Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:40:09 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145428 Dr. DeCosta's post 168 is a great summary. Clearing A nets with Clearing B so they can sell each other's customers bogus shares and the money flows in as the collateral declines with declining share prices. One important additional point, though, is that generally the customers are other brokerages, not you. 1. For active stocks, such as Google, the brokerage just keeps track of orders through out the day and moves shares and IOU's they already have in inventory from one customer account to another. If there aren't enough shares, they do one buy at the end of the day and if there are too many, they do one sell at the end of the day. Most orders are filled by netting rather than going out into the world. 2. That one buy or one sell is facilitated through the clearing company that clears for your brokerage. From their point of view, all the brokerages are just customers and they fill the brokerages buys and sells by shunting shares from one brokerage account to another, filling orders from inventory. If they are short shares or have too many, they do a deal with another clearing house to just owe those shares and those obligations mostly cancel out. Dr. DeCosta’s post 168 is a great summary. Clearing A nets with Clearing B so they can sell each other’s customers bogus shares and the money flows in as the collateral declines with declining share prices.

One important additional point, though, is that generally the customers are other brokerages, not you.

1. For active stocks, such as Google, the brokerage just keeps track of orders through out the day and moves shares and IOU’s they already have in inventory from one customer account to another. If there aren’t enough shares, they do one buy at the end of the day and if there are too many, they do one sell at the end of the day. Most orders are filled by netting rather than going out into the world.

2. That one buy or one sell is facilitated through the clearing company that clears for your brokerage. From their point of view, all the brokerages are just customers and they fill the brokerages buys and sells by shunting shares from one brokerage account to another, filling orders from inventory. If they are short shares or have too many, they do a deal with another clearing house to just owe those shares and those obligations mostly cancel out.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145424 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:25:28 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145424 These "ex-clearing arrangements" need not be so confusing to everybody when you realize who the NSCC and DTCC management are. They're the "banksters" of Wall Street. Who are the clearing firms that do the "pairing off". They're also the "banksters" of Wall Street. When they commit these thefts they have an option of putting on a ski mask that says "NSCC participant" or one that says "registered clearing agency". What the crime necessitates is that somebody play the role of pretending to be "powerless" to execute buy-ins which is the only cure available when the selling party absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold. These “ex-clearing arrangements” need not be so confusing to everybody when you realize who the NSCC and DTCC management are. They’re the “banksters” of Wall Street. Who are the clearing firms that do the “pairing off”. They’re also the “banksters” of Wall Street. When they commit these thefts they have an option of putting on a ski mask that says “NSCC participant” or one that says “registered clearing agency”.

What the crime necessitates is that somebody play the role of pretending to be “powerless” to execute buy-ins which is the only cure available when the selling party absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145423 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:11:28 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145423 What CVP results in is 2 "opportunistic" clearing firms "pairing off". CF "A" owes CF "B" $10 billion worth of deliveries on corporations "X", "Y" and "Z" that it failed on. "B" owes "A" $10 billion worth of failed deliveries on corporations "G", "H" and "I". "A" and "B" agree with each other (in an ex-clearing arrangement) to just "collateralize" these debts on a daily marked to market basis and neither have to deliver the missing shares to each other. As the various share prices change money needs to be shunted back and forth. The share price of all 6 corporations has to tank by definition because all of these FTDs result in readily sellable "securities entitlements". As the share prices predictably tank the funds of those that purchased the yet to be delivered shares flow to those refusing to deliver that which they sold because all they were asked to is to collateralize the monetary amount of the failed delivery obligation. As the share prices tank so too do the collateralization requirements. The net-net of it is that CF "A" says to CF "B" you can sell my clients bogus shares and refuse to deliver them in order to steal their money if I can do the same to your clients. This is how ex-clearing works but the same thing occurs at the DTCC. The NSCC says to its abusive NSCC clearing firm participants that we're "powerless" to buy in your delivery failures. In ex-clearing the 2 clearing firms basically say to each other let's agree to pretend to be "powerless" to buy-in each other's delivery failures. What CVP results in is 2 “opportunistic” clearing firms “pairing off”. CF “A” owes CF “B” $10 billion worth of deliveries on corporations “X”, “Y” and “Z” that it failed on. “B” owes “A” $10 billion worth of failed deliveries on corporations “G”, “H” and “I”. “A” and “B” agree with each other (in an ex-clearing arrangement) to just “collateralize” these debts on a daily marked to market basis and neither have to deliver the missing shares to each other. As the various share prices change money needs to be shunted back and forth. The share price of all 6 corporations has to tank by definition because all of these FTDs result in readily sellable “securities entitlements”.

As the share prices predictably tank the funds of those that purchased the yet to be delivered shares flow to those refusing to deliver that which they sold because all they were asked to is to collateralize the monetary amount of the failed delivery obligation. As the share prices tank so too do the collateralization requirements.

The net-net of it is that CF “A” says to CF “B” you can sell my clients bogus shares and refuse to deliver them in order to steal their money if I can do the same to your clients.

This is how ex-clearing works but the same thing occurs at the DTCC. The NSCC says to its abusive NSCC clearing firm participants that we’re “powerless” to buy in your delivery failures. In ex-clearing the 2 clearing firms basically say to each other let’s agree to pretend to be “powerless” to buy-in each other’s delivery failures.

]]> By: Davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145421 Davidn Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:32:32 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145421 Pershing is one of the firms who would typically keep the collateral and collect interest on it. William Donaldson was the Chairman of the SEC and when he was put on the hot seat about naked shorting, he said there was no such thing, then resigned. He had founded one of the clearing firms heavily involved in facilitating phantom shares. Drexel Burnham Lambert was Milken's firm. "Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette or DLJ was a U.S. investment bank founded by William H. Donaldson, Richard Jenrette and Dan Lufkin in 1959." "As research became more of a commodity throughout the 80s and 90s they had since expanded into other businesses. One of them was a dominance in high yield fixed income securities. They gained this dominance in both underwriting and trading by astutely picking up most of the expertise from Drexel Burnham Lambert after its demise in the late 1980s." "The Pershing Division of DLJ (Harris) remained until being sold to the Bank of New York in 2003." The SEC at the time claimed that the total of all fails was $5 billion, but Pershing alone had failures to deliver of $730 million and fails to receive of $968 million. They've taken the document disclosing that down after it was published in bobo's forum. http://www.pershing.com/statementoffinancialcondition.pdf If you google "Focus Report" and "fail to deliver", you might come across similar reports disclosing the obligations of other clearing firms. Fails to deliver are shares they owe someone else and fails to receive are shares someone else owes them. In general, these obligations net to zero and the clearing firms don't owe each other anything and keep the customers cash to invest as they please. Pershing is one of the firms who would typically keep the collateral and collect interest on it.

William Donaldson was the Chairman of the SEC and when he was put on the hot seat about naked shorting, he said there was no such thing, then resigned. He had founded one of the clearing firms heavily involved in facilitating phantom shares.

Drexel Burnham Lambert was Milken’s firm.

“Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette or DLJ was a U.S. investment bank founded by William H. Donaldson, Richard Jenrette and Dan Lufkin in 1959.”

“As research became more of a commodity throughout the 80s and 90s they had since expanded into other businesses. One of them was a dominance in high yield fixed income securities. They gained this dominance in both underwriting and trading by astutely picking up most of the expertise from Drexel Burnham Lambert after its demise in the late 1980s.”

“The Pershing Division of DLJ (Harris) remained until being sold to the Bank of New York in 2003.”

The SEC at the time claimed that the total of all fails was $5 billion, but Pershing alone had failures to deliver of $730 million and fails to receive of $968 million.

They’ve taken the document disclosing that down after it was published in bobo’s forum.

http://www.pershing.com/statementoffinancialcondition.pdf

If you google “Focus Report” and “fail to deliver”, you might come across similar reports disclosing the obligations of other clearing firms.

Fails to deliver are shares they owe someone else and fails to receive are shares someone else owes them.

In general, these obligations net to zero and the clearing firms don’t owe each other anything and keep the customers cash to invest as they please.

]]> By: Davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145420 Davidn Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:18:36 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145420 iStandup, you're right, the analogy is not a perfect one. The answer to your question is generally, one of the big clearing firms holds the funds. The explanation: One thing to understand is that your brokerage generally only makes one buy or sell each day for each security. All of the trading through the day is netted to create just one big purchase or sale, so the buyer or seller would be the brokerage, not you. As clients make trades, your brokerage is just shifting shares or entitlements that they already hold from one client account to another. They will come up either short or long at the end of the day and that difference will be the trade they make. Where it gets more complicated is that most brokerages are actually customers of clearing firms. That clearing firm will take all the brokerage buys or sells and net them into one big buy or sell. At this point, the trades have been netted twice and we're still not at the level of the NSCC. So in answer to your question, the buyer and sellers are usually clearing firms. The funds sit with the buyer, the clearing firm. They get paid interest to sit on your money. If they were to demand delivery of the shares, they'd stop getting the income from the interest, so they have no incentive to get delivery for your brokerage. Since the trades are all netted, it is a big fungible mass and you can't tell which investor has an IOU and which has a share. iStandup, you’re right, the analogy is not a perfect one.

The answer to your question is generally, one of the big clearing firms holds the funds.

The explanation:

One thing to understand is that your brokerage generally only makes one buy or sell each day for each security. All of the trading through the day is netted to create just one big purchase or sale, so the buyer or seller would be the brokerage, not you. As clients make trades, your brokerage is just shifting shares or entitlements that they already hold from one client account to another. They will come up either short or long at the end of the day and that difference will be the trade they make.

Where it gets more complicated is that most brokerages are actually customers of clearing firms. That clearing firm will take all the brokerage buys or sells and net them into one big buy or sell. At this point, the trades have been netted twice and we’re still not at the level of the NSCC.

So in answer to your question, the buyer and sellers are usually clearing firms. The funds sit with the buyer, the clearing firm. They get paid interest to sit on your money. If they were to demand delivery of the shares, they’d stop getting the income from the interest, so they have no incentive to get delivery for your brokerage. Since the trades are all netted, it is a big fungible mass and you can’t tell which investor has an IOU and which has a share.

]]> By: Ted http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145419 Ted Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:08:42 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145419 Options exchanges fight SHO. http://wallstreetletter.com/Home/ArticleLogin/2080798/Fight_Reg_SHO_Restrictions.aspx Options exchanges fight SHO.

http://wallstreetletter.com/Home/ArticleLogin/2080798/Fight_Reg_SHO_Restrictions.aspx

]]> By: iStandUp http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145418 iStandUp Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:08:26 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145418 davidn, Thank you. I kind of understand but I am missing the details, which is confusing me. If I buy a house, I can borrow the money from a mortgage company via a mortgage. I buy a house,: > the bank I borrow money from pays the builder the full price of the house I buy. >A house is delivered to me. >Then I pay the lending bank, the holder of my mortgage a monthly payment while live in the delivered house. In this example... > I buy a house... > I am delivered a house... >And I pay the lending mortgage company a monthly amount which includes the interest and principle as I live in the delivered house. I sense that the Collateralization on Wall Street when I buy stock is different, pervertedly different than when I buy a house, since when I buy a house I am delivered a house. Whereas, when I buy stock on Wall Street, I may NOT be delivered real stock, but merely some electronic marker, electronic accounting device. Yet my brokerage account statement will not indicate to me whether I received "real" shares or "counterfeit" shares. What I do not understand in your example davidn is WHO holds the money, Who holds the collateral. davidn,

Thank you. I kind of understand but I am missing the details, which is confusing me.

If I buy a house, I can borrow the money from a mortgage company via a mortgage. I buy a house,:

> the bank I borrow money from pays the builder the full price of the house I buy.
>A house is delivered to me.
>Then I pay the lending bank, the holder of my mortgage a monthly payment while live in the delivered house.

In this example…
> I buy a house…
> I am delivered a house…
>And I pay the lending mortgage company a monthly amount which includes the interest and principle as I live in the delivered house.

I sense that the Collateralization on Wall Street when I buy stock is different, pervertedly different than when I buy a house, since when I buy a house I am delivered a house. Whereas, when I buy stock on Wall Street, I may NOT be delivered real stock, but merely some electronic marker, electronic accounting device. Yet my brokerage account statement will not indicate to me whether I received “real” shares or “counterfeit” shares.

What I do not understand in your example davidn is WHO holds the money, Who holds the collateral.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145416 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:53:05 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145416 If you really want to put this scam on steroids you go to your buddies at the SEC and con them into removing the "Uptick rule". Then you can absolutely tee off on the bids and knock them out in a serial fashion. This induces panic selling and the tripping of stop loss orders. This induces more selling and as the share price accelerates towards zero the collateralization requirements go towards zero and all of the unknowing investor's funds go to those that refuse to deliver that which they sell. If you really want to put this scam on steroids you go to your buddies at the SEC and con them into removing the “Uptick rule”. Then you can absolutely tee off on the bids and knock them out in a serial fashion. This induces panic selling and the tripping of stop loss orders. This induces more selling and as the share price accelerates towards zero the collateralization requirements go towards zero and all of the unknowing investor’s funds go to those that refuse to deliver that which they sell.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145415 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:45:07 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145415 The gist of the above is that the mere collateralization of the EVER DIMINISHING monetary amount of a failed delivery obligation has nothing whatsoever to do with the DTCC's Section 17 A ('34 Act) congressional mandate to "promptly settle" all securities transactions. The "prompt settlement" of a transaction necessitates the "prompt delivery" of that which was purchased. The "prompt collateralization" of the monetary amount of the debt which can be easily reduced by merely refusing to deliver that which you sell is a scam. This is equivalent to thousands of Madoffs. The gist of the above is that the mere collateralization of the EVER DIMINISHING monetary amount of a failed delivery obligation has nothing whatsoever to do with the DTCC’s Section 17 A (‘34 Act) congressional mandate to “promptly settle” all securities transactions. The “prompt settlement” of a transaction necessitates the “prompt delivery” of that which was purchased. The “prompt collateralization” of the monetary amount of the debt which can be easily reduced by merely refusing to deliver that which you sell is a scam. This is equivalent to thousands of Madoffs.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145414 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:34:57 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145414 iStandup, I just finished a 20-page paper reviewing CVP for a member of one of the SEC congressional oversight committees in D.C. Here is the summary. You're welcome to the text but I don't want to steal too much bandwidth here. If you've got a sight somewhere I'll post it and create a link. “Clearance and settlement systems like that of the DTCC which utilize “central counterparties” and the legal concept of “novation” are extremely susceptible to abuse. At one moment the seller of securities owes an investor half way around the world the delivery of the securities he sold to him. Two seconds later after “novation” the seller, an NSCC “participant”/co-owner of the NSCC, owes delivery to the NSCC management which are its employees. Two seconds after that the NSCC management (the employees) tells the seller of securities (one of its bosses) that it is a “powerless” creditor of that debt and that it can’t force the seller to deliver that which he sold but that the seller should at least collateralize the monetary amount of the delivery obligation on a daily marked to market basis to lend the whole process a sense of legitimacy. A day or two after that the presence of all of the readily sellable “securities entitlements” resulting from all of these “no need to delivers” cause the share price to plummet which lowers the collateralization requirements which allows the funds of the victimized investor to flow to those refusing to deliver that which they sold. Now that is one well-designed “fraud on the market”.” iStandup,
I just finished a 20-page paper reviewing CVP for a member of one of the SEC congressional oversight committees in D.C. Here is the summary. You’re welcome to the text but I don’t want to steal too much bandwidth here. If you’ve got a sight somewhere I’ll post it and create a link.

“Clearance and settlement systems like that of the DTCC which utilize “central counterparties” and the legal concept of “novation” are extremely susceptible to abuse. At one moment the seller of securities owes an investor half way around the world the delivery of the securities he sold to him. Two seconds later after “novation” the seller, an NSCC “participant”/co-owner of the NSCC, owes delivery to the NSCC management which are its employees. Two seconds after that the NSCC management (the employees) tells the seller of securities (one of its bosses) that it is a “powerless” creditor of that debt and that it can’t force the seller to deliver that which he sold but that the seller should at least collateralize the monetary amount of the delivery obligation on a daily marked to market basis to lend the whole process a sense of legitimacy. A day or two after that the presence of all of the readily sellable “securities entitlements” resulting from all of these “no need to delivers” cause the share price to plummet which lowers the collateralization requirements which allows the funds of the victimized investor to flow to those refusing to deliver that which they sold. Now that is one well-designed “fraud on the market”.”

]]> By: davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145413 davidn Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:12:57 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145413 Istandup, I think what Dr. DeCosta means is that rather than delivering shares, the seller can deliver cash the same way you give the bank your mortgage deed until your bank loan is paid off. For example, a market maker might deliver 102% of the value of the trade as cash. So, let's say they sell $1 million worth of stock. They would let the buyer keep $1,020,000 as collateral. Only $20,000 comes from the seller - the rest was proceeds of the trade. The collateral is repriced each day according to the bid price of the stock. If the stock price falls 50%, then the collateral requirement is only $510,000. Since the proceeds of the sale was $1 million, the seller can pull $490,000 from the original sale out even though they still haven't delivered anything. If the price runs and the seller flees with the cash, the NSCC (a DTCC subsidiary) is on the hook as they guaranteed the trade, so they have a strong incentive to help the thieves keep prices from ever running. Istandup, I think what Dr. DeCosta means is that rather than delivering shares, the seller can deliver cash the same way you give the bank your mortgage deed until your bank loan is paid off.

For example, a market maker might deliver 102% of the value of the trade as cash.

So, let’s say they sell $1 million worth of stock. They would let the buyer keep $1,020,000 as collateral. Only $20,000 comes from the seller – the rest was proceeds of the trade.

The collateral is repriced each day according to the bid price of the stock.

If the stock price falls 50%, then the collateral requirement is only $510,000. Since the proceeds of the sale was $1 million, the seller can pull $490,000 from the original sale out even though they still haven’t delivered anything.

If the price runs and the seller flees with the cash, the NSCC (a DTCC subsidiary) is on the hook as they guaranteed the trade, so they have a strong incentive to help the thieves keep prices from ever running.

]]> By: Marv Eatinger http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/comment-page-2/#comment-145411 Marv Eatinger Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:04:12 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=569#comment-145411 NAKED SHORT SELLING & COVERING BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP - SYMBOLS "DLOV" & "DLVO". SEE FEB 15, 2009 POST BY MARV EATINGER: ----- Original Message ----- From: marv eatinger To: sgoldstein@dtcc.com Cc: nsccaa@dtcc.com ; newseditors@wsj.com Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:15 PM Subject: NAKED SHORT SELLING AS AIDED & ABETTED BY THE DTCC????? STUART Z. GOLDSTEIN: DTCC: FROM FEB. 28, 2000 TO AUG. 1, 2000 DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES INC. TRADED ACTUAL SHARE VOLUME OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 COMMON SHARES WHILE DELISTED TO THE PINK SHEETS FROM THE OTCBB MARKET. IN 1996 & 1997 DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES INC. HAD APPROXIMATELY 7,000,000 COMMON SHARES SOLD "NAKED SHORT". THESE "NAKED SHORT" SALES WERE COVERED BY THE ACTUAL TRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 COMMON SHARES PLUS TWO EXTERNALLY ADDED ZEROS 3 YEARS LATER FROM FEB. 28, 2000 TO AUGUST 1, 2000!!! DID THE DTCC AID DALECO IN THIS SCAM OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC EQUITIES? Marv Eatinger > FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP-- (AS OF SEPT. 27, 2006 AT 4:29 PM CST THE BELOW HISTORICAL VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAS NOT CHANGED ON WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM) > SYMBOL DLOV ON WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM > >--------------------------------------------------------VOLUME > 3/14/2000 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 230,000 > 3/13/2000 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 200,000 > 3/10/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0 > 3/9/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 30,000 > 3/8/2000 0.7500 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 2,620,000 > 3/7/2000 0.5000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 230,000 > > =========================================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Franz" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [CSI Website Query: daily volume figures multiplied by 100 - symbol DLOV] >I had them remove the extra digits. > Yahoo should have it corrected by this afternoon. > Please let me know if you do not see the corrections. > Thank You, > > > marv@mitec.net wrote: >> Regarding: >> Data Error Report >> >> >> Message: >> On March 7, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV - Daleco Resources CP of 2,300 shares: FinancialWeb.com and Quicken.com. >> >> On March 8, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV - Daleco Resources CP of 26,200 shares: FinancialWeb.com, Quicken.com and MSN Money Central.com. >> >> On March 13, 2000 Barchart.com showed DLOV - Daleco Resources Corp volume for the day as 2,000 shares. >> >> Daleco Resources Corp was deleted from the OTCBB to the Pink Sheets on February 22, 2000 to be effective on February 28, 2000. Yahoo Finance & MoneyCentral web sites are presently the only web sites that I can find that show Historical Volume figures for the time period of March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 when Daleco Resources Corp was listed only on the Pink Sheets. >> >> Yahoo Finance Historical Volume figures for the above mentioned dates is shown as follows: >> March 7, 2000--------------------230,000 shares >> >> March 8, 2000------------------2,620,000 shares >> >> March 13, 2000------------------200,000 shares >> >> Apparently from the period starting March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000, all trades that took place in Daleco's stock had two zeros added to the daily trading volume! >> >> >> From: >> marv@mitec.net > FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME ON WWW.YAHOO.COM FOR-- (AS OF SEPT. 27, 2006 AT 4:35 PM CST THE BELOW HISTORICAL VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAS NOT CHANGED ON WWW.YAHOO.COM SINCE TWO ZEROS WERE REMOVED FROM THIS HISTORICAL TRADING VOLUME ON APRIL 4, 2006 - SEE RON@CSIDATA.COM ABOVE EMAIL DATED APRIL 4, 2006 AT 10:13 EST) > DALECO RESOURCES CORP SYMBOL DLOV > >--------------------------------------------------------- VOLUME > 14-Mar-000.160.160.160.16 2,300 > 0.13 > 13-Mar-000.750.750.750.75 2,000 > 0.63 > 10-Mar-000.120.120.120.12 0 > 0.10 > 9-Mar-000.120.120.120.12 300 > 0.10 > 8-Mar-000.120.750.120.12 26,200 > 0.10 > 7-Mar-000.120.500.120.12 2,300 NAKED SHORT SELLING & COVERING BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP – SYMBOLS “DLOV” & “DLVO”. SEE FEB 15, 2009 POST BY MARV EATINGER:

—– Original Message —–
From: marv eatinger
To: sgoldstein@dtcc.com
Cc: nsccaa@dtcc.com ; newseditors@wsj.com
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: NAKED SHORT SELLING AS AIDED & ABETTED BY THE DTCC?????

STUART Z. GOLDSTEIN:

DTCC: FROM FEB. 28, 2000 TO AUG. 1, 2000 DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES INC. TRADED ACTUAL SHARE VOLUME OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 COMMON SHARES WHILE DELISTED TO THE PINK SHEETS FROM THE OTCBB MARKET. IN 1996 & 1997 DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES INC. HAD APPROXIMATELY 7,000,000 COMMON SHARES SOLD “NAKED SHORT”. THESE “NAKED SHORT” SALES WERE COVERED BY THE ACTUAL TRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 COMMON SHARES PLUS TWO EXTERNALLY ADDED ZEROS 3 YEARS LATER FROM FEB. 28, 2000 TO AUGUST 1, 2000!!! DID THE DTCC AID DALECO IN THIS SCAM OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC EQUITIES?

Marv Eatinger

> FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP– (AS OF SEPT. 27, 2006 AT 4:29 PM CST THE BELOW HISTORICAL
VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAS NOT
CHANGED ON http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM)
> SYMBOL DLOV ON http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM
>
>——————————————————–VOLUME
> 3/14/2000 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 230,000
> 3/13/2000 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 200,000
> 3/10/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0
> 3/9/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 30,000
> 3/8/2000 0.7500 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 2,620,000
> 3/7/2000 0.5000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 230,000
>
> ===========================================================================================
—– Original Message —–
From: “Ron Franz”
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [CSI Website Query: daily volume figures multiplied by 100 - symbol DLOV]

>I had them remove the extra digits.
> Yahoo should have it corrected by this afternoon.
> Please let me know if you do not see the corrections.
> Thank You,
>
>
> marv@mitec.net wrote:
>> Regarding:
>> Data Error Report
>>
>>
>> Message:
>> On March 7, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV – Daleco Resources CP of 2,300 shares: FinancialWeb.com and Quicken.com.
>>
>> On March 8, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV – Daleco Resources CP of 26,200 shares: FinancialWeb.com, Quicken.com and MSN Money Central.com.
>>
>> On March 13, 2000 Barchart.com showed DLOV – Daleco Resources Corp volume for the day as 2,000 shares.
>>
>> Daleco Resources Corp was deleted from the OTCBB to the Pink Sheets on February 22, 2000 to be effective on February 28, 2000. Yahoo Finance & MoneyCentral web sites are presently the only web sites that I can find that show Historical Volume figures for the time period of March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 when Daleco Resources Corp was listed only on the Pink Sheets.
>>
>> Yahoo Finance Historical Volume figures for the above mentioned dates is shown as follows:
>> March 7, 2000——————–230,000 shares
>>
>> March 8, 2000——————2,620,000 shares
>>
>> March 13, 2000——————200,000 shares
>>
>> Apparently from the period starting March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000, all trades that took place in Daleco’s stock had two zeros added to the daily trading volume!
>>
>>
>> From:
>> marv@mitec.net

> FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME ON http://WWW.YAHOO.COM FOR– (AS OF SEPT. 27, 2006 AT 4:35 PM CST THE BELOW HISTORICAL
VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAS NOT CHANGED
ON http://WWW.YAHOO.COM SINCE TWO ZEROS WERE REMOVED FROM THIS
HISTORICAL TRADING VOLUME ON APRIL 4, 2006 – SEE RON@CSIDATA.COM
ABOVE EMAIL DATED APRIL 4, 2006 AT 10:13 EST)
> DALECO RESOURCES CORP SYMBOL DLOV
>
>——————————————————— VOLUME
> 14-Mar-000.160.160.160.16 2,300
> 0.13
> 13-Mar-000.750.750.750.75 2,000
> 0.63
> 10-Mar-000.120.120.120.12 0
> 0.10
> 9-Mar-000.120.120.120.12 300
> 0.10
> 8-Mar-000.120.750.120.12 26,200
> 0.10
> 7-Mar-000.120.500.120.12 2,300

]]>