http://www.newser.com/story/72894/fbi-let-blacklisted-russian-tycoon-visit-us.html

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

Well, what “happens” in this timeframe is one of the pillars supporting abusive naked short selling. The NSCC’s “Automated Stock Borrow Program” (“SBP”) just so happens to have a “night time cycle”. Any FTDs registered at the close of biz on T+3 can be “cured” via a “borrow” (which qualifies as a “borrow or purchase”) from the SBP. Why is this a rip off to “long” investors? It’s because the SBP has a self-replenishing nature to it. When an FTD occurs the NSCC management reaches into it and grabs a parcel of IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY (due to “anonymous pooling” and “dematerialization”) shares to “cure” the FTD. These shares are electronically transferred to the broker of the purchaser of the recently borrowed shares. As the new “legal owner” of these recently borrowed shares this broker has all of the right in the world to re-donate them right back into the very same SBP lending pool of shares from whence they just exited AS IF THEY NEVER LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It’s self-replenishing and not “decrementing” wherein previously borrowed parcels of shares are identified and made unavailable for reborrowing. The same IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY parcel of shares may have “cured” a dozen different FTDs and may be simultaneously loaned out to a dozen different b/ds.

Why would a broker donate shares to the SBP lending pool in the first place? A broker is highly motivated to donate as many shares as possible (even if it is illegal to do so) because they can convert an electronic book entry gathering dust into its cash equivalent and retain the interest earnings on the cash. Wow, with a temptation to cheat like that being that parcels of shares are impossible to identify due to “anonymous pooling” and “dematerialization” there must be all kinds of rigorous monitoring of what types of shares are being donated to these lucrative SBP lending pools, right? Wrong, the NSCC puts all of their b/ds on the “honor system” in this regard.

Here’s the catch; the same corrupt phenomenon can occur with legal “pre-borrows” as the broker/dealer of the investor purchasing these legally “pre-borrowed” shares that were sold short becomes its new “legal owner” and has all of the right in the world to rent them out to a different short seller. So why do they refer to these transactions as “borrows” when the legal ownership is transferred? Well, if they referred to them as “sales” which is what they are then the “seller” would lose the right to resell that which he purchased and all of this rental income and ability to amass huge short positions and predictably kill U.S. corporations for a living would be lost. If you had to tell the purchaser of shares that he lost his right to resell that which he purchased then that would give away the entire fraud. I wonder what the increase in the activity levels of the SBP occurred when the new law became effective. Maybe it went up 57-fold like the FTDs in Lehman Brothers did when they WEREN’T being naked short sold to death.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59T2MM20091030

I agree that both Bear Stearns and Lehman were “broke/insolvent/unable to pay” as you posit. They were in a business 100% based on confidence and everybody lost confidence in them. This put them within spitting distance of the edge of a cliff. The 131% of all of Bear’s shares sold in one day and the 57-fold increase in FTDs of Lehman above their previous all time high water mark PUSHED them over the cliff. All of the money of those U.S. ctizens that incorrectly thought they were buying at the bottom is now in the wallets of those that entered into a contract to deliver that which they were selling on T+3 but intentionally reneged on the contract. The mistake of those investors was not just trying to guess the bottom which is inherently dangerous their bigger mistake was assuming that our regulators and SROs were rigorously providing investor protection andmaking sure that the selleres of shares upheld their half of the contract. Maybe these investors did accurately guess the bottom of where these prices should have ended up in an environment where investor protection was rigorously provided. We’ll never know will we? I see your argument up to a point but your argument necessitates explaining away those aberrant statistics as background noise which is pretty tough to swallow.

You said: The funny thing is that the last time congress passed a law to ban the shorts, the market tanked.

WHAT LAW did Congress Pass?

Are you referring to the SEC? The SEC is NOT Congress.

You said: “If Lehman and Bear were solid companies, their stocks would have moved higher and killed those shorts.”

So you think that it is OK for Wall Streeters to Naked Counterfeit Short any company they want to to make a profit?

Any if a company is attacked by Naked Counterfeit Shorting, and is a strong company the company will survive the Naked Counterfeit Shorting? So no one should complain about the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine?

So you believe as Ex Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan that fraud on Wall Street should NOT be regulated or punished?

You said: “I bet people don’t even understand the concept of shorting a stock on this board.”

Danny, you really need to read Dr. Jim DeCosta’s letter the the SEC so you can see the light shining on this topic:

http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-590/4590-84.pdf

Naked shorting should be banned, I agree, but Bear Stearns and Lehman did not collapse because of naked or any kind of shorting, they collapsed because they were broke/insolvent/unable to pay/done. Is that hard to freaking understand?? What is so difficult to understand about that? The shorts just benefited from their fall, that’s it. If Lehman and Bear were solid companies, their stocks would have moved higher and killed those shorts.

Wake up people, when was the last time congress or anyone in Washington passed a law that made sense. How come they were not passing this law 5 years ago?

I bet people don’t even understand the concept of shorting a stock on this board.

Danny

Very interesting link! – Very interesting information!
http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley-cannot-afford-to-remain-silent-on-galleon-charges-2009-10

This story reminds me of the recent purchase of MEDX by BMY. Goldman Sachs was hired by MEDX and Morgan Stanley was hired by BMY to help in this merger.

One very interesting piece of information became public after a shareholder lawsuit was filed… Goldman Sachs would receive 21 Million Dollar Payment if the merger went through (approximately 1% of the buyout price).

By New Jersey law, if 90% or more of MEDX stock was tendered to BMY, then the merger would NOT have to be approved by a vote of the MEDX shareholders – in other words, there would be NO shareholder meeting called and the merger would be guaranteed and happen quickly – which it did.

Here is the second very interesting piece of information….
BMY just barely received 90% (90.x%) of MEDX stock via the tendering process. This allowed BMY to buy out MEDX shareholders at a low price ($16/shr), and Goldman Sachs received its 21 Million Dollar Bonus.

This the questions that comes to mind….:

1.) What service could Goldman Sachs provide to MEDX to justify a 21 Million Dollar Bonus?

One possible answer to question #1, and I think very likely, is that Goldman Sachs used the “Wall Street Counterfeit Machine” to create counterfeit shares of MEDX to illegally push the percent of tendered MEDX shares to BMY over 90%.

This is another way Wall Streeters illegally manipulates publicly traded companies… The 90% number is measured based upon the official number of shares that should be traded. In contrast, the total number of tendered shares includes ALL the COUNTERFEIT SHARES created by Wall Streeters. If the total number of shares trading was 100% greater than the official number that should be trading, then it the tendering of 25% of the total number of shares trading would equal 50% of the official number, and the tendering of 50% of the shares trading would equal 100% of the official number of shares that should be trading.

—( So Goldman Sachs and all of the Hedge Funds that paid Goldman Sachs for insider information, could simple counterfeit enough shares of MEDX to guarantee the merger would occur and guarantee reception of a 21 Million Dollar Bonus Check.

Another question comes to mind….:

What happens on Wall Street if OVER 100% of the official number of MEDX shares were tendered to BMY?

I am sure the “Wall Street Counterfeit Machine” has a method of “fixing” this issue… for example, having Wall Street firms UN-tendering their shares to bring the number down below the 100% mark.

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley-cannot-afford-to-remain-silent-on-galleon-charges-2009-10

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/066.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6692411.html

Look at the rules, limiting how many real shares a company can buy and cancel.

Issuers are limited to the timing, price and volume of their purchases. You wouldn’t want to squeeze the counterfeiters…

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8335.htm

Note that a company can demand a real share instead of an entitlement, something that spooks Wallstreet to the core.

They’d rather see a cash dividend they could match or an undervalued price to take the company private, which they could also match.

If the company pays a dividend that can’t be matched, such as a share in a private sub., then Wallstreet just tells investors they can have their money back, because unfortunately they didn’t buy a real share.