Comments on: Hedge funds reading tomorrow’s headlines today http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/ Independent investigations into illegal naked short selling. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:50:55 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142634 Dr. Jim DeCosta Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:25:32 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142634 Ed: re your question #1-as the CCP the NSCC is obligated by this newly novated "contract" to deliver the shares purchased to the b/d of the buyer "promptly" (on or near T+3). If they plead "powerless" to buy-in the FTDs of their abusive participants that refuse to deliver to them that which they sold then they can't very well deliver those shares in a timely manner. They've crafted some very corrupt "outs" from this dilemma. They run a self-replenishing "automated stock borrow program" called the SBP. When an FTD occurs they dip into this "lending pool" grab a parcel of shares and make delivery. The catch is that the b/d on the receiving end of this electronic "delivery" is allowed to place them right back into the lending pool AS IF THEY NEVER LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because of this the same "parcel" of shares could easily be lent out to a dozen different b/ds simultaneously. When called on the carpet the DTCC said hay, the SEC approved of this program many years ago and if it were corrupt then they'd have made us change it. The SEC when questioned says that it is what it is. Another "out" is referred to as the "RECAPS" program which allows the DTCC to erase FTDs at will. Anjother "out" is that a 120-day old FTD finally getting delivery can be applied to today's FTD. Another "out" involves the way they do their multilateral "pre-netting". FTDs can be "cured" by simply netting them out of existence. There are 6 other "outs" I won't bore you with. Question #2 At the DTCC "failures to deliver" are not necessarily what you and I think of as FTDs. "Good form delivery" means delivering to the buyer that which he thought he was buying i.e. legitimate "shares" of a corporation with voting rights attached. In the case of the SBP example just cited of the 12 different buyers that received "delivery" of the very same "parcel" of shares 11 of them were mere "securities entitlements" and one was legitimate. Those 12 investors now "co-beneficially own" the same parcel of shares. Since the DTCC keeps shares in an "anonymously pooled" format none of those 12 investors can say hay wait a minute those are my shares that got delivered to 11 other investors. "Anonymous pooling" is efficient but easily corrupted. At the DTCC the various "participants" own what is referred to as a "proportionate interest" in the shares the DTC has in their vault system. Dut to FTDs a DTCC "participant" could have 10 million shares in its "DTCC participant account" but he could be implying on monthly brokerage statements that he is "holding long" 18 million shares. The disparity would be associated with FTDs and lent shares. Unfortunately a "securities entitlement' resulting from an FTD is indeed a "security" because an "evidence of indebtedness" is technically a "security". "Securities held long" has nothing to do with "legitimate shares owned". The problem at the DTCC is that they don't always "settle" trades. "Settlement" mandates the "good form delivery" of that which the investor thought he was buying. Sending an electronic book entry for a "securities entitlement" has nothing to do with "settlement" although the DTCC says that they are one in the same. Remember legitimate "shares" have voting rights attached; mere "securities entitlements" have none attached. Legitimate "shares" can only be issued by a board of directors via a corporate resolution. Unfortunately mere "securities entitlements" resulting from FTDs were made readily sellable because the authors of UCC Article 8 assumed that the DTCC's NSCC subdivision as the CCP to the trade would buy-in any delivery failures over 3 or 4 days in age past settlement date but then the NSCC decided to pretend that it was "powerless" to do so. Look at the absurdity-the NSCC has the "power" to "discharge" the delivery obligations of its abusive "participants/bosses" only because it legally "assumed" these delivery obligations and promised to "execute" on them promptly. After "discharging" these obligations of their bosses they then have the audacity to plead to be "powerless" to do the only thing needed to force the delivery of shares by those refusing to deliver that which they sell i.e. buy-in the FTD. Instead they rely on chicanery like their self-replenishing SBP, their RECAPS program and the untoward side effects of "pre-netting". Why? Because buy-ins are not in the financial interests of their bosses. The DTCC has had to redefine "FTD", "Settlement", a "corporation based on one share, one vote" all to fall into alignment with the financial interests of those that own and administer our clearance and settlement system. Our markets have been "hijacked" by the market intermediaries ENTRUSTED with a superior knowledge of, access to and visibility of the playing field. They had clear instructions to never lever this superiority over those to whom they act as the "gatekeepers" to our markets and those to whom they owe a fiduciary duty of care. Ed: re your question #1-as the CCP the NSCC is obligated by this newly novated “contract” to deliver the shares purchased to the b/d of the buyer “promptly” (on or near T+3). If they plead “powerless” to buy-in the FTDs of their abusive participants that refuse to deliver to them that which they sold then they can’t very well deliver those shares in a timely manner. They’ve crafted some very corrupt “outs” from this dilemma. They run a self-replenishing “automated stock borrow program” called the SBP. When an FTD occurs they dip into this “lending pool” grab a parcel of shares and make delivery. The catch is that the b/d on the receiving end of this electronic “delivery” is allowed to place them right back into the lending pool AS IF THEY NEVER LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because of this the same “parcel” of shares could easily be lent out to a dozen different b/ds simultaneously. When called on the carpet the DTCC said hay, the SEC approved of this program many years ago and if it were corrupt then they’d have made us change it. The SEC when questioned says that it is what it is. Another “out” is referred to as the “RECAPS” program which allows the DTCC to erase FTDs at will. Anjother “out” is that a 120-day old FTD finally getting delivery can be applied to today’s FTD. Another “out” involves the way they do their multilateral “pre-netting”. FTDs can be “cured” by simply netting them out of existence. There are 6 other “outs” I won’t bore you with. Question #2 At the DTCC “failures to deliver” are not necessarily what you and I think of as FTDs. “Good form delivery” means delivering to the buyer that which he thought he was buying i.e. legitimate “shares” of a corporation with voting rights attached. In the case of the SBP example just cited of the 12 different buyers that received “delivery” of the very same “parcel” of shares 11 of them were mere “securities entitlements” and one was legitimate. Those 12 investors now “co-beneficially own” the same parcel of shares. Since the DTCC keeps shares in an “anonymously pooled” format none of those 12 investors can say hay wait a minute those are my shares that got delivered to 11 other investors. “Anonymous pooling” is efficient but easily corrupted. At the DTCC the various “participants” own what is referred to as a “proportionate interest” in the shares the DTC has in their vault system. Dut to FTDs a DTCC “participant” could have 10 million shares in its “DTCC participant account” but he could be implying on monthly brokerage statements that he is “holding long” 18 million shares. The disparity would be associated with FTDs and lent shares. Unfortunately a “securities entitlement’ resulting from an FTD is indeed a “security” because an “evidence of indebtedness” is technically a “security”. “Securities held long” has nothing to do with “legitimate shares owned”. The problem at the DTCC is that they don’t always “settle” trades. “Settlement” mandates the “good form delivery” of that which the investor thought he was buying. Sending an electronic book entry for a “securities entitlement” has nothing to do with “settlement” although the DTCC says that they are one in the same. Remember legitimate “shares” have voting rights attached; mere “securities entitlements” have none attached. Legitimate “shares” can only be issued by a board of directors via a corporate resolution. Unfortunately mere “securities entitlements” resulting from FTDs were made readily sellable because the authors of UCC Article 8 assumed that the DTCC’s NSCC subdivision as the CCP to the trade would buy-in any delivery failures over 3 or 4 days in age past settlement date but then the NSCC decided to pretend that it was “powerless” to do so. Look at the absurdity-the NSCC has the “power” to “discharge” the delivery obligations of its abusive “participants/bosses” only because it legally “assumed” these delivery obligations and promised to “execute” on them promptly. After “discharging” these obligations of their bosses they then have the audacity to plead to be “powerless” to do the only thing needed to force the delivery of shares by those refusing to deliver that which they sell i.e. buy-in the FTD. Instead they rely on chicanery like their self-replenishing SBP, their RECAPS program and the untoward side effects of “pre-netting”. Why? Because buy-ins are not in the financial interests of their bosses. The DTCC has had to redefine “FTD”, “Settlement”, a “corporation based on one share, one vote” all to fall into alignment with the financial interests of those that own and administer our clearance and settlement system. Our markets have been “hijacked” by the market intermediaries ENTRUSTED with a superior knowledge of, access to and visibility of the playing field. They had clear instructions to never lever this superiority over those to whom they act as the “gatekeepers” to our markets and those to whom they owe a fiduciary duty of care.

]]> By: Ed http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142608 Ed Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:29:28 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142608 How come the fails to deliver and fails to receive as published in the DTCC annual report don't match the industry numbers? In both cases, why don't receives and delivers match? Is it because of different "mark to market rules"? If so, does the difference show how much the stocks have been driven down on average? How come the fails to deliver and fails to receive as published in the DTCC annual report don’t match the industry numbers?

In both cases, why don’t receives and delivers match?

Is it because of different “mark to market rules”? If so, does the difference show how much the stocks have been driven down on average?

]]> By: Ed http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142607 Ed Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:26:11 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142607 Dr. DeCosta, I have two questions. 1. Because of novation, wouldn't the NSCC be the one that is obligated to deliver fails, even if the shares are not delivered to them? It seems there are two independent contracts. I don't care if the seller doesn't deliver shares to the NSCC. All I care about is that the NSCC owes me shares and is contractually obligated to deliver them. Can't someone sue the NSCC as they are the only party (except for x-clearing) that owes participants shares? 2. How come fails to receive and fails to deliver are different dollar amounts? Should every "receive" be matched with a "deliver"? Something funny going on here. Dr. DeCosta, I have two questions.

1. Because of novation, wouldn’t the NSCC be the one that is obligated to deliver fails, even if the shares are not delivered to them?

It seems there are two independent contracts. I don’t care if the seller doesn’t deliver shares to the NSCC. All I care about is that the NSCC owes me shares and is contractually obligated to deliver them.

Can’t someone sue the NSCC as they are the only party (except for x-clearing) that owes participants shares?

2. How come fails to receive and fails to deliver are different dollar amounts? Should every “receive” be matched with a “deliver”?

Something funny going on here.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142602 Dr. Jim DeCosta Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:15:04 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142602 I just received 2 good questions on the above post. The first had to do with why the investor not getting delivery doesn't bellyache and secondly why his brokerage firm doesn't bellyache on behalf of his client. First of all the investor has the worst view of all concerned. All he sees is a monthy brokerage statement that "implies" that what he bought was received and is being "held long" by his broker. The "Securities held long" column on a monthly statement, however, contains either legitimate shares or merely "securities entitlements" resulting from a delivery failure. They both look the same on a monthly statement. So why doesn't his broker that earned a commission while acting as an "agent" for his client bellyache on behalf of his client? First of all due to "NSCC pre-netting" the delivery status of a transaction gets obfuscated due to the nature of multilateral "pre-netting" wherein the delivery status remains independent of the netting status and 98% of all trades are "netted". Even the clients broker doesn't know if delivery occurred or not. Secondly, you have to remember that until delivery is achieved the client's broker gets to earn the interest off of his own client's (the buyer's) money. The buying broker is heavily financially incentivised to aim the buy order to a party on Wall Street that is likely to naked short sell into the order. He'll get not only a quick "fill" (and the resultant commission) but he'll also get to keep the interest earnings until delivery is accomplished which may take many months. Every single DTCC participating market intermediary on Wall Street is heavily financially incentivised to flood the share structures of corporations with "securities entitlements" resulting from delivery failures. The only player that doesn't want this is the investor that is kept in the dark and remains "pacified/hoodwinked" by what his monthly brokerage statement "implies". The result is a battlefield involving Wall Street versus Main Street and Main Street doesn't even know there's a war going on. I just received 2 good questions on the above post. The first had to do with why the investor not getting delivery doesn’t bellyache and secondly why his brokerage firm doesn’t bellyache on behalf of his client. First of all the investor has the worst view of all concerned. All he sees is a monthy brokerage statement that “implies” that what he bought was received and is being “held long” by his broker. The “Securities held long” column on a monthly statement, however, contains either legitimate shares or merely “securities entitlements” resulting from a delivery failure. They both look the same on a monthly statement. So why doesn’t his broker that earned a commission while acting as an “agent” for his client bellyache on behalf of his client? First of all due to “NSCC pre-netting” the delivery status of a transaction gets obfuscated due to the nature of multilateral “pre-netting” wherein the delivery status remains independent of the netting status and 98% of all trades are “netted”. Even the clients broker doesn’t know if delivery occurred or not. Secondly, you have to remember that until delivery is achieved the client’s broker gets to earn the interest off of his own client’s (the buyer’s) money. The buying broker is heavily financially incentivised to aim the buy order to a party on Wall Street that is likely to naked short sell into the order. He’ll get not only a quick “fill” (and the resultant commission) but he’ll also get to keep the interest earnings until delivery is accomplished which may take many months. Every single DTCC participating market intermediary on Wall Street is heavily financially incentivised to flood the share structures of corporations with “securities entitlements” resulting from delivery failures. The only player that doesn’t want this is the investor that is kept in the dark and remains “pacified/hoodwinked” by what his monthly brokerage statement “implies”. The result is a battlefield involving Wall Street versus Main Street and Main Street doesn’t even know there’s a war going on.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142588 Dr. Jim DeCosta Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:21:45 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142588 I'm getting deluged with questions regarding the role of the DTCC in abusive naked short selling frauds.The following is a snip-it from a recent paper that might help. CCPs and "novation" are confusing at first glance! In a clearance and settlement system utilizing “central counterparties” (CCPs) like the DTCC-administered one in the U.S. the CCP (our NSCC) injects itself in between the buying and selling party and becomes the buyer to the seller and the seller to the buyer. Clearance and settlement systems utilizing CCPs utilize a legal relationship referred to as “novation” which means “to create anew”. The original contract established between the buyer and the seller to perform on T+3 gets “discharged” which gives rise to 2 new contracts involving the CCP. The CCP contracts to act as an “intermediary/counterparty” that will collect the money from the buying party and deliver it to the selling party and it contracts to collect the shares sold by the selling party and deliver them to the buying party. One old contract gets “discharged” and “Novated” into two new contracts. A warning: “novation” is a very tricky legal concept that is subject to massive abuses because it relies on human beings to “act in good faith”. On Wall Street this presumption of “acting in good faith” is unfortunately surrounded by trillions of investor dollars of “temptation” owned by those grossly less financially sophisticated than those acting as “market intermediaries” theoretically with fiduciary duties. All you have to do is look at what Bernie Madoff did to some of the most financially sophisticated people on the planet to see what a superior level of financial sophistication can result in. Most clearance and settlement systems worldwide utilize “CCPs” in combination with “novation”. What this combination does is reduce “counterparty risk” so that buyers and sellers need not worry about the credit worthiness of hundreds of different counterparties as the DTCC’s NSCC subdivision (as the CCP) issues a “trade settlement guarantee” promising to stand behind all money and securities collection and delivery obligations. In essence the NSCC “discharges” the delivery obligations of the original seller and “assumes” them and promises to “execute” on them. When you overlay the congressional mandate of Section 17 A involving the “prompt settlement” of all securities transactions the NSCC promises to “execute” on these delivery obligations it recently “assumed” in a prompt manner. The question obviously arises as to how can the NSCC have the power to “discharge” the delivery obligations of its abusive “participants” and their co-conspiring hedge fund “guests” as the CCP in the transaction and then turn around and pretend to be “powerless” to do what is necessary to “execute” on the delivery obligation that it recently “assumed”? As you can clearly see clearance and settlement systems utilizing CCPs and “novation” can easily be corrupted if the CCP refuses to “execute” on the obligations it “assumed”. Why? Because the billionaire behemoths making up the CCP can easily run up gigantic naked short positions and then simply have the CCP they own refuse to “execute” on the obligations it recently “assumed”. This results in the share structures of any corporation targeted for attack by the abusive members of this CCP to become poisoned by all of the readily sellable “securities entitlements” procreated by the delivery failures that the corrupt CCP refuses to address “promptly” via buy-ins when the original selling party absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold to the intermediating CCP. You have to admit that this is brilliant. But wait it gets more brilliant. Let’s overlay this brilliance with allowing the sellers of securities that absolutely refuse to deliver that which is sold to still gain access to the funds of the unknowing investor that bought the nonexistent shares sold and only make them collateralize the debt while all along the party “assuming” this delivery obligation pleads “powerless” to “execute” on it via a buy-in then you’ve got super brilliance via markets grossly “rigged” in favor of the billionaire behemoths owning the CCP that pretends to be “powerless” to perform on the contracts that it recently “assumed”. As the share price of the corporation under attack predictably “tanks” from the accumulation of massive amounts of readily sellable “securities entitlements” then so too do the collateralization requirements. This then unconscionably allows the funds of the investor that never got delivery of that which it purchased to flow to the abusive members of the CCP absolutely refusing to deliver that which they sold to the intermediating CCP. I’m getting deluged with questions regarding the role of the DTCC in abusive naked short selling frauds.The following is a snip-it from a recent paper that might help. CCPs and “novation” are confusing at first glance!

In a clearance and settlement system utilizing “central counterparties” (CCPs) like the DTCC-administered one in the U.S. the CCP (our NSCC) injects itself in between the buying and selling party and becomes the buyer to the seller and the seller to the buyer. Clearance and settlement systems utilizing CCPs utilize a legal relationship referred to as “novation” which means “to create anew”. The original contract established between the buyer and the seller to perform on T+3 gets “discharged” which gives rise to 2 new contracts involving the CCP. The CCP contracts to act as an “intermediary/counterparty” that will collect the money from the buying party and deliver it to the selling party and it contracts to collect the shares sold by the selling party and deliver them to the buying party. One old contract gets “discharged” and “Novated” into two new contracts. A warning: “novation” is a very tricky legal concept that is subject to massive abuses because it relies on human beings to “act in good faith”. On Wall Street this presumption of “acting in good faith” is unfortunately surrounded by trillions of investor dollars of “temptation” owned by those grossly less financially sophisticated than those acting as “market intermediaries” theoretically with fiduciary duties. All you have to do is look at what Bernie Madoff did to some of the most financially sophisticated people on the planet to see what a superior level of financial sophistication can result in.

Most clearance and settlement systems worldwide utilize “CCPs” in combination with “novation”. What this combination does is reduce “counterparty risk” so that buyers and sellers need not worry about the credit worthiness of hundreds of different counterparties as the DTCC’s NSCC subdivision (as the CCP) issues a “trade settlement guarantee” promising to stand behind all money and securities collection and delivery obligations. In essence the NSCC “discharges” the delivery obligations of the original seller and “assumes” them and promises to “execute” on them. When you overlay the congressional mandate of Section 17 A involving the “prompt settlement” of all securities transactions the NSCC promises to “execute” on these delivery obligations it recently “assumed” in a prompt manner.

The question obviously arises as to how can the NSCC have the power to “discharge” the delivery obligations of its abusive “participants” and their co-conspiring hedge fund “guests” as the CCP in the transaction and then turn around and pretend to be “powerless” to do what is necessary to “execute” on the delivery obligation that it recently “assumed”?

As you can clearly see clearance and settlement systems utilizing CCPs and “novation” can easily be corrupted if the CCP refuses to “execute” on the obligations it “assumed”. Why? Because the billionaire behemoths making up the CCP can easily run up gigantic naked short positions and then simply have the CCP they own refuse to “execute” on the obligations it recently “assumed”. This results in the share structures of any corporation targeted for attack by the abusive members of this CCP to become poisoned by all of the readily sellable “securities entitlements” procreated by the delivery failures that the corrupt CCP refuses to address “promptly” via buy-ins when the original selling party absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold to the intermediating CCP.

You have to admit that this is brilliant. But wait it gets more brilliant. Let’s overlay this brilliance with allowing the sellers of securities that absolutely refuse to deliver that which is sold to still gain access to the funds of the unknowing investor that bought the nonexistent shares sold and only make them collateralize the debt while all along the party “assuming” this delivery obligation pleads “powerless” to “execute” on it via a buy-in then you’ve got super brilliance via markets grossly “rigged” in favor of the billionaire behemoths owning the CCP that pretends to be “powerless” to perform on the contracts that it recently “assumed”.

As the share price of the corporation under attack predictably “tanks” from the accumulation of massive amounts of readily sellable “securities entitlements” then so too do the collateralization requirements. This then unconscionably allows the funds of the investor that never got delivery of that which it purchased to flow to the abusive members of the CCP absolutely refusing to deliver that which they sold to the intermediating CCP.

]]> By: Millerd1 http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142288 Millerd1 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:44:08 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142288 We all know these BS stock analysis stories are fabricated by somebody. What is still missing here is what organization shorted the company before feeding Gwynn the BS that he did his "analysis" premised upon. We have seen this happen time and time again. In my opinion Gwynn got planted information. I conclude the stupid clumsy ones mentioned above got caught and were late comers. If Gwynn did not have an off/onshore short position in the stock a head of time, who did? (Who was also paid to back check and verifiy Gwynn's analysis and sources.) FFH was lightly traded it should not be hard to find that short position. Where are Gwynn's international assets today, and have they been inventoried through the FFH case discovery activity? What credit cards did he use in that time era, and did the monthly statements come to his bill paying address? If he used an externally provided credit card he made a mistake and used it somewhere that can be traced back to the provider. 1. The real challenge is who deep shorted FFH ahead of the above names? 2. Were OMM exemptions used to get any of these short positions, if so by who? 3. Why aren't the option married short practitioners named (the CBOE specifically) in either the FFH, OSTK or NFI cases? We all know these BS stock analysis stories are fabricated by somebody. What is still missing here is what organization shorted the company before feeding Gwynn the BS that he did his “analysis” premised upon. We have seen this happen time and time again. In my opinion Gwynn got planted information. I conclude the stupid clumsy ones mentioned above got caught and were late comers. If Gwynn did not have an off/onshore short position in the stock a head of time, who did? (Who was also paid to back check and verifiy Gwynn’s analysis and sources.) FFH was lightly traded it should not be hard to find that short position.

Where are Gwynn’s international assets today, and have they been inventoried through the FFH case discovery activity? What credit cards did he use in that time era, and did the monthly statements come to his bill paying address? If he used an externally provided credit card he made a mistake and used it somewhere that can be traced back to the provider.

1. The real challenge is who deep shorted FFH ahead of the above names?
2. Were OMM exemptions used to get any of these short positions, if so by who?
3. Why aren’t the option married short practitioners named (the CBOE specifically) in either the FFH, OSTK or NFI cases?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142276 Anonymous Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:19:13 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142276 Tar_&_Feather_Them, I am convinced the SEC was designed as an organization to make people think there was policing and investors protection in the market, but in actuality, it was designed to protect the criminals while making the little guys think there were regulators so the little guys would continue feeding the sharks......to make it seem real, they concentrated on pump and dumps because no meaningful fines or intervention by the DOJ against the sharks was ever levied. Slap on the hand and business as usual. FOLKS, WE HAVE BEEN FLEECED........ Tar_&_Feather_Them,

I am convinced the SEC was designed as an organization to make people think there was policing and investors protection in the market, but in actuality, it was designed to protect the criminals while making the little guys think there were regulators so the little guys would continue feeding the sharks……to make it seem real, they concentrated on pump and dumps because no meaningful fines or intervention by the DOJ against the sharks was ever levied. Slap on the hand and business as usual.
FOLKS, WE HAVE BEEN FLEECED……..

]]> By: Tar_&_Feather_Them http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142258 Tar_&_Feather_Them Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:43:39 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142258 If the SEC cannot or will not weed out a Madoff then how the hell can they make rules that impact every investor in the world? Things like: 1. Getting rid of the uptick rule. 2. Letting naked shorting run rampant. 3. Do nothing about FTD's 4. T-3 non enforcement. 5. Ex-clearing? What's that! 6. Reg SHO - Ho ho ho! 7. Fire all the good guys from the SEC. If the SEC cannot or will not weed out a Madoff then how the hell can they make rules that impact every investor in the world?

Things like:
1. Getting rid of the uptick rule.
2. Letting naked shorting run rampant.
3. Do nothing about FTD’s
4. T-3 non enforcement.
5. Ex-clearing? What’s that!
6. Reg SHO – Ho ho ho!
7. Fire all the good guys from the SEC.

]]> By: Reporter101 http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142135 Reporter101 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:12:33 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142135 When the law does not apply to the other side. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOj0VIZjGyXc&refer=home# When the law does not apply to the other side.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOj0VIZjGyXc&refer=home#

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142116 Anonymous Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:22:33 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142116 Hedge Fund Attorney, What is unfortunate about that ? Play by the rules and there should be no worries ? It is lack of rules and regulation and transparency that has gotten us to what will go down in history as the greatest of the Great Depression. After reading how certain hedgefunds and journalist collude and conspire against companies, I say wipe them out completely and good riddance if they are involved in wrong doing. RICO is the way to go to weed out the criminals. Hedge Fund Attorney,
What is unfortunate about that ? Play by the rules and there should be no worries ? It is lack of rules and regulation and transparency that has gotten us to what will go down in history as the greatest of the Great Depression. After reading how certain hedgefunds and journalist collude and conspire against companies, I say wipe them out completely and good riddance if they are involved in wrong doing. RICO is the way to go to weed out the criminals.

]]> By: Hedge Fund Attorney http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142111 Hedge Fund Attorney Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:10:12 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142111 Unfortunately the Madoff scandal has raised the likelihood that regulators will require hedge fund managers to register in some capacity which will have a chilling effect on those managers who are <a href="http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com" rel="nofollow">starting a hedge fund</a> in the new year. Unfortunately the Madoff scandal has raised the likelihood that regulators will require hedge fund managers to register in some capacity which will have a chilling effect on those managers who are starting a hedge fund in the new year.

]]> By: Reporter101 http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142103 Reporter101 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:42:26 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142103 ron doc, Yep, he is still around. Google his screen name and you will see his alias all over the blogs. Atomic Bobs is one of many. He may still haunt IHub as well. http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?board=288 ron doc,
Yep, he is still around. Google his screen name and you will see his alias all over the blogs. Atomic Bobs is one of many. He may still haunt IHub as well.

http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?board=288

]]> By: Ginger http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142101 Ginger Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:41:00 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142101 ron doc, The English firm contains the term DickTracy Here's DD's background... seems he's gone into hibernation... http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?member=DueDillinger ron doc,

The English firm contains the term DickTracy

Here’s DD’s background… seems he’s gone into hibernation…

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?member=DueDillinger

]]> By: ron doc http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142088 ron doc Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:15:35 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142088 Ginger,thanks! That is the name I had gotten from a source at the time...My source also thought that he was involved with a so called business consulting firm in London England which sold bashing services. The ditty I used was a quetion to DD in which I asked "Is it was true that when little Andrew was born that he offended the Dr. so baddly that the Dr. slapped Mrs. Goldberg instead of Andrew?" When I saw Patchies post it pinged my memory I guess. Anyone know if that scum bag DD is still active on any boards? Ginger,thanks! That is the name I had gotten from a source at the time…My source also thought that he was involved with a so called business consulting firm in London England which sold bashing services.

The ditty I used was a quetion to DD in which I asked “Is it was true that when little Andrew was born that he offended the Dr. so baddly that the Dr. slapped Mrs. Goldberg instead of Andrew?”

When I saw Patchies post it pinged my memory I guess.

Anyone know if that scum bag DD is still active on any boards?

]]> By: al http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142059 al Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:45:47 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142059 Looks as though the BEAR RAID in American Capital Strategies (symbol: ACAS) may be coming to a close. Stock is up 40% today on absolutely nothing, and the February $5 calls are exploding. Looks as though the BEAR RAID in American Capital Strategies (symbol: ACAS) may be coming to a close. Stock is up 40% today on absolutely nothing, and the February $5 calls are exploding.

]]> By: Ginger http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142049 Ginger Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:16:52 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142049 Correction... Andy Goldberg was the name being used in 2003 onwards Correction… Andy Goldberg was the name being used in 2003 onwards

]]> By: Ginger http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142046 Ginger Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:11:45 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142046 Ron, I think I used Aaron Goldberg and got the response you got. Ron, I think I used Aaron Goldberg and got the response you got.

]]> By: ron doc http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142042 ron doc Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:00:36 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142042 Ginger, would you know DD's real name? Thanks ron Ginger, would you know DD’s real name?

Thanks

ron

]]> By: kevin http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142025 kevin Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:17:22 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142025 Madoff collectibles. http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkwZmadoffQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZR2QQ_mdoZ Madoff collectibles.

http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkwZmadoffQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZR2QQ_mdoZ

]]> By: ted http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142018 ted Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:54:41 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142018 http://www.euromoney.com/Article/1001047/Naked-shorting-The-curious-incident-of-the-shares-that-didnt-exist.html http://www.euromoney.com/Article/1001047/Naked-shorting-The-curious-incident-of-the-shares-that-didnt-exist.html

]]> By: NOYBIZNIZ http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-142000 NOYBIZNIZ Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:12:48 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-142000 I was banned from SeekingAlpha when I publicly asked Whitney Tilson for his comments about the way in which his actions and associations were characterized on DeepCapture.... I was banned from SeekingAlpha when I publicly asked Whitney Tilson for his comments about the way in which his actions and associations were characterized on DeepCapture….

]]> By: Ginger http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141995 Ginger Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:08:03 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141995 Ron,,, EXACTLY.the same thing happened to me with DD on Raging Bull. He worked his bashing with another poster named Bernwa who is Bernard LoVerde Jr. out of Toronto. Ron,,, EXACTLY.the same thing happened to me with DD on Raging Bull. He worked his bashing with another poster named Bernwa who is Bernard LoVerde Jr. out of Toronto.

]]> By: ron doc http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141988 ron doc Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:55:19 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141988 Thanks Patchie, I go info several years ago that DueDillinger was named goldberg so I asked him with a little ditty on the Raging Bull DTMG borad where he was bashing. The ditty did not ask directly buy throgh a riddle so that he would understand what I was asking as the name Goldberg was included in a round about question he got. Within less than a hour I got a RB email saying I was to have my posting privilages suspended for two weeks. Almost before I could read the first bRB email I got another saying it was for thirty days.Then in a while I got five emails within seconds of eachother saying I was bannished from RB for life. A year or so later my son in another state got a RB alias and while at his home on a visit I used his alias to post on another company that I held which was active on RB. While ther should not have been any way for them to to connect me to my sons alias, and my posts on the other company was only general with no NSS problems or bashers involved in the posts for some reason they sent him a email saying he and his alias was banned for life. From that I figured that what I suspected abour RB was correct and that they were somehow a tool. ron Thanks Patchie, I go info several years ago that DueDillinger was named goldberg so I asked him with a little ditty on the Raging Bull DTMG borad where he was bashing. The ditty did not ask directly buy throgh a riddle so that he would understand what I was asking as the name Goldberg was included in a round about question he got.

Within less than a hour I got a RB email saying I was to have my posting privilages suspended for two weeks. Almost before I could read the first bRB email I got another saying it was for thirty days.Then in a while I got five emails within seconds of eachother saying I was bannished from RB for life.

A year or so later my son in another state got a RB alias and while at his home on a visit I used his alias to post on another company that I held which was active on RB.
While ther should not have been any way for them to to connect me to my sons alias, and my posts on the other company was only general with no NSS problems or bashers involved in the posts for some reason they sent him a email saying he and his alias was banned for life.

From that I figured that what I suspected abour RB was correct and that they were somehow a tool.

ron

]]> By: anonymous http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141926 anonymous Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:41:18 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141926 On the Wall Street Elite.... "The sense of entitlement that everybody has because nothing has gone wrong for them is frightening to me."... Jim Chanos source: NY Magazine Dec 7th. After reading DeepCapture, he changes his tune to, "Everyone senses the wrong, entitlement gone... nothing for me. Frightening!" All that the Fed's have to prove is a pattern of front running and it becomes a criminal enterprise and they take it all. HIs investors. may lose it all... even the 50% profit.... On the Wall Street Elite….

“The sense of entitlement that everybody has because nothing has gone wrong for them is frightening to me.”… Jim Chanos source: NY Magazine Dec 7th.

After reading DeepCapture, he changes his tune to, “Everyone senses the wrong, entitlement gone… nothing for me. Frightening!”

All that the Fed’s have to prove is a pattern of front running and it becomes a criminal enterprise and they take it all. HIs investors. may lose it all… even the 50% profit….

]]> By: Patchie http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141587 Patchie Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:45:41 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141587 Ron, DueDillinger was an insecure guy in New Jersey but was not Jamie Goldberg. DD ran a small map company in NJ and worked out of his house. can't recall the name although it was close to Goldberg. Jamie Goldberg was a broker who loved his drugs and his strip joints. Married a stripper if I am correct. Ron, DueDillinger was an insecure guy in New Jersey but was not Jamie Goldberg. DD ran a small map company in NJ and worked out of his house. can’t recall the name although it was close to Goldberg.

Jamie Goldberg was a broker who loved his drugs and his strip joints. Married a stripper if I am correct.

]]> By: Fred http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141581 Fred Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:38:39 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141581 I agree with rtway and others. We need to get organized and speak in a unified way to force our government to enforce our laws. I agree with rtway and others. We need to get organized and speak in a unified way to force our government to enforce our laws.

]]> By: ron doc http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141559 ron doc Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:04:00 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141559 Patchie, You mention Jamie Goldberg, Miami broker. Would you know if he was the one who used to post on RB under the alias of duedillinger? Thanks Patchie,

You mention Jamie Goldberg, Miami broker. Would you know if he was the one who used to post on RB under the alias of duedillinger?

Thanks

]]> By: rtway http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141405 rtway Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:21:35 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141405 From the www.thesanitycheck.com I hate to sound like a broken record but somewhere along the line we have to have a million investor march campaign or a well orchestrated simultaneous demonstrations at all the key cities to garner enough press to make it onto prime time where the media has to cover it. In light of Madoff there probably will be many people wanting this coverage. A big protest in front of CNBC co-ordinated with an interview with Patrick on Fox would be nirvana. Maybe another full page ad like the old NCANS days. We have a lot more followers to drop a few scheclkles in the pot. We could call it dollars and dimes to stop the wall St. gangsters. From the http://www.thesanitycheck.com
I hate to sound like a broken record but somewhere along the line we have to have a million investor march campaign or a well orchestrated simultaneous demonstrations at all the key cities to garner enough press to make it onto prime time where the media has to cover it. In light of Madoff there probably will be many people wanting this coverage. A big protest in front of CNBC co-ordinated with an interview with Patrick on Fox would be nirvana. Maybe another full page ad like the old NCANS days. We have a lot more followers to drop a few scheclkles in the pot. We could call it dollars and dimes to stop the wall St. gangsters.

]]> By: Patchie http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141301 Patchie Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:22:28 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141301 Draft a memo to the SEC and ask why these e-mails never surfaced in the SEC investigations into Chanos and Cohen once Fairfax filed a complaint against them? This looks amazingly like Madoff and Mack all over again. Soft SEC investigations into connected firms and individuals. The list to send it to would be: enforcement@sec.gov thomsenl@sec.gov coxc@sec.gov waltere@sec.gov aguilarlu@sec.gov caseyk@sec.gov paredest@sec.gov cartwrightb@sec.gov oig@sec.gov Draft a memo to the SEC and ask why these e-mails never surfaced in the SEC investigations into Chanos and Cohen once Fairfax filed a complaint against them?

This looks amazingly like Madoff and Mack all over again. Soft SEC investigations into connected firms and individuals.

The list to send it to would be:

enforcement@sec.gov
thomsenl@sec.gov
coxc@sec.gov
waltere@sec.gov
aguilarlu@sec.gov
caseyk@sec.gov
paredest@sec.gov
cartwrightb@sec.gov
oig@sec.gov

]]> By: kd http://www.deepcapture.com/hedge-funds-reading-tomorrows-headlines-today/comment-page-1/#comment-141269 kd Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:27:02 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=543#comment-141269 When reading about rogues in the news, I like to check out their political contributions to find out where the money goes. This links shows contribs from James Chanos. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Chanos&fname=James When reading about rogues in the news, I like to check out their political contributions to find out where the money goes. This links shows contribs from James Chanos.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Chanos&fname=James

]]>