“Cramer has for a long time been crusading against naked short selling. But that kicked up on notch on Thursday when he found out the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated just 2.5% of complaints about the practice.
As if he didn’t have enough reasons to dislike former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. Now he can virtually blame Cox for the collapse of both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. After all, naked short selling is what brought them down.
Just to recap, short selling is the practice of borrowing stock to sell at high price and then buying the shares back at a lower price so as to return what was borrowed. The short seller keeps the profits. When the stock isn’t first borrowed, that’s called naked short selling.
Market manipulators use this tactic because more shares can be sold short than actually exist, and that can overwhelm the target company. Illegal or not – and naked shorting is against the rules – these manipulators do it anyway because they can make big money in the process.
Here’s what the short selling in Lehman looked like just before the company went under: 32.8 million shares were sold short but never delivered, as is required, which is called fails-to-deliver. That means the seller never borrowed stock in the first place. And the 32.8 million is 57 times as many failed trades as there were on the prior year’s peak. Cramer says that can mean only one thing: Lehman was being manipulated down to scare off its shareholders.
At the same time, rumors were circulating that Lehman would be taken out at a discount just as Bear was, and that the investment bank was losing two trading partners. This was more market manipulation, Cramer said. But with the stock price already down, Lehman couldn’t issue more shares in order to raise money and save itself. Instead, the ratings agencies jumped on the bandwagon and downgraded Lehman, making the situation even worse. In the end, Cramer said the failed trades caused between 30% and 70% of both Bear and Lehman’s declines.
Of course, Cramer wants heads to roll. But more than that he wants the SEC to do its job and enforce the rules. Christopher Cox, he fell short. But Cramer’s hoping Mary Schapiro, President Obama’s handpicked replacement, will institute much-needed changes at the regulatory body.”

1-800-378-9581

Why not keep their operators busy ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BRO20090303&articleId=12522

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. revealed the Bankers Manifesto of 1892 to the U.S. Congress somewhere between 1907 and 1917.
Webmaster’s Commentary:

This is the gap between the crash of 1904 and the start of WWI.

one thing i do find a bit confusing in your list is that it seems your listing people for example g. soros and paulson (who did not even consider it an option to bail out lehman) who have obviously directly or indirectly profited from nss?

could you explain this please?

Our DTCC administered clearance and settlement system utilizes a system involving the legal concept of “novation”. “Novation” means “to create anew”. When a trade is executed the selling party owes the buying party the delivery of the securities it sold. During “novation” the delivery obligation of the selling party is “discharged” and the NSCC as the “central counterparty” (CCP) to the trade “assumes” this delivery obligation and promises to “execute” on it EVENTUALLY. The original selling party now owes the NSCC (and no longer the party it sold the securities to) the delivery of that which it sold and the NSCC then promises as the CCP to forward those securities on to the buyer.

For 29 years I’ve been writing on how tricky “novation” can be especially if the selling party is a card carrying member of the party that “assumed” the delivery obligation it recently “discharged” and promised to “execute” on. If the CCP, the NSCC in this case, refuses to act in good faith in executing the delivery obligation it just “assumed” then the financial system supported by that clearance and settlement system is in deep trouble. Why?

In slow motion what happens in “novation” is that an NSCC “fraternity brother” sells securities to somebody half way around the world. Two seconds later it now owes the CCP (the NSCC) the delivery of those shares. The NSCC also just happens to act as the “fraternity headquarters”. The seller of securities all of a sudden now owes itself as a fraternity member and its fellow fraternity brothers the delivery of that which it just sold.

The NSCC just so happens to qualify as an extremely “forgiving fraternity”. A “forgiving fraternity” says to its fraternity brother debtors now that your debt is owed to yourself and your fraternity brothers you don’t have to deliver that which you sold previously as long as you at least collateralize the monetary amount of your failed delivery obligation. The clever part is that as all of these failures to deliver (FTDs) that give rise to readily sellable “securities entitlements” invisibly pile up in the share structure of the corporations targeted by fraternity brothers for destruction then the share price of the corporation predictably plummets. As the share price plummets so too do the collateralization requirements. Why? Because they are “marked to market” on a daily basis based upon the share price.

As the collateralization requirements plummet the money of the unknowing investor on the buy side of that trade involving a failure to deliver flows to the selling fraternity brother despite the fact that he still hasn’t delivered that which it sold. In fact in a system with a “forgiving fraternity” that which was sold never needed to exist in the first place.

Now how clever is that? You sell something that doesn’t exist and two seconds later you owe the debt to yourself and your extremely forgiving fraternity brothers. As if by magic this then automatically results in the investment proceeds of the investor getting duped to flow into the wallet of the fraternity brother that just has to merely ref

Our DTCC administered clearance and settlement system utilizes a system involving the legal concept of “novation”. “Novation” means “to create anew”. When a trade is executed the selling party owes the buying party the delivery of the securities it sold. During “novation” the delivery obligation of the selling party is “discharged” and the NSCC as the “central counterparty” (CCP) to the trade “assumes” this delivery obligation and promises to “execute” on it EVENTUALLY. The original selling party now owes the NSCC (and no longer the party it sold the securities to) the delivery of that which it sold and the NSCC then promises as the CCP to forward those securities on to the buyer.

For 29 years I’ve been writing on how tricky “novation” can be especially if the selling party is a card carrying member of the party that “assumed” the delivery obligation it recently “discharged” and promised to “execute” on. If the CCP, the NSCC in this case, refuses to act in good faith in executing the delivery obligation it just “assumed” then the financial system supported by that clearance and settlement system is in deep trouble. Why?

In slow motion what happens in “novation” is that an NSCC “fraternity brother” sells securities to somebody half way around the world. Two seconds later it now owes the CCP (the NSCC) the delivery of those shares. The NSCC also just happens to act as the “fraternity headquarters”. The seller of securities all of a sudden now owes itself as a fraternity member and its fellow fraternity brothers the delivery of that which it just sold.

The NSCC just so happens to qualify as an extremely “forgiving fraternity”. A “forgiving fraternity” says to its fraternity brother debtors now that your debt is owed to yourself and your fraternity brothers you don’t have to deliver that which you sold previously as long as you at least collateralize the monetary amount of your failed delivery obligation. The clever part is that as all of these failures to deliver (FTDs) that give rise to readily sellable “securities entitlements” invisibly pile up in the share structure of the corporations targeted by fraternity brothers for destruction then the share price of the corporation predictably plummets. As the share price plummets so too do the collateralization requirements. Why? Because they are “marked to market” on a daily basis based upon the share price.

As the collateralization requirements plummet the money of the unknowing investor on the buy side of that trade involving a failure to deliver flows to the selling fraternity brother despite the fact that he still hasn’t delivered that which it sold. In fact in a system with a “forgiving fraternity” that which was sold never needed to exist in the first place.

Now how clever is that? You sell something that doesn’t exist and two seconds later you owe the debt to yourself and your extremely forgiving fraternity brothers. As if by magic this then automatically results in the investment proceeds of the investor getting duped to flow into the wallet of the fraternity brother that just has to merely refuse to deliver that which he sold. But don’t you have to worry about the fraternity headquarters forcing the fraternity brothers to deliver that which they sold so that they can “execute” on the delivery obligations it “assumed”? No, that’s part of the deal with a “forgiving fraternity”.

The fraternity h

Here’s the bottom line. IF Parick who knows or a Warren who knows can NOT defend themselves…that what does that say for the avg investor. Keep in mind there are GOOD guys.Many of them reside on this board. Yet remember the names of the BAD GUYS. THEIR TIME will come.

Imagine a company with 1 million shares out, all owned by insiders. Simply naked short 3 million shares to yourself in another account. All you have to put up is 2%, temporarily, as the sale is a wash.

Each share is only worth 1/4 of a vote because there are 4 million entitlements outstanding.

You would own 3 million x .25 = .75 million votes and the insiders would only own 250,000 votes.

Use your votes for whatever evil you want, such as buying the company for a song, then reverse your trade and get your 2% back.

Recs: 0 An Interesting Article – from The Guardian & The Observer

These bankers are lucky that they are not going to jail
The government has been too timid about confronting these failed financiers. It’s time that it showed some teeth

Assuming it is out of the question to hang, draw and quarter Sir Fred Goodwin, pluck out his intestines while they are still warm and wriggling, stuff them into his greedy mouth and then display his severed head on a spike at the Tower of London, could we settle for shooting him instead? Yes, I know, I’m going soft.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/01/fred-goodwin-pension-rbs