Shocking insights into the mind of a naked short seller

This is the final three minutes of today’s Bloomberg-TV hosted debate between former SEC Commissioner Roel Campos and infamous short seller Manuel Asensio.

Warning: the following video clip is not safe for work.

Not because the content itself contains inappropriate language, but because of the language it will very likely evoke upon watching it.

This is the final three minutes of today’s Bloomberg-TV hosted debate between former SEC Commissioner Roel Campos and infamous short seller Manuel Asensio.

What this represents, more than anything, is confirmation of the long-suspected belief that naked short sellers inhabit an alternate moral universe, complete with an alternate version of reality.

There might be no other explanation for what transpires in this debate, which includes such gems as the following by Asensio:

“There should be no reason to borrow stock. One should be able to sell stock at will, regardless of whether the people that are manipulating the stock up are willing to lend it to short sellers…There is absolutely no economic reason why America should cause and force short sellers to borrow stock.”

You’ve been warned…

(you can view the full debate here)

As a post-script, it’s worth pointing out that, by way of ascribing motives to otherwise incomprehensible actions, Gary Weiss spent much of his career at Business Week fawning over and taking orders from Asensio. Here are some examples.

  1. Arsenio sounds like a sociopath.. and no wonder Weiss loves him so much. Birds of a feather.

    What doesn’t make sense is Bloomberg giving this guy any exposure. And the moderator should be canned. She’s an idiot.

  2. asensio’s point is ridiculous and absurd when one thinks about market structure and what markets are set up to do, which is to test the limits of what is possible. under his great idea, it would be “possible” for someone to short more shares than than the outstanding float on a company. If it “can” happen, its only a matter of when, not if. Let’s think about what the LEH short CDS position ended up doing.

  3. Why isn’t Charles Manson appearing on this show…he has about the same moral character as the naked short sellers…..

  4. And if you go to his website, there are several quotes appear across the top. Among others, there are a few names that readers of Deep Capture will recognize, each of which extolling the virtues of what a great genius Asensio is…..

    1) James J. Cramer
    2) Bethany McLean (2x)
    3) Gary Weiss
    4) Whitney Tilson (3x)
    5) Wikipedia (I wonder who authored his entry and whether or not it can be modified….)

  5. Excellent. Weiss called Asensio, “The Mad Cuban.”

    Asensio also provided information to Charles Gasparino. I should know. Gasparino and I had coffee and discussed Asensio.
    in 2000 Gasparino did not know that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stated that on the NYSE you could not sell stock short on a minus tick unless you owned the stock.

    Ed Manfredonia

  6. I have one question for Mr. Asensio:

    If you don’t believe that you should be required to borrow shares that you want to sell, then what exactly are you selling to the people who are giving you money?!?!?

  7. When this finally blows up (and it WILL) I want to see who starts spilling their guts first. My money is on Herbie G but Gary W is looking a close third to Herb and Jimmy C(ramer) right about now!!!

  8. Ass-ensio is a senseless sociopath who needs some nice jailtime to straighten out his thinking cap.

    When is the SEC going to a.) retroactively collect all outstanding FTD’s, b.)punish these creeps, and c.) act in the interest of the American investor?,

  9. Thank the cretin. He did things for us today we couldn’t even do for ourselves.

    It made me ill, I have to admit.

  10. I believe that Bloomberg did us a great favor. That video just made Asencio the poster child for what is sick with our security industry. What he blurted out should become our rallying point to use against them. By their own words they condemn themselves. Thanks ever so much.

  11. With the hundreds and hundreds of ties between naked short sellers and the mafia identified just on this website (including this guy) should this “I’m above the law” attitude really shock anyone? Where’s the DOJ?

  12. I believe it would be great to adopt the same moral character displayed here by asencio……. Quite a defense,,,,, “Your honor, there is no reason I should be held accountable for any crime, I was merely ridding the world of a sociopath.”

  13. Asenio laid bare the self-justification of those who engage in naked short selling. There’s no longer reason to ask what these people telling themselves. Based on his wicked sense of entitlement, he and his compatriots have decided they are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of what law dictates. That behavior would be defined as sociopathic. The more these guys talk, the more they reveal their true criminal nature and extreme mental illness.

  14. And so now the SEC wants ‘industry’ input before instituting any shortselling restrictions…

    Alice in Wonderland had a more logical world.

  15. If ASS-encio were, say, a tax rebel stating that we don’t need to pay our taxes, it’s a fair bet the IRS would take an immediate and keen interest in his books.

    Now in the case of the SEC hearing this idiot…

  16. I am absolutely amazed. Did the guy not here what he is saying. You can sell something you do not have? Jeez…that is the most criminal thing I have ever heard. Chanos will be on tommorrow telling how wonderful this guys interview was….

  17. It’s laughably predictable that the short shills will be bleating their gregorian chants of innocence and piousness tomorrow on all the corrupted news channels that will have them.

    Sad, actually.

  18. If this flies, then I say we sell all the mansions these sociopaths live in, After all, we should not have to purchase it to sell it? At least when we sell it the buyer will actually get something….
    There is some serious mental issues at play here. I guess when you have succeeded in ripping off the US markets with the help of our regulatory agencies and now you have money and power, all that is left to achieve is gone. All the money and all the power only leads to paranoia about having to part with all the money and all the power. I would hate to be his physician. They soon start thinking every little twitch or ache is a terminal illness. The fear of having to part with their criminal financial success kicks in and they want every scan known to mankind done….radiating the chit out of them so then they might actually develop some weird cancer.
    This is narcissism at it finest folks…

  19. Let’s not make too much of a medical ‘disease’ model for what is actually moral turpitude.

    Otherwise, if sentenced, they get to enjoy a 60-day spa visit for rehabilitation.

  20. Over the years I’ve had the opportunity to write extensively on the psychology of abusive naked short selling and I noticed a glimpse of the standard justification for this (mis)behavior in this interview. The short seller mentioned something to the effect that after the manipulators had manipulated the share price upwards whether or not they are willing to lend shares to naked short sellers shouldn’t be an issue.

    In other words the abusive naked short seller is acting as a “securities cop” attempting to thwart “pump and dumps”. In my opinion this helps them to sleep at night. Some people might take issue at committing a blatant fraud to address a perceived fraud, however. The natural question that arises is how did the abusive naked short seller gain his expertise in every business sector under the sun in order to make his diagnosis that the share price was too high.

    Another question that arises is who did the deputizing? The answer comes back that it is typically the DTCC, FINRA and the tacit approval provided by the SEC’s Enforcement Division that has seen a gazillion investor complaints without rendering one administrative proceeding. Meanwhile FINRA has made a gazillion recommendations to the SEC Enforcement Division yet not one involving abusive naked short selling.

    Another question that might arise is how can these “investor advocates” steal money from investors without batting an eye. The mindset that arises here is that the investors that they are ripping off represent “collateral damage” that is unfortunate but must occur in order for them to save the investment funds of later investors who can’t invest in already bankrupted U.S. corporations. But don’t they realize that knocking the price per share down to near zero only increases the line of opportunistic investors and doesn’t shorten it?

    What it boils down to is that U.S. corporations like sandcastles are much easier to destroy then to build due primarily to the phraseology used in UCC Article-8 regarding “securities entitlements” and their holders having the ability “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security that they are “entitled” to. Today was a very good day for the market reform advocates!

  21. Reprehensible as it is, I will be amazed tomorrow (and each day following) if the SEC sides with comments on this board rather than with Ascensio. The fact is, the SEC has been siding with him throughout the past year, at least in terms of enforcement if not in open rhetoric. Let’s watch and see what the agency does, including enforcement of whatever they say. JMOO

  22. Since Ascensio believes it is acceptable to sell something he does not own and has not borrowed, I trust he would not object to being paid with currency the buyer does not have and has not borrowed? That would be a fair exchange, an “IOU” for an “IOU” and then the parties could just sit and wait each other out. I wonder how strong his investment returns would be if his down side manipulation with counterfeit shares were always met with up side manipulation using pretend money.

    Scum like this could not even compete, much less win, without cheating.

    As for Campos, Levitt, Pitt and any other SEC types now warning about naked short selling, thanks for joining the party but I must ask: Where the hell were you when it mattered?

  23. Regarding post #25, I should have said “former SEC types” in the last paragraph, but then again, there are no “current SEC types” speaking out against –to say nothing of taking action against– stock counterfeiting, delivery failures or bear raids in general, so I doubt anyone got confused.

  24. He’s a con artist.

    Welcome to Asensio Exposed. Where you’ll find what every investor needs to know about short-seller Manuel Asensio. But will never hear from him.

    His untold story is anything but pretty. It includes:

    • a $250,000 court judgment for defrauding a former client (he wiggled out on a technicality)

    • a recent verdict of securities fraud

    • secret client long positions in the stocks he calls “frauds”

    • prohibited “naked shorting” of stock

    • undisclosed hedge fund involvement in choosing targets and writing his recommendations

    • a checkered past [840 KB] that he conceals–even under oath

    Not to mention allegations that he harassed, threatened, and made shocking demands of everyone from Oprah to a medical school professor. And evidence that he might not have been able to remain in the securities industry at all—let alone move up to broker-dealer status—if he had disclosed the first jury verdict against him to regulators as he was obligated to do. But of course didn’t.

    No one barks louder than Asensio about “fraud and deception.” He says it’s because he has zero tolerance for impropriety. We say it’s because he’s trying to divert attention from the rattling skeletons in his own closet. They know, and he knows, who the real fraud is.

  25. Once a crook, always a crook. Words that come to mind: narcissism, sociopath, insecure

    He’s the kind of guy that invents nothing and builds nothing, but has a sense of entitlement and self importance way out of proportion to anything justified.

    We’ve previously reported on charges against Asensio and Integral that set this process in motion. These led to Asensio being barred from the brokerage industry and to fines against Integral. Asensio appealed the ruling, to no avail. His expulsion was upheld last August.

    Although NASD illicitly permitted him to own the brokerage from 2003 to 2006 even though he lacked the necessary registration during those years, this time things were different. According to his CPA’s report:

    As a result of [being barred, Asensio] was required to dispose of his ownership interest [in the brokerage] and resign from any further involvement with [its] operations …Because of this significant change in ownership, the Company was required to submit to NASD an application for continuing membership…. review [of the application] is continuing as of the date of this report.

    The above conditions raise serious doubt as to whether the Company can continue as an NASD member firm. [Asensio] also intends to pursue reinstatement, but the outcome of such reinstatement effort presently cannot be determined.

    That was the state of the brokerage as of March, 2007. But only two months later, Integral withdrew from the industry. At least one reason is clear: it had not paid the $26K fine for its rule violations.

    NASD is now known as FINRA. In August, 2007, FINRA placed the following in Integral’s file:


  26. I think this clip helps our cause more than it hurts it. This jerk is plainly exposed. If I am wrong, we are all in really deep trouble.

    Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Release: November 29, 2000
    NASD Regulation Sanctions Asensio & Company; Manuel Asensio, for Short Selling, Trade Reporting, and Internet Advertising Violations

    NASD Regulation Sanctions Asensio & Company; Manuel Asensio, for Short Selling, Trade Reporting, and Internet Advertising ViolationsWashington, D.C.—NASD Regulation, Inc., announced today a settlement in which Asensio & Company, Inc. and its President, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Compliance Officer, Manuel P. Asensio, were censured and fined $75,000 for short selling, trade reporting, and Internet advertising violations.

    NASD Regulation found that, from August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999, Asensio & Company failed to record affirmative determinations in connection with 306 short sale transactions for itself or its customers. In 117 of those transactions, the firm failed to make affirmative determinations at all.

    A short sale occurs when a security, not owned by the seller, is sold in anticipation of a decrease in the stock’s price. NASD rules require that when a member effects a short sale for its own account or accepts a short sale for a customer, the member must make an “affirmative determination,” in writing, that it can borrow the security or will be able to provide it for delivery. At a later time, the seller purchases the stock to complete the transaction.

    NASD Regulation also found that, from August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999, Asensio & Company reported 331 sale transactions to The Nasdaq Stock Market’s Automated Confirmation Transaction ServiceSM (ACTSM) without indicating that they were short sales, as required.

    In addition, NASD Regulation found that Asensio & Company’s Web Site violated NASD’s advertising rules. Seven research reports on the firm’s Web Site, which recommended short selling, failed to disclose the associated risks. Also, certain graphs in the Selected Performances section of the firm’s Web Site failed to provide a sound basis for evaluation, omitted material facts, or made misleading statements or claims. The Selected Performances section contained graphs showing the price performance over time of different securities. Each graph contained a downward facing arrow which appeared to show the date and the corresponding price when Asensio & Company issued its initial recommendation regarding the security. In addition, next to each graph were several sentences which appeared to be taken from Asensio & Company’s research report on the company.

    NASD Regulation found that:

    The Selected Performances section contained one graph of a security for which Asensio & Company did not issue a report and several quotations which did not come from actual recommendations. The graph purported to show that the firm recommended buying a security on a specific date. Next to the graph were two sentences explaining why the security’s price would likely rise. In fact, Asensio & Company never issued a written recommendation for that security. With respect to three other securities, the firm’s research reports did not contain the statements which appeared next to their respective graphs.
    On several of the graphs, the arrows did not point to correct prices or dates. Six arrows did not point to the actual dates when the firm made its initial recommendations. For example, on one graph, the arrow pointed to approximately January 31, 1997, when the closing price was $19.50. Asensio & Company, however, issued its initial “very strong sell recommendation” on that company on October 7, 1996, when the closing price was $15.50. In addition, on six of the graphs containing strong sell or short sell recommendations, the arrow pointed to a price which was higher than the price of the security on the date of Asensio & Company’s actual recommendation.
    On two of the graphs, after the time period illustrated on the charts, the price of the securities reversed direction.
    NASD rules require that members must cite all relevant past recommendations. Nonetheless, while the Selected Performances section contained graphs covering the time period from January 1994 to August 1998, it excluded one sell and four buy recommendations made by Asensio & Company during that same time period. Those five recommendations were not included anywhere on the Web site.
    NASD Regulation further found that, through Manuel Asensio’s Internet account, associated persons of Asensio & Company posted at least 14 bulletin board messages which did not disclose any connection with the firm but, instead, used unrelated screen names. One posting stated, in part: “Asensio & Company’s research is precise. … I have no affiliation with, and have no interest in Asensio or [the issuer].” Another posting was entitled: “Asensio stands for the truth.” Communications posted by members or their associated persons on electronic bulletin boards or message boards are considered “advertisements” under NASD rules and, as such, they are subject to approval, recordkeeping, filing, and content requirements.

    NASD Regulation also found that Asensio & Company failed to file, with NASD Regulation’s Advertising Regulation Department, 43 research reports regarding nine issuers and a brochure regarding the firm, all of which were contained on the Web Site. In addition, the firm failed to file at least 71 messages which were posted on bulletin boards run by America Online and The Motley Fool.

    Asensio & Company and Manuel Asensio also failed to establish, maintain, and enforce procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the advertising rules, the rules relating to short selling, and the rules relating to trade reporting.

    In settling this matter, Manuel Asensio and Asensio & Company neither admitted nor denied NASD Regulation’s findings.

    In addition to a fine and a censure, Manuel Asensio and Asensio & Company will remove all advertisements which are the subject of the settlement from the firm’s Internet Web Site and any other Web Sites under their control. Before those advertisements may be used in the future, they must be filed with the Advertising Regulation Department of NASD Regulation. Manuel Asensio must requalify by examination as a registered General Securities Principal (Series 24). The firm also agreed to retain an outside consultant to review and make recommendations concerning the firm’s current policies and procedures as they relate to the settlement.

    This case was brought by NASD Regulation’s Enforcement Department with assistance from NASD Regulation’s Market Regulation and Advertising/Investment Companies Regulation Departments.

    Investors can obtain more information about NASD Regulation as well as the disciplinary record of any NASD-registered broker or brokerage firm by calling (800) 289-9999, or by sending an e-mail through NASD Regulation’s Web site,

    NASD Regulation oversees all U.S. stockbrokers and brokerage firms. NASD Regulation, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., The American Stock Exchange LLC, and NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. are subsidiaries of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD®), the largest securities-industry self-regulatory organization in the United States.


    December 17, 2003

  28. I believe that price reflects the law of supply and demand at any given time. I just want to be allowed to operate a business model that can conveniently side step that law and also be allowed to market that business model’s services to the world by standing on some “moral high ground” that I am the “Dog the Bounty Hunter” of beat cops in the securities industry.

  29. What the hell is a “partitioner” Asensio sounded and looked like an ignorant street hustler trying to use big words that he had never used before. Did he mean “practitioner”? “Participant”? I don’t know who is uglier and more deceitful, Chanos with his Ronald McDonald hairdo, or this ready for the big house Asensio.

    Wonder if Campos felt like he needed a shower after that exchange with the Slime Factor.

  30. I once caught a sneak thief in my office suite with her hand inside my secretary’s purse, which had been hidden (not very well) in a desk drawer.

    The young girl, with her hand still inside the purse, denied having her hand inside the purse.

    With Asensio we are seeing progress of a sort. He is admitting he has his hands inside our wallets and purses.

    But he has a fallback position. He says it is legal for him to grab our money and run away. Well, actually, he says it is not only legal, but beneficial for society as a whole to allow him to continue to transport money from our wallets and purses into his vault, and that any new rules that might impede the liquidity of these transactions are inadvisable.

    Here is our battleground. Is naked shorting legal? No media outlet to date has described it as criminally “illegal”. They are reluctant to even suggest that there are people like us who claim it is criminally illegal.

    The billionaires who have made their personal fortunes via the FTD route are mounting a public relations campaign to convince our citizenry that it is perfectly legal. They have the SEC and FINRA on their side. It does none of us here any good to to grouse with each other how illegal it is, and how crooked the perps are. While we preach to the choir, the enemy is controling the public discourse on the subject.

    Instead of public demands for immediate criminal prosecution, we get public demands for reinstatement of the uptick rule.

    Instead of public demands for immediate buy-ins by brokers for any FTD beyond T+3, with no grandfathering whatsoever, we get, at best, a vocal minority calling for absolute pre-borrows for future short trades, and I’m not sure that demand includes elimination of the market-maker exception.

    It’s simple. Selling something you don’t own is criminal fraud.

    The Bloomberg clip for me only highlighted how the naked short sellers have set the agenda for public discourse on the issue of their massive crimes. I found it quite discouraging, since Bloomberg, as opposed to the WSJ or Barron’s, seems to be on our side to a significant degree.

    I would like to see the public discourse address issues like:

    1. Immediate seizure of the DTCC by the Department of Justice.

    2. Followed by full public disclosure of the real securities “float” of all publicly traded U.S. corporations, which would include all “securities entitlements”.

    3. Immediate buy-in of all FTDs beyond T+3 by the seller’s broker.

    4. Prosecution of all corporations, their officers, directors and employees, who engaged in FTDs as a “trading strategy”.

    5. Disgorgement of all profits, commissions, and salaries earned as a result of intentional FTD transactions, as a pre-condition to any plea bargains. Jail terms measured in decades, if not lifetimes, for those who won’t cooperate.

    6. Voiding all FTD sales, defined as FTD by T + 3, and return of money to the buyers in those transaction, as measured by the share price on the date the sale was booked.

    7. And, finally, a complete redesign of the securities markets to make it impossible for anybody to earn a living as a stock trader.

    As for #7, I puke whenever I hear somebody tell me that short trading of stocks is an effective tool for price discovery as a preface to a condemnation of naked short selling. There is no evidence to support that theory. The theory flies in the face of everything we have seen in our adult lifetimes with regards to the actual operation of our securities markets.

    The purpose of our stock market is the allocation of scarce capital into the businesses which will best utilize it. The obvious purpose of stock trading is to destabilize the market to produce wild price swings upon which a fortune can be made without having to actually do any real work. Traders have achieved this purpose with investment banks getting 39:1 leverage on their money, and naked short sellers getting almost infinite leverage by counterfeiting shares. They have intentionally produced the tech bubble and the housing bubble, which represent unimaginably huge misallocations of scarce capital.

    No major media outlet focuses on stock investing. They ignore it entirely if favor of promoting a trading culture. We allocate capital by computer trading programs based upon charts and mathematical formulas which do nothing more than try to predict in advance the actions of other stock traders. This is the modern day equivalent of soothsaying over entrails and the casting of bones. There is no reason to assume that this process will properly allocate scarce capital.

    Unfortunately, Wall St. knows and understands what is really at stake here, and they will fight to preserve their trading industry at all costs. That is why it is hard to get their leaders at the SEC and FINRA to do anything which might impede trading activity of any sort. Maybe they finally busted Madoff not because of his fraud, but because he hadn’t traded any securities for his Ponzi fund for over a decade. You simply can’t have that. 😉

    Right now, their mantra is that anything that interferes with trading of any sort is really bad. “Liquidity” is their god. You shall know your foe by his demand for more liquidity in securities transactions. By the way, transparency impedes liquidity. If you have to keep track off and report trading activity, you will slow it down.

    Perhaps I’m too impatient. Maybe having a foe admit he’s got his hand in my wallet is a good starting point for discussion of the propriety of his conduct. But we need to push the agenda more in our direction, and less in the direction of those who are now sweating just a little bit about keeping their vaults full and their rear ends out of a jail cell.

    Wouldn’t it have been great for the Bloomberg moderator to ask Asensio why his assets should not be immediately seized and a cell reserved for him at Sing Sing?

    Now that’s what I’m talking about!!!


  31. Somewhere lost in this discussion is the fact that we are talking about U.S. “Corporations” domiciled in any of our 50 states. First came the concept of doing business as a “Corporation”. Only later came the desire to trade the units of equity ownership of these corporations we refer to as “shares” in a public format.

    What has transpired is the entire concept of a “Corporation” with a finite amount of these “shares” has been thrown under the bus to look after the financial interests of those acting as “securities intermediaries” in these markets utilized to trade these “shares” in a public format. Long gone is the underlying concept of “one share, one vote”. Long gone is the underlying concept that the share price of one of these units of equity ownership is based upon the interaction of the “supply” of readily sellable “shares” i.e. the “float” with the “demand” for these readily sellable “shares”.

    The securities markets never did have the statutory rights to allow the trading of certain derivative securities that distort the sovereignty of the underlying state-domiciled “Corporation”. Nowadays clever securities fraudsters can easily manipulate the “supply” and “demand” of this “float” of readily sellable shares through credit default swaps and the assumption of “synthetic long positions” via reverse conversion strategies.

    These publicly-traded “markets” have in essence been “hijacked” by those “securities intermediaries” ENTRUSTED by the investing public with a superior knowledge of, access to and visibility of our clearance and settlement system.

    Due to the phraseology used in UCC Article 8-501 until there is appreciation of the underlying concept that ANY failure to deliver securities by T+3 results in the “issuance” of readily sellable “shares” albeit “shares” that TECHNICALLY have no “legal owner” and that are TECHNICALLY not “outstanding” then attempts at truly meaningful reform will fall short. The tricky nature of “securities entitlements” in which the holder has to be treated as having the right “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security” needs to be appreciated as this is also the definition of a “share”. Whether the “shares” being “issued” with each and every failure to deliver T

    When the NSCC management congressionally mandated “to act in the public interest, provide investor protection and “promptly settle” all securities transactions as well as in possession of 15 of the 16 sources of empowerment to execute buy-ins pleads to be “powerless” to execute buy-ins then it becomes obvious that failures to deliver cannot be allowed to occur in the first place.

    The “buy-in” is the ONLY cure available when the seller of securities absolutely refuses to deliver that which he sold. The fear of a “buy-in” is the ONLY source of meaningful deterrence to abusive naked short selling crimes. When those empowered to provide this ONLY source of meaningful deterrence and ONLY cure available when the sellers of securities absolutely refuse to deliver that which they sell (the NSCC management) then OBVIOUSLY failures to deliver can’t be allowed in the first place.

    If the UNCONFLICTED SROs and UNCONFLICTED regulators and UNCONFLICTED members of the congressional oversight committees can’t recognize that those withholding this ONLY source of meaningful deterrence and ONLY cure to these crimes are doing it to look after the financial interests of their bosses the abusive NSCC participants refusing to deliver that which they sell then our financial system is in deep trouble. The critical role of the “buy-in” and the critical role of the phraseology used in UCC Article 8-501 which supports these thefts need to be appreciated.

  32. So, by this logic, if I sell short my house twice and use the proceeds from one of the sales to pay off the mortgage, do I just keep the money from the 2nd short sale and live the good life?

  33. Un-friggin-believable…I had to see it to believe it…

    “There is absolutely no economic reason why America should cause and force short sellers to borrow stock.”

    …The America I live in has something about this written into it’s Constitution…Article 1 section 10 to be exact…and that states:

    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS [capitalized for emphasis], or grant any Title of Nobility.”

    Perhaps a little lesson in history is in order for Mr. Asensio. Part of the idea behind this particular clause was to curtail the practice of “private relief” laws written by state legislatures, laws that essentially forgave certain colonial debtors from their obligations to their creditors. This made it entirely too risky for foreign creditors and merchants to consider making any sort of investment, because they stood to lose 100% of their investment and had no method of legally enforcing their contracts. Without foreign investors and merchants, America never would have made it out of its infancy to become the economic powerhouse that we are known as throughout the world today.

    There is an extremely valid economic reason for America to “cause and force short sellers to borrow stock”, because if there is no safe way to enforce our purchase contracts and protect our investments, we will stop investing altogether, and our market will choke and die.

    I hope this video makes it to all the dark corners of the internet, people need to hear this garbage straight from the horse’s mouth to really appreciate the distorted views and outrageous mindset held by the very people who have perpetrated this fraud on our marketplace.

  34. paragraph 5 should have read:

    Due to the phraseology used in UCC Article 8-501 until there is appreciation of the underlying concept that ANY failure to deliver securities by T+3 results in the “issuance” of readily sellable “shares” albeit “shares” that TECHNICALLY have no “legal owner” and that are TECHNICALLY not “outstanding” then attempts at truly meaningful reform will fall short. The tricky nature of “securities entitlements” in which the holder has to be treated as having the right “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security” needs to be appreciated as this is also the definition of a “share”. Whether the “shares” being “issued” with each and every failure to deliver TECHNICALLY have a “legal owner” or TECHNICALLY are “outstanding” makes no difference as they are still readily sellable as if they were legitimate “shares” issued by a corporation. They have all of the share price depressant effect from a dilutional point of view as the real McCoy.

  35. Really, that was a piss-poor debate.

    * When pressed, Compos only responded that the reason against naked selling is (paraphrasing) “that is how we’ve always done it” and gave no tabgible reasons against naked shorting, like, oh, if legaliazed one can “sell” all or MORE then the public float of these “virtual” shares.
    * Asencio only stated that it stops the shorters from doing their jobs of “finding the correct price” (whatever the hell that means) with no explaination of WHY abolishing Naked Shorting would prevent short sellers from doing this.
    * The reporter seemed quite uninformed on the subject as her questioning was, at best, homoginized. I expect more from Bloomberg.

  36. Thanks DCN. That is what is needed. Put names and faces along with pertinent information so they can be addressed. Too much with the SEC says. NO, there are people in place. Who are they? DTCC. Who are they. Hedge funds. Who are THEY?

    Personalizing it allows one to see the thug and then is motivated to address.

  37. If I borrow money money from the bank I have to provide collateral today not tomorrow or 3 days later This guy is a complete dummy who lives on borrowed time to gain profit counterfait fraud theft….u name it one is for sure this is a monster created by insiders who have no other agenda than to steal.
    Legalizing this dishonesty is absolutely wrong. Claiming whatever they want you to hear is BS. How many business got lost over the past 15 year 10’000 or 15’000. NSS is not transparent and SEC or DTCC is prtecting all this people who are involved with
    REMEMBER CMKX APPROX 50’000 share holders are fighting for justice.

  38. If people could not sell something they don’t own then all short selling would be illegal including naked shorts.

    Make all short selling illegal!

  39. Whatever justification short sellers might offer, they always gloss over one fact: theirs is a zero-sum game. What they gain, remaining shareholders lose. If a current shareholder can be enticed to lend his shares legitimately – whether through direct payment or via the likely poorly misunderstood terms of a margin account – then a short sale indeed aids in price discovery. The lender of shares gains a benefit either from fees paid or a lower margin interest rate than would otherwise be assessed.

    In contrast, those who take a long position are financing a prospective creation of wealth, as the equity issuer endeavors to make and market products and/or services at a profit. This is a greater than zero-sum game, especially in the aggregate. The purchase of stock also aids price discovery.

    The incentives are different – the short seller seeks to take as much as possible away from the investor. The investor seeks to gain from wealth creation by the company. Both positions can benefit from manipulation and fraud of course, but the ability of certain of the former to sell shares without restraint nor fear of meaningful punishment has made this a preferred means of acquiring – stealing – vast wealth through fraud. Those who would “pump and dump” are constrained, after all, by the limited number of shares that can be bought. They also have to reverse their trade at one point, not necessarily the case for the fraudulent short seller.

    One other aspect of contrasting manipulations is that short-selling fraudsters can mount an attack on the holdings of existing shareholders who had evaluated a company’s business and prospects prior to a fraudulent short-selling attack. Such shareholders may have made a very rational decision, based upon due diligence, to purchase ownership in a company whose prospects appear favorable. A pump and dump scheme depends on attracting gullible speculators who can only be buying on the basis of momentum, sans any reasonable due diligence.

    The vulnerability to fraudulent short selling of companies with relatively thinly traded shares has become more and more obvious over the past several years, thanks in large part to the efforts of the creators and contributors of this site. This growing visibility, while helping the investor to recognize where the thieves may strike, has unfortunately dramatically increased the cost of capital for young, innovative companies that have historically been the source of many new jobs and wealth creation in this country. We – or more precisely, the SEC – have allowed the crooks to kill our young and/or those who would otherwise be only temporarily weak.

    Claiming that NSS strengthens markets is akin the saying that releasing a pack of wolves into a pasture would strengthen a flock of sheep. First the young and weak are eaten as the wolves feast. As the wolves grow in strength the flock ceases to grow and actually begins to shrink. The wolves work together to isolate and take down even the strong , until none are safe. Sounds like the markets today, doesn’t it?

  40. The SEC is opening a 60 day comment period. You can rest assured there will be long treatises showing that the current crisis was caused by many other forces than short selling. The focus will be deflected away from NAKED short selling, always. The SEC will be able to find support in the comments for whatever action they want to take.

    And even then, there is no guarantee that they will enforce their own regulations.

    The only way to really cure it is to pass legislation along the lines recently proposed, but which additoinally makes it clear that a violation is criminal and can be investigated by DOJ. The SEC should be given regulatory oversight and compelled to enforce as well, but in the end there should be criminal actions.

  41. I agree with Mr. Byrne, Manuel’s address should not be published, here. At any rate, I really appreciate the effort here, and it is necessary though insufficient to repair the economy. The Doc is right in asserting mental illness as having explanatory power in the case of Manuel.

    It strikes me how much the behavior of Manuel resembles behavior exhibited by the Emperors of the past. As far as I can tell, people like Manuel are being used to further the interest of someone wishing to destroy the modern concepts of the corporate entity, of which Overstock is one example.

    Even if success is achieved, and naked short selling is stopped, the other areas in which the corporate entity is under attack will need concerted defensive effort, and the attacking force (for lack of a better term) should be discovered and, stressed (as it were) if modernity is to survive.

  42. We need to take note of Raol Campos focus. Keep the message simple. The only issue is delivery of what is sold.

    Stay away from language that can be deflected into short selling in general, or the cause of the meltdown, etc. Just stay focused on: DELIVERY OF WHAT IS SOLD.

    That message is more likely to spread.

    (You will notice that Manuel did not speak to that matter at all.)

  43. As predicted, Chanos on the wires

    By Joseph Checkler


    NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Noted short seller James Chanos said Wednesday that Securities and Exchange Commission proposals to curb short sellers must be weighed against the possibility of “ill-conceived” government intervention, in a statement made in his capacity as chairman of the Coalition of Private Investment Companies.

    CPIC issued the statement in response to the SEC’s vote Wednesday morning to seek public comments on all proposed rules that would limit short sales.

    “Skeptics, independent research and critical analysis must continue to play a vibrant role for our markets to grow sustainably and with integrity,” Chanos said.

    The SEC will consider two kinds of proposals: one that would create market-wide restrictions and another that would look at individual securities. Among the considerations is the restoration of the “uptick” rule, which allows a stock to be shorted only if the last trade price was higher than the previous price.

    “Proposals to inhibit short selling have the effect of limiting this vital market-based antidote to corporate fraud and speculative bubbles, and must be carefully weighed against the clear harm that comes from ill-conceived government intervention in basic market functions,” Chanos said.

    Chanos, who runs Kynikos Associates, is famous for making the right call on Enron Corp. (ENE), which he started investigating in 2000, a year before the company’s collapse.

    CPIC is a group of private investment companies.

    -By Joseph Checkler; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4297; [email protected]

  44. We need to emphasize that insisting on delivery of what is sold is not an attcck on short selling, which is what people like Chanos are trying to say.

  45. Yesquire, I couldn’t agree more.

    “1. Immediate seizure of the DTCC by the Department of Justice.

    2. Followed by full public disclosure of the real securities “float” of all publicly traded U.S. corporations, which would include all “securities entitlements”.”

  46. How could one ever trust anyone that looks, sounds and says what this preposterous character Asenio advocates?

  47. I keep hearing this argument that short selling helps in price discovery. Isn’t price set by the rule of supply and demand (a stock is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it)? I understand that short selling can help to increase liquidity in the market, but just because short selling increases liquidity does not mean that liquidity helps with price discovery. More liquidity is just more liquidity. I’d surely appreciate it if someone would show me the data that shows just what short selling does that is vitally important to the whole price discovery process, but absent proof, I have to admit the whole argument just sounds regurgitated and without merit.

  48. Manuel Ass… doesn’t give a rat’s ass about discovery, price or otherwise. As long as nobody discovers what he’s doing to cripple investors.

  49. Regarding this notion of “price discovery”, something occurred to me:

    Buyers will always seek the lower price. Short Sellers have an incentive to drive the price down. Therefore, as they are selling the shares that they borrow (or don’t), it is very easy for them to say to a potential buyer “Look, XYZ just traded for $100 per share. I can sell it to you for $97, $96, $95…..

    So, if they are providing a share (and that is a big IF) for a lower price, a buyer is always going to take advantage of the opportunity to buy at a lower price. So, this notion that Short Sellers are helping to “discover the fair price” is absurd because they are incentivized to drive the price down. When you factor that in with the now widely-held belief that many Short Sellers are not borrowing or delivering the share that they are selling, it is going to do great damage to share prices.

    Why is it that the only people who don’t seem to understand this are those who are strongly in favor of (and likely profiting from) Short Selling??

  50. Government Accountability Office:

    How in the hell can the regulatory authorities for publicly traded equities look the other way when it concerns “NAKED SHORT SELLING” WITH THE ABILITY TO COVER THOSE NAKED SHORT SHARES THAT WERE SOLD NAKED SHORT THREE YEARS EARLIER, THREE YEARS LATER BY STAGING ACTUALTRADES AND THEN ADDING TWO EXTERNALLY ADDED ZEROS TO THE VOLUME OF THESE ACTUAL TRADES!! You therefore have covered 5,000,000 plus “NAKED SHORT SALES” of Daleco Resources Corp three years later, with 1/100 of the actual volume of shares that were sold “NAKED SHORT” !! Who will ever pay any capital gains taxes on this transaction, since the transaction has been able to circumvent any scrutiny by any regulatory authority in the United States?

    Marv Eatinger

    —– Original Message —–
    From: marv eatinger
    To: ENFORCEMENT ; [email protected]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:42 PM

    Dear Regulatory Authorities For Publicly Traded Equities On United States Markets:
    Was Wall Street Equities, Inc. who was one of Daleco Resources Corp Market Makers from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 while Daleco was delisted to the Pink Sheets from the OTCBB market, involved in “Naked Short Selling” of Daleco’s common stock and the fraudulent addition of TWO ZEROS to all of Daleco’s actual trades from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 while Daleco was using two symbols of DLOV & DLVO while listed only the Pink Sheets????



    Marv Eatinger
    The following hypothesis is presented for evaluation:

    From approximately December 1, 1996 through January of 1997 Daleco Resources Corp had more than 9,000,000 Regulation “S” shares traded on the NASDAQ Market. WAS WALL STREET EQUITIES, INC. (DISCOUNT BROKER IN NEW YORK) ONE OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP MARKET MAKERS? How was Wall Street Equities, Inc. of Rhode Island connected to Wall Street Equities, Inc. of New York?

    On February 24, 1998 (official record) Daleco Resources Corp effected a 1 for 10 reverse split of its common stock. Prior to this February 24, 1998 date Daleco Resources Corp issued a press release stating that the effective date for the 1 for 10 reverse split was February 17, 1998! There is good evidence that Daleco was able to disguise and hide from the SEC in Daleco’s public filings, that this 1 for 10 reverse split ever took place. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAD AN OFFICIAL EFFECTIVE REVERSE SPLIT DATE OF FEBRUARY 24, 1998 (DALECO’S PUBLIC FILINGS WITH THE SEC), BUT ALSO HAD AN EFFECTIVE REVERSE SPLIT DATE OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (AS CHANGED WITH ITS CHARTER IN DELAWARE WITH FILING ON FEB. 17, 1998 WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE’S OFFICE) AS PART OF A DUAL AGENDA? INSTEAD OF A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT, IT MIGHT BE CONSTRUED AS A 1 FOR 100 REVERSE SPLIT AS PART OF A DUAL AGENDA?

    From March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 (while Daleco Resources Corp was deleted from the OTCBB and only listed on the Pink Sheets) Daleco Resources Corp had trading volume of 13,451,000 as shown on historical data. http://WWW.YAHOO.COM finance shows Daleco’s (symbol DLOV.OB) total trading volume for the period starting March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 as 144,500 shares. So, as associated with some certain area of regulatory control for public equities, Daleco Resources Corp would appear to have traded a total volume of 13,451,000 shares from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000, when in fact Daleco Resources Corp only traded a total volume of 144,500 shares DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME!


    During the period of time from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 Wall Street Equities, Inc. (discount broker in New York) was one of four market makers for Daleco Resources Corp while trading on the Pink Sheets.

    [ “J.B. Oxford, which sold off its main operations in 2004 as regulators closed in, did not return calls seeking comment.” ]


    Wall Street Equities, Inc.
    General Information
    Status: RC
    Charter: DBC
    Chapter: TITLE: 7-1.1-51
    Duration: PERPETUAL
    File Date: 04/29/1996
    Effective Date:N/A
    Last Report Date: N/A
    Archived Date: 09/20/1999
    Annual Report Image: Not available
    Help On Viewing Annual Reports

    Sic Code: 6130–

    Authorized Shares: 1,000 SHS NO PAR COMMON


    Publication: Business Wire
    Publication Date: 03-APR-02
    Format: Online – approximately words
    Delivery: Immediate Online Access

    Article Excerpt
    Business Editors


    With Its Fourth Acquisition, JB Oxford to Gain 3,800 Accounts

    and $140 Million in Customer Assets

    JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:JBOH), which through its JB Oxford & Company subsidiary is a leading provider of discount brokerage services to clients nationwide, has signed an asset purchase agreement to purchase the customer accounts of Wall Street Equities, Inc., a New York-based discount brokerage firm. Under the terms of the all-stock transaction, JB Oxford & Company…

    —– Original Message —–
    From: “Ron Franz”
    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,
    > [email protected] 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: and
    >> On March 8, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV – Daleco Resources CP of 26,200 shares:, and MSN Money
    >> On March 13, 2000 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:
    >> [email protected]

  51. Lucy Komisar has written about the naked shorting of US Treasuries at her Komisar Scoop website. If true, is it not clear that the entire financial system is owned by organized crime?

  52. Without having watched the video yet, I tried to collect something meaningful from the quote derived from this short seller surrounding apparent longs, i.e., institutions who might be loaning their shares to the other side of the table.

    From what I can tell, he seems to be stating that, potential loaners of shares with “inside knowledge” of certain companies, might be setting the shorts up for a beating from time to time.

    I am a large fan of Deep Capture and the coalition’s work, at the same time I am always trying to find objectivity.

    As an investor, I am finding the lack of transparency on the institutional side of the equation, to be just as perplexing and without full disclosure.

    For fun, I’m going to watch the video now. 🙂

  53. Love, love, love the new site! It’s top notch and new visitors will find their way around much easier. Thank you!

  54. I tried to log in on the right side and got negative messages. You might want to check that out. I’m posting here as a check.

  55. I do not believe any owner of any stock would agree to have their stock lent out to be used in any method of trading that eventually caused the value of the stock to fall. The small investor that has a 401k to invest in the market is always the loser of these usually very large trades by hedge funds that sell millions of shares at the higher price causing an additional large amount of selling too basically flood the market with shares resulting in the value (demand) to drop and forcing the price lower. This is simply a method of large traders being able to strip the appreciation of a stock’s growth and take out that value and then returning a borrowed stock back to an unknowing owner of the stock at the now lower value.

    I challenge any of you to tell me you would agree to lend your stock to be used in this way. I suspect no one here would agree to having your stock depreciated in this matter. Wall Street knows this and had the power to stop the selling of their stock short and avoided destroying the value of their shares.

    A small 401k investor does not have the power to protect his stock’s value.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Previous Article

Our Watchdogs and the Financial Scandal of the Century

Next Article

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Response To Deep Capture

Related Posts