Post by Bart on Jul 12, 2004 21:59:05 GMT -5
TEXT 
By: kranker2000
12 Jul 2004, 09:27 PM EDT
Msg. 39897 of 39902
(This msg. is a reply to 39762 by TonyToX.)
Jump to msg. #
What to do as a company since no regulator, except for maybe Spitzer, will help you in the least? Spitzer might be the only one with the ###### but he would have to take down a high profile organization, agency or two with his slam and, well it would just plain look bad. Besides, have there been any complaints by COMPANIES in New York State or only a few thousand individual investors. Probably not a lot of complaints from the financial firms in NY eh?
Picture this "Excuse me, this is Spitzer, you know, the guy that lives down the street. I am thinking about actually doing something about these complaints my constituents have brought to my attention in NYS. You wouldn't mind if I take a look see under the hood even though my budget for these matters is only a mere 2.5MM this year". "Surely, I can't do much with that pittance of a budget and well, you know, you guys with the Budget in the Billions have already looked into this trivial Naked Short thing".
And any of this will tie you up in court for years if not decades or BK the markets. Note the many other companies that have tried to fight the NSS to no avail.
In this one, of many speculative scenarios, the naked shorts would need to cover and .0003 is better than going BK.
This would account for seemingly UNLIMITED supply of shares available at .0003 as mentioned in the previous post. This would be a simple arrangement for MMs to handle company shares as they do on a daily basis. And why not come off the bid of 3 once in a while just to see how trading behaves without you. You know, just to take the temperature to see if the retail buyers are moving is up by themselves yet. If not, back to 3 and repeat.
Do not forget however that a company may choose to sell the NSS at .0003 through a qualified MM until their NSS is reasonable. Lets say to a level where the float is at least, oh lets see, more than 1 share or so for example. A company could stop the selling of the NSS through a qualified MM at the point where they wanted the float to be. Wherever that may be. After all, who would investigate as any findings could be an actual admission of the NSS problem, if found. And that would not be good... So set your own float boys!
How you say? How do we set our float to what we choose? DO not forget the company retirement of shares.
For EXAMPLE speculation, float was 10 billion. Naked was 300B. Then 20B were returned to the treasury. Oops, that makes -10B legal float. Does not matter, stock is behaving with 310B shares in the market so no movement.
Why, of course, you sell back you NSS until your new float is good for you.
That is the glory of this speculation. A lower float than where you started but not below 0. A float of 0 would only confuse the matter. And we don't like confusion.
All Speculation of course as this could never happen with all of the investor protections we have in place.
BTW, did anyone mention the fictitious company may have a high demand product?
-kranker
Take for what you think of it.
By: kranker2000
12 Jul 2004, 09:27 PM EDT
Msg. 39897 of 39902
(This msg. is a reply to 39762 by TonyToX.)
Jump to msg. #
What to do as a company since no regulator, except for maybe Spitzer, will help you in the least? Spitzer might be the only one with the ###### but he would have to take down a high profile organization, agency or two with his slam and, well it would just plain look bad. Besides, have there been any complaints by COMPANIES in New York State or only a few thousand individual investors. Probably not a lot of complaints from the financial firms in NY eh?
Picture this "Excuse me, this is Spitzer, you know, the guy that lives down the street. I am thinking about actually doing something about these complaints my constituents have brought to my attention in NYS. You wouldn't mind if I take a look see under the hood even though my budget for these matters is only a mere 2.5MM this year". "Surely, I can't do much with that pittance of a budget and well, you know, you guys with the Budget in the Billions have already looked into this trivial Naked Short thing".
And any of this will tie you up in court for years if not decades or BK the markets. Note the many other companies that have tried to fight the NSS to no avail.
In this one, of many speculative scenarios, the naked shorts would need to cover and .0003 is better than going BK.
This would account for seemingly UNLIMITED supply of shares available at .0003 as mentioned in the previous post. This would be a simple arrangement for MMs to handle company shares as they do on a daily basis. And why not come off the bid of 3 once in a while just to see how trading behaves without you. You know, just to take the temperature to see if the retail buyers are moving is up by themselves yet. If not, back to 3 and repeat.
Do not forget however that a company may choose to sell the NSS at .0003 through a qualified MM until their NSS is reasonable. Lets say to a level where the float is at least, oh lets see, more than 1 share or so for example. A company could stop the selling of the NSS through a qualified MM at the point where they wanted the float to be. Wherever that may be. After all, who would investigate as any findings could be an actual admission of the NSS problem, if found. And that would not be good... So set your own float boys!
How you say? How do we set our float to what we choose? DO not forget the company retirement of shares.
For EXAMPLE speculation, float was 10 billion. Naked was 300B. Then 20B were returned to the treasury. Oops, that makes -10B legal float. Does not matter, stock is behaving with 310B shares in the market so no movement.
Why, of course, you sell back you NSS until your new float is good for you.
That is the glory of this speculation. A lower float than where you started but not below 0. A float of 0 would only confuse the matter. And we don't like confusion.
All Speculation of course as this could never happen with all of the investor protections we have in place.
BTW, did anyone mention the fictitious company may have a high demand product?
-kranker
Take for what you think of it.
