An Opinion...fwiw

[fastwalker]

As a routine traveler of the boards, I've read and posted many topics, but the the most obvious aspect and or posts that sticks out, pertains to the notion being held by some CMKX investors that they are owed something, more than a fair share.

It sad to read these posts, in which some, even though their obvious understanding of the market is from a unrealistic viewpoint, espouse a steadfast belief they are due, they are in fact entitled.

I have no problem with that as such, they have sought to advance their position in CMKX, as the vehicle of their future wealth, just spare us of the constant whine...did you forget, we also share your fate?

Granted many entered the marketplace not with an eye to what they needed in the way of a long term and potentially solid investment, to really help themselves, but instead, saw the market as a "casino" and wanted the instant gratification instead of the now action.

The good thing about the extended delays of CMKX actually moving, is that most newbies now have a vision of the long term, instead of the myopic vision of the "get rich now." syndrome. Which I hope and believe will help them as they progress through life in the market place...at least I hope it will.

One thing I personally don't understand is the logic behind buying "huge" blocks of CMKX stock. Granted the more shares owned, the richer they would be. But think about the situation we are now in with the NSS and ask yourself, at what point did the "real" shares vanish and the air shares take over"

Is it possible that the continuous need to buy, was also instrumental in feeding the NSS problem?

It’s not without some trepidation that I say, my gut feeling is that a lot of our current problems are of our own making. Yeah, I know the management hasn't been up to speed, but in the past years, he was more than likely also driven by his personal agenda...after all he's only human.

Most of the longs suspected early last year, that CMKX / we were being shorted. But did we refrain from actually assisting those shorting the stock? Not really.

Go through many of the older posts on the various boards, and you will see that while many already had a “high position” in CMKX, they still wanted to purchase more.

What advantage is it for an individual to have 100, 300, 500 million shares? Well some would say the advantage is realized when the stock (PPS) moves. Yeah, they are correct in that sense, we did see the pps move, all the way down to the sub-penny basement.

Now logic would suggest, that if we knew last year that the stock was being shorted and we known now, with some relative certainty (by way of the OG) that indeed a “huge short” may in fact exist......... Why continue to purchase more stock, especially if you are confident that they are nothing more than air shares?

Why, because of greed, without regard to ramifications.
Guys, it’s a pretty simply process in the market place, when you strip away all of the bells and whistles.

Short sellers will sell if there is a market..look how low they dropped our stock and how greedily some were to scoop it up. Where and when do we actually engage in "damage control" and stop? Or is it simply every man for himself, with no regars to the actual consequences.

Hopefully the shorts will have to cover at some time, if we are to believe they have a fucntion to stabilize the market, but at what price to us, with such a massive outstanding NSS.

Do they need to cover? Again that is basically a decision they will make, or not.... unless they are actually forced to do so. as a result of being caught.

Well just how did we get here? One could assume that we arrived at this p[position because the company's dealings were not being reported. So, those predators in the loop (market) assumed it was a weak company and as a weak company, ripe for shorting. I’ve already stated in another post, the predatory attack plan for taking out a company through shorting.

Even now, CMKX's future is still in doubt, why? Because it (CMKX) has still not shown it is capable of being a viable,or strong company. Guys while the herd mentality is very strong in shareholders for obvious reasons, the "pack" mentality to attack, is just as strong and at times, much easier to initiate and follow through with.
As we know, the MMs operate in the pack mode, for the most part.

Ask herself why would the MMs back off, or for that matter the brokers, when nothing has come down the pike(PR) indicating otherwise?

Lets face it, the market is not only volatile, but chock full of people willing to separate you from your money, if you allow them. When more stocks are going down than up the average investor will have a problem to make a profit without undo risk. In the case of CMKX, traditional thinking does not apply, which is why I have always suggested "out of the box" thinking and approach to everything, including the PRs.


more...

[fastwalker]

continued...

As I’ve shown in my some of my other post, short selling has been with us for many years and isn't about to go anytime soon. Yeah there will more than likely be a lot of noise made regarding the NSS. But as I stated, unless we really get some of the elected people in our movement, get some serious reforms in the SEC, get some people in the SEC that will not deal with the crooks, but instead slam them, the reality is this, the markets will never change.

Now I’m not being negative here, simply realistic. I’ve authored enough posts and contacted enough people and done my best to get others involved in this movement, that being cited as negative is without merit. So I feel while that since I haven't bashed CMKX, I will still point out the obvious.

But first, I need to rant a bit about the SEC and the age old practice of the "spin" in which the SEC would have the general public believe is this relevant to NSS and market manipulations............

"The ability to borrow or lend property is a normal right of ownership and short-selling involves borrowing shares and agreeing to replace them later (the fact that brokerages act as middle-men in these transactions doesn’t change the nature of the transactions)."

I find a problem with that idea, in that that it stops far “short” of the truism, which is the nexus of the CMKX complaint.

“While allegedly extra shares are not created (dilution), in fact the long stock-holder ultimately loses his / her shares, and his / her rights as a share-holder (including voting rights), while the stock is being loaned,” and his or her opportunity to benefit financially from the stock from the NSS condition."

According to legend, the term ‘bear’ comes from those speculators in (‘sold short’ bearskins.) Short-selling is more straightforward and recognizable than many other aspects of our market / economic system. So it should be easier to detect, as say opposed to the practice of fractional reserve banking, where banks are allowed to “loan” ten to twenty times the amount of money that they have.

The SEC will no doubt put forward the notion (which they already hinted at) that Short-sellers, like the similarly maligned day-traders, provide liquidity, which benefits the stock market. Further, that successful short-selling involves buying high and selling low. By taking the opposite positions of long investors, short-sellers, at least in theory, help moderate markets. But as we know, this is the crux of short selling and not Naked Short Selling...

I will also assume, that the SEC will elaborate even further by falling back onto the old tired statement …“A short sale can only be closed with an offsetting purchase: this purchase lends a bid to the market, or in other words, gives upside momentum to the market.” Short covering causes bottoms--that is, shorts, when they cover, put an end to a stock's fall.”<br>
Again this argument is directed at "short selling" and not naked short selling.

In my other post I stated that many Americans over the years (1940-1980) have always looked to the SEC as the “watchdog” of the marketplace. We have seen however, many examples where the watchdog was obviously asleep and or negligent and many countless investors have lost their life earnings.

Maybe that is why most American’s have the lost confidence in the SEC and the politics of the day. It isn’t business as usual for the investing public, but rather it's TCOB (taking care of business) when you are one of the crooks making it happen.

For years, most investors relied on the notion, that unwise buyers can sell stocks for bad reasons and can cause downward price movements, that bad short sellers can similarly cause stocks to rise when they cover either for bad reasons or out of necessity to satisfy margin equity requirements. Which could be seen as the thrust of the SEC’s argument when dealing with the “legal” short selling. And one that they may contend applies to the NSS.

But to say, or suggest as Donaldson did to Senator Bennett, that NSS can some how help the market, because it “magically” enhances price discovery and liquidity: price discovery because those who feel a stock is mis- priced can bet against a stock and put the stock in a more appropriate price level, and liquidity because the more buyers and sellers there are (of which a short seller is eventually both), the smaller the spread and the greater the volume.

Yeah right, again short selling and not NSS. Sadly, this man actually thinks we are all so naive as to believe that if we push to eliminate Naked short selling, it is or would be problematic for the market and reduce the characteristics of price discovery and liquidity that short selling imparts to the market.

Again, the issue is NSS and not short selling...duh!

In a perfect world where only Shorts are done, we could and would assume, that short selling does deserve a higher return, and right to be included in the market place. Simply due to the markedly higher level of risk than would be anticipate as a long. In that scenario, the horizon of loss of a short position is infinite, while the horizon of loss on a long is finite.

Therefore it stands to reason that short selling tends, in general, to attract better informed market participants and stimulates the market. I have no argument against that, even in our less than perfect real world market.

The question that begs to be asked of the SEC, as a market participant, at what point did I agree to have my stock lent out? After all, someone must be lending stocks, because the SEC said…..

…“A short sale can only be closed with an offsetting purchase: this purchase lends a bid to the market, or in other words, gives upside momentum to the market.” Short covering causes bottoms--that is, shorts, when they cover, put an end to a stock's fall.”<br>
Therefore, if we assume the SEC’s logic, that we (CMKX) ARE NOT BEING SHORTED, that would mean our stock (CMKX) was closed on all the billions of shares by an offsetting purchase, in which case, the long and steady CMKX’s fall into the sub penny basement should have been halted at some point when they in fact covered...right?

Maybe I misunderstood the logic being used by the SEC. After all, they claim that CMKX is not being Naked Short Sold, therefore the only assumption one can draw is that maybe it was “shorted” legally? If that is the case, where is the subsequent offsetting purchases recored? Please give them to us as a matter of public records.

In conclusion, I will agree with the SEC on the notion that ordinarily short-sellers can have little overall effect in the market. But, I will have to disagree with them regarding NNS not being real. Especially since we have seen that certain company's situations (NSS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) exactly like CMKX's, clearly indicate that NSS is prevalent and a real time problem.

Basically, the SEC has only to look at the demand for CMKX over the past year, where it appeared to never have been at a very “low,” trading day, or where there ever was a relatively small number of shares traded, to realize the significantly large impact NSS is having.

So please SEC, spare me the examples of the non-linear relationship between price and the relationship of supply to demand. I would offer as a rebuttal, that NSS is exactly why, the exposure of the seemingly unending supply of CMKX shares is important to ascertain.

If in fact the “float” is low or non-existent,” then it stands to reason that Naked Short Selling alone has created this ongoing “new” supply.

In the end, before we can move on, this NSS matter has to be resolved and or handled. This brings me to the matter of a “settlement.” What is the correct scenario in which all shareholders will receive a fair amount of money they are entitled to receive when and if a settlement is discussed?

Finally, the markets must provide an underlying principal of fairness, such as not allowing the NSS fraud and other forms of market manipulations. Without a level playing field, it is impossible for any investor to make any kind of wise or informed decision, regardless of how much time and thought (DD) he puts into it.


Thanks for reading...sorry it was so long...lol


fastwalker

[DLAWRENCE]

fastwalker,
You have realy done a lot of good work here.
Now, I am sure you are writing a book.
Put me down for a copy.

dlawrence