Posted On: 03/12/2016 10:14:39 PM
Post# of 72447
Here's a thread from IHub that you may find interesting. Start at the bottom...
Quote:
Well said! It took many millions of dollars and many years to uncover the extent of the naked shorting in that Overstock lawsuit, but some here expect us to believe that a naked short position would be easy to spot. In fact, the CEO is reported to have said that there were also overseas entities naked shorting Overstock but that they could not go after them. - thefamilyman
Quote:
It's not simple at all. In the case I linked to, years of litigation and discovery were required to uncover the evidence of naked shorting. Merrill lynch settled with overstock for 20 million. Traders were barred from the markets and fined. Goldman settled with the SEC for their naked shorting and avoidance of reg SHO. Now that the whole scam has been uncovered lawsuits against Goldman from their customers can go foreword seeking the fees back that Goldman charged to take a Short position. But hay, as you say all they had to do was look for the FTDs and they could have avoided years of lawsuits and settlements. LOL. Wouldn't it be nice if the burglar who ransacks your house would leave a nice inventory of all the items taken and damaged. That would be nice. - Barron4664
Quote:
If so, then there would be FTDs. When there aren't, as with CTIX, then you know there are no naked short positions arising from sales of nonexistent or counterfeit shares. It's really very simple.
- says sunspotter in asserting that naked shorting is absolutely not occurring.
(1)
(0)
