Here is another excellent post on naked shorting f

Quote:

---

The logic being proposed by some on the board that counterfeit stock and naked shorting will absolutely always be inferred by REG SHO FTDs is a categorical error of logic. What REG SHO does is allow the public and regulators to detect those irregularities only if FINRA,DTC, and other clearing houses are playing by the rules. That is true. What the overstock.com suit revealed was through discovery of FINRAs and other clearing house internal records that Merrill and Goldman were indeed avoiding REG SHO by creating counterfeit shares. The only reason we know this is because the California Appeals Court compelled FINRA and The clearing houses to release their records and make them public. Of course there were legitimate FTDs. How could there not be. But what this court case exposed was that counterfeit shares cant be found unless FINRA and clearing house records are made available. The SEC finally settled with Goldman Sacks I believe in January of this year because they had to as a result of the discovery. They buried the settlement by announcing a 15 million settlement for circumventing reg sho on the day they announced a separate 5 billion settlement with Goldman for mortgage back securities fraud. The terms of the SEC settlement with Goldman were sealed. FINRA and the clearing houses are not federal agencies and they are not federal regulators. They are privately held corporations owned by the very brokerages and investment banks they are supposed to be supervising. The overstock court case was one of the first if not the first time these private companies were compelled to release there data for the world to see. Quoting SEC regulations to somehow show there cant be naked shorting is just silly. Unless and until congress decides to take back the regulation of the market from the brokerages, MMs, and investment banks these frauds will continue to happen.

PS
I don't pretend to know whether and if this type of fraud is occurring with CTIX. Probably not. But maybe it is. - Barron4664

---