Since it's okay for Alan to post about NS here wit
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 311)
Posted On: 08/17/2018 8:29:39 PM
Since it's okay for Alan to post about NS here without being attacked verbally, I hope it's okay for me to respond without being attacked verbally. Mods, if you want to delete, please be fair and delete both posts.
IMHO naked shorting is almost nonexistent in IPIX and here’s why.
Reason #1 - SEC Failure-to-deliver Data
“In a “naked” short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due ( known as a “failure to deliver” or “fail” ).”
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
According to the SEC, only 49,696 shares (0.032% of the OS) were failure-to-deliver as of July 13.
20180713|45782D100|IPIX|49696|INNOVATION PHARMACEU|0.52
https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
Reason #2 - Reg SHO Threshold List
IPIX isn't on the Reg SHO threshold list, which means the stock has no significant FTD positions .
"A security will be placed on the threshold list if it has a significant fail to deliver position for at least 5 business days."
https://www.otcmarkets.com/market-activity/reg-sho-data
Reason #3 - Name/CUSIP # Change
"Changing the stock cusip number results in each share with the old cusip number having to be exchanged for a share with the new cusip number, which causes each short position to have to prove the borrow. Naked short positions would be unable to comply and those positions could have to be covered by purchasing shares with the new cusip on the open market. "
https://groovevc.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-...t-squeeze/
"Both your transfer agent and IR firm should be able to advise you on the effectiveness of combating naked shorts by changing CUSIP numbers, reverse mergers, and/or reverse splits. Although the long-term effectiveness of these strategies is questionable, it may be useful as part of a larger strategy to deter naked shorting. After changing your company's CUSIP number, for instance, all existing stock certificates must be exchanged for new ones. All issued and outstanding certificates from old shares will no longer represent an interest in the company until exchanged. "
http://www.hawkassociates.com/ir/white/shorts.cfm
Leo decided to change the company name and CUSIP # to expose naked shorting on June 9, 2017. The total volume after the name/CUSIP # change (+3 days) was ~1.625M shares, which indicated the covering was by legal shorts because legal short interest was ~1.2M shares at that time. If naked positions were 10M shares (hypothetical), the total volume would be more than that because naked shorts must cover.
Amarantus is an example showing the method is effective. The massive volume after CUSIP # change indicated naked shorts had to cover.
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5145306
Leo’s legal advisor includes Michael Sullivan, a former US Attorney for MA with connections to the SEC , so his method to expose naked shorting must have some merits. Money for lawyer fees and website redesign were required at a critical time when the SP was low and dilutions were high. I highly doubt Leo disliked the name CTIX all the sudden and went through all the troubles just to change it to IPIX at shareholders’ expense.
Chimera is another company who used the same method to expose naked shorting.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/chim...712244.htm
Reason #4 - No Actual Evidence
By actual evidence I mean official SEC data or something that can be used in court. Proponents will claim IPIX is under attack by sharing naked shorting articles, videos and court cases. Here’s an analogy - just because there’re thieves (naked shorts) in my neighborhood (other companies) doesn’t mean there’re thieves in my house (IPIX). If Leo is suing naked shorts, he’s going to need actual evidences. He can’t just say his company is under attack because other companies are under attack or naked shorting exists in general in court.
Investors should know where the constant selling pressure is coming from.
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5115382
Caution by SEC
11. I read on an internet chat room or website that a specific security has a large number of fails; are these sources reliable?
" Investors can and should verify the number of failures to deliver in a specific security by checking publicly available data on failures to deliver . The Commission publishes on its website failures to deliver data for all equity securities, regardless of the fails level, twice per month. For current failures to deliver information, see http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm.
Investors should always be cautious that issuers, promoters, or shareholders may be seeking to stimulate buying interest by making false, misleading or unfounded statements in internet chat rooms or other such forums about alleged large “naked” short positions in some smaller issuers. Some individuals may encourage other investors to buy these issuers’ securities by claiming that there will be an imminent short squeeze, in which the alleged “naked” short sellers will be forced to cover open short positions at increasing prices. These claims in fact may be false.
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
IMHO naked shorting is almost nonexistent in IPIX and here’s why.
Reason #1 - SEC Failure-to-deliver Data
“In a “naked” short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due ( known as a “failure to deliver” or “fail” ).”
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
According to the SEC, only 49,696 shares (0.032% of the OS) were failure-to-deliver as of July 13.
20180713|45782D100|IPIX|49696|INNOVATION PHARMACEU|0.52
https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
Reason #2 - Reg SHO Threshold List
IPIX isn't on the Reg SHO threshold list, which means the stock has no significant FTD positions .
"A security will be placed on the threshold list if it has a significant fail to deliver position for at least 5 business days."
https://www.otcmarkets.com/market-activity/reg-sho-data
Reason #3 - Name/CUSIP # Change
"Changing the stock cusip number results in each share with the old cusip number having to be exchanged for a share with the new cusip number, which causes each short position to have to prove the borrow. Naked short positions would be unable to comply and those positions could have to be covered by purchasing shares with the new cusip on the open market. "
https://groovevc.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-...t-squeeze/
"Both your transfer agent and IR firm should be able to advise you on the effectiveness of combating naked shorts by changing CUSIP numbers, reverse mergers, and/or reverse splits. Although the long-term effectiveness of these strategies is questionable, it may be useful as part of a larger strategy to deter naked shorting. After changing your company's CUSIP number, for instance, all existing stock certificates must be exchanged for new ones. All issued and outstanding certificates from old shares will no longer represent an interest in the company until exchanged. "
http://www.hawkassociates.com/ir/white/shorts.cfm
Leo decided to change the company name and CUSIP # to expose naked shorting on June 9, 2017. The total volume after the name/CUSIP # change (+3 days) was ~1.625M shares, which indicated the covering was by legal shorts because legal short interest was ~1.2M shares at that time. If naked positions were 10M shares (hypothetical), the total volume would be more than that because naked shorts must cover.
Amarantus is an example showing the method is effective. The massive volume after CUSIP # change indicated naked shorts had to cover.
Quote:
A company name change and CUSIP # change is a great way to shine some light on the degree to which AMBS has been manipulated via Naked Short ("Phantom"/Counterfeit) Shares.
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5145306
Leo’s legal advisor includes Michael Sullivan, a former US Attorney for MA with connections to the SEC , so his method to expose naked shorting must have some merits. Money for lawyer fees and website redesign were required at a critical time when the SP was low and dilutions were high. I highly doubt Leo disliked the name CTIX all the sudden and went through all the troubles just to change it to IPIX at shareholders’ expense.
Chimera is another company who used the same method to expose naked shorting.
Quote:
HOUSTON, TX--(Marketwire - Oct 11, 2012) - Chimera Energy Corp. (OTCBB: CHMR) announced today that its new Chairman and CEO, Baldemar Rios, has recommended that the Company immediately determine the most expeditious corporate action that would cause a change in the Company's CUSIP number. The Company consulted several OTC market experts who suggested that a change in the CUSIP number was the only way to combat what has been frequently acknowledged to be an unabashed, manipulative "naked shorting" campaign against CHMR .
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/chim...712244.htm
Reason #4 - No Actual Evidence
By actual evidence I mean official SEC data or something that can be used in court. Proponents will claim IPIX is under attack by sharing naked shorting articles, videos and court cases. Here’s an analogy - just because there’re thieves (naked shorts) in my neighborhood (other companies) doesn’t mean there’re thieves in my house (IPIX). If Leo is suing naked shorts, he’s going to need actual evidences. He can’t just say his company is under attack because other companies are under attack or naked shorting exists in general in court.
Investors should know where the constant selling pressure is coming from.
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5115382
Caution by SEC
11. I read on an internet chat room or website that a specific security has a large number of fails; are these sources reliable?
" Investors can and should verify the number of failures to deliver in a specific security by checking publicly available data on failures to deliver . The Commission publishes on its website failures to deliver data for all equity securities, regardless of the fails level, twice per month. For current failures to deliver information, see http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm.
Investors should always be cautious that issuers, promoters, or shareholders may be seeking to stimulate buying interest by making false, misleading or unfounded statements in internet chat rooms or other such forums about alleged large “naked” short positions in some smaller issuers. Some individuals may encourage other investors to buy these issuers’ securities by claiming that there will be an imminent short squeeze, in which the alleged “naked” short sellers will be forced to cover open short positions at increasing prices. These claims in fact may be false.
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
(4)
(0)Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX) Stock Research Links
