Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 1:36 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 2 hrs 24 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

  • adm731 adm731 Apr 17, 2012 9:19 AM Flag

    Naked short selling is also a HUGE problem

    SilverWheaton Corp still has not set things up so that stockholders could SAFELY own their SLW shares by DIRECT REGISTRATION,
    that means we would be listed on record at the SLW Company as the legal owners of our shares.
    But still now all OUR shares are not legally our shares if the Company doesn't have us listed as the actual owners of the shares,
    which are held at brokerage firms as the owners with "Street Name" instead of our individual names.

    And those SLW stocks we own can be, and are being used for NAKED SHORT SELLING. I have been assured that this is happening by experts.
    That's the manipulation that has kept the PM shares down when by all accounts they should be at multiples of what they sell for now.

    And because OUR shares at brokerage firms are not listed as OUR shares WITH OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL NAMES ON THEM, but are listed in STREETNAME.
    And if something happens to the brokerage WE WHO OWN THE SHARES can't prove we own any shares.

    PRESSURE BY WE STOCKHOLDERS HAS TO BE PUT ON SLW TO SET THINGS UP QUICKLY SO WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR SHARES SETUP AND LISTED BY THE COMPANY BY WHAT IS CALLED: DIRECT REGISTRATION, WITH OUR OWN NAMES LISTED AS THE OWNERS OF THE SHARES WE OWN, AND NOT UNDER SOME BROKERAGE'S 'STREET NAME'.

    Just about every Precious Metals company allows DIRECT REGISTRATION, and SILVERWHEATON still has not set it up for us yet.

    http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/1/9/who-really-owns-your-gold-stocks.html

    .

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • This is the much more important part:


      "Because OUR shares at brokerage firms are not listed as OUR shares WITH OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL NAMES ON THEM, but are listed in STREETNAME.
      And if something happens to the brokerage WE WHO OWN THE SHARES can't prove we own any shares.

      PRESSURE BY WE STOCKHOLDERS HAS TO BE PUT ON SLW TO SET THINGS UP QUICKLY SO WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR SHARES SETUP AND LISTED BY THE COMPANY BY WHAT IS CALLED: DIRECT REGISTRATION, WITH OUR OWN NAMES LISTED AS THE OWNERS OF THE SHARES WE OWN, AND NOT UNDER SOME BROKERAGE'S 'STREET NAME'.

      Just about every Precious Metals company allows DIRECT REGISTRATION, and SILVERWHEATON still has not set it up for us yet.

      http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012...


      .

    • monarch6500@sbcglobal.net monarch6500 Apr 20, 2012 12:04 PM Flag

      thanks...

      Now if only we can get the SEC to do it.

      Maybe the US Attorney General could force the issue, after all extortion is illegal.

    • I recently spoke to my broker about this issue.

      He said setting a high sell limit wouldn't do anything, with a chuckle.

      The real issue is weather or not you have a margin account. If you have a margin account and currently have a margin balance in that account then the shares in your account can be "hypothecated" or "lent out".

      The debit (margin) balance amount can be hypothecated by 140%. In other words, if you have a -$10,000 margin balance the shorts can "borrow" up to $14,000 worth of shares from your account for shorting purposes.

      So if you don't want shorty using your shares don't use margin. It's ok to have the shares in a margin account just keep a positive balance and the shares are in essence "locked up"

      • 1 Reply to LongPicker
      • I would fire this broker if he said that to me. When you want to start shorting stocks, you must first have a Margin account setup. The reason is that when you sell the stock first, you are selling a stock that you do not own and promising that you will produce the stock at a later time.

        If you have an outstanding sell order in place -a limit/time order to sell at a higher price - your shares cannot be shorted.
        I will post the entire article on rules - CFD.

    • monarch, I like that. Not a bad idea.

    • monarch6500@sbcglobal.net monarch6500 Apr 19, 2012 8:18 PM Flag

      In 1937, after the crashes of 1929 and 1937 the SEC found that the prevention of "unwanted selling" was required for an investment market.
      The uptick rule was put in place. The need for it has never changed. The speed of the market and the number of markets have changed.

      The market averages went up from 1937 to 2007 while the uptick rule was in effect.

      The claims in 2007 that the rule was unneeded was made by crooks so that they could get away with extortion.
      This has turned the markets into a casino.

      The current shorting patterns of institutions by computers creates unwanted selling and that unwanted selling IS extortion.

      We need to establish a new, simple uptick rule. A simple one that all may be measured by, one based on the prior day's close.

      Rule 1.

      If the price is the same or higher than the prior day's close then you can short. If lower then you can not.

      Rule2.

      The short sale is a derivative transaction and needs to be treated as such, namely same day settlement.

    • OK - Naked shorts discussion -

      Naked short selling first involves extreme risk, as any rise in price represents a loss to the seller, and stock prices can rise without limit and eventually cause a loss of many times the initial proceeds of the sale when the position is closed. To protect against this possibility, short sellers can offset the position with call options. View options if you want to see POSSIBLE naked shorting in a particular stock. These are contracts to buy shares of stock at a specific price, within a set time. Options rise in value with the price of a stock and can be purchased at a fraction of the cost of the underlying common stock. I have never seem much naked shorting in stocks that I have owed. I don't want to get into my background, but I know every trick in the book when it comes to manipulation and trading - anything with a dollar sign next to it.

    • Well if you're just now putting a GTC sell order in won't that put upward pressure on the stock price as the broker has to go out and find or borrow the shares that you unintentionaly lend the shorter???
      I don't believe for a second the broker would actualy go out and do that.

    • “…PRESSURE BY WE STOCKHOLDERS HAS TO BE PUT ON SLW TO SET THINGS UP QUICKLY SO WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR SHARES SETUP AND LISTED BY THE COMPANY BY WHAT IS CALLED: DIRECT REGISTRATION, WITH OUR OWN NAMES LISTED AS THE OWNERS OF THE SHARES WE OWN, AND NOT UNDER SOME BROKERAGE'S 'STREET NAME'”

      Your sentiments are right, but you are a bit naïve. That is because anything a small investor thinks should be changed is trumped by what the mega banks seek to manipulate in their own best interest, whether it is legal or not. The regulators, as we all have seen, are corrupt as well. If that were not so then Jon Corzine, of MF Global infamy, would be on his way to jail.

      You can, by the way, request your stock certificates and hold them yourself. Check with Silver Wheaton as to who holds them in trust. CIBC Mellon is used by many companies for this purpose. CIBC Mellon has had some issues in the past of its own that have put shareholders at risk:

      en wikipedia org/wiki/CIBC_Mellon (replace the spaces with a period)

      When the following website becomes fully active again visit it to become enlightened:

      deepcapture com (replace the space with a period)

      Keep in mind that there are flaws in the way the website portrays the problem of naked short selling. All current problems in the economy, and the fraud in the financial industry, are a result of the issuance of counterfeit fiat monopoly money by all countries. This has now extended to the issuance of counterfeit shares because of Failures To Deliver (FTD) by naked short sellers, which results in more shares outstanding than have been issued. This, of course, is illegal, but tell any operative engaged in the practice and be prepared to be laughed at since they have been declared untouchable by the regulators. (Name one that is serving a jail term, or paid a substantial fine.)

      Here is another link that describes the problem, and the “to little, to late” efforts to address it:

      economist com/node/18774844

      By the way Deep Capture’s founder, Patrick Byrne, was sued in a Canadian court by a Canadian “boiler room” operative, Ali Nazerali. At first Byrne had his website taken down by the Canadian court through Google, and other content providers, without being notified by the court so he could confront the charges filed by Nazerali, who was outed for these and other illegal practices, which he claimed never happened. When the judge was finally presented with the evidence of illegal activities that posed national security concerns the case was thrown out. Maybe someone can follow this up and post whether Nazarelli is now under investigation. If recent history, according to what is stated above, is any guide, it is doubtful.

      Perhaps now you can get a glimmer of what you are up against by your proposal.

 
SLW
26.51+0.02(+0.08%)1:35 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.