We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Non-TechNaked Wall Street – the Conference

From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell2/22/2006 12:28:44 AM
   of 9
Some possible content:

Keynote Speaker

My first choice for a keynote speaker, at least as of now, would be someone who could give a broad and engaging overview of the many forms of securities fraud. Perhaps Linda Chatman Thomsen, current SEC Director of the Division of Enforcement, might agree to speak (though I have no idea how engaging she might be). Or, perhaps, Arthur Leavitt, former head of the SEC (who lives in my hometown). Or even James Cramer (although he’d probably charge an arm and a leg).



The ballroom can be divided into four sections meaning that four sessions can be held at one time. With two available timeslots, it means I can offer eight different topics of interest.

Here are some proposed sessions and possible speakers:
1. How do market makers make markets? (Someone from NITE)
2. What happens when you file a complaint with the SEC? (Someone from the SEC)
3. How do hedge funds operate? (David Rocker)
4. How does the financial media choose its stories? (Panel of noted journalists)
5. The secret life of cyber vigilantes (Janice Shell, Stock Patrol, StockLemon)
6. Shorts and how to deal with them (Manuel Asensio)
7. Secrets of the Pink Sheets (Cromwell Coulson)


Main Event
Part 1 (short presentation) - How a share of stock gets transferred from one person to another
Part 2 (Town Hall) - Naked Shorting Q&A

A broker
A market maker
A spokesman from the DTC
A spokesman from the NASD
A spokesman from the SEC
A spokesman from NASAA
Someone from NCANs (e.g. “Bob O’Brien”, Dr. Jim DeCosta, David Patch, etc.)
An aggrieved CEO (Patrick Byrne, Rod Young, etc.)
Someone from the media (Gary Weiss)

- Jeff

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell2/22/2006 12:47:38 PM
   of 9
Re: Bob O'Brien lays out an agenda for the DTC

Re: In The Interest Of Scientific Discovery... By bobo on 2/21/2006 10:07 PM

Jeff: I'm not sure I understand. we left this with I would support the endeavor if you felt like doing the heavy lifting, but that I felt it was an exercise in fuility without data. Susan Trimbath, Robert Shapiro, Finnerty, Angel, DeCosta, Burrell, Patch, all have a wealth of understanding of the business and the issues, but that does no good unless there is disclosure from the SEC and DTCC as to the size of the problem and relevant data points. Otherwise it is nothing more than one side going, "it could all be innocent" and the other going, "it could all be larceny."

But it's all angels on the head of a pin without the data.

How are you proposing anything different than what took place at the NASAA conference, where the DTCC didn't show up, and the SEC sent Brigagliano, who carefully mouthed the party line?

And what will make it different?



Re: In The Interest Of Scientific Discovery... By Jeff Mitchell on 2/22/2006 8:14 AM

Let's assume for the moment, for the sake or argument, that all this talk about naked shorting is truly much ado about very little. If I were someone from the DTC, I'd be thinking to myself "How can I shut these crazies up?" So why not throw down the gauntlet. Why not write a blog entry of exactly what you want from the DTC to shut you up. Challenge them to present it at my conference in a forum where y'all can debate it with the world watching. Can you think of any better way to resolve things than in an open public forum? After all, aren't you tired of writing entry after entry of insults? Where does that get you?

- Jeff


Re: In The Interest Of Scientific Discovery... By bobo on 2/22/2006 8:45 AM

Jeff: Actually, I do enjoy insulting, early, and often. That said, your point is not invalid. The problem is that you are entertaining a marvelous delusion - that the DTCC would have any interest in letting the cat out of the bag.

They were invited to the NASAA conference, failed to attend, then lied about it. They knew all the authorities would be there, and the last thing they wanted was to have to answer hard questions with straight answers.

Here are some examples of hard questions you will NEVER see answers to:

1) How may shares of FTDs were grandfathered in Janurary, 2005?
2) What dollar figure did that represent?
3) What is the cumulative daily FTDs (in shares) per day on the NYSE and NASD, INCLUDING EX-CLEARING?
4) Ditto for OTCBB?
5) What percentage of trading in OSTK, or NFI, or NAVR, fails per month?

That addresses the how large a problem is it. Next, we have mechanical questions:

1) Does the SBP allow redeposit of shares by the new buyer's broker, for relending - an anonymous, replenishing lending pool with virtually no controls?
2) When a SBP share is lent to cure a FTD, is what is left in the SBP in its place an "Entitlement", possessing no voting rights, or other rights of a genuine share?
3) Is the lending shareholder ever informed that he has lost those rights?
4) Can not a single genuine share than create an endless stream of "Entitlements", as it bounces from broker to broker to broker? If not, why not? We are not talking about being re-lent from the same broker - we are talking about new brokers.
5) Is it true that the SBP's share availability is on the honor system, with no regulation or verification to ensure that cash and retirement accounts are not also being lent from this anonymous pool?
6) The NSCC acts as the contra-party, guaranteeing delivery, but simultaneously says that it is "powerless" to buy in a failing seller. Why is that, and does not the time delay amount to zero effective guarantee - given there is no time guarantee?
7) The DTCC claims no ability to police ex-clearing contracts. Doesn't enabling participants to arrange for delivery outside of the system, on the honor system, result in an effective mechanism to violate 17A and T+3 requirements for prompt settlement? How is this a good idea for anyone but larcenous participants? What safeguards are in place to ensure that this does not result in wholesale abuse?

These are just a few questions you will never see answered. They could answer them today if they wanted. They don't want to.

It doesn't require a symposium to have them refuse to answer. They refuse every day.

Without the data, your meeting will degenerate into a bunch of apologists claiming that it is all a load of hooey - non-disprovable, in their minds, and certainly not definitively disprovable absent the data - and those on our side of the fence who will cite a mountain of evidence, and be told, "that isn't definitive proof" - regardless of what is offered up. That is also non-disprovable, as the relevant data is missing.

Again, I would celebrate a forum where the SEC and DTCC come to the table to disclose the size and scope of the problem, with hard, complete data, but it will never happen. Won't. If you can make it happen, you are a God, walking the earth, among mere mortals.

I won't hold my breath, but will support your efforts, as I have indicated before. I am not anti-short selling, I am anti-fraud, and this particular fraud is my pet peeve. I don't care where or how the true lay of the land is presented, or which "side" arranges for it to occur. Your problem is you are about to discover that the DTCC doesn't wish to rush in, make disclosure, and discuss things open and honestly, and neither does the DTCC. The reason is because this is a huge issue for them, and if all facts were known, they would be facing Congressional sanctions, or worse. So they have a lot to hide, from you, me, and everyone else.

So my bet is no DTCC, certainly no disclosure, a bunch of apologists claiming that their industry "experience" "tells them" that it "couldn't be" all that big - absent any data on the relevant areas.

Wanna bet?

There are a ton of qualified experts available to draw from for this from "our" side. Best of luck getting 1 SEC ranking expert and 1 DTCC ranking authority into the room, much less with data supplied for verification.

Transparency is their enemy.

Why is that, do you think?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bullNbear2/25/2006 3:09:42 AM
   of 9
Bud Burrell Interview on CFRN on USXP and talks about CMKX and naked short selling

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: JaseG12/13/2006 6:46:33 AM
   of 9
Have you all seen this: ?
Please tell me there's zero truth to this slideshow, because if there is, we're screwed...bigtime!


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: JaseG who wrote (4)12/13/2006 10:04:28 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell
   of 9
Consider the source.

- Jeff

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: JaseG who wrote (4)12/15/2006 5:16:41 PM
From: rrufff
   of 9
Consider the source of criticism of that very informative piece. LOL..

Do your own research. The more you read on this issue, the more you will be amazed at what goes on.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: JaseG who wrote (4)3/25/2007 2:24:55 PM
From: StockDung
   of 9
To Judd Bagley (Director of Social Media at Come Clean (2 Ratings) 24-Mar-07 05:12 pm To Judd Bagley (Director of Social Media at

Why don?t you make Ken Israel?s job at the SEC (Utah) a little bit easier?
There is a lot of activity in that office now.
Show him transparency by disclosing the aliases you are using (past & present) on internet message boards.
Show your pals on the Investor Village board that you have nothing to hide.
Show everyone that you have courage.
Make the Securities and Exchange Commission?s investigation of easier.
Post all the aliases you are using and have used on the Yahoo board or under your alias De Daumier-Smith on the Investor Village board today.
If you require, please get clearance from your boss (Patrick Byrne ? CEO of
Come on Judd, fess up.
No more diversions.
No more games.
The SEC is investigating and the actions of Patrick Byrne and you.
If you do not believe me about the investigation, I suggest you call them.


Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO & convicted felon)

PS: Judd, show you have the same level of transparency and courage as this convicted felon and sign each post on message boards and blogs using your real name and your affiliation with Afraid?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell7/23/2008 12:12:45 PM
   of 9
Now that Patrick Byrne has apparently taken my idea seriously... at least I think/hope so... it's time to start figuring out if we call all pull it off.

As I've stated, the intent is to craft an event that people would look forward to attending. The way to accomplish that is to hash it all out in public. Once we have that done, we can set out to do our best assuring our invitees accept.

- Jeff

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (8)7/23/2008 2:25:01 PM
From: fractionalreserve
   of 9
seemed pretty clear Patrick will have nothing to do with clowns like lambo-Gary. What a job deep capture did on this chooch. Weiss has to be completely humiliated; undoubtedly his representing the ability to be influential PR agent has been severely impaired.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read