Word abonnee en neem Beursduivel Premium
Rode planeet als pijlen grid met hoorntjes Beursduivel
Uitgebreid zoeken

BioPharma Terug naar discussie overzicht

Overstock OSTK

57 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 2 3 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓
  4. Salieman 2 september 2005 15:59

    • Salieman

      Lid sinds: 06 apr 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 11 mrt 2023

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 25

      Gegeven: 57

    •    Aantal posts: 1.011

    Ik heb 90 stukjes gekocht op 41,60. Waarschijnlijk te hoog. Maar als je een short squeese verwacht dan maakt die ene dollar niet veel uit denk ik.

    Groeten

    Ik hoor graag als je een andere mening bent toegedaan. Bedankt voor de update.
  5. [verwijderd] 2 september 2005 16:01

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    in ieder geval een stijging, die short squeeze kan nog even duren aangezien de gekochte aandelen nog niet in certificaten zijn omgezet.

    Anna
  8. Salieman 4 september 2005 17:19

    • Salieman

      Lid sinds: 06 apr 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 11 mrt 2023

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 25

      Gegeven: 57

    •    Aantal posts: 1.011

    Ik zat net de charts te bekijken. De laatste 3 jaar is de koers elke keer met een uptrend begonnen rond september oktober. Zou deze keer natuurlijk ook weer kunnen gebeuren. Zeker gezien het de feiten die er nu rond spelen. (Aantal shorts, inkoop aandelen door directeur ed.)

    Het enige wat roet in eten kan gooien, zoals altijd, is een of ander 'slecht' PB, en de nasleep van Katrina.

    PS Ik had afgelopen vrijdag ook alweer verkocht. Maar ga er dinsdag waarschijnlijk weer in, met klein aantal.
  9. [verwijderd] 5 september 2005 13:35

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Een slecht PB is natuurlijk nooit uitgesloten, maar kan me zo even niet voorstellen waar dit over zou kunnen gaan dan. Maar iets onverwachts is nooit uitgesloten.

    Wat mogelijk de koers omhoog kan zetten is als over een paar weken de stukken van deze director uit de markt worden genomen. Verder de rechtszaak (pas in oktober) en zodra er iets meer bekend is over of en hoeveel winst ze gaan maken in Q4. Maar dat is nog verder weg.

    Ik gok op in ieder geval een korte tijd een stijgende trend. We zullen zien.

    Anna
  10. [verwijderd] 6 september 2005 10:27

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    De vorige maand stond bijna net zoveel short.
    Zijn die gecovered of kunnen die ook doorgeschoven worden naar de volgende maand ?
    Iemand een idéé
    Mvrg
  11. [verwijderd] 6 september 2005 10:40

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    short aandelen moet je alleen "coveren" of weer terugkopen in de volgende situaties:

    * je broker kan ze niet meer uitlenen, omdat ze niet meer beschikbaar zijn (bv omdat ze verkocht zijn door eigenaar van de aandelen welke jij leende), je zult dan snel te positie moeten aanvullen door ze zelf aan te kopen

    * je maakt teveel verlies.. stel het aandeel stijgt snel, dan kan je broker van je verlangen dat je de verliezen cash aanvult op je account, als je dat onvoldoende doet, dan kan je pakket short-aandelen door hem worden geliquideerd om jouw verliezen te beperken als ze geen vertrouwen hebben in je kredietwaardigheid daarin

    Aandelen short hebben staan kost geld, dus lange tijd stabiele aandeelkoers ->geen goede investering dan
  12. [verwijderd] 6 september 2005 10:55

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    wpw schreef:

    De vorige maand stond bijna net zoveel short.
    Zijn die gecovered of kunnen die ook doorgeschoven worden naar de volgende maand ?
    Iemand een idéé
    Mvrg
    ik denk dat je er van uit kunt gaan dan het meest nog short staat. Zeker aangezien er geprobeerd werd de 40.00 te breken.

    Anna
  15. [verwijderd] 7 september 2005 14:42

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Naked short

    By bob obrien

    Tuesday, September 06, 2005

    An Ugly State Of The Union
    I've been thinking about the whole ugly clearing and settlement system and resultant FTD mess, and the DTCC and SEC's culpability in the matter, and Reg SHO, and abusive naked short selling as part of a stock manipulation strategy, and after having been on vacation for a week, I can honestly say that I believe I have some clarity.

    In the interest of capturing my thinking for posterity, I thought I would do a September State Of The Union address, and recap my understanding of the current situation. So here it is, in no particular order:

    1) Reg SHO is a failure.

    It fails to protect investors, and fails to live up to the most basic requirements of a reasonable measure. The reason it is a failure is fundamental to the flaw in the thinking that created it, namely that some settlement failures are acceptable.

    If one views the SEC's mandate, it is theoretically to protect investors, thus justifying a restored faith in the system following the Crash of '29 and subsequent financial chaos. One of linchpins of that restored faith was that trades would clear and settle in a timely manner, eliminating the potential for abusive short selling that typified that period. The thinking was that if one established a reasonable period for clearing (the processing of the order and the buy/sell transaction) and settling (the physical delivery of the shares and the funds, e.g. the conclusion thereof) that one could eliminate naked short selling, wherein a stock was sold into the ground with a stream of sells, and delivery was never made, or was delayed beyond a reasonable period. Back with 1934 technology, reasonable was five business days following the transaction day - T + 5, later ammended to T + 3 in the 80's.

    That was great, and settlement failures were pretty academic - if there was no delivery of shares, then no payment was made, and the transaction was void - a broken trade. Seems reasonable - if you didn't deliver the goods, you didn't get any money, and no commissions were paid to either broker (buyer or seller). That worked well. Everyone was motivated to make the trades settle.

    Because otherwise nobody got paid. And Wall Street loves to get paid.

    There were no extended settlement failures - rule 17(a) required timely settlement, and everyone's pay was based on timely conclusion of the trade.

    Before we continue, understand that 17(a) still requires timely settlement of trades (the exact wording is "the prompt and accurate clearing and settlement of securities transactions including the transfer of record ownership"), and does not authorize anyone, not the DTCC, not the SEC, to just waive the requirement that trades settle promptly and reasonably (the part where delivery is achieved and ownership is transferred) - thus, the notion of grandfathering hundreds of millions of past settlement failures that SHO pronounced with a stroke of the pen violates one of their primary mandates - prompt settlement of trades. If it ever faces a legal challenge, I believe it would be struck down as unlawful. I know it, the SEC knows it, and the participants know it. The only reason nobody has sued is because there's no money in it. But make no mistake, it is unlawful.

    Now, the SEC will likely argue that the NSCC has Carte Blanche via Addendum C (which was passed by the NSCC to enable the now infamous Stock Borrow Program) and its allowance of "reasonable" settlement in light of "legitimate" failures to deliver, but I would simply direct everyone to consider the idea of "reasonable" settlement.

    Reasonable.

    In 2005.

    In a Six Sigma world of nanosecond technology.

    Professor Boni's research paper concluded that the average age of a fail was 56 days. Does anyone think that 56 days would survive the reasonableness test in 2005? It would have failed 71 years ago, and it would fail today - hence Reg SHO is a farce and a failure, and I believe illegal in its grandfathering provision. Now the DTCC will fall back on the NSCC's self-penned Addendum C, which allows for settlement failures for "Legitimate" reasons - but does anyone believe that hundreds of millions of FTDs aged for months are "Legitimate", much less reasonable?

    2) Fast forward to the modern era, specifically to the 90's, when Congress agreed that it was a good idea to dematerialize paper stock certificates, and to let the DTC act as a bank, where the certificates would be kept, and one electronic book entry (tick) would be created for each legitimate share. Great in theory. No more paper running around the Street, and increased efficiency. The problem is that the DTCC, the parent of the NSCC and the DTC, decided that it was going to separate out clearing and settling, and no longer require that trades settle in order for everyone to get paid.

    You read that right. On Wall Street, signing a contract to attempt to deliver stock at some point in the future now gets everyone paid. Imagine if selling a house worked like that - your real estate broker would get paid and your account debited at the point that he agreed to try to get you a house matching certain specifications. Or imagine a car salesman getting paid the second you sign the agreement, and you get an IOU instead of a car - he'll try to find you one just as soon as he can.

    Does anyone else see how badly broken this is?

    By breaking out clearing and settling as two separate items, the DTCC and the participants that own it have engaged in a nice little rhetorical fraud. They can "clear" the trade the same day it is entered, and the DTCC, the brokers, even the SEC all get paid, and the settlement portion is left as an afterthought that is not really a requisite for anything.

    That creates institutionalized fraud, wherein your money is taken, you receive a brokerage statement indicating that you received "shares", but what you got was an IOU, which has no voting rights, and no ETA as to when it will be converted into real shares - IF EVER!!!

    One of the neat tricks the system set up was where the NSCC became the contra party in both sides of the trade, meaning that if the Stock Borrow Program was used in a settlement failure situation, there was no direct connection between the buyer and the seller. By intermediating the exchange, the NSCC now could create plausible deniability if shares didn't show up - it could "borrow" shares held in an anonymous pool, which would be credited to the buyer's broker's account, which would then go right back into the anonymous pool the next day - creating a virtually unlimited stock creation scheme, unlicensed and unauthorized by anyone (again, the DTCC will argue that addendum C gave them that right, to which I would direct them to the reasonable terminology, and the open-ended failures that are the reality - certainly more than 1934's standards, thus unreasonable given current technology).

    So we have a de facto stock manufacturing scheme, wherein the number of electronic book entries has nothing to do with the actual number of shares in the DTC vaults (that's how it was originally intended; 1 electronic share for 1 paper share) due to the Borrow Program's abuse by its participant owners - a function of the DTCC becoming a monopoly, with nobody to ensure that anything about the scheme was rational or reasonable - certainly not its participant owners, who now get paid without delivering anything, and for
  16. [verwijderd] 7 september 2005 16:07

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    and for which failure there is no apparent deterrent or penalty. And it is all presided over by the SEC, who relies on the conceit that the brokers and the DTCC will act in good faith, in the shareholders' best interests, on the honor system.

    Institutionalized fraud.

    Simple.

    Absolute power corrupts. As always. And yet the SEC and the DTCC act as though this time in history is different than all other similar times in history. Why would any reasonable person believe that?

    3) The worst is yet to come, though. If I am correct, the ex-clearing problem that was created when the DTCC decoupled clearing from settling is now wildly out of control, and is likely at least 5 times as great, if not 10 times or more as great, as the REG SHO Fails.

    Here's how the ex-clearing shell game works: The DTCC has a system wherein they will clear the exchange of money for the two parties, but then let the two parties arrange for settlement off-line, between the two of them. You read that right. Again, everyone gets paid, but now the DTCC is out of the loop, as it is just between the two brokers as to when the actual goods will be delivered - if ever.

    Now, does everyone get this? The brokers that own the DTCC get to decide when and if the shares get delivered, and they tell nobody at the DTCC - it isn't the DTCC's business what two companies do, after all - that's their business, and presumably they are obeying the rules and delivering promptly.

    Am I the only one that understands that this creates a system where the brokers can literally create money at will, and as long as nobody breaks ranks, nobody ever has to deliver anything, ever? Does anyone see any difference between this and just printing as many shares of stock as a broker feels like? No cost of goods sold, and no real barriers as to how many shares can be sold into the market, as long as the den of thieves keeps its second set of books away from the prying eyes of the DTCC - who being owned by them, isn't particularly interested in upsetting the apple cart anyway.

    This whole out-of-control scheme has now gotten to the point where I believe that the entire market system is dangerously jeopardized, and is in fact now constructed to ensure that companies which have been abusively shorted using Stock Borrow and ex-clearing FTDs stay depressed in price, or better yet, go out of business. Besides eliminating any effective requirement for delivery, one of the other nice things the DTCC came up with was to allow the sellers who sold the FTDs to have access to the cash they generated due to the FTD sale, over and above whatever the current mark to market price is today.

    What that means is that if Short Seller A sold a million shares of NFI naked and FTD'd them at $60 or so, and today's price is $35, Short Seller A gets to use and in fact keep the delta between $35 and $60 (with some remaining above the $35 for collateralization requirements). Call it a cool $20 million assuming that $5 was kept as a collateralization premium. Now, in what other world does the seller get the proceeds from a sale that he never delivered the product on, and which he likely never will?

    But it gets better. If Short Seller A gets into bad trouble, and has 20 companies he's done this to, and if he goes belly up, guess what? The DTCC has the financial obligation to make good on buying and delivering the shares, along with the brokers that sold the FTDs, and which are also owners of the DTCC. Does everyone see how it is in the best interests of everyone in the system EXCEPT the company and the shareholders to ensure that once a company is under an attack that results in FTDs significant enough for the company to show up on the SHO list, that it stay chronically depressed, for the duration? How can one achieve that? Why, keep selling more FTD's, and take them ex-clearing!

    Folks, I believe that this is a centi-billion dollar problem now. The math bears that out. The DTCC says that the Stock Borrow Program satisfies 18% of the daily FTDs. If 82% of the daily FTDs are not handled by the Borrow Program, then the obvious answer to the question of where they all go is simple - they go ex-clearing. The end result is that now the brokers have significant skin in the game to ensure that the companies' share prices stay low in perpetuity.

    That is where I believe that the fraud is the worst. The brokers no longer have to deliver squat, thanks to rules that their SRO, the DTCC, passed, so their interests are no longer as the custodians of the shareholders' interests. Their interests are in fact the diametric opposite. They are alligned with their biggest customers - the short selling hedge funds. How convenient.

    So that is where I have arrived, after working this issue for 6 months or so (NCANS was created in February) - we have the SEC knowingly violating its mandate to protect investors and ensure that trades are settled in a timely and reasonable manner, we have the DTCC and the participants removing the delivery obstacle to separating investors from their money, and we have a system that is now organized to perpetuate a systemic fraud that is large enough to where it likely exceeds the DTCC and the participants' NAV and ability to buy all the shares it has created - leaving it with the only alternative it can use - destroy most if not all of the companies that have been the most brutalized. Either that, or face financial Armageddon.

    You can't be forced to buy millions of shares if the company is out of business, or is de-listed.

    Does everyone completely understand just how far this has gone?

    Feel free to send this to your elected representatives, and your state securities representatives. Forget about the SEC - they are clearly part of the problem, IMO.

  17. [verwijderd] 7 september 2005 16:36

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Even een waarschuwing:
    Als je ze al gekocht hebt of van plan bent dat te doen, moet je er wel voor zorgen dat je de stukken fysiek in handen krijgt. ( anders kun je gaan procederen tegen je brooker als de zaak klapt ).
    Volgens mijn bank, de SNS kost dat minstens € 500
    je krijgt ze dan in Nederland gelevert.
    Vervolgens kun je ze niet meer via de bank verkopen, want de bank handelt niet in fysieke stukken.
  18. [verwijderd] 13 september 2005 08:37

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    wpw schreef:

    Even een waarschuwing:
    Als je ze al gekocht hebt of van plan bent dat te doen, moet je er wel voor zorgen dat je de stukken fysiek in handen krijgt. ( anders kun je gaan procederen tegen je brooker als de zaak klapt ).
    Volgens mijn bank, de SNS kost dat minstens € 500
    je krijgt ze dan in Nederland gelevert.
    Vervolgens kun je ze niet meer via de bank verkopen, want de bank handelt niet in fysieke stukken.

    Hoezo, je kunt ze gewoon weer verkopen als er een short squeeze begint. Zeker met die kleine aantallen die de meeste hier hebben/kopen is certifcaten halen onzin.

    Anna
57 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 2 3 »» | Laatste |Omhoog ↑

Neem deel aan de discussie

Word nu gratis lid van Beursduivel.be

Al abonnee? Log in

Direct naar Forum

Zoek alfabetisch op forum

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
Forum # Topics # Posts
Aalberts 465 6.840
AB InBev 2 5.285
Abionyx Pharma 2 29
Ablynx 43 13.356
ABN AMRO 1.580 46.323
ABO-Group 1 19
Acacia Pharma 9 24.692
Accell Group 151 4.129
Accentis 2 253
Accsys Technologies 22 8.896
ACCSYS TECHNOLOGIES PLC 218 11.686
Ackermans & van Haaren 1 160
ADMA Biologics 1 31
Adomos 1 126
AdUX 2 457
Adyen 13 16.355
Aedifica 2 829
Aegon 3.257 320.052
AFC Ajax 537 7.018
Affimed NV 2 5.752
ageas 5.843 109.777
Agfa-Gevaert 13 1.856
Ahold 3.536 73.980
Air France - KLM 1.024 34.311
Airspray 511 1.258
Akka Technologies 1 18
AkzoNobel 466 12.770
Alfen 12 16.269
Allfunds Group 3 1.191
Almunda Professionals (vh Novisource) 651 4.247
Alpha Pro Tech 1 17
Alphabet Inc. 1 333
Altice 106 51.196
Alumexx ((Voorheen Phelix (voorheen Inverko)) 8.484 114.757
AM 228 684
Amarin Corporation 1 133
Amerikaanse aandelen 3.820 240.253
AMG 965 125.694
AMS 3 73
Amsterdam Commodities 303 6.519
AMT Holding 199 7.047
Anavex Life Sciences Corp 2 382
Antonov 22.632 153.605
Aperam 91 14.111
Apollo Alternative Assets 1 17
Apple 5 313
Arcadis 251 8.614
Arcelor Mittal 2.023 318.599
Archos 1 1
Arcona Property Fund 1 266
arGEN-X 15 9.106
Aroundtown SA 1 176
Arrowhead Research 5 9.266
Ascencio 1 20
ASIT biotech 2 697
ASMI 4.107 37.677
ASML 1.762 76.900
ASR Nederland 18 4.122
ATAI Life Sciences 1 7
Atenor Group 1 333
Athlon Group 121 176
Atrium European Real Estate 2 199
Auplata 1 55
Avantium 29 10.650
Axsome Therapeutics 1 177
Azelis Group 1 49
Azerion 7 2.665

Macro & Bedrijfsagenda

  1. 29 april

    1. NL producentenvertrouwen april
    2. Philips Q1-cijfers
    3. Umicore Q1-cijfers
    4. Proximus Q1-cijfers
    5. Fra BBP eerste kwartaal (voorlopig)
    6. AkzoNobel €1,54-ex-dividend
    7. Besi €2,15 ex-dividend
    8. Fugro €0,40 ex-dividend
    9. Heineken €1,04 ex-dividend
    10. Vastned €1,28 ex-dividend
de volitaliteit verwacht indicator betekend: Market moving event/hoge(re) volatiliteit verwacht
Naar de hele agenda