Naked Short selling: The Story of Deep Capture

:open_mouth: eek, I just watched that horror movie. Death by TLAs (three letter acronyms CDOs, CDSs and now NSSs. It is like walking along a pebbled beach and stubbing your tow on a large rock releasing a nasty crab. In shock you step back and lean on a 6’ boulder. Then it moves… :cry:

Ordinary retail investors cannot win when playing against insiders. The markets are owned by and run for the insiders. When they make some losses they dump it in your pension fund. Its a dirty business.

Heres the link to the multimedia presentation.

Opened my eyes big time. Of course no surprises that Rupert Murdochs New York Post is a major player in the rip-off.

Great find, Green Bear.

after listening to that deep capture movie…it just so reminds me of the whole Irish property market with everybody from the govt,journalists,estate agents,prop developers, banks, bank economists etc involved in the conspiracy(sp)

Another good article about the Patrick Byrne naked short selling conspiracy here.


:laughing: He he he. Green bear, you save me a job of posting any interesting titbits from itulip on the propertypin.

Keep it up. :smiley: :laughing:

Actually, now I remember it, one of the itulip posters mentioned a few months ago somthing similiar which could tie into this. It was a presentation on bogus shares, or the fact that trading is electronic so it is open to scamming. Let me see if I can find it.

Found it. Here it is:

It is quite long, but worth it. I kind of got lost halway through and had to track back, but it’s good.

I can’t get the link to work for some reason.

I just googled it and it seems the flash presentation is by the same guy Patrick Byrne.

I didn’t put two and two together there 8DD

If the presentation comes back on line, it is a much more detailed account of the methodology of how the electronic scams work. It’s good when watched, but it was too detailed for me.

More for the more financially aware itulipers.

To me, naked short selling isn’t a problem.
The problem is the mismanagement of the companies the short sellers target.

Naked short selling is a derivitive of bad management, but the bad management itself is the underlying.

I’d be interested to hear why you think this way. I’m just trying to get a better understanding of Naked short selling.


It wasnt just the short selling,
it wasnt just the short only hedge funds,
it wasnt even just the naked short selling
it was the fails-to-deliver which pulled the rug out from under it all…

men in suits…never trust em

There’s something I don’t understand about that short-selling story (apart from its dubious logic).

32.8 mn shares not delivered does not equal 32.8 mn trades. A trade is a single transation for a number of shares. So what is the minimum number of shares in a trade? I thought it was 100? In which case, 567,518 trades of even the minimum 100 shares = 56.8 mn shares… so the short interest in Lehman had at least halved by the time it went bust.

Or have I got it totally arseways? :blush:

Id guess the author made a mistake, and means 567,518 shares not trades fail-to-deliver growing to 32.8m shares fail-to-deliver in the run upto capitulation.

Naked short selling is a breach of the law, it’s got nothing to do with bad management. Lots of vulnerable fledgeling otherwise healthy companies are attacked by naked short sellers.

Any illegal abuse of the system is a problem. And any abuse which privileges a small minority in the inside is doubly problematic. To me, your argument sounds like a plea for more of the discredited “light regulation”.