Tuesday, February 22, 2005

These Are The Patsies

One of the best pieces of advice Warren Buffett gives about the market is, when investing in a stock, know everything you possibly can about it so you have the advantage over everybody else playing in that stock--otherwise don't invest. He says: "if you can't figure out after a couple of hands who's the patsy at the poker table, then you're the patsy."

I think we know who the patsies are in Overstock.com.

Reading the responses to "When CEOs Obsess" from the individuals for whom Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne is a hero and the imagined short-selling cabal a dastardly, criminal conspiracy has been enlightening in the same manner that hearing sleep-deprived, sports-obsessed shut-ins call up Mike & The Mad Dog on WFAN to rant about whatever team of theirs recently lost a game: it helps one understand why Yankee manager Joe Torre pays no attention to the drunken sods in the bleacher section yelling pointers in between throwing up on their friends; and it makes one wonder why on earth Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne allowed an ill-informed misfit, Bob "X-Files" O'Brien, to hijack Bryne's last earnings call for the sake of an error-laden rant against imaginary foes.

Both constituencies--whining, ignorant sports fans and whining, ignorant Short-Seller-Conspiracy Theorists--are grossly ill-informed about the way things work in the real world, but I think the Patrick Byrne acolytes are more delusional, in that they have spun a richly imaginary fantasy to explain movements in a particular stock which have hardly, to use Patrick Byrne's words, forced grandmothers to "be eating dog food so a couple hundred guys on Wall Street can be driving Mercedeses"--unless the grandmothers were short Overstock.com on its way from $10 bucks a share to $70, and the Wall Street guys were long. Sports fans, on the other hand, always blame the coach.

Let's review the basic, fundamental case of the Bryne Acolytes: despite the fact that far more money has been made in Overstock.com stock from the long side in the last two years than from the short side in the last two months, "X-Files" O'Brien has stated that Overstock.com's problems are the result of millions of shares of stock routinely traded which supposedly far exceed the 6.9 million shares float--never mind that hot NASDAQ stocks such as Sirius routinely draw day traders who inflate the average daily volume.

These millions of mysterious excess shares are supposedly caused by "naked" short sales from the evil Short Selling Cabal, which in effect creates "counterfeit" stock, according to "Peanut"...er, "Pistachio."

And somehow--even though Overstock's share price has increased from $10 to a recent $55--this "counterfeit" stock is driving down the price of Overstock.com. Or at least keeping the stock from reaching its true value.

One would think if Overstock.com is indeed trading millions of shares beyond its actual available shares, and if a "massive" short-selling conspiracy does exist, then the failure to deliver would amount to--I'm only stating what the conspiracy theorists have reflected in their posts--millions of shares.

According to "Peanut," however, the amount of Overstock. com shares failing to deliver amount to less than 100,000. This is hardly "millions." Nor is it enough to influence Overstock's share price, given that almost 30 million shares traded in January alone.

I think I've figured out who the patsies are here: X-Files O'Brien heads the list, followed closely by Peanut and their fellow poster named Jake, for they have hitched their stars to a CEO who appears paranoid about a threat from a Short-Seller's Cabal which does not exist.

Oh, sure, there are short-sellers out there who think Bryne is full of it, and that Overstock.com will go the way of other overly-hyped, low-margin internet models. That's their opinion and they're entitled to it--surely as the legitimate long-term investors in Overstock.com have their own, differing opinion and are entitled to it.

And the shorts have shorted Bryne's stock, and they even talk to one another about what they've heard out in the field and what they learned on the conference calls, and they even discuss with reporters--there's a thing called "free speech," is there not?--how bizarre it is that this CEO spends so much time engrossed in a vain effort to stamp out the skeptics surrounding his company when, in reality, running his company well, delivering good numbers, and creating true economic value, are the truly the best revenge.

And guess what: there are even shorts who sell naked even though it's illegal. And they are stupid amateurs who deserve to be caught and get whatever's coming to them.

But the "conspiracy" among professional shortsellers does not exist. And by creating the spector of one, in order to explain losses in their own portfolios in a stock that has risen from $10 to $55, X-Files and his crew reveal themselves to be the patsies at this table.

As for me, I wouldn't trust Patrick Byrne to run a successful company over the long haul. He's too obsessed with the shorts, and his conference calls always raise interesting issues that the analysts covering the stock don't get into.

For exmple, "Its strange" raised a good point in response to "When CEO's Obsess" when he asked how Overstock got "the steal of a lifetime" in a $7 million diamond purchase against all the other, larger competitors out there. (I wonder if it's going to be as successful as Patrick's big watch buy a year or two ago.)

If anybody out there has the answer to "Its strange"--and I mean anybody real, not X-Filian Conspiracy Theorists or Amateur Naked Short-Sellers--then I'd like to hear about it.

Furthermore, I'd love to know what vendor received stock options to sell product to Overstock, resulting in a "vendor comp charge" of almost $1 million last quarter.

Also, Byrne claimed on the call that "we just marked down, promoted, did whatever we had to do to blow out the older inventory." He said Overstock lost $1.5 million on that inventory. I'd like to know what the old inventory was, what his actual cost was, and how he went about blowing it out.

If the patsies here--that is, the Conspiracy Theorists--really know their stuff, they'll have the correct answers. If they don't know their stuff, they'll just go back to their Conspiracy Theory.

I strongly suspect we will not be hearing anything from them in the factual realm.

P.S. For a good example of how not to behave like Patrick Byrne, read Google's S-1, earnings and analyst presentations carefully. You will not see or hear the word "short-seller" in any of their material or any of their calls, despite a substantial short position in Google shares. That is because the Google guys are hell-bent on doing what they do well, and letting success in the business take care of the stock, which will, over time, take care of the shorts.

Overstock.com is no Google.

63 comments:

pistachio said...

The internet is a wonderful place. It has allowed the creation of blogs that give anyone the opportunity to vent, to rant and to disseminate their take, no matter how inconsequential their opinion is.

Please note that Jmatt elected not to respond to the final comment to "CEOs Obess" and instead, chose to change the subject to avoid the tough questions.

Note also that "CEOs Obsess" was the only Jmatt post to even rate a comment.

If Jmatt cannot answer the questions posed in my final comment, what reason might we have to respect anything else Jmatt writes?

I for one have had enough. I can't waste my valuable time posting here when the blogster refuses to ignore the very obvious. I'll say it again for the very last time.

"What part of illegal do you not understand?"

No one has made this up. It's a fact.

- pistachio

pistachio said...

Okay, I lied, but I had to post one more time after re-reading what Jmatt came up with. See paragraph below.

"According to "Peanut," however, the amount of Overstock.com shares failing to deliver amount to less than 100,000. This is hardly "millions." Nor is it enough to influence Overstock's share price, given that almost 30 million shares traded in January alone.Jmatt can't even read his own blog. I plainly stated "at least 92,000" shares, not "less than 100,000." For all I know, there could be a half-million shares naked shorted of OSTK. Fwiw, I do not own a single share of OSTK and never have.

If Jmatt needs to be that insincere, my decision to leave this blog to its deserved obscurity is patently correct.

And who said anything about being called peanut? Do you just make this stuff up?!

- pistachio

Its_strange said...

OSTK's CEO does not believe the seasoned reporters from 5 or 6 veteran publications who write under thier real name but he beleive a guy who dosen't use his real name ? Its strange and its strange "Mr. O'Brien" called the OSTK conference call and not the Novastar conference.

bob obrien said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bob obrien said...

Well, that's quite a bit of vitriol. Amazingly, you still choose to ignore the Reg SHO Threshold list of abusively naked shorted stocks, and the fact that OSTK has now been on it for almost a month.

It would seem that there is no deception or artifice too bizarre to employ when acting as an apologist for the bad guys. Someone's got to do it. Here, I'll even create a primer for you to follow:

1) Deny any facts that don't corroborate your theory. Ignore them, mock them, misconstrue them. Your job is not to promote understanding or reasoned debate, but rather to create the environment of a witch-hunt.

2) Lie. Just tell big, bald-faced stinkers. No tale is too tall, no fish story too wild. Throw them out there, insist that they are true, and deny any knowledge that they are in fact lies.

3) Invent data. Make it up. Take statements and pretend to misunderstand them, or just misquote. Omit any data you dislike, or just change to fit your agenda.

4) Name call. Make sure to castigate anyone that has a differing opinion, or worse yet can show your agenda to be specious and dim. Call them kooky, or nutty, or krazeeee, or anything that will cause the few folks that read you to assume that your targets don't have any legitimacy to their position.

5) Argue strawmen. Stay away from testable issues where there is empirical evidence - like naked shorting. Trivialize or ignore the list of naked shorted stocks that are on the Reg SHO list, and instead hold aloft the specter of a valuation straw man. Much easier to argue valuations than admit you are wrong.

6) Create fallacies of equivocation. "Bill was wrong about the car engine, so he's likely wrong about the financial markets." See? It's easy. You just have to be intellectually dishonest and hope that your readers are as dim as you clearly imagine them to be.

7) Ad hominem. Make sure that you stay away from the message, and attack the messenger, or anyone you are afraid may be listening to the messenger.

Here is an example of how it could read. Do try to follow along, as there are some big words used:

Jeff Mathews doesn’t have to try to make it up – he can just selectively filter away anything that doesn’t jive with his limited worldview. I don’t know which is more sad – a shut-in who has to try to live via an imaginary cyber-world where his comments have any gravitas at all, or one who has to attack actual adults who have actually accomplished things in the real world. Perhaps his cognitive skills are impaired from dealing with his Mom screaming at him to get off that stupid computer and clean up his room, or perhaps he’s compensating for an absence of attention from the opposite sex. Be that as it may, Jeff’s marvelous flexibility with the truth is uninhibited by stale, old fashioned notions like “facts” or “hard data” – in Jeff’s world all you have to do is declare things to be, and presto, they simply are! I can see where he would be annoyed that men like Dr. Byrne are jetting around the world running business empires and building fabulous wealth, and further understand his notion that he is somehow their equal – just without the actual accomplishments or the money to prove it. In “Jeffworld” he is the judge and jury, and no matter how implausible the slant nor disproved and hackneyed the rant, his spin is to be accepted by his dozen or so dull readers as gospel. I’m sure he imagines a world of hot supermodels hanging on his every monosyllable, and views his limited and vapid existence of cruising the web for free porn and gaming with other fleshy, malcontented geeks as merely a temporary aberration, and in no way indicative of latent bi-curiosity or a future of dismal mediocrity - rather something trivial to be endured until he morphs into the powerhouse of leadership he always just knew he could be.

See? You can simultaneously insult, degrade, mock, and deliver exactly nothing of any substance, all the time pretending to be smugly superior and of import.

Thanks for expressing your limited views in such a longwinded and pedantic manner – it’s reassuring to know that my critics are of your caliber. You might want to stop by www.NCANS.net - or better yet, the www.nfi-info.net site, and review things like yesterday’s news page, where I debunked the dross that one of the short-biased analyst firms spewed forth in the same spirit of pure invention as your little piece. They, however, actually get paid to churn out their drivel, as astonishing as it may be from the sophomoric level of ineptitude demonstrated, whereas you apparently don’t – but it should give you hope.

And everyone could do with a little hope, n’est pas?

Jeff Matthews said...

"Patsy" O'Brien has proved my point: not a single fact in his 14 paragraph post. At least "Peanut" had one right when he pointed out that "at least 92,000 shares" could mean more than 100,000.

Yet since Overstock only appeared a month ago on the SHO list, it still means nothing: the large short position in Overstock.com was established last year, not recently. This SHO list is nickels and dimes. Get over it.

Before we move on to a different topic, I extend my invitation to actual knowledgable individuals to help us with the facts behind the remarkable rise in Overstock.

This invitation does not, however, extend to the Pecksniffian Bob O'Brien.

We want facts here, not patsies.

Jeff Matthews
I'm Not Making This Up

Its_strange said...

After read Mr. Greenberg and Gradient's novastar report on Bob O'Brien's website i am wonder how Novastars auditor can sign off on the 10K . I also wonder what the Overstock stockholders think of Dr. Byrne's connections with Bob O'Brien are .

Its_strange said...

Perhaps we should chart the " vendor comp charge " data like wallstreet does many other metrics ? Perhaps the scholar has started a trend ?

Bamass said...

Hi Jeff:

You might be interested to know that Herb Greenberg plugged your blog in his column tonight, so I imagine you're going to have a larger audience shortly. Looks like good stuff so far; I may have something more of substance to say after a little sleep.

bob obrien said...

My goodness, Jeff. You devote so many words to saying so little, and then you accuse me of not saying enough?

How about this classic sleight of factual hand? "This SHO is nickels and dimes" is my new favorite, being a typically intellectually dishonest response from a guy who apparently revels in such.

Golly Jeff, just how big is the SHO naked short position in Overstock? Precisely, that is? And how do you know? Or don't you?

Isn't it true that you have no idea of how large or small a problem it is, and are instead just doing what you have been doing all along - misleading and attempting to trivialize a legitimate concern over the systematic violation of the rules?

Or do you know how large the illegal naked short position is?

It's one or the other - A) I have no idea, and make this crap up as I go; or B) I know, and here's my source, and here's the number, and that's why I am comfortable stating that this is nickel and dime stuff.

My hunch is A.

I have seen nothing to lead me to believe differently from you. Just another unsupported statement intended to disarm a real issue with hyperbole and rhetoric.

So, again, for the record, my take is that we have Jeff making it up, claiming that he isn't.

Which is it, Jeff? A, or B?

Easy question.

Simple answer.

My money's on Jeff Mathews is in fact making this up.

Now, if you want facts about naked short selling and the damage this illegal predatory activity does, go to the NCANS.net site. Among other things, you'll find a paper by Professor Leslie Boni, about strategic failure to delivers. Think about that term, and then read the paper. Strategic failure to deliver. “Fail to deliver” being the euphemism the industry uses for naked shorting. “Strategic” as in part of a strategy.

It's a paper about using illegal naked shorting as a systematic manipulative strategy, written by a consultant for the SEC.

Or try this from the NASD's own report: “Concerns have been raised by members, issuers, investors and other interested parties about potentially abusive short selling activities occurring in the marketplace. In particular, naked short selling, or selling short without borrowing securities to make delivery, can result in long term failures to deliver, including aggregate failures to deliver that exceed the total float of a security. NASD believes such extended failures to deliver can have a negative effect on the market. Among other things, by not having to deliver securities, naked short sellers can take on larger short positions than would otherwise be permissible, which can facilitate manipulative activity.” From the NASD Proposed Amendments Relating To Short Sale Delivery Requirements (SR-NASD-2004-044).

Now, I don’t know about you, Jeff, but I’d say being able to sell more naked shares than the entire float of a company is a real problem. That, from the SEC’s consultant as well as from the NASD. Did I miss the memo where that isn’t bad? Where it’s actually nothing to worry about? Where it’s all in my head, as you are so glibly making it out to be? Who knew the NASD and the SEC were also up in my noggin?

This really isn't hard for most to grasp. Big money is involved in gaming the system, and it has its apologists working overtime to assure everyone that there's no elephant in the room, in spite of the actual, provable elephant standing in the room. Again, it's not hard.

Let's not make it hard.

And let's not resort to making things up. 'hmmmm 'kay, Jeff?

mfairview said...

Can the next blog be titled "Fund managers that obsess over CEO's and the writers that love them"? I think the fact that lapdog herb gave you the thumbs up jeff, pretty much says it all. Advice: Run, do not walk, to the nearest disassociation article. LOL

I don't understand what the big beef is about wanting to have everyone play by the rules. I'll give you credit for at least admitting naked shorting exists (I prefer to call it No-Intention-To-Deliver shorting). And I agree with the previous writer regarding your less then 100k FTD statement. Show me the numbers! (or at least a verifiable link).

BTW- Smart of lapdog to link to your site. Allows lots of readers to read both sides of the argument. I doubt that was his intention. Let's see if he'll do it again.

mfairview said...

BTW- I love your ending sentence to this blog: "Overstock.com is no Google." It's quite dramatic. I'm glad you opted for the succinct comment and kept away from the more alluring phrase: "Mr. Byrne, I invest in Google, I know Google, Google is a friend of mine. Mr. Byrne, you're no Google."

Are you associating them because both their names have 2 O's and 1 E in them? Is that like saying "Jeff Matthews is no Warren Buffet" or "Ram Partners is no Berkshire Hathaway"?

Its_strange said...

We focus on naked shorting while ignoring the "steal of a lifetime" and vendor comp charges ? Well i guess the press does have its lapdogs

Jeff Matthews said...

The Overstock patsies continue to reveal themselves, and they are quite a bunch. Not a face card in any of their hands.

It's like watching Andy Richter play Celebrity Poker, before he gets sent to the Loser's Lounge: big bluffs, no cards.

Indeed, the only certified fact I see in any of these responses is that Jeff Matthews is no Warren Buffett--I'll admit to that. What bearing it has on the Patrick Byrne/"X-Files" O'Brien Short Selling Conspiracy Delusion is beyond me, but a fact is a fact and that's what this blog is about.

Speaking of which, I'm still looking for Overstock friends, workers and ex-workers who can shed light on the mysterious $7 million diamond "buy of a lifetime" and the million dollar "vendor comp" and the $1.5 million inventory loss.

A warning to the Conspiracy Theorists, and to any "naked shorts" looking to clog up the site with fact-free blather: I will now begin to excercise my right to delete posts that stray from the factual.

Thus far, it's been worth reading the Yahoo message-board type rants from the Byrne acolytes, if only to see what weak cards they hold in their hands.

But in the future, it's "Off to the Loser's Lounge" for the fact-free posters, shorts and longs alike.

Jeff Matthews
I'm Not Making This Up

Lefty Malone said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lefty Malone said...

Jeff-I found your site through the Greenberg link, and I'm glad I did.

It is amusing to see the tin foil helmeted "get shorty" crowd cite the Boni data in support of their conspiracy theory, when in fact it demolishes their mythology.

I should note that the naked short paranoia has traditionally focused on BB and Pink Sheet stocks. The myth, heavily promoted by InvesTrend's "news" service, Investment Wire takes the position that there is a vast conspiracy of naked shorters who target heavily promoted penny stocks--frequently trading for literally pennies or fractions thereof--and naked short them out of existence.

In their more over the top moments the get shorty crowd claim that trillions of dollars have been stolen from investors in these marginal stocks, most of which are nothing but shells used to sell discounted stock. The naked short claim is a convenient promoters myth that keeps the marks in buy mode, anticipating--as in the case of CMKX, a Canadian mining scam under an SEC investigation--the "short squeeze of the century."

That would imply, of course, a huge pool of unsettled positions in OTC stocks, and one that persists for long periods of time.

In fact, Boni's data showed persistent fails-those lasting longer than 13 days--totalled only about 225 million shares for the entire universe of over 3,000 BB and Pinks included in her sample, and that number did not change in her three successive samples.

While 225 million looks like a big number to the penny stock crowd, it is instructive to remember that the total represents over three thousand issues on "exchanges" where shares frequently trade for fractions of a penny. CMKX, with its "trillion share" short claim trades at .0001 bid on an unsolicited basis.

The NSCC's 2003 Annual report also gives us hard information about the absolute magnitude of the fail to deliver "problem." As of 2003 year end, the NSCC had a total due members for all unsettled trades--including the major exchanges--of approximately $3 billion. Fail would include any T+4 trade. Seven hundred million dollars of that obligation was settled through the borrow program, leaving a total monetary value of $2.3 billion in trade failures. During that year the NSCC cleared almost $200 trillion in trades, making the fail position so trivial as to be rounding error. That was, of course, a period in which market makers were allowed to carry extended fails on their books for BB and Pink Sheet stocks in order to maintain orderly markets.

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

BTW, the elusive Mr. O'Brian is almost certainly James Dale Davidson of stock pimping Agora Publishing fame. Given his current SEC fraud charges, he has reason to keep his head down.

sam said...

Re: These are the patsies

over 30 years of investing I can say one thing

Every stock I ever owned or considered deserved its shorts.

the rules about naked shorts are there to keep people from expressing thier views in action and to keep walln street idiots from extending credit to thier active customers and discretionary brokers from running up uncoverable positions.

anumati said...

Love the blog you have here! I referenced some of your recent posts here:
http://www.anumati.com/blogs/anumatiblog/archive/2005/02/24/118.aspx

If you are interested in getting more exposure for your blog, we'd be happy to host it for you for free at Anumati.com (the site gets a fair bit of traffic). Our blogging software is top notch and we could even give you a discussion forum for your readers. If you're interested, drop us a note at blogs at anumati.com

mfairview said...

Gotta love the "it's my ball, and if you don't agree with me, I'll take it and go home" attitude. Censor away crazy man.

Anyways, to answer your question regarding the diamonds and comp vendor charges. I don't know. However, I will direct you to http://auctions.overstock.com/cgi-bin/msgboard.cgi?PAGE=TOPICS&ForumID=34&PageNum=1 where you can post your question and have Byrne answer it directly. It's that simple. Cut out the middleman and go straight to the source. Perhaps you can repost the answer here for all of our edification.

Back to my question... How do you know it's less then 100k FTD shares on OSTK? I'm really interested in finding out.

Note: a response of "I picked a number out of thin air" is perfectly acceptable.

mfairview said...

re: LEFTY

"BTW, the elusive Mr. O'Brian is almost certainly James Dale Davidson of stock pimping Agora Publishing fame. Given his current SEC fraud charges, he has reason to keep his head down."

So you're telling me, he resurfaced under an assumed name. Grabbed a bunch of attention to himself by going after Naked (NITD) Shorters. For the sake of... (you're gonna have to finish this sentence for me as that's about as far as my feeble mind will give allowance to this idiotic hypothesis)

Its_strange said...

Bob O'Brien , How can NFI file its tax returns and 10K if the IRS doesn't issue its ruling concerning taxable income soon ?t NFI dicussed the issue on thier last conference call and Mr. Greenberg wrote about if on 2/14/05. You claim you know the business and company well, can you explain whats going on ? Do i misunderstand ?

Its_strange said...

When OSTK "did whatever it had to" to clean out that excess inventory did anyone see ads for the clearance sale ? What was being sold ? Did anyone buy any of the stuff ? How much product would be required to cause a $1,500,000 loss ? Did one person or company buy the whole lot ? ......Why didn't we get better info on the conference call ?

Lefty Malone said...

Mfairview-I didn't say Davidson was rational. He's the one who tried a pre-emptive suit against the SEC for violating his "free-speech" rights when they bagan their investigation of his newsletter offer to sell "insider information" for a thousand bucks.

Lefty Malone said...

Mfairview-I didn't say Davidson was rational. He's the one who tried a pre-emptive suit against the SEC for violating his "free-speech" rights when they bagan their investigation of his newsletter offer to sell "insider information" for a thousand bucks.

bob obrien said...

Well, I can answer the NFI question pretty easily - as I sort of did in my debunking of Gradient's idiotic "research report" on the www.nfi-info.net website.

The PROPOSED rules are in the initial discussion/comment round. To put this into perspective, it took 4 years for them to get to this stage.

It's akin to asking "how will you file your taxes this year when there may be a rule change 2 years from now?"

Answer: Using the existing rules, which still have the force and weight of law. Nobody knows whether the new rules will ever be enacted, or whether they will look even remotely similar to what's in the proposal stage. That's why they aren't called "the new code" or "the new rules." They are called "the proposed rules under consideration" or somesuch.

As to Jeff's "if I don't like your comments I'm going to just censor them" that is probably because he doesn't like hard questions like "did you just make up your statement that this is a nickel and dime problem, or is it based in a hard, verifiable fact?"

I wouldn't like that either.

Especially if my agenda was to attempt to make an illegal predation seem like no big deal.

Here's a fun little something to consider:

The Nanopierce suit, for starters, at -
http://www.rgm.com/articles/nanopierce.html

And even more fun is the recent Compudyne NASD action, which among other things will show that a hedge fund manager naked shorted almost a half a million shares in 975 transactions, and not once were those fails stopped by the system. The charges should be part of the record any minute now, and they are a graphic illustration of how badly broken the system is - 975 trades, all fails, half a million shares, and not ONE caught or stopped.

Now, those are facts.

Hard facts.

The apologists don't like those facts. Maybe they can just delete or censor them away. But the fact is that if the judge in NV grants discovery in Nanopierce, which IMO he will, the whole house of cards, the lie, the deceptions, all of it comes down.

It will be fun to watch guys like Jeff eat their words, or switch to some new apologist tact wherein they blame the victims (they deserved being run out of business illegally - they were scams, I tell you, and thus shouldn't be afforded equal protection under the law.)

I presume this will be deleted in the spirit of open and honest discussion making things up engenders.

Its_strange said...

Bob O'Brien's post number 26678 on the yahoo OSTK message board certainly reads like a accusation against Rocker Partners to me. Mob ? Money laundering ? Terrorist money ? Its time Mr. O'Brien disclose his true identity . The idea he is worried about his safety doesn't pass the reasonable test when you look at the endless list of contacts he has made , posts he has written .

Jeff Matthews said...

Very disappointing feedback from the Loser's Lounge.

"X-Files" O'Brien does come up with an apparent fact or two about Compudyne--but, again, misses the point: I don't know any professional short who shorts naked, and the actual data--92,000 Overstock shares on the SHO list out of 30 million shares traded in January--prove it. Cased close, get over it, NEXT.

(Speaking of that 92,000, "mfairview" needs to take his eyes off the Star Trek fan site long enough to read my acknowledgement that it could be more than 92,000. But that still doesn't get you to millions of shares. NEXT!)

As for the cries of "censorship" at my refusal to tolerate pap, Conspiracy Theorists AND Naked Short Sellers alike will be censored from this site if they try to clog up the site with stuff they are making up.

This site is about not making it up.

For pointers, check out Lefty Malone's excellent work, not the least of which is the apparent outing of Bob "X-Files" O'Brien as one James Dale Davidson.

I notice O'Brien didn't respond to this in his subsequent post. The logical question, then, is, who exactly is James Dale Davidson, and what exactly are these SEC fraud charges against him, and are "X-Files" O'Brien and James Dale Davidson one and the same, and, if so why is the CEO of a public company, Doctor Patrick Bryne, letting him hijack a conference call?

Jeff Matthews
I'm Not Making This Up

Its_strange said...

And why would Dr. Bryne team up with James Dale Davidson to run ads in the Washington Post ?

bob obrien said...

I didn't answer it because it's idiocy. I'm not Davidson. That's a lie. I'm also not the pope, Goldilocks, or David Rocker.

I love how you gloss over the hard questions. Here it is again: How do you know that OSTK's naked short position is "nickels and dimes?" What is your source, and what is the total number of fails - not the minimum required to make the threshold? Let me guess - you don't know, and you are just making it up.

As to your specious statement that naked shorting isn't a problem, I would direct you to the Compudyne case, wherein 975 seperate transactions were fail to delivers, and the hedge funds in question naked shorted over a third of the entire float - and no one said a word, the system just pretended all was well. Before you run your mouth about how it isn't a problem, and foist off folksy wisdom and facile anecdotes, you might try actually knowing something - knowing things is good. Try reading the following about the Compudyne situation - the actual charges being brought by the NASD (pay particular attention to charges 3 and 4), and then feel free to return to your "naked shorting isn't a problem" agenda:

Here's the actual charges. Pay particular attention to charge 3 and 4. Those are my favorites. Then you can explain how it's not what it says it is.
________________
(Violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2120)

“…By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Shane, directly or indirectly, by use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, intentionally or recklessly employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud, made untrue statements of fact, and engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2120. “
_______________
CAUSE TWO

Shane Traded CDCY While in Possession of Material, Non-Public Information (Violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2120, and also violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, thereby violating NASD Conduct Rule 2110)
_____________________

CAUSE THREE

Shane Unlawfully Distributed Unregistered Securities by Selling Shares of CDCY before Their Registration (Violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and thereby of
NASD Conduct Rule 2110)

"...By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Shane, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities for which no registration was in effect and to which no exemption applied, in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, thereby violating NASD Conduct Rule 2110. "
_________________________
CAUSE FOUR

Shane Caused FNY to Fail to Make and Annotate an Affirmative Determination that Shares were Available for Settlement in each of Hundreds of Transactions 10 (Violations of NASD Conduct Rules 3370 and 2110)

"...Between on or about October 9, 2001, and on or about October 29, 2001, Shane caused FNY to fail to make and annotate an affirmative determination that shares were available for delivery in each of approximately 975 separate short sale transactions of CDCY, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3370 and 2110. "

Now, I know that you don't like hard facts, and prefer to continue with your Byrne and O'Brien bashing, but the above ARE the actual charges. And while my identity seems to be a fixation for those who no doubt want to congratulate me in person for a job well done, the fact is that naked shorting is a huge problem, endemic to the system, and that is why the DTCC flies boxcar loads of lawyers to any court where it looks like they may have to expose their books for scrutiny - they know once that happens, it's game over, hence they fight it like the plague.

Nked shorting is a big problem. The DTCC is a big part of the problem. There's abundant evidence of that. You are ignoring it as part of a disinformation agenda.

Hence why Jeff is making things up.

bob obrien said...

It's strange:

It is no such thing. It simply says that I don't know of anyone with any offshore hedge fund trading expertise, other than a convicted felon and david Rocker.

Hey, I know, why don't you take on powerful entrenched players in a multi-billion dollar industry that has been linked to organized crime, terrorists and drug money laundering and post your name and address on the web, especially after almost single handedly causing the heat to be cranked up on them to an obviously uncomfortable level?

No?

Yeah, I don't see why my attorneys advised me to keep my identity private....

Seems silly in retrospect...

Its_strange said...

Bob O'Brien

Are you talking on organized crime or as Dr. Bryne says, " captive regulators " ?

mfairview said...

jeff, you are too funny supporting this rant.

"X-Files" O'Brien does come up with an apparent fact or two about Compudyne--but, again, misses the point: I don't know any professional short who shorts naked, and the actual data--92,000 Overstock shares on the SHO list out of 30 million shares traded in January--prove it. Cased close, get over it, NEXT."

So lemme see if I can capture your points here:

1) You don't know any shorts that naked short and therefore the problem is small (we've already concluded that it at least exists). This is really a dumb conclusion and I can only assume you're in hyper-defensive mode right now just swinging at air. How about "I don't know any people that do illegal drugs and therefore illegal drugs are not a problem."?

2) "the actual data--92,000 Overstock shares on the SHO list". Wait a minute, you said it could be more then this. If you know the true number please tell us, but it's intellectually dishonest to pick the lowest possible number for your argument. And in fact, if the number was indeed this low, OSTK would be off the Reg SHO list in the blink of a 100 sh delivery true? The fact that it's been on there since Jan 27th, would presume otherwise.

To Its_Strange: If anyone should be censored here, it should be you being how you like to throw baseless accusations around. Are you lapdog Greenberg by chance? You carry his MO.

Jeff Matthews said...

Surprise! "X-Files" posted some facts! Of course, he cut and pasted old documents from a four-year old case involving somebody hardly in the category of legit professional short-seller. Get over it, "X-Files," there's no Conspiracy. Move on.

In the meantime, I take his denial of being James Dale Davidson on its face.

But I'm still disappointed--Overstock fan that he is--that he provided zero input into the question of how Overstock got a $7 million diamond "buy of a lifetime" and what vendors they've been giving options to and precisely what the inventory was that cost them $1.5 million last quarter.

I'd think, given all the work he's done on this stock, being on the conference call and all, he'd know more about Overstock than the shorts. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

Maybe somebody "real" can help provide the answers.

Jeff Matthews
I'm Not Making This Up

Its_strange said...

Well Bob did you ask our government for protection or help? Did you explain what you are trying to do and why you might be harmed ? Wouldn't that help our gov catch anyone who might harm you ? Did you tell the FBI about Rocker's off shore business ? Did you let them know that you interviewed with the WSJ and NYT's ? I am sure they would want to know that if something happened to you. Or are they also "captive regulators"

Why didn't you have your lawyer friends contact the SEC , WSJ , Wsahington Post, NYTimes and US Congress ? I am sure they wouldn't reveal your identity ...

Fact is Bob your story just doesn't pass the "reasonable behavior" test

bob obrien said...

From an email I just got - a guy that is very up on the topics:

"In a hearing in New York yesterday, a Federal Judge ruled that the DTCC had to turn over trading records for three companies, including EATC (Eagletech Communications), Exotics, and one other case.

In one other case, the DTCC, after a follow-on Motion to Compel that was required when they ignored the Judge's first ruling instruction, produced 80 banker's boxes of trading records, which when opened, were found to have Bates numbers on every page in the 80 Boxes, ALONG WITH A STAMP - "REDACTED" - ON THE HEAVILY BLACKED OUT PAGES, WHICH WERE ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

That is obstruction. Period."

Is everyone starting to see how this is crumbling along the edges? When you are in contempt, and obstructing justice, that is some heavy stuff.

What is it they are so afraid the public will find out?

What do you think?

So for all the short apologists who seem to feel that there is no problem, guess what? Your world is starting to come apart at the seams. Can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.

And I am not making this up.

bob obrien said...

For it's Strange:

I'm talking organized crime. The hedge fund game is the last billion dollar business that is unregulated. Nobody asks where the money comes from, especially not in offshore jurisdictions - it's just deposits for a "hedge fund."

I have contacted the FBI. My attorneys feel that given the players involved, only a madman would reveal his identity and strap a bulls-eye on his chest at this juncture. I thought they were being paranoid two years ago, but now I believe they are just being prudent. If nobody knows your identity, you don't have to rely on the protection of people who's competence has brought you the DMV and the tax code.

As to why I should go public, I haven't heard any reason except some short apologists who really, really want to know who I am trying to create straw men to draw me out. So solly. Not going to happen - and why is the messenger so much more important than the messenger?

To Jeff, who continues to make things up:

The case is a little over three years old - not four - you made that up. The case also shows that a hedge fund was able to perpetrate a massive fraud on a company and the system didn't do anything - sort of hard for your position that there's no problem, huh?

And you seem to credulously buy into Davidson ID conspiracies and Byrne/O'Brien conspiracies with breathless and total naivete, embracing ever less plausible allegations as requiring proof, and yet poo poo hard data from the NASD's own filings.

Why is that?

Agenda?

What do you make of the DTCC obstructing justice and refusing to turn over documents? All just good clean fun?

No comment?

Wanna try for how you know the size of the fails for OSTK and thus can make statements that it's "nickels and dimes"? No? Just more "misunderstanding" of the question and citing minimums in a transparent attempt to backpedal?

Jeff, having your own blog can be fun. Try dropping the pretense of fairness and just come out and say "I'm a hedge fund and a cronie of lapdog's, and my gig is to disseminate disinformation and never see a set of facts that changed my position, no matter how untenable." Then at least you might be taken seriously. As it is, trying to bend the thread to a discussion of some diamonds while leaving a question that impacts the entire US financial system behind seems, well, dishonest, to put it charitably.

So don't make things up. Jeff.

bob obrien said...

Again for It's Strange:

"Did you tell the FBI about Rocker's off shore business ? Did you let them know that you interviewed with the WSJ and NYT's ? I am sure they would want to know that if something happened to you. Or are they also "captive regulators"

Why didn't you have your lawyer friends contact the SEC , WSJ , Wsahington Post, NYTimes and US Congress ? I am sure they wouldn't reveal your identity ...

Fact is Bob your story just doesn't pass the "reasonable behavior" test "

The FBI and SEC know about Helmsman (Rocker's offshore structure) - he's listed as the investment controlling party in the SEC's roundtable testimony from 2003.

They know that I was interviewed as those interviews are cleverly hidden as publicly available widely distributed articles.

Why would I have my attorneys contact the FBI, and the SEC, et al? About what? I am perfectly capable of discussing things with them - it's not like they can't reach me, or that I haven't had multiple discussions with them.

Your "Sniffer" for reasonableness seems a trifle out of whack. All of your reasoning basically comes down to "you need to tell us who you are."

Not interested in having my car blow up so that it can serve as the basis of a post mortem investigation. Maybe that is lost on you. I don't see how.

Its_strange said...

For someone who claims he might be harmed you certainly have gone public with the websites and interviews and ads. You do not act like a man concerned about his physical safety to me but more like a man concerned about his financial safety

"messenger so much more important than the message" ? Well you have mentioned Rocker 100's of times and have never addressed the "buy of a lifetime" ..

MainFraim said...

Mr. O'Brien,

Would you be so kind as to explain your relationship with Capital Market Investment in Tortola?

Its_strange said...

You found a tie between Bob and Capital Market in Tortola ? If so i bet Mr. Norris would like to know about it. And many others as well

bob obrien said...

Mainfraim: There is no relationship. They are hosting as a favor to a friend of a friend.
I might decide to change it to a US host, or make it anonymous. All of those are possible.

It's Strange: The fight is worth fighting, but it doesn't mean you have to be foolhardy. Anonymity has served me well thusfar. There's no downside for me at this point by remaining anonymous, so what's the big deal. If you think I'm disingenuous, just feel free to ignore me.

SellToWhom said...

X-Files,

Your comment

"I'm talking organized crime. The hedge fund game is the last billion dollar business that is unregulated. Nobody asks where the money comes from, especially not in offshore jurisdictions - it's just deposits for a "hedge fund."shows your complete lack of knowledge about the hedge fund industry you hate so much.

While it is true that most hedgefunds are unregulated by the SEC, that does not mean they are exempt from "Know Your Customer" and the Patriot Act.

Furthermore, hedge fund managers with over $100 million in assets are required to file 13F reports with the SEC on a regular basis.

OSTK reminds me very much of GMXX, a company that was so much more focused on "naked shorts" than it was on actually running its business.

Of all the companies that screamed the loudest about naked shorting, how many showed up on the threshold lists?

Has anyone reading the blog every purchased a security and been told by their broker or custodian that the seller failed to deliver? Can you back it up with documentation?

Can anyone prove any harm from short selling, as distinct and seperate from the harm caused by being naive, ignorant, and foolish in one's investments?

bob obrien said...

Yawn...I'm sure that all the offshore hedge funds, like Rocker's Helmsman Holdings, strictly adheres to US know your customer rules - "hey, it's Mohammed ben ali Faruk of the Al Jazeera teacher's union with another $50 million! Welcome Mo! I had no idea that the saudi's paid their teachers so well"...and I missed where on a 13F the investors are listed....

What part of naked shorting is illegal except for a narrow type of activity from market makers are you unclear on? Because you seem unclear that it is in fact illegal to naked short a company. To sell something and then fail to deliver the share. Illegal. It actually is selling an unregistered security - I believe that the NASD has that one correct. The bogus share was never authorized by the company, carries no voting rights, and is a sham, a fraud.

Now your reasoning is typical of the short apologists - who's being harmed instead of it's illegal. Got it. Who's being harmed if I steal a few million from a billionaire's account - he'll never miss it. Is that also OK? Who's being harmed if I knock back a bottle of Jack Daniels and drive 150 mph as long as I don't hit anything. That OK too? If a 13 year old prostitute wants to service you, who's being harmed. OK too? That kind of moral relativism is always interesting to me - arguing that you have to show harm for something to be illegal. Here's the facts: you don't. It's illegal.

Now as to the Reg SHO list issue, do you believe that Compudyne was harmed as well as the shareholders when 40% of their float was sold naked by a few hedge funds? If not, why not? Because the NASD sure does. Maybe you can argue that to them.

As to who is screaming loudest about naked shorting, what does the volume of the complaint have to do with it's illegal? And given that a few months ago similar apologists would have argued that the whole notion that there was naked shorting going on was a crock - except now there's a list.

Oh, that.

Tell me, how do you feel about the DTCC being compelled to open their books now? What do you think we'll find? Honest Injun behavior, or den of thieves?

The reason nobody ever gets told that they have fails is because of the mechanism at the DTCC that covers the fails with the stock borrow program - a disguised sale, IMO, and one that I believe will be discovered to be rampant, and ultimately fraudulent. The problem is that the buyer believes that he got a legitimate share, when in fact there's nothing to back it up - no legit share at the NSCC, jsut an electronic IOU based upon a pool of shares at the DTCC.

It violates the law, IMO, as it creates unregistered securities with no attendant rights. The SEC is supposed enforce T+3, and yet they have taken the position that they aren't in the business of that enforcement. So who is? Good question, huh?

And why is the DTCC working so hard to keep anyone from seeing their books? Got a facile answer for that?

Didn't think so.

And as far as I can tell, OSTK is doing just fine with their core business. Just fine. So any few minutes Dr. Byrne has spent dealing with the naked shorting thing is trivial, and likely in his spare time. He's allowed to have spare time, isn't he?

Its_strange said...

Bob, exactly what " shenanigans " mentioned in yahoo NFI messsage board post number 274216 do you think RP is up to ?

" Anonymity has served me well " really ? Seems many on the boards want to know who you are . Identifing yourself would add instant credibility. Even Greenberg and Norris would have to take a second look . The SEC and FBI would as well. In Dr. Bryne's posting he said he wanted to do the socially responsible thing to do, i'm sure he would fund protection for you . Imagine running a ad revealing your true identity ? Talk about instant credibility ! I can't imagine something that would further your goal than that . You have everyones attention now step up to the plate. Dr. Bryne will fund protection . He wants to do the right thing

mfairview said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mfairview said...

Bob, you're completely right. These cretins are more interested in finding out who you are then preventing ILLEGAL activities undermining the world's largest economy. Unbelievable. To Strange, if he told you his real name was Jason Alexander, would you be satisfied? Or would you also like to know his sexual orientation, religious affiliations, whether he wears boxers or briefs, and his favorite color? Because, as everyone realizes, then and only then do these ILLEGAL activities really become ILLEGAL (otherwise they're just quasi-ILLEGAL ). Or is it because you're just looking for more ammo for your Ad Hominem attacks to divert attention away from these ILLEGAL activities.

Its_strange said...

When one testifies in court they are required to identify themselves . Why ?

Time to get real .

mfairview said...

And when the time comes for him to testify in court then I'm sure his identity will be revealed. I'm sure we'll all be severely under-whelmed.

Listen, if you want to be constructive on this topic do the following:

1) Argue (or convince yourself or however you resolve issues in your 10x10 cell) whether you think Naked (NITD) Shorting is legal or not legal for 99% of us (even though the law is pretty clear on this, I'm trying to give you a fair shake here.)

2) If we get past #1 and agree it is illegal, then let's move on and figure out how we fix it.

BONUS: If we find out bob is a serial rapist and likes to club baby seals during his rapes, we'll send pictures of him around the internet for people to use as a dart board. Perhaps someone will superimpose his image on Monica Lewinsky and really tick him off.

One of the rare gems from the Yahoo Boards uncovered this week:

http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10a-2.html

Under Securities Act of 1934Rule 10a-2 -- Requirements for Covering Purchases

1. No broker or dealer shall lend, or arrange for the loan of, any security registered on, or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on, a national securities exchange for delivery to the broker for the purchaser after sale, or shall fail to deliver a security on the date delivery is due, if such broker or dealer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the sale was effected, or will be effected, pursuant to an order marked "long," unless such broker or dealer knows, or has been informed by the seller

1. that the security sold has been forwarded to the account for which the sale was effected, or

2. that the seller owns the security sold, that it is then impracticable to deliver to such account the security owned and that he will deliver such security to such account as soon as it is possible without undue inconvenience or expense.

2. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply

1. to the lending of a security registered on, or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on, a national securities exchange by a broker or dealer through the medium of a loan to another broker or dealer, or

2. to any loan, or arrangement for the loan, of any such security, or to any failure to deliver any such security if, prior to such loan, arrangement or failure to deliver, a national securities exchange, in the case of a sale effected thereon, or a national securities association, in the case of a sale not effected on an exchange, finds

1. that such sale resulted from a mistake made in good faith,

2. that due diligence was used to ascertain that the circumstances specified in Rule 10a-1(d)(1) existed or to obtain the information specified in clause (2) thereof, and

3. either that the condition of the market at the time the mistake was discovered was such that undue hardship would result from covering the transaction by a "purchase for cash" or that the mistake was made by the seller's broker and the sale was at a price permissible for a short sale under Rule 10a-1 (a) or (b).

Its_strange said...

You sound like you have worked at Capital Market investments in Tortola BVI .

I can't add much to the "naked short" discussion cause i know little about it and i am not as fast a study as Dr. Bryne !!

Time to get real

MainFraim said...

Mr. O'Brien,

When I asked about your relationship with Capital Market Investment in Tortola you answered:

" There is no relationship. They are hosting as a favor to a friend of a friend.Thank you for that response. However I still am a little curious, as I imagine are others.

What type of organization is Capital Market Investments: a commerical bank, a fish market at the beach, or are they perhaps an offshore hedge fund?

With the concerns you have raised regarding the alleged offshore activity of others, the purported agendas you suspect that they have, and with your (as noted by others) certain familiarity with securities transactions and regulations -- it would certainly be helpful to shed light on the nature of this organization with whom you have "no relationship."

When motives are called into question and the "lapdog for others" card is played -- questions such as this are certainly fair and deserve disclosure.

Thank you in advance for shedding some light on this.

Its_strange said...

Are we ,the public, subsidizing the tame retail inflation numbers by funding ( stock & debt )the OSTK types that claim to offer better prices than the competition ? What happens if the IPO market dies ? If the system stops buying the debt of the low-ballers ? Are we in a period where what we save in tame infaltion we are about to lose because of our willingness to fund this sillyness ? Are we just fooling ourselves ? Is Wallstreet helping us fool ourselves ? ....."Vendor comp charges" ...Hmmm, it has me thinking

bob obrien said...

Main:

Well, for starters, I have no idea what Capital Markets does. It doesn't matter to me. It's an address to put on a record for a web site. Since then, I've learned you can just do it anonymously, so I will do that next go around - then you have nothing to talk about.

It's strange:

Naked shorting is illegal for most players most of the time. The law is readily available for your scrutiny. And yet you don't take the ten minutes to educate yourself. Why is that?

There are many specious arguments advanced for why I should tell everyone who I am. Huh. Let's try the first and most obvious reason I won't: I don't have to - it's a free country. The arguments in favor of doing so get pretty silly pretty quickly - I should do so for "credibility" with anonymous message board posters, with law enforcement agencies, with a bunch of hack reporters that support the short agenda. And I should do all this in the hopes that my family and I will be protected by Dr. Byrne...unless of course somebody gets careless, and a car explodes, or a hit and run takes place, or a gas leak happens, or any one of a million other ways that you can silence someone once you know who they are...

And I'm supposed to embrace that risk because....well, because it will make some short apologists feel "more comfortable."

Try this: Get comfortable with he idea that the DTCC and NSCC's program is going to receive full and open scrutiny under discovery, and that all the trades will be examined, and then we won't require shooting the messenger - they are either pure as the driven snow, or not. If so, I go away, and this was all rambling paranoia. If not, I don't, and Wall Street has the biggest problem on their hands in the last 70 years - and I am one of the primary protagonists in this sordid little drama. In which case maintaining my anonymity as long as possible seems prudent, ya know?

FWIW, here are some fun code sections and rules for everyone to peruse - some light weekend reading:

No short on uptick: Rule 10(a)1 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10a-1.html#d.1

Fail to deliver: Rule 10(a)2 - http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10a-2.html

Reg SHO delivery requirements: Rule 203 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/regSHO/rule203.html

Related party trading: Section 9(a)1 - http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec9.html

Employment of Manipulative and deceptive devices: rule10(b)5 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-5.html

Manipulative and deceptive devices: Section 10 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec10.html

Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices by Brokers or
Dealers: Rule 10(b)3 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-3.html

Misappropriation: Rule 10(b)5-2 -
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b5-2.html

Know things. I hear it can pay well to do so.

Its_strange said...

Bob said " knows things. I hear it can pay well to do so. "

OK, What vendor or vendors got OSTK options ? Who gave OSTK a diamond " buy of a lifetime" and why ? How did OSTK " blow out that inventory" and what was it ?

When did you first discuss naked shorting with Dr. Bryne ?

bob obrien said...

You obviously don't register that I don't know anything about OSTK's internal workings. I'll repeat - I know nothing about OSTK's inner workings. Questions about diamonds and auctions or discounts would be better directed to someone who knows or cares.

I don't think I discussed naked shorting with Dr. Byrne in any real depth until after the Q4 CC - it wasn't a real issue for them as they weren't on the list. It became real when their stock showed up on the Reg SHO list - up until then all you could have said is that "at least there's not a lot of naked shorting going on." I had sent some emails about general criminal manipulation and my theories about what might be occurring with OSTK, but you have to understand - naked shorting only became a real topic of conversation with anyone around the time it became obvious that rule SHO wasn't having any effect.

I always really viewed it as one aspect of the illegal manipulation that is an ongoing issue. Naked shorting is simply a tool - in a larger scheme. Without the media manipulation, the regulatory probes, the related party trading, the network of complicit cronies, the bogus analyst reports, the teams of bashers (now automated) clogging the message boards - naked shorting wouldn't be as effective against a legitimate company, although it could still damage and depress the share price.

It still amazes me that an illegal, damaging practice that destroys shareholder value has defenders and apologists that can do so with a straight face.

At least my capacity for amazement hasn't been diminished by cynicism.

Its_strange said...

You wrote " Questions about diamonds and auctions or discount would be better directed to someone who knows or cares " Shouldn't a stockholder ( you claimed to be long OSTK on thier conference call ) like yourself care ? You claim to know it all with respect to Novastar ? You claim its a great buy ? Why don't you "care" with this investment ?

When did you first talk with Dr. Bryne ?

bob obrien said...

I do know an awful lot about NFI, and do think it's an extraordinary buy. I am an OSTK shareholder, and don't know or care about the diamond thing.

Your question about when I first had a discussion with Dr. Byrne has been asked and answered numerous times. After the Q3 CC was the first time I ever sent him an email.

I can see why you would want to convert this thread from a discussion of Jeff and his whimsical beliefs about naked shorting and such into an interrogative about every aspect of my thoughts and knowledge - but perhaps the rest of the maybe 10 people reading this aren't as fascinated with my every tick and musing.

But I'm glad you are.

Really.

Its_strange said...

" I can see why you would want to convert this thread from a discussion of Jeff and his whimsical beliefs about naked short selling........." Bob, here is Jeff's opening statement. " The purpose of this blog is to look behind the corporate veil - get to the truth behind the spin" Now can you help us with some facts about that diamond deal ? The vendor comp charges ?

Bob, I'm sure you recall the movie Wallstreet . ...Well this script / novel you are test marketing here on the internet just might be a real success. You already have Wallstreet , the government and the press interested and you haven't even chosen a leading man yet...You know Howard Hunt liked to live out his fantasies too.

mfairview said...

Herb,

It's really time to buy a new record. Your current one skips and skips quite badly. I've already given you all you need to discover the diamond/vendor comp charges (and anything and everything else you might want to know about this company) in a prior post. While it's in this blog about 25 comments up from here, I realize it's simply too difficult for you to work your scroll bar, so I'll repost it again (and this time in BOLD so you'll be able to find it later at a glance).

Goto: http://auctions.overstock.com/cgi-bin/msgboard.cgi?PAGE=TOPICS&ForumID=34&PageNum=1 and ask Dr. Byrne himself. Why mess around?

While it's painfully obvious (and I do stress painfully), you have no real interest in the information, you continue to post, repost, and yet repost again.

I can't imagine all the fun questions we'd have on here if you actually knew the full bio on Bob.

1) Bob, why did you guys move from Arkansas to Arizona when you were 2?

2) Bob, how come you don't like boiled carrots?

3) Bob, why is your sister named Felecia?

They really need to start paying their hatchetmen more. The quality one gets at minimum wage just doesn't cut it. How about another one liner response so you get the last word in again Herb?

Its_strange said...

Ask Dr. Bryne ? Did he answer Mr. Rocker's questions on the 3rd quarter conference call ? And i gotta tell ya after listening to that 3rd quarter call i think we should have seen Dr. Bryne joining NCANS and funding that Washington Post ad. In Fact i am wondering if it was Dr. Brynes idea to run the ad . ....

Bob, You have had contact with NYTimes , WSJ, Motley Fool, Marketwatch, Craig Cunningham, Alan Newman , Joel Hirschhorn , etc. etc. and i figure more are on the way. For someone concerned about his physical safely seems like alot to me. Seems careless to me. Why hasn't your lawyer pals acted as a go between ? Perhaps the lawyer who handles the NCANS donations account ?

Its_strange said...

You guys gotta read this

http://www.justresponse.net/Hirschhorn051.html

They would have us believe the SEC and Congress are protecting " a couple of hundred guys in New York ........." ...Right guys. Congress gets elected with the funds of a few hundred. The many long mutuals and hedge funds don't fund elections.The retail brokers don't fund elections . Corporate interests don't fund elections. The public doesn't either. Yep, a few short funds from New York have the SEC and Congress in thier pockets...Fact is you can fiind out for yourself at opensecrets.org ..They will tell ya who gave what

Its_strange said...

Joel Hirschhorn why aren't you concerned about your physical safety and Bob is ?

bob obrien said...

It's strange seems to really have a crush on me. Don't know why.

The fact is that the system has been subverted by a likely minority of bad apples with a network that extends far and wide.

And naked shorting is still illegal.

Thank you.

Thank you velly much...

Roberto Iza Valdes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.