3 ms·

http://counterfeitingstock.com/CS2.0/CounterfeitingStock.html http://counterfeitingstock.com/CS2.0/CounterfeitingStock.htm...

twic 6y ago
I read this, but it's not clear to me there's anything to it. It has a strong aroma of crank, and not a lot of quantitative detail. Has anyone written a useful response to this? EDIT: Specifically, I think the idea that failures to deliver create counterfeit shares is wrong. I'd love to hear from someone with intimate operational knowledge of this process. FYI, SEC SHO FAQ: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm
- gridder 6y ago
  I just wanted to point out that naked shorting is very easily hidden. It’s hard to prove and the system is built for allowing shadiness. At this point how can we still give them the benefit of the doubt?
  - gruez 6y ago
    Here's an analogy: * data breaches are very easily hidden: literally anyone can walk out with a usb drive loaded with information, or download the data off an unsecured/unlogged server without a trace * it's hard to prove: I mean, companies aren't exactly offering their logs up for public inspection * the system is built for allowing shadiness: not sure how to quantify this one but there's definitely a problem of attribution when it comes to who did it, especially when there's multiple data brokers involved. You read hearsay saying that company X has suffered a data breach. The company denies this. Do you give them the benefit of the doubt, or do you assume they're guilty?
  - twic 6y ago
    > I just wanted to point out that naked shorting is very easily hidden. It’s hard to prove and the system is built for allowing shadiness. Is it though? Regulation SHO seems to make it quite hard for brokers to hide it these days. What makes you say it's easily hidden? Pardon the question - thing is, i don't know if you have expertise in this, or if you're just another random internet guy expressing his biases.
goldsphinx 6y ago
this is some qanon equivalent gobbledeegook

twic 6y ago

I read this, but it's not clear to me there's anything to it. It has a strong aroma of crank, and not a lot of quantitative detail. Has anyone written a useful response to this? EDIT: Specifically, I think the idea that failures to deliver create counterfeit shares is wrong. I'd love to hear from someone with intimate operational knowledge of this process. FYI, SEC SHO FAQ: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm

gridder 6y ago
I just wanted to point out that naked shorting is very easily hidden. It’s hard to prove and the system is built for allowing shadiness. At this point how can we still give them the benefit of the doubt?
- gruez 6y ago
  Here's an analogy: * data breaches are very easily hidden: literally anyone can walk out with a usb drive loaded with information, or download the data off an unsecured/unlogged server without a trace * it's hard to prove: I mean, companies aren't exactly offering their logs up for public inspection * the system is built for allowing shadiness: not sure how to quantify this one but there's definitely a problem of attribution when it comes to who did it, especially when there's multiple data brokers involved. You read hearsay saying that company X has suffered a data breach. The company denies this. Do you give them the benefit of the doubt, or do you assume they're guilty?
- twic 6y ago
  > I just wanted to point out that naked shorting is very easily hidden. It’s hard to prove and the system is built for allowing shadiness. Is it though? Regulation SHO seems to make it quite hard for brokers to hide it these days. What makes you say it's easily hidden? Pardon the question - thing is, i don't know if you have expertise in this, or if you're just another random internet guy expressing his biases.

goldsphinx 6y ago

this is some qanon equivalent gobbledeegook