Drano Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Okay, if I had control of the markets and were evil, I'd gap it down this morning, scare the bulls into closing their new (and profitable) longs from yesterday, sucker da bears into buying more puts and shorting more, and then ram it up the bears' butts for OpEx. That's just me though. No one else would think like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longOnUranus Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Ah REFCO....Looks this may be the tip of the iceberg regarding naked shorts.? I know Mark has commendted several times regarding the level of failed trades... I know this is a stoolpid question, but how does a failed trade hurt Jimmy Rogers, assuming he is the long counterparty? My assumption is that Refco was caught without having bought back a certain number of positions, which could certainly injure a counterparty which can't be made whole. However, if these are leveraged/hedged positions, I can't see how Jimmy could be terribly hurt, unless he was hugely leveraged (not his style, IMHO). Maybe the 360M figure represents unrealized profit, instead of a diminution of NAV. I'm sure I am missing something a knowledgeable Stoolie can educate me about. TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral mike Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 i've only got one spx id turn today. and its in the first 60 minutes after the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 APOL was not able to get the shareholders' lawsuit dismissed after all. They're being sued for failing to disclose the Gov't investigation which led to them paing nearly 10 million bucks in fines. Hee hee. That'll learn 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy_ate Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Ah REFCO....Looks this may be the tip of the iceberg regarding naked shorts.? I know Mark has commendted several times regarding the level of failed trades... I know this is a stoolpid question, but how does a failed trade hurt Jimmy Rogers, assuming he is the long counterparty? My assumption is that Refco was caught without having bought back a certain number of positions, which could certainly injure a counterparty which can't be made whole. However, if these are leveraged/hedged positions, I can't see how Jimmy could be terribly hurt, unless he was hugely leveraged (not his style, IMHO). Maybe the 360M figure represents unrealized profit, instead of a diminution of NAV. I'm sure I am missing something a knowledgeable Stoolie can educate me about. TIA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only thing you are missing is that the the naked short issue is seperate from the Jimmy Rogers issue. The only thing they have in common is that Refco is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 EBAY stick save Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 It's early yet, and I may have to cover soon, but, as per APOL: bwa-ah-ha-ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest libertas Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Ah REFCO....Looks this may be the tip of the iceberg regarding naked shorts. I know Mark has commendted several times regarding the level of failed trades... I know this is a stoolpid question, but how does a failed trade hurt Jimmy Rogers, assuming he is the long counterparty? My assumption is that Refco was caught without having bought back a certain number of positions, which could certainly injure a counterparty which can't be made whole. However, if these are leveraged/hedged positions, I can't see how Jimmy could be terribly hurt, unless he was hugely leveraged (not his style, IMHO). Maybe the 360M figure represents unrealized profit, instead of a diminution of NAV. I'm sure I am missing something a knowledgeable Stoolie can educate me about. TIA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Rogers funds are there as unsecured creditors. If they had simply been buying futures and rolling them over, they would have been dealing with the regulated side of the business. The Pimco commodity fund puts its money with commodities brokers through commodity linked notes, which are a loan whose return depends in part on the price action of the commodity or commodities in question. The Rogers funds may have been doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 imvho the only change since yestiddy is less Bears in the mk before the Feast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Torchmark getting torched. 51.50 needs to hold for buy signals to remain intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeedFool Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 If they were in naked short position then they would be buying and one would see melt up. I just don? get it. Unless one is being fed on propaganda. Oh ya why are GS doing work for nothing. Are they not trying to muscle in on commodity and china?? Something isn?t right. Unless someone has a link where it does makes sense. Ah REFCO....Looks this may be the tip of the iceberg regarding naked shorts. I know Mark has commendted several times regarding the level of failed trades...------------------------------------ Meanwhile the Journal reports the firm faces problems as part of various probes into the practice of known as "naked shorting." Generally someone who shorts stocks borrows shares, then sells them, in the hopes that the stock will decline in price and they'll be able to buy shares to replace the borrowed stock, pocketing the difference as a profit. The Journal says that in the case of so-called naked shorting, investors sells shares they don't own or haven't borrowed, knowing they have several days to deliver the shares. The practice is generally illegal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 as I understand wave 3's do not let you in or out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Prince Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Thought it interesting that Bob Pisane interviewed a floor trader who was tepid about yesterday saying that it felt like short covering. I am holding off of selling my calls for one more rally attempt at 39 on the Q's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 when is Crapvision going to interview some refco stock holders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Oopsie. APOL stumbles down another step. Not to worry though, SOX will hold everything together.... semis up big today..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.