Isn’t that called “pump and dump”, or a hybrid, thereof?

For a chronology of events ,a terrific compliation on naked short selling,including links and timeline ,is over at deep capture.Lots of source references to substantiate the thread content.

This site has some truly thought provoking compilations.

Deep Capture naked short selling | The Story of Deep Capture … A story of greed and corrupt journalists, regulators, hedge funds, and investment banks. Stock market manipulation. Naked short selling.
http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-…..-mitchell/ – 134k – Cached – Similar pages

So glad Yves posed these questions; from a diary posted at Oxdown, you can go here to ask the President a question for tonight’s press conference.

I remember that episode of the Twilight Zone.

Geithner’s rebranded Paulson zombie bank plan is outright robbery. It leaves everyone else at the mercy of unregulated capital. Few people in power will ask Smith’s questions because this threatens the system of perverse incentives with no oversight controls or accountability.

When Pimco, Blackrock & Carlyle love this new version of Greenspan’s put, it can mean only one thing — another speculative bubble that obscures their past abuses and creates new opportunities for the same predatory behavior at the expense of Main Street.

It recalls the climax of one of Rod Serling’s best episodes:

“Mr. Chambers… Mr. Chambers. Don’t get on that ship. The rest of the book, ‘To Serve Man’… It’s a cookbook!”

It’s not that he can’t answer the question, it’s that he would rather not/doesn’t intend to answer the question.

If he’s honest, he’d have to admit that built into the plan is a ‘feature’ that would allow banks to goose the price of the garbage, thereby reducing their losses and tranfering them to the taxpayer.

Since the ‘private’ buyers are being given loaned the money for their portion of the purchase, their loses are minimized also.

Once again, the only party in the deal who’s not protected and can’t game the system is the taxpayer.

He’d rather gloss over those little details.

++++++++++++++++
Bachmann: Leveraging on PPIP? Will American peopel be receiving 90-95% of benefit.

Frank: Time expired.

Bachmann: Can I get answer.

Frank: No. I explained this.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course it didn’t get answered because BF Asshat didn’t want to get off into “real” answers…

Since the whole technology of derivatives involves a lot of trading back and forth between subs, it’s not clear that one would want any of them involved in bidding on these assets; I think they know how to beat a simple prohibition on self-bidding subs in their sleep. And that should probably be the beginning of the end of the whole idea.

CR’s example is in the comments of this post, on the second page at 8:39:09PM yesterday (March 23), beginning “How to game the system …”

Yves also said:

The place is full of guys who know about monetary policy and not much else. It has no interest in regulating. Why would you ask an organization to be an uber regulator when it doesn’t believe in it?

Amen, even though not all Feds historically have been philosophically opposed to any regulation. That it happened during one era should disqualify them. What would be wrong with a dedicated body like FDIC? I suppose business does not want to be assessed premiums for any insurance fund that the body might adminster, so that seems to create a rationale for a body that could create its own funds and basically do what the Fed has been doing, but with clear legal authority.

Maybe some of the businesscritters would come around if the choice were between the special body/industry-contributed funding and the present situation where they could have two outcomes, either Lehman or AIG.