You nailed it.

Phantom speculative buys and sells (both ways on the market index, up and down, for profits) that manipulate stock values and company values and leave a paperless trail that’s impossible to track.

Backed up by lack of regulation, DTCC fallibility (collusion, call it for what the fuck it is), and SEC and Wall Street thuggery. Bought by lobbyists and paid to our elected offals, er, officials, who WROTE and ENABLED the legislation to let it happen.

Bueller?

And likely, same for a lot of investment houses. They are insolvent. Why? Their books are cooked, and don’t show the naked short phantom sales that they used to profit from.

I mean, what WOULD happen if it was open info that they are are insolvent? Based on phantom sales, hidden DTCC records, and false Triple A ratings from the accounting firms?

Now that’s the big picture I want to hear discussed from the heavy hitters and taken to our elected mofo’s who took lobbying money to PASS deregulation legislation that enabled the scenerio we are facing, that’s being whitewashed so far by the present administration.

*G*

I’m not sure if I have it exactly in order, but that’s the gist I THINK I’m pissed off about.

Bueller?

If short sellers of hedge funds can short companies, they can short anything.

And if Walgreen’s now has patients and clinics, why not short sell that and hedge it against their demises.

I don’t know that the SEC has made illegal short selling, or naked short selling.

I’d sure like to hear more about THAT one from others in here . . . I thought it is a practice that’s ongoing.

And I’d like to know, legally speaking, where phantom stock selling and hedging stands to this day. I thought it was all still in play, I’ve not read of any LEGAL changes to prohibit it.

I assume that legal changes would have to come thru congress, and that would make it newly formed and passed REGULATION legislation?

I’m not an econ, and I might be missing all of this . . . which is why I value those in this forum . . . ;-)

They both name names, dates and details. Galore.

Spell it all out very well . . . . it’s lengthy reading, but it’s to the bone name and date and detail wise as to how this ship of fools sailed under the flag of deregulation of the banking and financial sectors since, Reagan and forward.

As you all know, Glass-Steagull repeal was the big one . . . . it all goes back to roughly, in OUR memories, to the S&L’s and Milken’s Junk Bonds . . .

The SEC claims to have virtually eliminated ‘naked shorts’. I think law should ban it altogether. There shouldn’t be any opening for that at all.

Nevertheless, there have been persistent allegations of naked short selling of precious metals derivatives on COMEX. Here’s a recent example where massive default was narrowly averted behind the scenes:

Did the ECB Save COMEX?

Even if these paper transactions proved legitimate, the sheer volume of PM derivatives trading dwarfs the sale of the actual metals they are based on. Many suspect that the unaudited reserves of the firms marketing gold and silver ETF’s come nowhere close to covering the outstanding shares that have been sold.

phantom stock sold on the markets …

And yet, not a lot of discussion from the big FDL econ hitters on those two subjects.

I read some of that and wrote an e-mail to Pelosi. I’ve also seen an SEC hearing where it was discussed a bit. They know about it. The proof (of their intents) will be in the pudding (of their actions).

As to the accounting profession, I haven’t thought much about their role in this, although there is one. It would take a lot of inside information to get accurate information about their roles in various companies. Remember, the responsibility for financial statements is on the company, and the accountants just see what they are shown.

Congress should then outlaw all Credit Default Swaps, and take steps to strictly enforce laws banning Naked Shorts.

The SEC claims to have virtually eliminated ‘naked shorts’. I think law should ban it altogether. There shouldn’t be any opening for that at all.

On CDSs I think they have probably warned everyone to get rid of those and they’re trying to unwind the mess of deals in AIG, and probably other large firms, before doing a ban.

I feel certain most financial firms are listening very very carefully to what Congress is saying with regard to potential new regulations.