Is Puplava blowing smoke again? HEY BART - HEY FINANCIAL gurus

[Spartacus]

he's claiming that the Canadian investment banks that do financing for mining companies regularly massively short sell juniors before the deal is done (I believe it ... if you've ever known anyone who worked the old VSE you get pretty cynical, but I also want specifics and proof).

After the financing is done and the stock has been diluted they cover (somehow after the financing the shorts are guaranteed to be cover-able profitably)

Tellingly, there are no names given, even when giving a name would not be slanderous

At one point King says "they got fined $75,000.

OKAY, WHO got fined? you won't get into any trouble anywhere by saying a specif company was fined.
Where are the links detailing the case?

http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

the top set of entries, under the 3rd column, "3rd Hour with Jim & John", first audio

The specific audio
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0524-3a.mp3

[GRG55]

he's claiming that the Canadian investment banks that do financing for mining companies regularly massively short sell juniors before the deal is done (I believe it ... if you've ever known anyone who worked the old VSE you get pretty cynical, but I also want specifics and proof).

After the financing is done and the stock has been diluted they cover (somehow after the financing the shorts are guaranteed to be cover-able profitably)

Tellingly, there are no names given, even when giving a name would not be slanderous

At one point King says "they got fined $75,000.

OKAY, WHO got fined? you won't get into any trouble anywhere by saying a specif company was fined.
Where are the links detailing the case?

http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

the top set of entries, under the 3rd column, "3rd Hour with Jim & John", first audio

The specific audio
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0524-3a.mp3

Around the Calgary oil patch Canaccord and Yorkton are two firms that are widely believed to play that game routinely with the jr pete co's. The shorts are coverable by the broker stock that's are a required part of any broker fee package to sell an issue. No proof, just a long standing and wide spread understanding that goes back decades.

[Spartacus]

No proof, just a long standing and wide spread understanding that goes back decades.

a HUGE part of the show was the claim that no one knows it's happening - supposedly Puplava and King talked to CEOs that did not know, had ZERO clue what was happening.

[FRED]

a HUGE part of the show was the claim that no one knows it's happening - supposedly Puplava and King talked to CEOs that did not know, had ZERO clue what was happening.

How's this for an explanation:

Step 1#1: Tell reasers that junior minors are going to explode!
Step #2: They don't
Step #3: Start to look for "reasons" why they did not
Step #4: Manipulation! The CEOs said so! Proof! We were right, if only... :D

[Spartacus]

cool

Googling for
"Canaccord fined" and
"Yorkton fined"

hits a couple of results, at least one fine was for naked shorting. So it's not COMPLETELY bogus.

Maybe their little pet project where they're asking investors in junior miners to get level 2 accounts and phone in massive shorting is worth keeping an eye on.

Around the Calgary oil patch Canaccord and Yorkton are two firms that are widely believed to play that game routinely with the jr pete co's. The shorts are coverable by the broker stock that's are a required part of any broker fee package to sell an issue. No proof, just a long standing and wide spread understanding that goes back decades.

[Spartacus]

exactly one reason I asked.
This smacked too much of the thing Puplava did couple of years back - asked that his readers & listeners demand the brokers deliver the stock shares so miners could not be shorted

He suggested this several times over 4 or 5 shows.

6 months later a caller asked about taking delivery of shares & Puplava answered "that won't do anything - the institutions own the vast majority of most of the shares, and if they won't prevent shorting, every other stockholder's actions are useless.

In this case it looks like they do have one thin leg to stand on for now - (see about googling Canaccord & Yorkton) - enough to provisionally give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

How's this for an explanation:

Step 1#1: Tell readers that junior minors are going to explode!
Step #2: They don't
Step #3: Start to look for "reasons" why they did not
Step #4: Manipulation! The CEOs said so! Proof! We were right, if only... :D

[bart]

he's claiming that the Canadian investment banks that do financing for mining companies regularly massively short sell juniors before the deal is done (I believe it ... if you've ever known anyone who worked the old VSE you get pretty cynical, but I also want specifics and proof).

After the financing is done and the stock has been diluted they cover (somehow after the financing the shorts are guaranteed to be cover-able profitably)

Tellingly, there are no names given, even when giving a name would not be slanderous

At one point King says "they got fined $75,000.

OKAY, WHO got fined? you won't get into any trouble anywhere by saying a specif company was fined.
Where are the links detailing the case?

http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

the top set of entries, under the 3rd column, "3rd Hour with Jim & John", first audio

The specific audio
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0524-3a.mp3



My simplest and most direct answer is that I don't know how large the problem is, but I have looked over the shoulder of a friend with a Level II account and have seen examples of what Jim Puplava is talking about - heavy selling during the last few minutes on the TSX.

Although Jim Puplava has a significant vested interest, I have little reason to believe he does not have the names and evidence of the shenanigans. It appears to me that what he's trying to do is get a bunch of other folk on board with actual evidence from their own accounts, and raise enough of a stink with the SEC etc. to force some action.

In other words, he can't do it alone. If he names some names without a lot of backup and examples from others, in my opinion he will open himself up to truly huge legal issues and related expenses. His company is dwarfed in size by the various brokerages and investment banks, and regardless of the facts and truth he could easily lose due to very high legal and PR bills. Just because you & I know its not slanderous doesn't mean that it couldn't be painted that way.
I'm not familiar with applicable Canadian laws so take this with many of the proverbial grains of salt, but imagine what would happen to his company if it was prevented from trading on the TSX while any legal issues went through the courts.

[c1ue]

This sure sounds like Patrick Byrnes' talk about naked shorts and 'failure to deliver'

[Spartacus]

Thanks again, Bart - If there is something to it I hope enough people come up with supporting data

My simplest and most direct answer is that I don't know how large the problem is, but I have looked over the shoulder of a friend with a Level II account and have seen examples of what Jim Puplava is talking about - heavy selling during the last few minutes on the TSX.

[Spartacus]

This sure sounds like Patrick Byrnes' talk about naked shorts and 'failure to deliver'

One of the reasons I'm skeptical of Mr. P was the complete pass he gave to Byrne, who's well known to me from various boards. I didn't expect P to ask Byrne about all his "extracurricular" activities , but there was not one hard-hitting question on Byrne's main thesis.

In later shows Puplava supported Byrne's thesis even further, and without critical thought at all.


just one example:

http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/07/patrick-byrne-admits-he-posted-under.html

[c1ue]

I'm sure Byrne is no angel either; but the substance of the extra-curricular activities seem to be:

1) Not disclosing his online identity. But what exactly did these mysterious entities say?
2) Not disclosing in a press release all the news

I don't see what either of these have to do with the naked short thesis.

I do not know if truly the scale of issues Byrne speaks of are real, but it is equally damning that the vast majority of stories about him are equally based on anecdotal excerpts taken out of context.

This type of behavior is quite typical of media hatchet jobs; just look at the Democratic nomination race to see examples.

I have listened to the infamous 'Sith Lord' earnings conference call; I'd suggest you do so as well rather than rely on what MSM talking heads say.

[metalman]

I'm sure Byrne is no angel either; but the substance of the extra-curricular activities seem to be:

1) Not disclosing his online identity. But what exactly did these mysterious entities say?
2) Not disclosing in a press release all the news

I don't see what either of these have to do with the naked short thesis.

I do not know if truly the scale of issues Byrne speaks of are real, but it is equally damning that the vast majority of stories about him are equally based on anecdotal excerpts taken out of context.

This type of behavior is quite typical of media hatchet jobs; just look at the Democratic nomination race to see examples.

I have listened to the infamous 'Sith Lord' earnings conference call; I'd suggest you do so as well rather than rely on what MSM talking heads say.

Just How Crazy is Overstock’s Patrick Byrne? (http://gigaom.com/2007/12/11/just-how-crazy-is-overstocks-patrick-byrne/)

Now that the credit crunch is beginning to spill (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN0563737620071206?sp=true) into tech, it’s worth wondering just how ugly this is going to get. Two notable perspectives on the situation appeared in recent days, one from a battle-scarred regulator and another from a tech CEO.


The first came from former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who was asked four different ways (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119725775080019058.html?mod=PageOne_1#VOLCKER) by the Wall Street Journal how bad the fallout will be, and who found four different ways to say “We don’t know yet.”


The second came from Patrick Byrne (http://www.deepcapturethemovie.com/), CEO of Overstock (OSTK). When writing about Byrne, it’s customary to use the understated adjective “controversial,” so let’s get that out of the way. Byrne was on Fox News, echoing an economic forecast that he had just made on CNBC — an appearance (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837290?q=ostk), by the way, that would send his stock spiraling downward (more on that later).


Byrne was asked by Fox News’ Terry Keenan whether the mortgage turmoil was hurting Overstock’s sales of home items. After noting that furniture sales were going great guns, he suddenly shifted gears (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,316365,00.html):


BYRNE: I do think that we are in — I have been saying for about two years we’re looking at a 1929 kind of event. I think that we are really in trouble in this country. And what you have seen in the last four months is just the beginning of it.


KEENAN: Wow.

--


he's crazy for being so honest.

[Spartacus]

1 & 2 speak to credibility

I have read no stories about him - I was lurking and posting on some of the boards along with Al Petrofsky and others, and Byrne's behavior is "sub optimal" for someone who wants to be taken seriously.

I'm sure Byrne is no angel either; but the substance of the extra-curricular activities seem to be:

1) Not disclosing his online identity. But what exactly did these mysterious entities say?
2) Not disclosing in a press release all the news

I don't see what either of these have to do with the naked short thesis.

I do not know if truly the scale of issues Byrne speaks of are real, but it is equally damning that the vast majority of stories about him are equally based on anecdotal excerpts taken out of context.

This type of behavior is quite typical of media hatchet jobs; just look at the Democratic nomination race to see examples.

I have listened to the infamous 'Sith Lord' earnings conference call; I'd suggest you do so as well rather than rely on what MSM talking heads say.

[c1ue]

1 & 2 speak to credibility

Well, I don't disclose who I am either. I guess I also have no credibility.

Hey, maybe I AM Patrick Byrne!?!?! TAHN TAHN TAAAAAA!

Seriously, before you form any opinions, listen to one of his Overstock calls or his interview on theregister.co.uk

[GRG55]

Well, I don't disclose who I am either. I guess I also have no credibility.

Hey, maybe I AM Patrick Byrne!?!?! TAHN TAHN TAAAAAA!

Seriously, before you form any opinions, listen to one of his Overstock calls or his interview on theregister.co.uk

Patrick Byrne gets some of his credibility from the fact his father is Jack Byrne, who turned around a troubled Geico Insurance that the regulators wanted to shut down in 1976. Warren Buffett injected capital into the company during that period, and was so impressed with Jack Byrne that he eventually ended up buying the whole company.

For balance, after checking out C1ue's info above, head over to Jeff Matthews is Not Making This Up and check the interesting and wildly humorous encounters with Patrick Byrne that he writes about (in the archive).

[Finster]

How's this for an explanation:

Step 1#1: Tell reasers that junior minors are going to explode!
Step #2: They don't
Step #3: Start to look for "reasons" why they did not
Step #4: Manipulation! The CEOs said so! Proof! We were right, if only... :D

LOL Fred!

A prime example of why we need to approach thinly traded and lightly capitalized (read: readily manipulated) speculations and scuttlebut about them with great caution!