Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Join push for SEC Investigation of TSLA manipulators and inside traders

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I found this posted by someone on this forum but I am reposting it here because it really enlightened me to the level of manipulation through naked shorts and counterfeit shares. The parallels with tsla are astounding Let me know if there are holes in their thesis.
Illegal Naked Short Selling Appears to Lie at the Heart of an Extensive Stock Manipulation Scheme | Expert Financial Analysis and Reporting | Smith on Stocks
This is a long and extremely enlightening read. First-pass takeaway quote:

  1. The DTCC — This is the holding company that owns four companies that clear and keep track of all stock transactions. This is where brokerage accounts are actually lodged. The DTC division clears over a billion shares daily. The DTCC is owned by the prime brokers, and, as a closely held private enterprise, it is impenetrable. It actively and aggressively fights all efforts to obtain information regarding naked shorting, with or without a subpoena.
 
I’ve been following Tesla for years, even though I’m a relative newcomer to TMC. I’ve written something like 56 articles about Tesla, so I’ve done a ton of research.

Snip

Journalists don’t own stocks or short positions, so that’s a dead end right there. And good luck proving intent to deceive.

Snip

So Montana Skeptic wasn't a journalist because he regularly stated he was short when he was writting his seeking alpha articles.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Mobius484
A number of economists have looked the impact of naked short selling and fail to deliver and the creation of unauthorized shares. Unauthorized by the corporation.

Some of these economists have made suggestions for changes to reduce their existance or at least the duration of their existance.

Do you disagree that these unauthorized shares exist? If they do exist would their dilutionary effect not impact both share price and thus ability to raise additional capital? I can point to an example of a company that was so heavily naked shorted with failure to deliver that when that company did a reverse split that a hudge number of artificial or counterfeit shares caused large amounts of confusion over who had legitimate shares.

I am not opposed to short selling. I am troubled by the concept of these fail to deliver naked shorts. If they happen occasionally i could see they might be a glitch in the system. But in a 2 week time period there were 190,000 shares worth over 53 million dollars.

So we have short sellers, market makers and the clearing house all taking profits for little risk at a cost to other investors. And the SEC even when they flagerently catch someone doing it issues little more then a fine that takes away their profit.

To me the act of selling a security that you don't own or otherwise have pre-borrowed and you sell and fail to cover is fraud and should be treated as such.

There may be some times when it is agreeable to the corporation whos securities you are playing with but it should be done with their express approval.
 
During a Senate Banking Committee meeting, Utah Sen. Robert Bennett used the company's extraordinary trading data to browbeat SEC Chairman William Donaldson.

"Thirty-three million shares traded in a single day when there are only 1 million shares outstanding and one investor has filed a statement with you saying that he has all of them," Bennett chided. "That's clearly something that needs work."
 
Lots of good work. Not to sound like a party pp, wouldn't EM have already looked at all the angles. This evidence would definitely be useful by someone with some power. Bucking this system would be like trying to abolish slavery... let's be real.

I think EM already has the lawyer he needs for the SEC. Maybe he intends to counter sue, but I'm not a lawyer. His letter to the judge could be revealing. I think the plan is in motion but it needs to be such a thrust that it sends them into full and eternal orbit.

That being said, I'd gladly sign any petition. My suggestion on the strategy would be to involve the wealthiest people you know... Bill Gates, Buffet, U2 (cuz Bono is so cool) etc... (people who care about the planet). Get them to understand the problem to infuse about $50B in TSLA and lock up the shares tight in a vault. In other words, force a squeeze considering that >50B will likely counter the move.

And vote for the right congress person and president this time. We don't even have an EPA at this point.
The market cap of Tesla right now is not even 50 Billion. Blue Wave a comin. I have said it many times that the comedians will be Donald Trumps undoing. If this were Russia or North Korea Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel would be in jail right now, or dead.
 
strangecosmos, I'm not sure what your true intentions are, but you are coming across in this thread as desperate to prevent any manipulation from coming to light.

I’ve been a fan of Tesla since around 2015. I’ve been invested in Tesla since late 2016 and since early 2017 I’ve written over 50 articles about Tesla. Today, most of my net worth is in Tesla stock — because I’m young, risk hungry, and I can afford to lose it all. If shady people are covertly harming Tesla, I have every incentive to find out. I just think that some of the conspiracy theories people are advocating are logically unsound, and come out of a murky understanding of finance and investing. Some of this stuff you can just Google and find out it’s wrong. I find it frustrating when people don’t do their research.

So Montana Skeptic wasn't a journalist because he regularly stated he was short when he was writting his seeking alpha articles.

Monatana Skeptic is certainly not a journalist. More like a professional Internet troll. Seeking Alpha is certainly not journalism. It’s stock analysis. A pure opinion site, where a lot of people — including amateur investors like me — talk about their own long or short positions and their reasoning behind them.

Anyone can submit an article to Seeking Alpha. If you understand how to make a valuation model for a company, you’re a competent writer, and you have something original to say, chances are you can get published. That’s both good and bad. Good in that anyone can get paid to write. Bad in that... anyone can get paid to write.
 
The reason I bring up Montana Skeptic and Seeking Alpha is that several states have shield laws to protect Journalists.

There has been debate over whether these Shield laws applies to on line bloggers.

In the case involving Apple, a prototype iphone, Gizmodo and Jason Chen one of its bloggers.

[San Mateo County Assistant District Attorney Morley Pitt said charges were not filed against Gizmodo.com’s Jason Chen or other employees, citing California’s shield law that protects the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

“The difficulty we faced is that Mr. Chen and Gizmodo were primarily, in their view, engaged in a journalistic endeavor to conduct an investigation into the phone and type of phone it was and they were protected by the shield law,’’ said Pitt.]

I would suggest that the San Mateo DA would disagree with you about MS being a journalist and Seeking Alpha not being journalism.

Thus crumbling your position that journalists at least in the eye of one DA do participate as shorts.


D.A. disagrees with Steve Jobs about who's a journalist
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SpaceCash
The legal definition of a journalist is not necessarily the same as the social or moral definition of one. I’m talking about the social and moral definition, not the legal one — which is not important in this context.

The point is not whether someone is publishing online or on paper. The physical medium is not the relevant distinction. Vox is clearly journalism, even though it only publishes online. TMC posts are also published online, but are not journalism. What’s the difference?

Seeking Alpha is online, but it’s not journalism anymore than TMC is. It’s opinion writing and stock analysis.
 
the legal one is the one that counts.... in journalism and in investing

I disagree. Not everyone who might legally qualify as a journalist is someone we should trust equally as a source of reporting. Alex Jones might legally qualify as a journalist, even though he’s just a crackpot who thinks literal demons from hell are trying to take over the government.

I don’t know who the legal definition covers or doesn’t cover, but that isn’t relevant here. We’re talking about Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other reputable journalistic institutions. Even shoddy news sites like Business Insider don’t allow their writers to have a financial conflict of interest with the companies they write about.
 
Last edited:
Marketplace.com certainly allows its writers to own stock.

Stocks and Investments
: We do not want to penalize staff by suggesting that they not buy stocks or make any investments. We do, however, want staffers to avoid speculation or the appearance of speculation. Therefore, we are adopting the Wall Street Journal’s approach: Staffers who are in a position to influence stock prices by engaging in primary reporting on a specific company or stock issue must not engage in short-term trading and must hold securities a minimum of six months unless they get approval from a news leader to meet some special need. They must not buy or sell basically speculative instruments such as futures or options. No employee should engage in short-selling of securities. No staffer regularly assigned to a specific company should invest in that company. Any staffer may be asked about their investments.

Our code of ethics

And Business insider also allows its staff to own stock.

Disclosure Requirements
Journalists who regularly cover business and financial news may not play the market: that is, they may not conduct in-and-out trading, speculate in options or futures or sell securities short. Any of these actions could create an appearance of exploiting information not available to the public. Staff members who regularly cover business aspects of technology or other subjects are also subject to this rule.

All Business Insider employees are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that leaves no grounds for belief, or even suspicion that:
-An employee, an employee's family, or anyone else connected to an employee made financial gains by acting on the basis of "inside" information obtained through Business Insider employment before that information was available to the general public.
-The creation or dissemination, or non-dissemination, of any news or other information was influenced by a desire to affect the price of any security;
-An employee's personal financial situation with respect to investments is such that it creates a temptation to violate these rules; or
-An employee is beholden to news-makers, information providers, advertisers or market participants, creating a temptation to violate these rules.

In making personal investments, all employees must avoid speculation or the appearance of speculation. No employee of Business Insider may engage in the short selling of securities.

In addition, all senior managers and all news and advertising personnel must not engage in short-term trading of equity securities or of non-investment grade fixed-income securities; such employees must hold such a securities for a minimum of six month unless, in order to meet some special need, they get prior permission for an earlier sale from the Company. The six-month rule does not apply to publicly-available diversified open end and closed end mutual funds.

Business Insider Conflict Of Interest Policy
 
Do you disagree that these unauthorized shares exist?... To me the act of selling a security that you don't own or otherwise have pre-borrowed and you sell and fail to cover is fraud and should be treated as such.

So far I've only been speculating on this, but seems I'm not the only one. Next market collapse?

Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have limited understanding on naked shorts. But I'm imagining that I have a share held by a broker, then they lend my share to someone as an option. Where the fraud comes in is when the second person again lends this same share for further trading so that 3 people are trading on the same share? If so, then there'd have to be a dark trading house that manages these borrowed shares.

It all reminds me of how there's really only a fraction of actual gold compared to all the notes that represent them. This system is not sustainable. And could Tesla actually fail as a result of this hidden fraud, and maybe even drag down the entire market when the ponzi scheme is debunked one ugly morning?

Is this what you all see as possible? Am I hearing the problem correctly?
 
So far I've only been speculating on this, but seems I'm not the only one. Next market collapse?

Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have limited understanding on naked shorts. But I'm imagining that I have a share held by a broker, then they lend my share to someone as an option. Where the fraud comes in is when the second person again lends this same share for further trading so that 3 people are trading on the same share? If so, then there'd have to be a dark trading house that manages these borrowed shares.

It all reminds me of how there's really only a fraction of actual gold compared to all the notes that represent them. This system is not sustainable. And could Tesla actually fail as a result of this hidden fraud, and maybe even drag down the entire market when the ponzi scheme is debunked one ugly morning?

Is this what you all see as possible? Am I hearing the problem correctly?

A short sale is when a seller sells a share that they claim to have borrowed.

If they have pre-borrowed the share or borrow one and transfer that share to the buyer then everything is good.

The naked short is when the seller hasn't pre-borrowed the share.

If the naked short seller fails to borrow a share and transfer by a time limit then you have a fail to deliver. These must be reported to the SEC.

If the naked short seller never transfers the share then you have fraud or if the naked short seller regularly repeatedly is late then you have a potential case of fraud.

The question becomes who has committed the fraud. The short seller is relying on market makers to provide the shares. The market maker may be collecting fees from the shortseller while never transferring the share.

The potential end problem to the buyer is they have have purchased a non-existent share.
 
  • Love
Reactions: SpaceCash
A short sale is when a seller sells a share that they claim to have borrowed.

If they have pre-borrowed the share or borrow one and transfer that share to the buyer then everything is good.

The naked short is when the seller hasn't pre-borrowed the share.

If the naked short seller fails to borrow a share and transfer by a time limit then you have a fail to deliver. These must be reported to the SEC.

If the naked short seller never transfers the share then you have fraud or if the naked short seller regularly repeatedly is late then you have a potential case of fraud.

What if the fraudulent share is never sold, then nobody knows correct? Maybe that's it. Shorts are sitting on a pile of shares that just cannot come due no matter what. Possible?

After-thought.... Can this be audited? Well, by the SEC I guess? Back to square one maybe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash
Papafox, it seems like you are just throwing out wild accusations based on no evidence:



Because you are certain that your perspective is right, and because you are certain that news writers couldn’t just have a different perspective, you decide to believe that there is probably a conspiracy afoot. Negative coverage —> conspiracy. That’s bananas.

With regard to all the stock price charts: why do you look at a change in the stock price and conclude it’s an attempt to manipulate? Can’t stock prices go up and down for any number of reasons, including a number of factors that we might as well call random? I don’t see any actual evidence. It seems like you just saw some kind of pattern and jumped to a conclusion.

I read a paper recently that found if you just randomly generate stock price charts, you can find the same sort of patterns that “technical analysts” see in real stock price charts. In other words, technical analysts are just looking at random noise and seeing random patterns that don’t mean anything. People tend to ascribe more meaning to randomness than there is.
to specificallly address a single data point of PoppaFox article, regarding John Broder.
I went to the Rockville, Maryland Tesla service center off Gude Drive the Saturday following Broders attempt to trash Tesla's.
Broder failed to realize he was driving computer with wheels, GPS, (how do you find superchargers otherwise).
A random group of Tesla owners of 60's and 85's came, had cocoa and coffee, charged up, the 85's made the run to NYC and beyond due to not a lot of superchargers.
It was a cold, winter day
They had no problems, EXCEPT they embarrassed John Broder and the NYT and pissed him off it seems and he is a high "mucky muck" boss and it seems with a long memory.
the NYT hit pieces don't seem random, but perhaps a result of that embarrassment