Did the SEC's Plan To Get Shorty Work?

I wonder whether ABC or NBC or CBS will follow the frosting of the flakes in 2009. I think Monica Goodling will be the cherry on top.

Too much silence from MacDonald in this column is high suspense ! I think, hmm - big article coming ? or - told the bob's off at work (Office Space) ? or ? someone upstream came down and request MacDonald lay off the focus of the next Enron candidates. Of course, such candidates would have it in their best interest to conceal information as long as possible ? When a global media resource is dictated behind closed doors, I'm not sure what politics matters. Look at the middle east, there you find a culture highly image based. Image is everything. If I EVER need a printer ? that's 6 feet wide ? I tell ya, nations in the middle east often have 6 foot wide images HOURS after an event - all ready for display. Maybe bubble jet sector should saturate that area I don't know, then again, all that sand ? printer parts / ohhhhh well (says Eeyore). I don't know why Fox can't be more like Tony the Tiger, That's rigggght ! ? you know, I mean, come on, we all know it's just a box full of flakes. Instead, it's some facade - as if it's not a box with flakes in side, which it is. If I come across an extra 9 million to play with, I'll connect some MIT/Carnegie Mellon grads with the makers of those real life dolls - and we'll demonstrate fully automated Fox and Friends - and let YOU control the software, what they say or do. hmm - I don't know if that's a good ponder to humor or not.

Reagan was wrong When they deregulated the banking industry, Reagan says "I think we may have hit the jackpot on this one" No, THIS 8 year run was the jackpot. My god. It's as if a small group of people figured out how to take control of the nation state model and exploit it. No Child Left Behind ? try No Nation State Left Behind ? well, I'm off to go watch a program about Horrorists ! Horrorism - it's the new threat, get ready ! lol give me a break - desert rednecks with rifles commandeer jet airplanes ? or more like US CIA helps them along the way. Hey, anyone seen Ollie North ? I hear he's working to bring the Caspian Sea closer to BP's profit margin earnings estimates in 2012. The ugliest players will leave evidence of their plans through futures.

I don't think anyone else has picked up on that little bit there. Way I see it, same ruling that's starting to bring spring 2009 cleaning the Department of Justice is ALSO the same ruling that any citizen should apply to Fox and what's happened. The few people who even entertain what I propose argue, but - you're saying Fox News knowingly ran CountryWide ads ? knowing this was all part of a process to launder as many sub primes as possible ? to the tune of - we're now finding near double Savings and Loan - which I disagree with MacDonald, where she says cost us under 1 trillion USD, I say it's more. When you add in the hazards from Fannie and Freddie involving other nations economies ? you're really playing with fire when you play with using the US housing market for a scam. Whoever did this 'Enron' like piece of work here on the US economy ? Must have studied Enron, now, Enron WAS the #2 user of the Bush campaign jet in 2000, and Enron WAS the largest contributor ever to Bush campaign, and we ALL know about Enron now, the SEC was investigating Enron, few people know this, as to the case data ? we'll never know, that data was burned up in building 7 on 9/11 now wasn't it. Instead of Enron, in the case of the United States, The Arthur Andersen's of the world become the Bear Stearns of the world - whether knowingly or unknowingly - trillion + losses out there inherited from people who KNEW what they were passing off was bad meat. I got a big bag of marshmallows I plan to watch and see the outcome. Enron was an eye opener, and that the alleged president - and just imagine if Bush isn't president - really, for one second - was so close and then ? so far from Lay / Enron ? makes ya wonder. Go with your intuition.

I have a feeling that we indeed have seen Savings and Loan part II same deal - garbage loans passed off, then ? tax payer bailout. I really do believe Bush and friends see the world as - the dumb tax payers - and those that exploit them. Look at it this way, the best cons ? you don't even know it's happening right before your very eyes. You need media control to pull it off though And Fox has been there hand in glove - to quote Larry Craig - with Bush and Co the entire way. Cheney gave it away when McClellan commented as to his hunting accident saying "Mr. Vice President, you need to come to the press with this right away" Cheney responded "I'll go to Fox News - and only Fox News. Then every will have to quote Fox News" Interesting Dick - interesting... Fox got some special interests for ya ? lol enjoy your sentences

from article: "... that Countrywide Financial gave illegal mortgages prohibited by House rules to members of Congress, congressional staff and other officials (see blog “Where are the Ethics Hearings into Countrywide’s VIP Loans?”)" " end clip It's not just sweetheart mortgage product arrangements, it's also the wide gaping holes from phony housing transactions that are ALSO given out - to the tax payers ! In other words, a few chump change favoritism incidents towards US congresspeople, OR - in the end - probably 2x the Savings and Loan - well over 2 trillion probably - big fat tax bill passed on to everyone else. The 'character' flaws demonstrated by the mortgage favoritism, why that's like Larry lighting up a smoke to celebrate the last gallon of gas he just robbed from the gasoline factory. Or two crooks robbing Brinks in end scene going 'hey, got $1.25 ? I want to get a diet coke' while holding - oh well. The loan favoritism is nothing compared to the catastrophic record losses incurred through sub prime fallout. And these institutions walk the Enron walk - but without Arthur Anderson around, I guess it comes down to a few decent people who will talk ? No, a few favored loan arrangements - granted, highly questionable character there - is nothing compared to passing on the bill for MANY unfavorable loan arrangements eh ? I still say we're in the middle of deep black space forever, and no one has dibbs on anything.

really, last insight If the uptick rule existed in political ads ? The networks would say 'Now, look, you can't run three negative ads in a row here mister (or miss), ya see, ya gotta wait for one positive ad first - then you can run your negative ad'. All to prevent a 'smear' of never ending negative ads designed to take down a candidate not so much unlike how the SEC is speculating (had to use that word hmm?) BS was taken down after all. I do say what IS the BS breakdown ! I bet MacDonald will have something on that - probably a day before anyone else !

A good lawyer in the end would say "The uptick rule is there to prevent a corporation from shorting itself to cash out as a weak exit strategy" If the SEC can't monitor every corporation, it may just have to the rules for the entire classroom on this one.

ok ok - one more insight Just thinking, on Bear Stearns, maybe it was taken down intentionally - in an Arthur Anderson sense ? Enron anyone ? Just a thought. Maybe BS was shorted - then ? to cover the losses ? They just executed a bear run. If I recall - wasn't it margin call that broke BS? HA HA HA - watch BS have been broken from naked shorting. But NOT HA HA HA if you think about this... slowly take a corp down, milk it over time, short short short with a little help from your friends... Hey, imagine a company shorting itself - OUCH ! That alone - should require uptick rule. Enron and Ken Laye taught us, even IF you are the #2 user of the Bush campaign jet in 2000 - some people can NOT be trusted, even if they DO use Arthur Anderson ! My insight here was into a concept that is new to me, and I do wonder if it's in practice. Which is, take down over time, then kill it. It sounds like the 19 financial institutions aren't at risk so much from a 'chipping away' aspect here... But I think Paulson wanted to remove risk of another weekender Bear Stearns late night pizza party with Bernanke with any of these. Ok - one last insight - just hit me WTC esque - As Jacob Needleman points out, you don't need to go to war anymore, you can just buy a country, in some cases ? I say this... What if someone overseas is sitting there shorting these 19 US backbone US financial corporations ? it IS not unlike having a plane fly into your building, that is, waking up as Bear Stears to find you don't even HAVE a building. Really, same bottom line, no company and no building by morning - without uptick Bear Stearns proved this. So, that last insight asks, was the lock put on to prevent someone overseas from literally - taking down US financial institutions at will. I mean, really, if this Iraq 'deal' is about anything ? And if all these nameless faceless rednecks in the desert with rifles are such a serious threat to US World Trade, or flat out US financial institutions ? Then shouldn't economic terrorism be a valid claim for those that seek to focus on 'terror' ? Myself ? I'd just say - it's free markets, and it's global baby get used to it that's what the US citizen's need to realize, next year ? China passes the US - NEXT YEAR - in manufacturing. US citizens are goin' 3rd world unless you pull down over 6 figures the way I see it !

I will make one more insight into this 'bear run' and the concept of a group of shorters getting together to take a stock down. It seems these 19 will be protected from a run on shorting, but ? That we've said, okay, let rumor and shorting allow a perfectly good company to be put to dust without fixing the uptick rule changed last July 2007 ? and well, it seems a perfectly good company can be brought down overnight still - by rumor, or worse, I can't imagine the damage if a media outlet wanted to encourage this or that lack of confidence in a given company, that could be over whelming. That's right, I'm suggesting - say all the major networks ran a negative on IndyMac ? well, hey hey hey, perfect example, one NY Senator + media picking up on it, run on deposits, out of business. Very similar to this 'bear run' I was learning about recently where a group of people get together with the intent of pushing a stock down. In some means ? it's like destroying the evidence of the crime. That is, exploit the heck out of it ? then ? just kill the beast..., er the company that's got a bear run on it. Now, the point of my post, which is the analogy to politics on this bear run and these 19 corporations that now have protection from a bear run. Let us consider what this would look like in politics by analogy for a second. Imagine 19 candidates getting protection from political smears ? protection from rumors from being destroyed by some prostitute story (As- cough Rove did to McCain in 2000), turned out McCain had adopted a child from a Mother Theresa orphanage. That is from Bush's Brain - Karl Rove, the movie... Although the book is out there too I suppose. This concept of protection for 19 institutions makes me wonder what such political protection would be like. I just don't see it I can't see it Imagine the other candidates going 'hey, where's OUR protection' ? In a way ? Giving protection to 19 corporations by some private vote, If I'm not mistaken this was at NY FRB ? Where are the notes ? What ? is this a justice department hiring process with no notes ? is this a selection of 19 corporations with no notes ? I'm surprised other corporations aren't requesting coverage too/protection. Sheesh, Abu Dhabi ? I bet they could short GM out of business if they wanted... payback for going 'lectric ! lol who knows - the world is an exciting field to explore, all I know is I get better clarity here on issues than so many other resources. so few people will drill down on the data, I find MacDonald able to intuit just the right amount of detail on data to back up the conclusions presented for insight/question. I'll just say I do prefer journalism that asks as many questions as provides answers, if not - encourages even more directed, meaningful questions. Big questions for me are scope on impact of loss all the way down to the tax payer/consumer as > 1 trillion in losses comes down the chute their way. Seems like ONE person is truly fighting for the US tax payer, citizen, Liz MacDonald, and to be fair, I observe a few others that seek this goal, but no one seems to come close to presenting the home work - right there interwoven with the comments, to back the conclusions and questions as Macdonald. Here is where I bet I hear some snapping sound and I realize I've had an stroke which explains how I end up in a forum procrastinating from more work chores ! Someone once posted in MarketWatch 'post's like yours it's no wonder US workers get so little done at the office' was in context to 'on and on and on and on' commentary ! I DO read MarketWatch still, and while MacDonald is missing there, dartboards mostly over there. Maybe - a few articles that come with data like these do.

I just don't get it. I left MarketWatch forums for the most part, some great thinkers in their forums, mostly I found the same insights repeated. Here, in this column, Liz MacDonalds blog we have some great detective work and I just don't get it, it's almost like the twilight zone, no one else posts here. Oh well, I'm content just trying to get a better understanding of the fallout we're all looking at here from sub-prime to well ? So many surprises along the way too, even the speculation on speculators as of late ! One thing that stands out to me though in the article is ? I still can't settle on accepting the 19 exemptions/exceptions to this uptick rule. Something just doesn't fit right. The big question I can't settle on, it doesn't keep me up at night ? but I still want more revealed on is HOW the 19 were chosen. If you chose 19, why not 18 ? 20 ! What are the rules for updating the list ! ? ? ? Does this say something about these 19 ? are they considered core some how ? Who even is responsible for promoting the fixed list solution. Hey let's all put on our IQ above 135 hats here and say World Trade Center attack indeed was a serious statement and hit to the US financial sector in NYC. Sure Saudi Arabia says it wants to be the 'new' World Trade Center, and sure Dubai now sports the tallest building, I'll leave who did what out of this, and just make my point. My point is, flying a plane into the WTC, and even taking out the SEC headquarters in building 7 ? Is NOTHING compared to what a group of bear runners can do equipped and armed to the teeth with capital to push or pull a stock. My point is this, as Jacob Needleman says regarding World War III, it IS being faught on financial grounds right now, I agree, you can just BUY a nation state, uh oh, I've overshot my mark here again. My point is this, anyone who is capable of organizing flying planes into the WTC ? Or sending a message to US financials ? is ALSO capable of shorting these 19, so ? Was the uptick put in place out of 'Homeland' interests ? Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into a lot of the hype out there on all of a sudden new threats to humanity, no, the new big ones are mercury, throntium, plutonium, etc. Seriously, even SAYING we need to re-instate uptick rule at all for these 19 says what ? The others are WIDE OPEN for bear runs or take over ? The article title and focus is almost not unlike a legal leading question, where well - as I said, to me ? I still don't accept this ruling to allow 19 exceptions. What ? is there some committee now that reviews what will be the 20th ? by the same reasoning ? or the 18th ? Very strange to just isolate those 19. Maybe it's not so strange if looked at simply as - as someone can fly a plane into the NY FRB ? and melt all that gold ? I suppose someone can just trade a multi-billion dollar institution out of existence through excessive shorting anyhoo, same difference. If we can't stop a jet airliner, how we gonna stop a bear run on someone NOT on the list of 19 ? That question I think is confusing enough to just put some issues on the table, somewhat of the intent of a koan. So, perhaps let's take a step back and FIRST ask, is it even acceptable to allow this 19 rule. What if #20 is out there saying, include me ! Who lets #20 happen even ? how often are the banks reviewed. NOT sure on the parent company there Liz MacDonald that you work for, Xanadu comes to mind - NOT the Olivia Newton John movie - heh, but you're paid I'm sure by FBN, just a daily reminder, keep up the great work. I am a media addict somewhat, I can detect when someone is genuine about their work, you Liz MacDonald meet that - I hope you're put in a position to influence many minds, hmm, online blog + TV is a start ! No books though ? I haven't checked... A 'year in review' book would be highly welcomed my view. MacDonald seems to be day early, I can only imagine hindsight, or what the insights would be looking BACK as well, to evolve some ideas, let others fade. I DO read a good many sites, Bloomberg, MarketWatch, WSJ, one of my favorites Inner City Press and maybe once ? rarely - in this blog am I ever left without cutting edge insights into world justice here. It's in part a legal forum in that regards. What, is 'The Judge' workin' on these articles too Liz ? jk - Will be interesting to see what you decide to hit on next. Clearly there are a couple hot potatoes being passed around right now as to stories to cover, I think you've addressed a great bit of it. If Greenspan is right, and no one person can ever understand the global economy, Liz MacDonald is helping all of us get one step closer through insights shared from experience. (I really need to get a life here ! jk, no, these are serious serious times, let us not mistake the eye of the hurricane as it's passing ! I bet looking back, we'll find MacDonald got it right more than others got it wrong as to 'seeing the forest from the trees' here).

One interesting argument against the uptick rule is Europe doesn't have it. BUT, I think the UK does reveal any transparency ? I do not understand why the stats are not available, that is ? If uptick is to be deregulated as of July 2007 ? Short of those 19 financial corporations ? picked how ? again ? Financial institutions that are exempt from the uptick exemption ? Then at the least, why not show what percentage of the days trade were shorts on a given stock. I saw a Muriel Siebert interview with someone here on FBN, another Liz I think ! Either way, what's important is her comment on - 'we have computers, it's all electronic' I agree, the stats could be shared. At least then we could say - ah HA, look at stock X, sure it's down, but look ? it's been shorted to heck and back. And what about naked shorting disclosure ? How about getting some formal process to make sure naked shorting is on the book. to me ? Naked shorting sounds like the anti-thesis, buying stocks that don't exist, and at that point ? I get out of that insanity ring.

Oh wait, transparency is what we want ? to see through to the end ? ok, I got that backwards but I understand there is a position asking the question, why do we not have reflective data on just what WAS shorted, etc. I don't even want to contemplate the naked shorting. That's pure fantasy. my view. Oh well back to work

I'm surprised to see one other finality here - Let's remove transparency on the shorts.