Understand about the difficulting with juries - but, it seems the regulators would have a bigger stick (although we all know small fish are much easier to fry than the big fish). I guess the Corzine firm is effectively toast, so maybe there isn't an way to pursue civil actions/penalties.JALLEN wrote:Yes, he was, on the audit staff.Slowplay wrote:I don't really buy the overwhelming complexity defense. Parties to financial contracts are able to understand the agreements they make. If regulators or prosecutors are unable to understand them, that's another problem. If the trail of the financial losses are muddied to the point that they cannot be followed and understood, that's another issue as well. If someone is trying to make things out to be so complex that they cannot be understood, it's a good bet that there is something underhanded happening there.
The naked shorting I'm talking about wouldn't get to the point of delivery. The intent is to drive the price down where the longs join in (stops) and the short can be covered/closed with quick money made. I understand the naked call writing (as opposed to covered calls), but I'm refering only to the actual shares. Large investors would allow the broker to "borrow" long shares to cover short positions, etc. (with interest paid), but the shorting I'm talking about is above and beyond shares that could be borrowed.
Anyway, I see you're in Coronado. Did your son happen to work for PW in the San Diego office? I used to know several people in that office (was in the same building on B Street as the Symphony).
Anyway, the complexity is a problem not because the parties don't understand or the regulators or prosecutors don't but because it is hard to get a jury to understand. I've had several instances of flagrant criminal conduct, financial misconduct, here in Scam Diego which were never prosecuted because the DA/USA didn't feel like they could get a conviction. Had it been a 7-11 stick-up, games on! New York occasionally has trials of very sophisticated crimes and sometimes they will take them on, but the prospects of this one must have been daunting, millions of documents , hundreds of witnesses to verify and authenticate, the state of the customer agreements, the arguments that would be made over the interpretation thereof, all must have entered into the decision not to prosecute. Al this is, of course, somewhat speculation on my part as I didn't participate in the deliberations or decision, merely looking at the smoking ruins and taking a guess or two.
I'm not sure about naked shorting in the context you describe. Transactions have to be cleared; I don't see how one could short without delivering the sold shares, which must be borrowed. I've heard of short sale orders that could not be filled due to inability to borrow shares to deliver.
Regarding the naked short sales, if the position is not closed (purchase back the shares sold) in time you have failure to deliver shares at settlement. The FTD would then need resolved (by delivering shares later purchased when the short position is closed - those bought shares then remove FTD). Anyway, I'm drifting way too off topic...
PM on the way.
).
Pretty fascinating personal connection to the anti-colonialist mindset. 
Could you elaborate, please? I understand 'not letting the facts get in the way of a good story', but are you saying D'Souza let the facts get in the way of the 2016 movie? What does that mean?