What's so funny? How do I amuse you?Originally Posted by john
(Goodfellas)
SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO FORUM
What's so funny? How do I amuse you?
(Goodfellas)
Last edited by asm610; 03-04-2009 at 02:53 PM.
Relmer - I read through your research, but I don't recall seeing anything that indicated Ergen had plans to BUY OUT shareholders. I have yet to see anything that hints to this. How are you arriving at this conclusion?
Hi, I know there are people who think Mel is doing the best he can. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of that camp. I am pretty sure I could have done a better job (I would have hired a chimp to advise me)
Sirius would not have the debt it now has. Sirius might or might not have XM and all that entails. (Depends on whether or not Malone jumped in to "save" XM before they went BK.
One thing I am certain the SP would not be .13 It would be lower then day Mel took over because well the market in general collapsed.
I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in no debt, low as possible share float. Low as possible operating expense.
Mel dumped everything onto share holders and unfathomably many of them still worship him.
relmar, I disagree, first of all SIRI was not in any great shape itself. Now while XMSR may have had to file first and that is questionable considering most of the Feb debt was its and if you look at the COH for just SIRI they did not have enough to cover it.
asm610, I saw that to, that was a good movie.
Last edited by john; 03-04-2009 at 03:00 PM.
Hi, The merger cost SiriusXM 5 BILLION!!!! in goodwill. (hint: Thats where your SP went)
Relmore,
one minute you say you think Harleib works for a hedge fund and you end your excellent expose saying you will join him?????
when i first heard of him i actually googled him and researched if the guy was for real. accorking to the newspapers he is who he says he is...real estate developer...( maybe he is really spiderman after hours, i don't know ) what i find interesting is that i like you have done "due" ...spent the time on Deep Capture... apparently believe it is at least feasable if not reality and yet you discount hartleib when he talks about conspiracy..that is exactly what Byrne is talkin about. that is what you are talking aboout.
don't read any negative tone of this post. i appreciate all you do here and previously at "the other place'. I have learned alot from your input. i just wonder where you are comming from on this one.
koop
Relmar.
My scenario goes like this:
Ergen acquired the debt, therefore he must have been shorting the stock.
In leaking this info to the WSJ, he created a situation in which the BK rumblings drove the price of the common to its nickel low. This protected his ability to cover as we have seen from the recent short report at a nice profit. He also bought the debt on the cheap and profited from that as well. He must have known all to well that Sirius was cutting a deal with Malone.
I believe you have outed the main manipulator in all of this. I would bet the farm that the reason Mel turned his deal down was because of his hostile takeover attempt. He tried to blackmail the company and Mel defended it.
http://www.knighttradingfraudinfocenter.com/
Last edited by Brandon Matthews; 03-04-2009 at 03:10 PM.
koop, as you said that Deep Capture is a worse case. I suggest you look up homers clif notes on that subject along with the auther of it.
Dont get me wrong here I have not change my mind I still think the deal sucked. While it is, as you just said a worse case it is also possible in the end if SIRIXM cant pull through. This deal gives Malone everything reguardless of what happens as far as making a shit load of money. That is one reason the MSM was saying it is the deal of the century for him and not SIRIXM.
How can you acquire the company without buying out shareholders? He wouldnt be issued shares as Mel said no. So you go to the stockholders and ask them to sell to you. If Mel wasnt going to allow a convert debt for equity swap, what choice does that leave Ergen, who wants control of the company, as he STATED HIMSELF. Go ahead and explain that one. He obviously made an offer to Mel. Mel said no. He has no intentions of selling to Ergen. So minimum Mel was working with Malone since December. Ergen confirmed this story. Therefore Mel is responsible for lying again, and cirumventing a legal vote by faking a bk situation, with Malones help(part of the deal). I ammened my statement about Mr> Harleib, go back and look. I like the edit feature. If hes legit, which I said I didnt think he was. Mel has 2 quarters. Thats more than enough time. Im being generous, considering the money he has stolen from me.
My contentions about Mel are very consistiant. Ive stated since July hes been working with the shorts to take down the sp. They needed Mels cooperation to make it possible. Going on Cramer is one small piece of confimation. He validated Cramers arguments by appearing on the show.
Knight Trading Fraud Information
Knight Trading Group Fraud InfoCenter
Editor’s Note: A glossary is included at the end of this page for terms with an asterisk.
Knight Trading Group, a leading market maker* and asset management firm, is one of Nasdaq’s* biggest players. It is parent company to Knight Securities L.P. The largest comprehensive market maker in the Nasdaq and OTC* (over-the-counter) securities, Knight Securities L.P. is a major participant in those markets.
Why is Knight accused of fraud?
Knight Trading Group has been accused of fraud by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for additional fraud charges. Thus far, Knight has denied the allegations against it.
In January 2002, the NASD fined Knight Securities L.P. for violating securities and market law. Knight was accused of neglecting to make accurate reports to the NASD. The NASD claimed that Knight did not adhere to posted quotes. It also accused the firm of violating certain rules pertaining to locked and crossed markets. (A locked market occurs when the ask and bid price for a stock are identical, and a crossed market occurs when the bid price is higher than the ask price. Both situations occur more frequently on the Nasdaq than on other markets.) The NASD claims that Knight committed a number of such violations between 1997 and 2001. Knight was fined $700,000.
In addition, the NASD required Knight to pay $800,000 back to clients who lost money on its OnSale, Inc. stock. The regulatory body cited improper execution of nearly 650 orders as the reason for the fine. Knight paid without admitting liability.
In June of 2002, more charges against Knight arose—this time perpetrated by a former employee, Robert Stellato. When he was head of Knight’s institutional trading, Stellato claims to have witnessed multiple violations of NASD and SEC rules. Among his accusations are allegations of front running stocks, a policy in which traders perform their own transactions ahead of their customers’ orders. Front running usually results in a lower price for the trader and a higher price for the customer. Stellato claims that Knight traders engaged in front running with the knowledge of Knight’s CEO, other executives, and the company’s attorney. Knight has denied the allegations.
Also in June 2002, Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and one of its shareholders filed a lawsuit against Knight, accusing it of front running and stock manipulation. They argue that Knight used illegal practices to keep Applied Digital’s stock prices down, thereby hurting the company and its investors.
What is the current status?
Knight has already paid the fines levied by the NASD for its alleged violations relating to improper reports, mishandling of locked and crossed markets, and the improper handling of OnSale, Inc. orders. The firm paid $700,000 to the NASD and $800,000 to OnSale, Inc. investors.
The SEC is investigating the accusations made by Stellato. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who claim they were harmed by Knight’s alleged front running.
Finally, Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. has also filed a suit on behalf of itself and one of its shareholders, accusing Knight of manipulating its stock price.
Reply With Quote