March 25, 2008
I am an investor in On2 Technologies (AMEX symbol ONT). Over the last several months, since July 2007 On2 has been under attack by Naked-shorting (i.e. short selling of securities that Fail To Deliver).
Since the change in the rule forbidding short sales of stock on the down-tick, effected July 7th, 2007, the price of this stock has been under relentless, highly organized attack,systematically driving the price of this stock down by simultaneously controlling the Ask and Bid while trading, essentially with itself or confederates, in such a manner that ordinary investors have been victimized to the point where they have abandoned their efforts to buy the stock because they know that the price will be immediately and summarily driven down below where they bought it.
ONT's trading pattern between July 3, 2007 and August 1, 2007 reveal shares plunging from $3.00 to $1.50 at the same time that "short sales" almost tripled. In August, ONT ends up on the "naked short" threshold list because of undelivered stock. On November 1, 2007, the company completes the acquisition of another company and reports increased earnings. The next day the shorts attacked again ... dropping the stock to less than $0.90 and ONT was back on the naked short list where it has stayed.
How anyone can possibly justify the selling of stock, borrowed from someone who is only the custodian of same for the actual owner defies reason. Among other things, this actually multiplies, falsely, the actual number of shares in existence. This practice should be terminated forthwith regardless of how long it has been countenanced by our governmental, regulatory agencies, including the SEC. A stock can only have one owner at a time--is this logical or not?