The Penny Stock ChroniclesWho engages in massive trades in penny stocks on the industry’s own “chill list”? And what happens when you sell a stock you don’t have? Victimized investor Chris DiIorio finds the answers in plain sight and wonders why no one else seems to care.
A few years into his personal quest to understand how he had lost a million dollars on a penny stock, Chris DiIorio developed a sweeping hypothesis involving Knight Capital, the mammoth brokerage company that frequently traded in them.
Knight earned $333 million in pre-tax profits in 2008, and another $232 million in 2009. But DiIorio didn’t think Knight was making that kind of money simply from executing transactions for clients.
As a market maker, Knight was in the rare position of being able to legally sell a stock it didn’t have (the principle being that it will get that stock soon, so no worries). That’s called naked shorting. It’s illegal when regular people do it.
DiIorio suspected that Knight, either on its own behalf or on behalf of clients, made a practice of artificially increasing the number of shares available in a stock through naked shorting, thereby depressing the price.
His suspicion grew when he noticed that Knight often traded in securities that were red-flagged on the Depository Trust Company’s “chill list.”
But when the DTC senses trouble, it will stop clearing trades on a stock temporarily.
A chilled stock can still trade — as long as the market participants handle the physical certificates themselves. But it can be a sign that something is gravely wrong. The DTC states on its website that it chills stocks “when there are questions about an issuer’s compliance with applicable law.”
That doesn’t stop Knight from buying and selling them, though. Its chief legal officer, Thomas Merritt, acknowledged at a 2011 Securities and Exchange Commission roundtable that the company actively traded chilled stocks, saying that as long as the security still trades, “we are going to be involved in that business.” And DiIorio found numerous examples of Knight trading chilled penny stocks.
“I didn’t know they did that,” said Jim Angel, a Georgetown University business school professor. “I’m kind of shocked to think that Knight would be working with paper stock certificates.”
He suggested that Knight might simply want to accommodate customers trying to get out of chilled stocks. “Or maybe they feel there’s enough interest in a security that they can trade profitably, even if they have to shuffle the certificates.”
Because most other market makers flee chilled stocks, however, this means Knight can assume even more control over the stock price.
The thing about naked short sales is they can’t stay naked forever.
Even if you don’t have the stock when you sell it, at some point it is expected that you hand it over.
And even with its market-maker exemption, Knight is required by SEC rules to eventually deliver the shares in a naked short transaction to the buyer and close out the trade.
Not doing so results in a “fail to deliver,” which DiIorio describes as the securities version of an IOU. And that IOU comes with rules: Under the SEC’s Regulation SHO, short sellers have to cough up the stock within one day of incurring the fail. Routine failures to deliver can lead to fines by the SEC, or even a ban from the securities markets.
Instead of complying with the rule, however, DiIorio alleges that Knight circumvented it by manipulating an obscure process within the machinery of the nation’s clearing system known as the “Obligation Warehouse.”
This service facilitates the matching of self-cleared trades (often known as “ex-clearing”) that don’t go through the DTC — for instance if the stock was chilled.
The Obligation Warehouse instead simply asks the buyer and seller of these ex-cleared trades if they “know” the transaction. If they both agree, the trade gets confirmed with a journal entry — and the buyer receives their stock purchase. It actually shows up in the buyer’s brokerage account.
The trades still have active IOUs, but according to DiIorio’s theory, buyers wouldn’t clamor for the trades to be closed because they would’ve already received their purchase.
If true, this would allow Knight to bury its naked short trades.
“They set up a shadow clearing system,” DiIorio said.
Furthermore, DiIorio recognized what he considered a persistent cycle in the stocks Knight traded. After being beaten down through what he suspected was naked shorting, they would often engage in a reverse stock split or reverse merger, like E Mobile did with Best Rate Travel in the trade that ended up losing DiIorio over $1 million.
This, he observed, could enable Knight to rerun the scheme over and over again, pummeling the stock price and then letting it move back up like a yo-yo.
Laura Posner of the New Jersey Securities Commission said constant reverse splits would require a coordinated relationship between the penny stock issuer and the broker-dealer. “I know that there are situations in which fraudsters will take advantage of a stock split to commit fraud,” Posner said. “But it’s different than a typical pump-and-dump, where you don’t have to have a personal relationship.”
Alternately, the cycle could be a cat-and-mouse game playing out between the short sellers and the stock issuers. Hawk Associates, a consulting firm to small companies, recommends that penny stock issuers victimized by naked shorting engage in reverse mergers and/or reverse splits to stop the rapid degradation of their stock price. “It may be useful as part of a larger strategy to deter naked shorting,” the firm writes on its website. “This may be more trouble than it’s worth, however. Once the new shares are in circulation, there’s nothing to stop a new round of naked shorting by determined parties.”Knight’s involvement with suspicious stocks following this same pattern kept cropping up.
For example, NewLead Holdings (NEWL) — a shipping company with a mining concern on the side that was accused in federal court of having “no coal mines, no coal, and no ability whatsoever to engage in the coal business” — engaged in 1-1,125,000 worth of reverse splits over nine months in 2013 and 2014, meaning that 1,000 shares prior to the splits were equivalent to 0.0008 shares afterward. NewLead did another 1-300 stock split just this spring; it now trades as NEWLF, at 0.00030 as of August 23. Its 2015 annual report admits, “There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.”
FreeSeas (FREE), another penny stock, did a 1-60 reverse split on January 15 of this year, and then another 1-200 split on April 13, changing its stock symbol to FREEF. The company has engaged in seven reverse splits in the last five years; someone with 900 million shares five years ago would have one share today, trading at less than a penny. The company’s annual report says it currently has no employees. Private equity firm Havensight Capital made an alleged bid to purchase FreeSeas in June at $0.43 a share, about 80 times its price at the time of this writing, which FreeSeas called “false and misleading.”
While one might think this cycle of splits and price declines would trigger red flags with federal regulators, Joseph Borg of the Alabama Securities Commission doubted they would pay attention. “It’s like asking the SEC, of all the 35,000 private placements issued, you look at how many? And if they were telling the truth they would say we’re putting them in a drawer,” Borg said. “Anything like that on miniscule levels, they just get filed away.”
Furthermore, while there are “circuit breaker” rules preventing short sales when a stock loses more than 10 percent of its value in a day, these swings were more gradual. Knight made a lot of money on these plays, not just from the spread in trading profits, but because it often traded on its own account rather than on behalf of customers, DiIorio concluded. When the stock dropped, Knight got rich from the short. And it could rerun this repeatedly
“He’s got a theory that, without studying it, I see theoretically where he’s going with it,” concluded Borg. “It’s an interesting idea.”
Knight is now known as KCG. Its spokesperson Sophie Sohn declined to comment when asked about this and other matters.
Attempts to reach spokespeople at FreeSeas have proven unsuccessful. Elisa Gerouki, corporate communications manager at NewLead, asked me to prove I wrote for The Intercept; after I did so, Gerouki failed to respond to questions.
DiIorio also spotted a significant, seemingly toxic byproduct of this sort of activity.
Graphic: The Intercept.
Once that CUSIP changes, the naked shorter has no apparent way to close out the naked short position. No stock under the old CUSIP number exists anymore; it all automatically converts to the new CUSIP.
Those trades can sit in the Obligation Warehouse forever, in theory. But the “aged fails” — essentially orphaned naked short transactions — remain on the naked shorter’s balance sheet as a liability to be paid later.
By DiIorio’s reckoning, then, the cycle of naked shorting and reverse splits would inevitably result in an ever-increasing number of aged fails. And if that was happening, and those liabilities grew bigger and bigger, then federal regulators could see the outlines of the scheme on any financial statement.
DiIorio believed Knight accounted for its aged fails in the “sold not yet purchased” liability on its balance sheet. That’s supposed to be an inventory of stocks for use in future market making, which goes up and down as orders are filled. But DiIorio says it was a hiding place for a billowing structural liability.
And consider this: According to its own financial reports, Knight’s “sold not yet purchased” liability jumped from $385 million at the beginning of 2008 to $1.9 billion by mid-2011.
Jim Angel, the business professor, said there could be other explanations — such as Knight’s growth as a company during that period — for why the “sold not yet purchased” liability ballooned. But, he said, market makers are typically “in the moving, not storing, business, and like to keep their inventories as small as possible.”
DiIorio had no such doubts. He saw the fact that Knight was blowing a hole in its own balance sheet as undeniable evidence of the naked shorting play.
KCG spokesperson Sophie Sohn was asked specifically about that claim and declined to comment.
If DiIorio was correct, Knight was driving penny stocks down over and over again with naked shorting, then not actually closing the trades, and racking up enormous paper liabilities.
This was even more complicated than he thought. It was time to call the cops.

The Penny Stock ChroniclesWho engages in massive trades in penny stocks on the industry’s own “chill list”? And what happens when you sell a stock you don’t have? Victimized investor Chris DiIorio finds the answers in plain sight and wonders why no one else seems to care.
“Once that CUSIP changes, the naked shorter has no apparent way to close out the naked short position. No stock under the old CUSIP number exists anymore; it all automatically converts to the new CUSIP.”
This statement reflects a gross ignorance of how CUSIPs are treated during splits and reverse splits. In either case the shares held under old CUSIP are exchanged for shares under the new post-split CUSIP and all existing positions are adjusted accordingly. If you were short 10K of a stock doing a 1-10 reverse split, you would now be short 1K of the new CUSIP. This practice is standard and happens dozens, 100s of times a month for any stock splitting
Whoever Dayen the info quoted above is a fool or a liar.
While we are at it, anyone advising companies that a reverse split is a good way to fight the short sellers is selling snake oil. Stock splits have 0, zero, effect on the dollar value of the position.
Citizen’s United defined corporations as people with all of their voting rights.
These corporations repeatedly trade fabricated derivatives of absolutely nothing, with impunity and immunity, and make hundreds of millions.
USA, USA, USA!
This is a well thought out and well delivered story, but it’s crippled by a misstatement that gets repeated throughout. This man DID NOT lose $1,000,000. He lost $100,000. You can only lose what you show up to the table with. The notion that he ever had $1,000,000 in this stock is counting chickens before they hatch. You make or lose money when you sell.
Thank you for pointing this out. I also noticed this and am glad to discover that I’m not the only one.
No, he did not lose $100,000. Apparently he walked with $300,000 off a $100,000 initial buy. Yes, the stock peaked before he was allowed to sell it but that’s irrelevant. He never actually ‘had’ that $1 million and only an insane or incompetent accountant would claim that he ‘lost’ $1 million.
Question to the author: did your hero dare claim a $1 million ‘loss’ on his tax return? And if not, why not? (Hint, because he didn’t lose $1 million. He, in fact, tripled his money.)
That was a boring read. This article seems more suited for the Finance pages than the Intercept, where most readers know the system is rigged by big players, and have little sympathy for traders like DiIorio.
I’m struck how willing the “business professor” is to assume Knight is a good actor here, even when all the evidence suggests the contrary. Cognitive dissonance must be painful.
He’s not ‘a good actor’. He’s just another parasite who believes he was entitled to ‘make’ $1 million, which, by the way, would have resulted in ‘other people’ losing $1 million because…
Well, if Hillary could turn $1000 into $100,000 on her first and only future trade, why couldn’t he? (Hint: his husband is not the governor.)
Knight is a company, not a person. Did you even read the article, or were you just waiting for the loosest possible excuse to launch into a partisan spitting match?
There have always been greedy people, most are, most confuse money which isn’t anything with wealth and it has become interchangeable in our societies. The parasite portrayed as victim in this series would have been happy if things worked out for him while Carpenters work hard to provide him with housing for which he does nothing useful to society. I have given up hope for the working class to ever figure out how they are being screwed over by the parasitic class. Hell, most are so dumb they believe in invisible men in the sky and Superman and Robin Hood are still alive in Hollywood. A pox on the houses of all the parasitic classes.
It is a pity that so little interest from TIC readers only few comments.
This is critical issue, to show in what BS world all those banksters and their minions fueled by FED printing are living in. No wonder that they are all insane, selling things that do not exists.
There is one major lesson stemming out of this series:
No man, woman or child has no reason in the world to have wealth of one billion dollars or more even if he/she is a superman or woman, king of beheaders or epidermic queen of sloth, honest thief or thieving banker, Hollywood fickle celebrity on drugs or hard headed propagandist pundit living on booze, dwarf genius from Google or detestable retarded robot from Assbook, oracle from Nebraska or decomposing Hungarian Jew from London, free market worshiping grocery monopolist or free trade worshiping IP protectionist, crooked senator or lying politician, former corrupted government official selling access or army general selling weapons, former disgraced president or future disgraced president.
Nobody, I say nobody deserves to control wealth of one billion dollars or more for any reason at all and all remaining oligarchs with less than a billion dollars must come up with pretty good explanation for how and why they stole it from blood, sweat and tears of millions of hard working people in the world before they loose it and return from their sick delusional dream of grandeur and superhumanity into physical and social reality shared by all of us.
a small correction: “asked me to prove he wrote for…” in the last paragraph of the penultimate section should read “asked me to prove I wrote for…”
This naked short selling was happening at hedge funds as well, in big stocks. Normally when you short a stock, your broker has to get permission form their margin department that the shares are available to short. Hedge funds were on the honor system that they had checked themselves. Before the crash of 2008, most companies had bigger short positions than shares in the float. A naked short creates phantom long shares, so now you have that many more shares that can panic an want to sell.
The SEC should go back and claw back any profits from naked short selling from every hedge fund for the last 20 years. And then fine them another 50% above that.
Just more proof how how the markets are rigged.
When Knight Capital lost $440M in 20 minutes, many of the trades were reversed. Why? If a small trader made an error and wanted to reverse the trade, what would the reaction be?
I would be really upset if I had been on the other side of one of those trades, made a profit on it, then had the exchange reverse it.
The reason for reversing the trade is simply that Knight represents a very large portion of the income that the exchanges make. The rules are fixed in favor of those with the big checkbooks.
Part 3 of a 7 part story.
Like the old time Flash Gordon series at the movies. Typically an episode ended with the hero in a jam and they hooked you to come back and find out the next step.
Is that how the story ends or is there a part 4?
Fascinating! Thank you.
I don’t actually know this stuff, and you’re probably about to present evidence… but are the “aged fails” really necessary for the scheme? I mean, the name of the game with a pump-and-dump is to be the first to sell when the time is right. A company with Knight’s privileges could have an actual physical pile of stock certificates in their hands, which would not be allowed to be sold by ordinary mortals during that first year. But apparently such companies can borrow the certificates from themselves and sell them “naked” whenever they want! So they wouldn’t need to create “aged fails”; they can simply wait for the restrictions to expire and then settle up with themselves. Am I missing something?
They are not settling up, because buy the stock to cover of a very thinly traded stock would drive the price up while covering.
The have the proceeds from the naked sale, why spend money to cover the stock if its near zero, and drive the price up.
This dump and make sure no else ever pumps life back into these dead issues.
What percent of these penny stocks ever actual work? Could it be argued that if not for the fact that these stocks were shorted unsuspecting investors would pay a lot more for ultimate worthless shares, additionally the article assumes that these penny stocks all had legit businesses to begin with.
??
Elisa Gerouki, corporate communications manager at NewLead, asked me to prove he wrote for The Intercept; after I did so, Gerouki failed to respond to questions.
he: DiIorio?
Or, he: David Dayen?
Hummm…. Maybe a good time to short KCG.
lack of access to money is a key metric for evaluating poverty
Sounds like you’re trying to pull a nakied short-sell, john?
Is it just me ? But it seems as if Professor Angel has more excuses than a preacher caught in a whorehouse when it comes to KCG’s highly questionable dealings.
Dude, there’s has to be a Part 4!
“It was time to call the cops.”
The moral of this story should be obvious by now: if you’re going to rip people off using various stock manipulation shenanigans, be sure your victims are poor (for example, payday loan scams) or middle-class (for example, adjustable rate mortgage scams) – and be sure you have a bevy of politicians who will intervene on your behalf if necessary (Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, or Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush on the Republican side).
Goldman Sachs specialized in this approach – which is one reason they never faced criminal charges, unlike Bernie Madoff, who specialized in ripping off wealthy investors with political clout:
Goldman Sachs political donations:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000085
That’s enough to buy off all “the cops”, as long as the victims aren’t part of the 1%.
The plot thickens.