I was wrong, in my last posting, to ask why the banks would want...

I was wrong, in my last posting, to ask why the banks would want to place their security at risk with Trust Defender; TD is clearly described as 'middle-ware', is not intended to be 'in' the bank, and so doesn't place a bank at risk (assuming TD is what it says it is). My error.

I am intrigued why they can't name the banks or credit unions; presumably, it would be in the interests of all parties for the bank to say that it has enhanced their security?

For those of us who have been following NBS (in my case having sold in October 2009), this TD story is just another one of a kind; NBS seems to have a range of them to release from time to time to keep the market warm; unfortunately for the punters, this TD story will keep them on board until the money runs-out.

Traders may be able to trade and turn a profit, but investors beware.

Contrary to one suggestion, it took courage to bail-out of NBS when the price was in cents 40's; it had a bad smell then and continues to smell.