The question I have for you is whether you'll "like it or lump it" if the market ever cuts your position by 40% due to market manipulation?
Al Jazerra on Naked Short Selling
- Thread starter flytiger
- Start date
The question I have for you is whether you'll "like it or lump it" if the market ever cuts your position by 40% due to market manipulation?
This thread needs someone to play devil's advocate, so I'll step up.
As much as I don't love corruption in markets (and don't love being the losing side of these trades), I have to say objectively this piece also wreaks of propaganda with a motive. This isn't unbiased journalism, guys.
So many of the points were not well supported (in particular the second half) as well: ie
1) counterarguments to benefits of naked short selling were not given, or even if net end result is the same as a market without naked shorting. Ie: if a company that is naked shorted surprises the market to the upside, price is restored and naked shorts get burned.
2) plunge protection team was attacked. No proof given of precise actions they've done (even though I know its unrealistic that they'd have proof), but there's evidence PPT teams are very effective in *helping* the little guy. Look at the Hong Kong markets in the southeast asian financial crisis for examples.
3) the biggest laugh was the big woman saying that an investor should be steered to participate in emerging markets, as they are supposedly less corrupt. Maybe true, but there's no evidence to back this up. And remember, entire notional total value of some of these emerging markets can be bought and sold easily by a few colluding funds. So I conclude no place is safe. Just a lot of statements not supported by real good data.
4) many others I could pick out if I wanted to spend the time.
My point: this issue borders on philosophy more than anything else. I say capitalistic markets have a tendency to allow corruption, because that *is* the true essence of a free market. Why should markets be democratic, with a $1000k investment having equal say to $1B?
Do you want the alternative: socialistic controls that stop volatility and supposedly make it easier for the little guy to beat the big bad hedge fund ? Then you'll all be bitching about having nothing to trade and being put out as weak prey to the whims of whoever is controlling government/financial policy.
Markets are going to be manipulated, and us little guys will be fucked, but thats the game. This piece is just as bad as the other side of the fence.
What we must understand about the SEC is this:
The SEC was never designed for the benefit of protecting the small investor. It was created and exists only to protect the "elite" insiders who initially set up this rigged system.
Other scammers who ultimately figure on how to manipulate the system (possibly in new ways) either are accepted into the fold, or get taken out by the SEC quite........ expeditiously.
Dave
The SEC was never designed for the benefit of protecting the small investor. It was created and exists only to protect the "elite" insiders who initially set up this rigged system.
Other scammers who ultimately figure on how to manipulate the system (possibly in new ways) either are accepted into the fold, or get taken out by the SEC quite........ expeditiously.
Dave
scriab:
Do we profess to have free markets, including free and financial capital markets?
Should we?
If not, who should get the special privilege of engaging in essentially "risk free" bets, such as 'late trading' (just to name one such activity)? Conversely, who should the other side of that trade (a late trade) be foisted upon? Who should the "inevitable loss" trade, on the other side?
Do we profess to have free markets, including free and financial capital markets?
Should we?
If not, who should get the special privilege of engaging in essentially "risk free" bets, such as 'late trading' (just to name one such activity)? Conversely, who should the other side of that trade (a late trade) be foisted upon? Who should the "inevitable loss" trade, on the other side?
I am diversified in many large stocks and ETFs like DDM, GOOG, AAPL, etc so baring a major 87' type stock market crash that simply isn't possible.
Do we?
There is a list that the DOJ has of the stocks Elgindy naked shorted. I've seen it once. Will you be so glib if it comes to light this has cost you money?
The SEC, the "Investors' Adv ocate" is a sham. I agree.
But what I think is, the big money is always in control to some degree. Given what they can take "legally", why are they allowing the special interests to steal w/abandon, risk it all for them, and all of us? Rhetorical, granted, but I hope you see what I mean. It's like charging fifty bucks for the breakfast buffet, then picking the diners' pockets, and if they complain, telling them the chicken shit is actually chicken salad.
It's coming to a very quick, and ugly, end. Realize the Milberg ?Weiss number two (pun intended) is coming over. He is the last chain of the Rocker/Gradient debacle. They are all pussys. He'll chirp like Tweety Bird to save his tired ass.
But I've made money. If you buy crap like OSTK you deserve to lose money regardless of naked shorting or not.
