Bloomberg special on Naked Short Selling

My point might be, naked shorting did not bring this stock down.

Assume there was mucho naked shorting which depressed the stock price, it may have been a check and a balance to a more irrational stock price and saved a few from higher losses, n'est ce pas?
 
So, if you're grandma is sick, I can kill her? That's ok???

And what happens if I go at night, and kill a healthy grandma by mistake?

How many companies have they destroyed that didn't deserve it. THey don't get to chose. Well, they do, but they shouldn't.

Let me put it another way. US Forces have strick rules of engagement. why? We're at war, we have the power. Why can't our boys just kill everything, and let God sort it out?
 
unfortunately I'm not good with analogies and can't comment.

Sanity check pumped the stock, I thought it was a fair question.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

Again, who is to say that these companies should not be trading where they are trading? Suppose there weren't any naked short selling - there is no guarantee that the companies would not be trading where they are. In fact, I would say naked short selling should make no difference if there is fundamental value in a company. Buyers will step in when they feel there is value to be had. Could it not be the case that a company such as Overstock just blows hard and its shares deserved to suck? I would say yes. Sure we don't want people to be doing things illegally. I would have liked to get short OSTK but I could never do it through IB because there were no shares to borrow. However, the fact remains that if there were value in a company, it would be discovered. If there is a serious pricing error in a stock, it will eventually be exploited. How can anybody refute this argument?
More...


That is the party line. People who espouse this are either parroting what they here and don't really understand what they are talking about or they're on the side of those who can actually say to someone "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes" with a straight face.

The argument is bullshit. I don't think anyone is saying that these companies should not have been shorted or that shorting, in and of itself isn't a legitimate mechanism, so let's not pretend that is what has caused this degree of scrutinyThat is the party line. People who espose this are either parroting what they here and don't really understand what they are talking about or they're on the side of those who can actually say to someone "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes" with a straight face.

The argument is bullshit. I don't think anyone is saying that these companies should not have been shorted or that shorting, in and of itself isn't a legitimate mechanism, so let's not pretend that is what has caused this degree of scruntiny.

It's simple, if you have this many failures to deliver for periods of time and they are not reconciled, the brokerage firms probably never had the stock to begin with. That's against the law and just because the regulatory agencies aren't doing their job, doesn't mean it's okay. If there's more than 100% of a company's stock outstanding, someone is doing the math wrong. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

As a former long-time intimate of one of the biggest dogs in the market, I can tell you, naked shorting have made a hell of a lot of people insanely rich, at the great expense to the rest of us.
 
ok. Stock was on Naked short list for hundreds of days. why? Because they thought it could go lower? Say they are right. They usually have people on the inside, that's illegal. ANd then, they sold stock to those people that they never delivered, and took the money. So, Say 20mm shares were counterfeited at an average price of, I dunno, 30. Where's the 600 million? It worked in their favor, and you can say, what's the big deal. If they were wrong they would have to buy it back, shame on them.

Why is everybody crying over subprime? Listen carefully.......

BECAUSE WHEN YOU LEVERAGE THE SYSTEM DISHONESTLY TO MAKE PROFITS, YOU ENDANGER EVERYBODY, EVERYTHING, AND THE UNWINDING DESTROYS EVERYBODY.

Play by the rules. They were right on NFI, you're short your amount, move on.:)
 
The bottom line is some folks are selling something they don't own.

If you think that is o.k., I've got a great deal on this bridge in Brooklyn....
 
There are also hedge funds suing prime brokers that charge for the share locates that they never actually preform so this cuts both ways. Prime's are saying hey we have the stock so go ahead and short and we will charge you and then never bother to attempt to locate the stock. Talk about making money for doing nothing and the hedges are pissed that they pay the fee for services that are never render. I read an article several months ago about the suits.
 
Watch the Bloomberg piece. Chanos says as much. However, what he doesnt say is, the hedgies know there can be no Overstock, NFI, but they go to the Prime knowing they can solve their problem, which is all the stock they want to destroy the company. They paid, are ya ready, 100% Neg rebate on Overstock.

I know nutmeg isn't good at analogies, but hedge funds complainng about being screwed is like giving a hooker 50 when you promised her a hun. Your whores. get over it. I don't feel a bit sorry. Everybody knows the game. Problem is, we're going to have to bail the subprimes and then the Prime brokers.

The government started this stuff pre WWII. It's every American's right to own. Great. But every few years, they let the greed overun the industry, and we have problems.

Sears, btw, did this in the thirties. There are clubs that document the Sears' homes of the 20's and 30's. They all have the columns that flare out on the bottom, big front porch. You bought the pieces in the catologue, and they dumped the stuff in your lot. That was so successful, around 1928, they decided to finance the homes too. When people were sitting in their sofas on the curb, saying, "sears evicted us", it ended Sears' venture into mortgage financing.

Groucho said it best in "THe Coconuts. " At a home auctionin the hot market of Florida of 1926, gavel in hand he pronounced, "you can get BRICK........... you can get STUCCO......... OHHHHHHHHH can you get STUCK O."
Ah, the more things change.
 
Quote from flytiger:

So, if you're grandma is sick, I can kill her? That's ok???
More...

Again, you are ranting about this subject and you can't answer my question. You obviously have an agenda on this topic and thus you have no credibility.

The problem with everything you are saying is that a good company would have people willing to buy it at a certain price and thus they would not go out of business. Better yet, if the company is so sure that it is being manipulated, why not buy the shares itself and go private?
 
Quote from IcarusByNight:

It's simple, if you have this many failures to deliver for periods of time and they are not reconciled, the brokerage firms probably never had the stock to begin with. That's against the law and just because the regulatory agencies aren't doing their job, doesn't mean it's okay.
More...

I am not claiming that naked shorting is not happening nor am I saying it should be legal. However, if someone was naked shorting a good company, they would eventually get buried in the position. There is some theoretical fair value for the shares of a company. Now naked shorting may get you to that value quicker than is normally possible, but who is to say OSTK would not be trading at its current level without naked shorting? If there were value there in buying OSTK, people would be doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top