Bloomberg special on Naked Short Selling

Quote from sprstpd:

This slide show was obviously created by Patrick Byrne, OSTK CEO. So there is an inherent bias to the presentation to promote his views. For example, always using a grandmother as the person being screwed over is a classic example of things that make me go "hmmmmm" (for example, flytiger continually has a fascination with using "grandmother" in his posts). The presentation is informative, but doesn't seem to be any different than points already presented here. Again, naked shorting should be abolished, but I can't take much that these guys say at face value.
More...

If you have concluded that naked shorting should be abolished, then you have probably come around to understand that the practice only serves those who sell something they don't own. Taking any information at face value is not the hallmark of someone seeking the truth about anything. I doubt if anyone who is seriously advocating for change is looking for that. If the extent of your inquiry is limited to these forums, you need to expand your exposure before you summarily judge a post or an idea. Learn who the big players are and what their history tells you about them and what they may or may not be capable of. Can a small group of hedge fund heads really be so brilliant as to earn what they reap ,or are they just unscrupulous people who exploit every opportunity, legal or otherwise, to rape a system where those who are supposed to be guarding it, have failed to do so? Before you allow yourself to be swept away by the broad dismissive remarks made by those who would like to keep naked shorting in play, consider the facts.

Now feel free to be as snarky as you like.
 
Why, Icarus, are you telling me that 40 per cent returns are not only unnatural, but impossible on a level playing field? I can't believe these guys aren't as smart as the politicians, whose pockets are greased by this charade, make them out to be.

Starting a new thread, naked short selling. Take a look. I don't want to restrict it to here.

Great day today. Money manager with a huge position in a stock with great news can't understand why his stock can't advance. Now, he's trying all sorts of manuevers which is like pissing in the wind, because as long as the regulators are captive, the dark side steals the money. It's just some stupid cancer drug in ph III anyway. Who cares if that works?
 
Quote from IcarusByNight:

Before you allow yourself to be swept away by the broad dismissive remarks made by those who would like to keep naked shorting in play, consider the facts.

Now feel free to be as snarky as you like.
More...

Except for your last post, I think you have consistently shown a poor attitude in this entire thread. Calling me "snarky" seems ironic, however it is much better than the insults you've doled out before.

Obviously naked shorting should not be allowed. The sticking point in my mind is not whether naked shorting should exist or not (it shouldn't), but whether it is this all powerful force that will take down the US financial system. This is the way naked shorting is presented by flytiger and others and I don't buy it.
 
Here is a ponderable, although I don't expect any decent answers, since the guys bitchin' about naked shorts are not very good at presenting an argument:

What is the difference between these 2 scenarios?:

1. At the open I want to short stock X and my broker doesn't have it, but they call another broker and they are promised that they can lend it so my broker let's me short. The stock drops and I cover at the end of the day, so there is no need the lend the stocks.

2. Pretty much the same situation, but the information from the another broker is INCORRECT. They promise to lend the stocks for shorting, but it comes out the next day that they don't have it. But the stock dropped on the same day when I shorted and I already covered it.

So in both cases the covering of the short happened way before the stock could have been borrowed, but in #1 scenario there were stocks for borrowing, in #2 there weren't.

So is there really a difference???
 
Quote from sprstpd:

Except for your last post, I think you have consistently shown a poor attitude in this entire thread. Calling me "snarky" seems ironic, however it is much better than the insults you've doled out before.

Obviously naked shorting should not be allowed. The sticking point in my mind is not whether naked shorting should exist or not (it shouldn't), but whether it is this all powerful force that will take down the US financial system. This is the way naked shorting is presented by flytiger and others and I don't buy it.
More...

http://www.tbs.com.es/simplyspain/aboutspain/The_Naked_Truth_1.html

Others can articulate the argument far better than I can, but it's reasonable to conclude that if shorting can so impact a market as to cause a major decline or crash, it's not hard to imagine the impact of naked short selling on same. Add to that, naked shorting is an illegal practice, why would anyone assume that those who employ this specific device, confine themselves to this one single crime? Some forms of naked shorting involve counterfeiting securities certificates, some involve instances where a legitimate purchaser places and pays for a stock certificate he or she never receives, some involve traders who have proprietary relationships with brokerage firms that will facilitate a naked short because they can't get their hands on enough stock to fill the order. If they can't fill the order, it is implied that they're not doing the job that someone else will and thus, they will lose those excessive commissions. It's no longer a question whether or not naked shorting is taking place, the question is, why is the government allowing it to continue. To surmise that the convergence of these factors could result in causing a devastating impact on our markets is a hypothesis based on sound reasoning, not hysterical hyperbole.


If this doesn't resonate with you, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4
 
Well said Icky.

The doubters: Given we cannot tell you every single thing going on, let us appeal to your common sense.

You have a baby in the room, and there is a putrid smell. do you have to jam your hand down the diaper to ascertain the dilemma in which we find ourselves?

Let's point out some basic facts.

Naked Short selling does exist, after years of newspaper people, pundits, wags totally denying it, and crucifying anywone who said it did.

There is a plethora of actions vs. market manipulators who have broken the law in one way or another, and the max fine is about 1/1000 of the "take".

Gary Aguirre has accused the SEC of favoritism. You and I do not receive the same treatment as John Mack.

London just eclipsed NY in trading.

With all this out there, there is a tremendous reticience to properly address the problem. And everyday, more and more companies are added to the "list".

Given that major institutions are apologists, that the regulatory agencies turn a blind eye, do you really need to shove your hand down the diaper? Or, did you grow up in the country on rabbit pellets. Because I was taught, "if it looks like it, and it smells like, and it tastes like it, it probably is."

I believe within days I'll be able to release some things that will clear a lot up. But I'll relay to you two points. The first, from an official at a Specialist firm, and this is around the time of 9/11 told me, "everyone knows why they use (unnamed clearing firm). They hide their customers better than anyone else." To me, that brings in money laundering. skip skip, Bermuda, exact pay, Interpol.. Interpol is not the local Polish American meet and greet. They move, it's big.

Secondly, why would a good looking rich CEO, who's havd cancer three times so he probably hs the life expectancy of a ripe bananas, get so totally involved if he could have ended it with with a phone call? And why has his life been threatened? If he was full of it, who would care? Or is he too close to the truth. Do you have enough life experience to empathise, or even say , "hey, wait a minute?"

We are in deep , deep doo doo. And you shouldn't have to jamb your hand in the diaper to see it. You're supposed to be traders. Go make some money off it. Monitor the SHO lists. Tremendous vol, um and atilty. What more could you want?
 
" since the guys bitchin' about naked shorts are not very good at presenting an argument:"

I don't know why Bryne don't just open his own hedge fund, naked short some stocks "undercover" if it's so easy & rampant and report back with his findings. I'm sure he has the money.

I'm mean c'mon, investigative reporting and the best he can do is tap on the window and peek in at what is going on inside.

On the philosphical side, I'd sure would like to know who his hero is? Who does he admire? Tells alot about a persons character, oops, other than a tv show analogy, what was it? Star Trek? never watched it. Not much into tv, I like my unsolved mysterys right here on the et forums, and a few strange encounters of the third (finger, occasionally) kind.:D
 
"You have a baby in the room, and there is a putrid smell. do you have to jam your hand down the diaper to ascertain the dilemma in which we find ourselves?"

Lol, I love your abnalogies. Btw, your confused why exactly London eclipsed Ny in trading. More of your "boo!" tactics. Quit throwing that in there if you don't know the real reasons, it makes you look ignorant.
 
""if it looks like it, and it smells like, and it tastes like it, it probably is.""

The French will put it on the menu and call it Canard.:D
 
I'm still laughing.

"do you have to jam your hand down the diaper"

"Jam" how can you think of food at a time like this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top