Cramer Before and After.

Quote from flytiger:

what don't you get about "illegal"?

What's illegal? Short selling is not illegal. Naked short selling is already a violation of SEC rules, they should just enforce it already and shut up. Percentage of stocks that fail-to-deliver is less than 1% of all shares traded. Of these many are long sales that just don't get settled on T+3. Only firms that can 'legitimately' naked sell are market maker firms. Its already been proven that huge short positions at competing firms were one of the causes for LEH and BST failures. Like eating their own cubs?
 
Quote from Tide31:

It's really unbelievable. Having been at a bank, at a hedge fund and a daytrader, I have never been able to short a stock without a locate, ever. Who can naked short sell then? I don't think any of the 'opponents' have a clue what actually goes on. Like the ban on short selling banks. The buyers of CDS's on banks debt were the major culprits at the time for the pressure on banks. OK for them to buy protection/puts. OK for the CDS market makers to short stocks to protect themselves, I believe they were exempt from the ban. The blame was put on 'naked' short sellers at the time. I think they are talking about short selling in general, but Cramer should know his terminology better. For every buyer there has to be a seller. Aren't short sellers providing liquidity? Isn't liquidity a good thing? How come overinflated stocks that come crashing down aren't scrutinized as to who brought them to lofty levels. If you think that manipulation on the upside isn't rampant, then you are not looking close enough, or don't care because markets/stocks going higher are not a 'concern' for the public. Tell that to the folks that bought JDSU at $129 and sold it at $2 six months later.

Excellent post. I have no idea why people confuse short-term equity trading with the CDS/MBS-issuing banks falling on their own swords.

You sum up the issues very well here, thanks!
 
Quote from Tide31:

What's illegal? Short selling is not illegal. Naked short selling is already a violation of SEC rules, they should just enforce it already and shut up.
I think we'd all agree with you. Why challenge, and then make my argument for me?
Quote from Tide31:

Percentage of stocks that fail-to-deliver is less than 1% of all shares traded.
Absolutely incorrect. See "Ex - Clearing".
Quote from Tide31:

Of these many are long sales that just don't get settled on T+3.
Again, what don't you get about illegal? Mismarked tickets are a violation.
Quote from Tide31:Only firms that can 'legitimately' naked sell are market maker firms.
Quote from Tide31:Its already been proven that huge short positions at competing firms were one of the causes for LEH and BST failures. Like eating their own cubs? [/B]

Why don't you try again, and make your points. It seems like you agree that naked shorting is illegal, that shorting crushed LEH an dBSC (we have the fails data on "investigatethesec.com". I guess I dont' get what you're trying to say. If you're saying pumping is illegal, I'll agree. But I think they taught you in grade school the 'two wrongs don't make a right" thingee.

And you, of course, realize, the the mm exemption is called the "Madoff Rule", or "Madoff Exemption". Get it? Where do you think we're going with this?
 
Quote from Tide31:It's really unbelievable. Having been at a bank, at a hedge fund and a daytrader, I have never been able to short a stock without a locate, ever. Who can naked short sell then?


Market makers....
 
and hedgefunds who want to play. I've confirmed it a hundred times over. I know a guy with a XX platform who told me he could short anythng anytime without a locate. That simple.

A major bd conference call where the head of hedgefund operations said , "if you have a client who wants to short a stock and can't get a locate, you have him call me." Duh. wonder what he meant.

It happens all the time. Don't kid yourself.
 
Quote from 4444CJones4444:

He's a sociopath. He effectively hides it from his unsophisticated audience by behaving like an ass-clown.

how'd u like to be his long suffering wife?
 
With the Feds looking into Pequot and the Feds and SEC looking into SAC and Kyinkos I wonder if Cramer will call these firms out personally.

So far Cramer has been careful to never name names in his rants. He likes to generalize with is TV Speak for grandstanding with no substance. I say if Cramer wants to somehow act like a top cop that he starts by channeling his rants to individual people and firms.

Who are the short sellers he is speaking of? I doubt very much it is the small mom and pop's so who exactly is he ranting about?

Lets see if he is a tiger or a mouse. My bet - the mouse.
 
Excellent point. I'll think he'll get there, but not yet. He'll have to see those guys really crippled first, then he'll do it to save his butt. But Idon't think he'll do it yet. I mean, why bother? The Feds are doing it for him.
 
Quote from patchie:

With the Feds looking into Pequot and the Feds and SEC looking into SAC and Kyinkos

Patchie, do you have a link? This is not regarding the hormone pills one trader forced another trader to take at SAC is it?
 
Back
Top