This is what I posted in another thread regarding the suggestion that Cramer be the next SEC Chair. I guess we can all agree that Cramer is a clown. Haha.
"How are shortsellers responsible for Lehman's failure? They opened up their books even to foreign banks and nobody wanted to buy them at any price. If anything shortsellers were right and more people should have listened earlier.
I would argue that the problems we have today are the result of too few investors looking critically at companies, not too many. During the internet bubble and till today its popular to look at short interest and hope for a short covering rally. Maybe people should look at those stocks with high short interests and see if its justified. In most cases it is. Maybe management should worry less about people selling their stocks, and focus on making money. Oh and by the way, there is much more market manipulation on the long side.
Though I can't comment on Cramer lately because I don't watch him, I do not have a high opinion of him. He seems to parrot popular opinion. His ranting against short sellers is a red flag.
If we want Wall street to even have a chance at remaining relevant, we should hope for someone who will stress efficiency. Capital will flow to the markets that are perceived as fair and efficient. Put up too many barriers and you will see volume moving to other money centers."
I admit I am not very familiar with Byrne's position, but I believe from Flyingtiger's post that he is primarily talking about naked short sellers. The youtube clips do not show Byrne saying anything substantive like the reason for calling the economy a house of cards. Lots of people were seeing a collapse. Heck a lot of bulls were saying the same thing without even knowing it. Like people taking out second mortgages to put into the stock market was a sustainable?
Obviously the real reason for the collapse in the economy was easy money and ridiculously high debt. Ironically because the US was/is a house of cards the correct move was to be short (or at least not long) banks, retailers (like overstock) etc. So not sure what Byrne's point was.
"How are shortsellers responsible for Lehman's failure? They opened up their books even to foreign banks and nobody wanted to buy them at any price. If anything shortsellers were right and more people should have listened earlier.
I would argue that the problems we have today are the result of too few investors looking critically at companies, not too many. During the internet bubble and till today its popular to look at short interest and hope for a short covering rally. Maybe people should look at those stocks with high short interests and see if its justified. In most cases it is. Maybe management should worry less about people selling their stocks, and focus on making money. Oh and by the way, there is much more market manipulation on the long side.
Though I can't comment on Cramer lately because I don't watch him, I do not have a high opinion of him. He seems to parrot popular opinion. His ranting against short sellers is a red flag.
If we want Wall street to even have a chance at remaining relevant, we should hope for someone who will stress efficiency. Capital will flow to the markets that are perceived as fair and efficient. Put up too many barriers and you will see volume moving to other money centers."
I admit I am not very familiar with Byrne's position, but I believe from Flyingtiger's post that he is primarily talking about naked short sellers. The youtube clips do not show Byrne saying anything substantive like the reason for calling the economy a house of cards. Lots of people were seeing a collapse. Heck a lot of bulls were saying the same thing without even knowing it. Like people taking out second mortgages to put into the stock market was a sustainable?
Obviously the real reason for the collapse in the economy was easy money and ridiculously high debt. Ironically because the US was/is a house of cards the correct move was to be short (or at least not long) banks, retailers (like overstock) etc. So not sure what Byrne's point was.