Byrne Takes Full Page WSJ Ad, Taunts Stevie

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by flytiger, Jul 27, 2013.

  1. So, that CEO is taking out an ad and suddenly the hedge fund world is gonna die? I bet you were in the midst of the occupy Wall street folks. What a hogwash.

     
    #31     Jul 29, 2013
  2. ElCubano

    ElCubano

    what do you think? its like making shares available that never went through the registration process...like counterfeit..do you think counterfeiting US dollars is ok? and yes they'd obviously prey on weak companies..it works better that way.
     
    #32     Jul 29, 2013
  3. Pekelo

    Pekelo

    Kind of yes. Call me stupid, but when you naked (that's what you meant by illegal) short sell, you artificially create more stocks, because you are selling something what didn't exist before. Am I right? When you are shorting borrowed shares, those shares do exist.

    Technically speaking you could naked short sell MORE shares then the existing number of ALL shares. What stops you doing that? After all you don't have to borrow them... Now once you think about this, you understand why it should be (and it is) illegal....

    Exactly....
     
    #33     Jul 29, 2013
  4. ElCubano

    ElCubano

    in the otcbb world shares were being sold in this manner as well and stock pump and dump promoters would be issued shares by insiders bypassing the registration process...kinda the same shit..peace
     
    #34     Jul 29, 2013
  5. I am a huge proponent of short selling, given the shares are located for short sell in full accordance with SEC regulations (I thought it was clear I am against naked short selling). Yes, I have no problem to borrow the hell out of shares I can dump if I think the company produces crap, their marketing is fraudulent, and/or the management stinks. Why not. Why can some borrow and lend money (through mortgages/bank deposits) and others cannot long and equally short sell companies. Because most of the so-called-corporate elite tells you so? I beg to differ.


     
    #35     Jul 29, 2013
  6. selling something that didn't exist before, also known as "futures" and also "options" . . . So we should ban both of those, right? This is all just sour grapes, if naked shorting depresses price, that should be a goldmine, just buy more shares and squeeze the shorts. This is just like all the gold bugs whining about "manipulated" gold market, OK if JPM is manipulating precious metals, then buy more. If Costco were manipulating price of beans, what would you do? Buy more. It would be free money, not something to whine about like big babies.
     
    #36     Jul 29, 2013
  7. jem

    jem

    I think the difference with futures is that they have to zero out every quarter.

    Which is why I wondered why companies under a naked short attack don't just call in the shares and issue replacement ones or just threaten to do it.
     
    #37     Jul 29, 2013
  8. jem

    jem

    I just looked at the overstock chart...
    that is an amazing move since april.


    can that incredible 300 percent pop in the stock since april be caused by anything other than short covering?
     
    #38     Jul 29, 2013
  9. And what do you think is left? We know they can short multiples of the float.
     
    #39     Jul 29, 2013
  10. The difference is , futures financially represent a know commodity at a set price, and it is backed by possible delivery. Naked shorting is like someone renting out your house and collecting the rent, while having no economic interest in the property.
     
    #40     Jul 29, 2013