why don't the naked shorting crybabies realize that naked shorting doesn't drive worthless stocks down? the only reason you can naked short these penny stocks with impunity is because they are *worthless.* That's the problem. don't blame naked shorting when the problem is that you buy worthless stocks. https://theintercept.com/2016/09/22/the-money-is-gone/
the guy was up $1.3 million on a pumped penny stock, and chose not to sell, in process losing it all according to the article he "prided himself being a savvy trader" this is a guy that worked on wallstreet for 10+ years
Sometimes I think people here actually take pleasure from the losses of others. Either misery loves company or we got some sadistic folks here.
Sounds to me this guy is just a sore loser... He didn't even lose 1.3 million, but about 80k on investment... And a market maker doesn't only do client trades, but mostly they also act like hedgefunds. Simply, the whole damn company wasn't worth a dime... stock shot up on inflated news and Knight saw an overvalued stock and decided to short it. Whether it's naked or not doesn't matter. Even if you borrow the stock first, you still create extra shares, so that's a nonsense argument. And if the company was really worth $3.50 someone would have bought it... Again, sore loser who decided to spend years to find out who/why/why me/I'm small and they are big/boohoo... And it's not that I "take pleasure" of people losing, but this is what happens when dabbling in penny stocks... which this guy should've known, since he's a "savvy ex-WallSt trader". Putting in 100k of your retirement money in a penny stock... really...? Who the f%$ck does that?
I don't take pleasure in people losing money but at some point the endless sore losing of the "naked shorting" people like Byrne, they really need to realize that their problem is not "naked shorting" but "money losing" and nobody is responsible for their money losing but themselves. naked shorting is a colorful name for what seems like a perfectly reasonable way to maintain liquid markets. in fact the whole bogus process of finding stock to borrow probably wastes a lot of money and time without serving anybody's interests.
There was a reverse split in there and some other stuff, it wasn't clear how much he ultimately invested. But I don't think he ever had a 10 or 15 bagger, he probably put in more than $80,000. There was a 1000-1 reverse split which would have left him with 3,700 shares. He got a better deal and somehow ended up with $1.3M of a $3.50 stock? It doesn't make sense.
It says somewhere he got 100k worth of stock at 3 cents, then didn't want to get more since he was in balls deep... Stock run up with news of merger... which probably was 10-15 fold and at $3.50 was worht 1.3 million with about 370k stocks at 3.50... so afterwards, at 6 cents it was worth $22k... so loss of $80k. Anyway, we both agree he's a sore loser, who doesn't understand shorting and tries to blame others for his stupidity!
according to the article a lock up period was instituted after he bought his shares. how is it possible for a public co. to institute a lockup period on a public shareholder?
it serves the interests of the brokerage industry very well. in the old days before widespread use of computers the stock loan business was controlled by the Italian mob. it was a great business. nowadays it is a very good nearly riskless profit center for brokers.
he got a lockup in exchange for a preferential deal . the irony is that he wanted to make money screwing people over and instead he was the one who got taken.