A court case was filed today. I should have it in an hour or two. Read it, it's based on discovery from SEC documents, Bates Stamp and all, and I hear it says different. Then, we'll chat. This is going to make Ratboy88 look like a right wing conservative.
Mandated buy in?? That would be like imposing a maximum time for shorts... in a regular short sale the short seller doesn't buy the stock back right away he owes people the stock as long as he holds on to the position... a mandatory buy in will limit shorts and will lead to an inefficient disclosure of frauds and overpriced companies. Worldcom, Enron and TYCON where all discovered by shortsellers way before the regulators, and all these companies claimed to be under the attack of short sellers at some point. The same might prove to be true for overstock and friends in the near future.
We've been over this before. Naked shorting vs. shorting. Nobody has a problem w/shorting. there are laws vs. naked shorting, but they are not enforced. What you are stating is tantamount to saying hedgefunds should be tipped off about buy outs, because obviously the market has priced the target company inefficiently; the hedgefunds will come in and buy and get the stock to the correct level. They do, buy (sic) the way, but that's irrelevant.
the difference between naked shorts and regular shorts is nothing more than the short interest, in both cases the stock is being owned by the short seller to a different person, but in the case of naked shorts he owes it to the person that bought the stock. The expansion on the stock supply happens in both cases.
"This is a very entertaining thread, what's it about ?" From the makers of Girls Gone Wild, Nuns Gone Wild, Amish Girls Gone Wild comes the new video--Naked Shorting Gone Wild. Dr.Stunata of Nutmeg Productions has decided to put the lens on his conscience this time. Now that Stunata is a millionaire and no longer has to worry about cash flow, he can feel free to contribute toward the betterment of culture and society and the nakeed short problem and those danged Hezbollah suitcases full of cash. "Yes, the human conscience is not a gland on the human body, and, therefore, cannot be seen with the naked eye, or touched with the fingertips. It must be tapped and experienced from within," confirmed Dr. Stunata. In Nutmegs expose, Naked Shorting Gone Wild, the filmmaker, using state-of-the-art docu-drama techniques, takes his audience back to 18th centurie to the founding of America, when a trillion dollars was still worth a trillion dollars and the notion of liberalism, revolution and the self and to free-market capitalism.... Stay tuned
Here is a link to the Securities Industry Association's website. This is their own data. Look at the following spreadsheet that can be obtained off their website: {NYSEFirmsTotals.xls spreadsheet} http://www.sia.com/research/other/ This data is for the NYSE only and is aggregated firm data. Look at lines: 69 and 103 in praticular. These line items quote the failure to delivers/ failure to recieve. The sum is $82B (with a "B"). The scary part is that this reflects the current position and doesn't include; exclearing trades, international clearing, or pre-netting due to the DTCC's continuous net settlement system. The DTCC councel has said (available off website) that 96% of all trades NET. You do the Math ...... <IV
The scarey part is, who is covering this up and why. I assume vast sums of money change hands, as well as threats, and the authorities look the other way. To the previous poster: it's illegal. There are differences. IT IS ILLEGAL.