That you never answered my straightforward question but rambled on and on with innuendo spoke volumes. Clearly you are frustrated. As it stands, we're more likely to see a sudden crackdown on violators of the sodomy laws in the US than we are of short-sale rules. Just because it's law doesnt' make it right - even legislators and regulators recognize this. Goodbye Fly.
You have to agree that it's morally wrong to have a company go under because of illegal activity rather than what the market actually dictates though, don't you? I mean, if it's a shit company let the actual investors pull their money out and have the company go under because no one believes it's a good investment, rather than because some deep-pocketed criminals can force the company under at the expense of investors. That attitude is very un-American in my opinion. - The New Guy
we're talking about people's jobs here... their livelihoods. companies that may have a chance at survival will be taken out. this is illegal ppl. this isnt a game.... these workers depend on their salaries to feed their children. illegal shorting may take these companies out when they otherwise could have survived.
Blue, would you play monopoly against a guy who has free access to the bank? Ofcourse not, what would be the point. This is the situation we have with naked shorting except that it has real life ramifications for the survival of these naked shorted companies. It crushes them, hampers their efforts at attracting investment that they might need to grow and survive, before they have time to establish themselves. This is entirely unamerican and goes against the spirit of opportunity and entrepreneurship that this country espouses. Corporate espionage is illegal for a reason, monopolies are illegal for a reason, patent infringement is illegal for a reason, naked shorting falls in to the same category of anti progressive entrepreneurship activity and while it may not be as prevalent or as widely recognized it is just as insidious as it seem to mostly affect smaller companies that have yet to become established and it hits them just at the point where they need the growth to become established entities. I suppose a libertarian could argue that naked shorting should be legal and that the business market place in general should be a free for all. I don't know if this would work or not but my guess is that we would not have the major drug companies that we do today, the major software companies that we do to day, the major IT hardware companies that we do today if such a lawless business environment were the environment in which companies where forced to germinate. Naked shorting just does not make for fertile ground for the companies that could make it if they were not attacked while they were trying to grow. I never take personal satisfaction from anyone's losses in the market but I have to tell you that if some of these naked shorts got hurt by whatever Byrnes has up his sleeve (any you can bet that he does have something, check back by the end of 07) I would say damn good show and thank you. It is just sad that Patrick has to try and do the job rather than the SEC who are turning a blind eye instead of protecting the company's and shareholders' interests. We can all speculate as to why but it usually comes down to money on Wall Street.
Well, name calling (immoral?) aside, the several of you don't have a clue. But I don't care enough whether you have a clue or not to expound on it further. Suffice to say we are all best served by the most efficient use of capital, and while naked shorts may be nominally illegal at the moment, the positions are not 'free.' They come with immense risk. The resolution to this conflict is simple: Buyout. All else is conversation - and an increasingly insipid one at that.
I'm not sure if you thought I was calling you immoral, but my appologies if you did, because I certainly wasn't. It's my stance that naked shorting is immoral because it is illegal, and detrimental to a company for the sake of profit. Not to mention out of the reach of us little guys. I also don't know how you can say it's "nominally illegal", even if that were a term that had any logical meaning. I understand that they come at immense risk, I've never seen a position in the millions (maybe billions?) of dollars that didn't carry immense risk, and I certainly wouldn't insinuate that it did. The resolution you suggest is not plausible long term, nor does it address the issue at hand. I assume you're neither an investor, nor business owner, otherwise your stance is very illogical to me. - The New Guy
my, how smug we are.... illegal naked shorting is immoral in the manner in which it is being performed. so yes i am calling you immoral and i will go further... if you are mixed in with these guys you are a criminal and i hope you are dealt with as such.
Bloomberg ran a story today about Mark Cuban's favorite stock plays right now. His top pick was to SHORT OSTK!!!!!!
Rockers reply to OSTK amended complaint. http://www.prnewswire.com/news/inde...STORY=/www/story/10-14-2005/0004169612&EDATE=