shareholders of these companies don't want shorts to profit from the demise of the company. if you sell short, the shareholders have one less buyer to sell to.
Yes, Of course. We need to get a change in Wall Street "plumbing" so that legitimate short sales can be keep track of and end this insane business of naked shorting. It's just absurd that the SEC has done nothing about this until now, and it is ironic that now they suddenly want to protect their buddies on Wall Street , when these same firms are no doubt some of the worst offenders when it comes to going naked. The don't mind screwing someone else but when they become a victim of naked shorting they scream bloody murder. I'm also astounded at the number of apparently experienced traders who do not understand the difference between legitimate short selling and naked short selling.
naked shorting is when no shares were available to short. they are betting there will be shares to short. majority of naked shorting is done by professional brokers/firms shorting to the market makers of those stocks who are on the buyside and they naked short huge.
Here's a reporter calling out the crooked reporters...... last line. http://www.deepcapture.com/ Read the Cramer part at the end. Really touching. Here's Cramer two years ago: CNBC personality and longtime money manager James Cramer wrote on TheStreet.com, "Perhaps the most over-observed, over-chronicled and falsely over-weighted topic on Wall Street these days is naked shorting ... (t)he concept of not finding shares before you short them, not locating them, is something that happens very rarely ..."Cramer 2/5/2006 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-05-overstock-stock_x.htm NOW: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=794250312&play=1 Think he sees Federal Agents in his dreams???? Doesn 't he know we have all this stuff archived? Is anyone fooled. And btw, Nicholas Meier's book, he naked shorts 10,000 BMY.
naked selling? legitimate selling? i dont know any other market OTHER THAN STOCKS that does not allow you to take a view and sell without being persecuted. as someone said last night on cnbc. ' why is it buyers dont have to wait for a down tick to buy.' too long a share price falling has been seen as negative when it should be seen as a true reflection of the value of a company. i didnt see the sec back in dot com bubble land banning buyers who pushed a market to an extreme level. S.E.C. BUNCH OF FUCKING TOSSERS. SEC = RIP.
naked shorting should be illegal. but why does the sec only care about these stocks? it should be illegal for all stocks or for none.
How true! Excellent point. Flytiger aka Patrick Byrne keeps crying like a little B*tch, but the fact is that naked shorting started out as a solution to being able to short low float piece of craps like OSTK. Byrne was quite & happy when his company stock was rising by ripping short covers via manipulating the float. But when the stock was no longer impossible to borrow via naked shorting, all of the sudden he starts crying as his unprofitable waste of a company tumbles down to the valuation that it deserves. This naked shorting witch hunt is retarded. The only reason naked shorting even exists is due to the restictive procedures involved with shorting stocks which are just hassles & additional costs. The abuses of naked shorting only exist due to the system devised for shorting stocks. If naked shorting is so destructive, go send them to bring down OIL to 30 bucks a gallon. Good luck.
... and squeeze they did. Let's see how far they go to protect the out of the inner circle companies from naked shorting and deter rumor mongering in both directions (like RIMM is rumored to get bought out by... pick your company). crickets chirping.