This is what I posted in another thread regarding the suggestion that Cramer be the next SEC Chair. I guess we can all agree that Cramer is a clown. Haha. "How are shortsellers responsible for Lehman's failure? They opened up their books even to foreign banks and nobody wanted to buy them at any price. If anything shortsellers were right and more people should have listened earlier. I would argue that the problems we have today are the result of too few investors looking critically at companies, not too many. During the internet bubble and till today its popular to look at short interest and hope for a short covering rally. Maybe people should look at those stocks with high short interests and see if its justified. In most cases it is. Maybe management should worry less about people selling their stocks, and focus on making money. Oh and by the way, there is much more market manipulation on the long side. Though I can't comment on Cramer lately because I don't watch him, I do not have a high opinion of him. He seems to parrot popular opinion. His ranting against short sellers is a red flag. If we want Wall street to even have a chance at remaining relevant, we should hope for someone who will stress efficiency. Capital will flow to the markets that are perceived as fair and efficient. Put up too many barriers and you will see volume moving to other money centers." I admit I am not very familiar with Byrne's position, but I believe from Flyingtiger's post that he is primarily talking about naked short sellers. The youtube clips do not show Byrne saying anything substantive like the reason for calling the economy a house of cards. Lots of people were seeing a collapse. Heck a lot of bulls were saying the same thing without even knowing it. Like people taking out second mortgages to put into the stock market was a sustainable? Obviously the real reason for the collapse in the economy was easy money and ridiculously high debt. Ironically because the US was/is a house of cards the correct move was to be short (or at least not long) banks, retailers (like overstock) etc. So not sure what Byrne's point was.
Idealism such as paying the national debt or investing in clean energy is great, but what does this have to do with shareholders who have invested in public corporations?? Are you suggesting that the government somehow intervene in a public company because of its unprofitablilty, conficate investors' capital and redeploy it as part of a package that the feds can spend as if it were collected taxes? I certainly hope not. ---------------------------------------------- Several examples of the gov't intervening in private business that the gov't believes are a waste of capital. Zoning laws. Taking of private business because a "better" business will generate more revenue. I think the most recent example was in Conn. The garbage business underwent a profound change with the creation of the DEC/EPA. Mom and pop trash haulers were bought up (additonal trucks on the road, inefficient collection methods). Dairy farming. Inefficient land uses, trucking, etc.
Sure you have. A Conscience. Re: Bernie Madoff, who you will see, is a big player in naked short selling. Mark it down, Spinner. BTW: Notice how the Black Knight here has totally spun himself off the original thread concept, shorting OSTK. He's knows it 's stupid, given the goings on. But that's what they do. Bait you, switch you. Bait you, switch you. Pony up , Spinner. Load up.. You'll make a real killing.
I have to give up on you Bull, but I genuinely tried. This is not meant to be condescending - its offered in your best interest: It seems you are lacking a grasp of some very basic financial concepts that are normally picked up in early finance and economics courses. Something to think about. This post reminds me of something another investor said along these lines: 'The concept of buying a dollar bill for 50 cents [or $2.50 in OSTK's case] either immediately takes with people or it doesn't. There's no arguing it with them - its how their built.'
A simple rule to live by folks: Short any company run by someone who spends more time on TV than Cramer. Below is a link to one of his recent rants. Note at the end he defends FRPT in a dishonest or absolutely clueless way. If it wasn't for the Iraq war, FRPT doesn't exist. Even in 2007 - a good year for war, the company made less than 1% margin. The company has a solid balance sheet now because the last few years have been relatively good ... it will be lucky to survive outside of bankruptcy once Nodrama pulls us out of Iraq and begins to whack our defense budget to pay for all those feel-good democratic programs. But FRPT is another thread ... Byrne is a clueless Cramer wanna-be TV finger-puppet. While his company burns shareholder cash, he spends all his time on TV whining about nefarious shorts. Of course he whines, because he needs to sell more OSTK stock in order to replace the cash he's destroying. It is a never ending cycle. Sell OSTK. Its free money. And its the right thing to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rkzwzg1aKM
". It may be illegal to short the financials, but its always a public.. " 12.19.08 it is legal to short financials.
The arguments are not bullshit Renegen, though I understand your sentiment. I'm trying to make an important point to people who don't normally think in these terms: That there are real, and important opportunity costs to burning capital on OSTK. And I think its fair, given that Byrne has referred to OSTK shortsellers as evil 'Sith Lords' who target innocent businesses for selfish motives. He does this both on OSTK's website, and in public TV appearances on FOX, CNBC and the like.
For a while this year the SEC prohibited the short-selling of financial institutions - banks, brokerages and the like. I'm not sure the current status of those prohibitions ...