.01/share? He should go to Genesis. lol. Get rebates too. But really, for the large orders do you need someone (multiple people?) to work them? Could you fill them yourself using anonymous ECNs alone? I wonder how much size you can push through ECNs and not unduely move the market away from you.
SAC used to pay .06 back in the day, he has no problem paying the street for information. I am sure he still pays .03, this is institutional business we are talking about not some Prop guy scalping.
I thought, when the 60 minutes thing came out, SAC was paying top dollar to get the attention. Not sure where I read that. Help. A lot of the traditional institutional biz is dead. it was a six cent model to four, now to one. The Institional guys are left to pitch platforms for one cent or get nothing. Nobody wants to pay for research. Go figure. Except, of course, guys like Rocker who are alleged not only to pay for it, but help write it and decide when to release it. And I don't need you to agree with me. The cat's out of the bag. That fight is over. Now its just when.
Didn't say you "needed" me to agree. Noting personal, but it doesn't realy matter to me what you need or don't need. I'm just expressing my opinion the same as you are. Not entirely, but to me this is quite often a matter of poorly run, crappy little failing companies trying to blame their inadequacies and failings on hedge funds, who they've demonized, picking on them.
Now let's see all the "secret" ideas and information the "mean ole hedge fund" has: Buy Google....ride it up... Buy Time Warner...wait with everyone else Buy Tenet....didn't work out as expected Boys and girls, these are not exactly secret or "inside" info... Buy in '87...oversold...buy after LTCM ...oversold.... He is looking for "targets of opportunity"...very simple Most on ET could learn a thing or two about simplicity... There is a fella who post when ever the word "short" is mentioned...he is the President of a small, failing public company...the company has restated earnings and has never made a profit....the problem is that the actual income/revenue is also bogus....that is fraud and is punishable by going to the Federal Pen.....Worldcom..Tyco..Enron..that type of stuff I feel sorry for this guy as he was born rich but has not been able to follow in his father's footsteps and is now in very big trouble... Really very sad.... SteveD
Thanks ByLoSellHi for sharing that. Didn't have a chance to view all of it yet. Is this from Jim DeCosta? The guy from flytiger's thread I mentioned? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75449&highlight=sho
Yes. If you posted that originally (or whoever did), I want to thank you (or them) very, very much. It offers great insight into one of the biggest dark and nasty secrets Wall Street today: How clearing and ex-clearing of FTDs are dealt with, the actual number of FTSs, and the very questionable and massive issue of naked short selling in general. It is very eye-opening and offers clear evidence (at least to me) that the SEC has no interest in real reform of unethical practices that hurt business and traders alike.
Since I haven't viewed it yet I can't say but I probably don't necessarily agree with all they're saying and may not agree with much. Just interested in someone presenting that point of view. As I mentioned in one earlier post, I feel an attempt my some to demonize the hedge fund industry which will inevitably result in government overregulaiton. We'll have to see if we can find a published article or report defending naked short selling which I personally don't find anything wrong with. There are at least two sides to this issue.
Hedge funds are on the periphery of the issue, though. The issue is how 'failures to deliver" are dealt with. If you loan me money in a quasi-indefinite way, and never really bother me to pay you back, I will take risks that I'd never imagine myself taking with that money - unlike if you had me on a short leash.