If O gets relaunched will there be prosecutions of those who manipulated Affy?
Are the lawyers suing affy now guilty of manipulation? Of course not they're just doing their immune thing.
Have they been short will advertising their desire to find a lead plaintiff?
Will they cover and go long just before they drop the case? How about their 3rd cousins on their mother's side, you know, different name and all, will they be privy to that info before the public and trade on it?
For those who don't know where I stand on shorting stocks.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral.
For those who don't know where I stand on lawyers, that's x rated.
"Does the SEC ever investigate securities manipulation?"
Only when they can pin it on a corporate CEO or officer. They NEVER even attempt to persue manipulation by huge players like Goldman Sachs or any major hedge fund managers. Every so often they find a minor infraction such as Martha Stewart and they put on a show trial and celebrate a victory that DOES NOTHING to protect investors. And of course the reason for not going after the Goldmans and other huge firms is that these are the exact places that supply the SEC with its "talent" and these are the firms that hire back those leaving the SEC. Its a total SCAM as is just about anything where a crony relationship exists between the fed govt regulators and the businesses they regulate.
Does buying shares (going long) either increase or decrease the number of shares? No
In economics 101 do they not teach you as supply rises prices fall? Yes
Does selling shares you own increase supply? No
Does selling shares you don't own (shorting) increase supply? Yes. Go back to question 2.
Do long term investors get stopped out because of heavy shorting? Yes. Even if its momentary.
Is short selling an investment? No. Its gambling. Betting the shares will go down soon.
You didn't put money in.
With 38% short, how many shares of Affy are being held by investors?
That is, how many shares do investors think they own? 52 Million
How does it make any sense that people think they're long lose money on shares they don't own?
Investing and going long on any random stock is not inherently moral. Just because there is increased supply and shares value decreases doesn't make shorting a stock immoral. Investing in the stock market is not guaranteed to give you positive returns. I don't get why you're trying to badmouth short selling in general- it's a legitimate function of the market, just like selling options against your own position.
The only argument I could possibly entertain is the tactics that are more commonly used by shorts to destroy the actual company, but you didn't make that argument.
"Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral"
There is nothing inherently immoral about shorting. A stock may (in my opinion) be overvalued just as it may be undervalued. What is not ethical is to spread false and misleading info in an attempt to drive a stock down just as it is not ethical to spread false and misleading info in an attempt to drive it up. In my experience there are much more pumpers than dumpers.
Shorts take the same market risk as longs. The have the same strategy as longs - buy low - sell high - only they do it in the reverse order.
I completely disagree with you on shorting a stock. Completely moral, however, the things that large short sellers then do to force a stock down can be immoral. It's one thing to take a passive speculation position, it's another to bet against the company then try to make the company go bankrupt.