% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • simonig simonig Feb 20, 2003 7:55 PM Flag

    This one is for vegas,zammy,et all scum

    Hello Mike_N_Mesa,
    Here is what I wrote to justabroker_2000:
    "My position is that any kind of shorting should not be allowed. It is hard to define a naked short or a legitimate short. As an example, if person B shorted stock (100 shares) which the broker borrowed from person A, everyone would agree that it was not a naked short. Next, if person C shorted the stock (100 shares) which were borrowed by the broker from person B's account, it would still be considered a "non-naked" short. However, note that the same 100 shares have been shorted twice and the float increased three-fold. This is the same as printing your own shares or money. This should be illegal as hell. I believe that the concept of borrowing shares and lending them to a shorter is just a smoke cover for the underlying crime. It is also un-enforceable in the real world. IMHO"

    In this scenario, how can you keep track of what shares are borrowed and what shares are naked? I can't see how any system can keep track. Therefor, I believe shorting shares are the same as printing them. The 100 shares in the scenario can be shorted over and over again. That is why I think the "borrowed" idea is just a smoke screen.

    Best Regards,