I responded to that LaFalce inquiry, saying that I thought he asked the wrong question of the SEC. So when Pitt gave his generic answer on CNBC, without bothering to question the true veracity of the question, he effectively swept the topic under the rug.
Message 16408446
Message 16426029
[Once more, I have nothing against legal short-selling or short-sellers. . . and called many bloated stocks short over the years.]
The questions to be asked must be very clear.
It is not whether "short-selling" is good or bad. . . it has nothing to do with market makers. Those issues have been debated for many decades. But we must stick with the questions at hand:
The questions I would like our Congressmen to be asking of governmental agencies are as follows:
1. Are the American equities markets being primarily driven by post-attack short-selling, specifically naked short-selling, as opposed to orderly selling of shares by investors?
2. Have we been seeing a significant increase in naked short-selling via foreign entities [offshore brokerages, offshore hedge funds, individuals using offshore accounts], as American markets slide? If so, shouldn't we restrict short-selling to those on American soil, with evidence of the underlying borrowed certificates?
3. As these short-sellers cover and increase the size of subsequent short positions, are they not directly prospering from America's recent misfortune, while making it increasingly difficult for our markets to recover?
4. Considering how the 2 1/2 year slide in the U.S. markets from 1929 to 1932 led to the Great Depression and how the recent 1 1/2 year slide may still be a long ways from ending, possibly yielding similar damage to our economy . . if it is shown that these foreign entities are responsible for driving the current market slide, does this not represent a national security threat?"
Now I would not focus on asking the SEC these questions. I believe this to be more a matter for investigators than for regulators. LaFalce should have continued asking his question until it was taken seriously and answered sufficiently. The answer I heard from the S.E.C. would have had trouble getting a "D" in a high school classroom, IMO, due to avoidance of the true implied issue.
Did the leaders of the SEC really not understand the spirit of LaFalce's question? Or did they, as lawyers, purposely answer the face value of the question, ignoring the underlying implied question, which would have made an investigation necessary? We all know what LaFalce was trying to ask.
So as we move forward with this petition, we not only need to contact the RIGHT parties, but we need to make certain that they focus on and understand the true issue. We have seen how many of those here on S.I. either misunderstand or choose not to to see true issue. And that from investors who should be concerned about the future of America's economy. In Washington, D.C., we are talking about politicians who are experts at using avoidance to keep from having to choose a side or even to answer a question honestly. So we must be diligent and determined in our quest for truth.
Rande Is |
