Bill Wexler's Dog Pound Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound

REFR 1.655

+2.8%

3:58 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mike M who wrote (9191)	2/23/2003 9:30:29 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) of 10293

Well then how do you explain the fact that, particularly during the bubble era, that these Canadian brokerages were frequently subject to "buy-ins" on heavily shorted stocks? If they never borrowed the stock to begin with, how could that have happened? On related issue, certain companies now have "single stock futures" that trade on their common stock, effectively permitting the taking of as large a negative position as one wants, without the need to borrow stock. How come these companies' shares don't implode as a result of unlimited supply? Finally, with regard to this: The market place is supposed to be about legitimate company's ability to come to the capital markets to raise the money to manage capital needs. But the markets are NOT intended to be bottomless feeding troughs for non-productive companies to pay their owners millions a year just by being able to convince a new group of suckers to pony for the company's story every few years. Making a public offering to grow a business, or make an acquisition, is one thing. Making a public offering because the company will go bankrupt if they don't raise cash is another. We need more of the first and a LOT less of the latter.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next