For those who don't follow the SI board to which Viewer points, Peter, quoted by Viewer, has years of posting IMO fairly blindly in defense of shorting and hedge funds and I believe he is biased. He testified at the trial of Anthony and the comments, even by short and hedgie defenders, was that his testimony made no sense even taken in its best light. That, in essence, summarizes the tame comments to his testimony, by those who were Anthony supporters. Although he meant well, he seems to shoot from the hip when he believes strongly, irrespective of the value or reasoning contained in his argument, or lack thereof.
All one has to do is look at the headlines, e.g., REFCO, and see what the scams that are there in the open.
If it's a choice now of believing a well written article by TIME or someone who apparently works for, or at least seems to post largely in favor of, MM's or hedge funds, then I know what I will believe.
The trend is clearly towards shining the light on this information, exposing the work of hedge funds and MM's.
Even Peter in his post, says to open the information to all. That really is the key. Once that is done, it will be a bit easier to say whether the issue is naked shorting, a shoddy system of clearing, unregulated hedge funds or MM's gone wild, or some combination thereof.
If, after all, there is no real problem, as Viewer argues, then why do they protest so loudly when these articles are posted? Why do they protest so loudly when there is a call to investigate hedge funds and MM's, as well as other possible manipulative players? Why do they protest when calls are made to level the playing field, providing information and opportunity to retail investors?
For anyone who missed it, here is the article by TIME, clearly not a "NSS conspiracy nut."
Message 21865460 |
