Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? 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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: pcyhuang who wrote (3285)	3/16/2008 8:51:20 AM
From: NightOwl	of 5034

But Mr. Pcyhuang... That statement can't possibly be accurate. We Mom & Pop peons have known for quite some time that the US markets in general and Bear Sterns in particular are cesspools of corruption. The Moral Hazard line was crossed from the day these broker/banker types set up shop in the gutters and streets of New York and decided to pay enough to the politicians to be "allowed" to continue their so called "self-regulated" business "indoors" and without interference. Moral Hazard... in the particular sense its being used by the NYT... is wholly inapplicable to Bear Sterns current circumstance. It might be indirectly related if Bear Sterns were going to survive to do mortgage brokering and securitization business in the future... but one way or the other... it's certainly not going to be in that position again. But it certainly did apply decades ago when it was determined that *financial services* of mortgage brokering, mortgage lending and mortgage derivative securitization could all be integrated, i.e., conducted by entities under the common control of the same people. That was the point at which "Moral Hazard" mattered as an operative factor on the conduct of Bear Sterns... Citi Corp and all the other children of the Reagan version of Milton Friedman's libertarian economics. And that was the point at which the country turned its back on the risk of "Moral Hazard"... and chose instead to rely on the same old propaganda that Wall Street has always employed to preserve its beloved self-regulation, i.e., "U.S.’s reputation as the broadest, deepest, most transparent and properly regulated capital market in the world.” The world's other markets are no worse, nor better, than those here as far as transparency and regulation are concerned. The "reputation" of the US market is based exclusively on its ability to permit extremely high profits, with minimal risk of loss because due to (a) government interference or (b) mob retribution and/or revolution. I don't mean to suggest that the NYT is intentionally deceptive in its use of the phrase... or in its editorial purposes. Its simply wrong. Protection against "moral hazards" has never required... or been secured... by anyone cutting off their own nose. 0\|0

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next