Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qone0 who wrote (5268)	9/25/2001 1:00:40 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

You only need look at almost every Nasdaq chart in 2000 to understand just how wrong your comment is.

To: Qone0 who wrote (5268)	9/25/2001 1:20:08 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

Since we have always had short selling, there's no way to know what effect it would have on the markets by eliminating it. I happen to think that after the initial disruption, it wouldn't have any effect. The market would adjust. Stocks would still become overvalued, and then they'd drop in price. Market forces would control the excesses, and in the few cases where it didn't, there are a few cases where that happens now anyway. But even if they didn't eliminate it entirely, they need to rewrite the rules about it, and make them stricter IMO. No naked shorting at all, anywhere. If you want to buy or sell U.S. stocks, then you have to follow our rules. No floorless debentures allowed. If a company is in such dire straights that it has to resort to this, then they probably should just go out of business. But, I'm not the one in charge, so my thoughts on it will just remain that...thoughts I have about short selling. LOL LOL.