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.

Pastimes : Humangs Against Gravity!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hoatzin who wrote (53)	10/3/2001 5:10:56 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 142

Just be one more entry of data on putting in the order, 'long sale' or 'short sale' ... although then on the buys you'd have to differentiate between 'long buy' and 'short cover' to keep the balance of short positions accurate ... i don't see a technical reason why not, and any 'business' reason offered is going to be obviously recognisable as euphemism for 'we don't wanna' Ever see this - Subject 18653 I do think naked short selling should be illegal ... seems like it should be well covered under existing fraud law, selling something that doesn't exist .... can you imagine how the powers that be would descend on somebody trying to sell, say, junctions on the internet?

To: Hoatzin who wrote (53)	10/4/2001 9:01:48 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 142

There is no reason other than the fact that the market makers don't want anyone to know what they and/or their clients are doing. Reporting it in real time would be a nightmare for any market maker. It would involve revealing data to other market makers and other investors that would a) tip their hands to the competition b) invite investigation by authorities c) change on a minute-to-minute basis and be extremely expensive to compile and report. There's no actual "business or technical reason" for the uptick rule either, other than to make the markets more...uh...orderly. <G>