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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Americans 4 "No Own - No Sell" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (434)	10/11/2001 12:13:22 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Respond to of 455

There is no hard data available to support his case, as far as I know. If short sales and short covering buys aren't made available as they happen so they can be measured, how does he know that the buying was done by shorts covering, and that they had the effect of supporting or raising prices? How does he know that it isn't done merely by people that think the prices of stocks are too low, and they jump on them. As far as the shorting being discontinued for brief periods, such as the war of 1812, what happened during those periods? Saying the bans were repealed later doesn't mean anything as far as whether or not the absence of shorting was good or bad. All it says is that they were repealed. Is shorting good or bad as a concept, who knows? Until they do some valid "scientific" studies on them it's all just opinion.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (434)	10/11/2001 12:26:28 PM
From: Investor Clouseau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 455

He doesn't mention "naked" shorting at all. Do you think it's fair that there are 2 ways to short (naked and regular), and 1 way to go long? I wouldn't be surprised to see the MM's supporting a ban on offshore naked shorting. If it was banned, MM's would have their monopoly back. How much would a company like NITE make then? IC

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (434)	10/11/2001 5:16:01 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Pure 100% propaganda as it has been for decades. 1. Nothing solid based on accurate information' 2. Can;t have solid information because there is no transparency 3. the article states clearly shorts sell a market into oblivion 4. then they want to be hailed good guys because they cover after crushing something for nothing. But it is a good confess that shorts steal and use whatever money to crush an economy and then after they have rapoed and pillaged they are the good guys. That is like rqaping a woman and then taking her to the doc. But all in all that is a crock... Naked shorts and offshore like Soros are not good guys in any regard. Wonder how they would feel if transparency came to the US market. Think I was threatened now ... HA!!! These propaganda articles NEVER have any solid basis to them and never will. There is no transparency to support the crock they put out in their on going propaganda. P2bAAAT & DSAS