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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Hoefer who wrote (15401)	9/8/2002 5:37:15 PM
From: 249443	Respond to of 78667

re: Fleming "Good company getting a trashing by the shorts." Hopefully Fleming goes up to $40 as you suggested. I respect Longleaf and they are/were (who knows if they still own it today?) comfortable with the holding a few months ago. I have my own opinion on the issue of "shorts" destroying good stocks. Shorts don't destroy a stock on other than a very short-term basis. Shorts are short a stock for a specific reason. Shorts create a future-buyer and require the sale at an uptick. If someone tells me that short-sellers are causing a price decline, I am inclined to short the stock myself assuming this is what longs believe. I have no position in Fleming so I wish you the best. asensio.com "...Short sellers have none of the disadvantages of regulators or plaintiff attorneys. Short sellers possess, or have an incentive and ability to obtain, highly detailed industry and company specific information. There is no substitute for the profit incentive. However, by imposing much-outdated rules our capital markets restrain short selling unnecessarily. Short sellers are obligated to borrow shares and sell them only on up-tick trades. This often creates situations where short sellers are forced to borrow shares directly from the stock promoters and sometimes have to sell their borrowed shares right back to the very same stock promoters. In effect, the short selling borrowing requirement creates a monopoly for the illegitimate stock promotion. There is a large and clear economic basis supporting the argument in favor of equal rights for short sellers. Stock promoters have no limits on the amount of stock or price they can pay to buy shares. Stock promoters are free to buy stock at higher and higher prices without regard to up-ticks. Short sellers should have the same rights. Short Sellers must be allowed to sell as much stock as they want and at any price as long as they are financially responsible. The short seller borrowing requirement and up-tick rule must be abolished in the interest of better, more efficient markets..."