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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (86196)	2/17/2004 12:39:38 PM
From: pavlov2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Onus is on CDN. firm now. Some might remember... many years ago... when I was shorting stocks left, right , and center... I was haggled into clearing up the situation once and for all...on behalf of Union Securities. I spoke, and then got everything in writing, to the senior lawyer for Nasdaq. He explained that if I gave the order to a US brokerage to short a specific stock, the onus was on that brokerage to assume responsibility for delivery. If they felt that they could borrow the stock, they would freely follow the instructions and short it. Of course it was in their benefit to take the order so most times they would simply say OK without even checking if it was in inventory. The new law reverts back the onus to the Canadian brokerage house. THAT is...simply put...the new rules!!! Shorting can still be done and delivery does not, NECCESARILY, have to take place on settlement date. Aggressive Canadian firms will continue to short naked. The trader giving the order will be asked by the US broker if the CDN. brokerage can supply the stock from inventory and the CDN. broker will simply lie and say "YES". Canadian brokerages might be sued successfully after that. Shorting CAN and WILL continue. My two bits...from experience.