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 : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (6132)	1/4/2005 5:06:58 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8273

Exactly, for the most part, if not the whole part, naked shorting, however fraudulent, is no worse a crime than what the promoters of the underlying stock are trying to perpetrate on their shareholders,...in fact in many cases the same promoters and insiders and their financiers are the ones doing naked shorting.

To: marcos who wrote (6132)	1/4/2005 5:07:56 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

Naked short selling is what most broker did on the CDN exchanges. Technically they are supposed to borrow the certs to do it, but often that never happened. If you think about it, they were/are borrowing someone else's property in order to say they owned the shares they were shorting, but really, what if the people did not want to sell them finally? It isn't always possible to close the short, or buy back in. It is supposed to be a lot harder to short a TSX venture issue because of their regs, but I don't know if that is true in practice. Brokers make most of their money overselling or (naked) shorting issues. The only time they lose big is when a stock goes to the moon. Then it is a mad scramble to come up with the stock from all those short sales. EC<:-}