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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7468)	3/1/2005 7:39:37 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Shorts have always laughed at this. "How many stocks do you know that have gone to infinity?" The risk of going long is finite in that a stock will only fall to a value of 0, thus limiting your liability to the amount invested. As a stock may rise indefinitely, the money necessary to cover a short is theoretically unlimited. Obviously, the playing field is not just un-level, it is tilted to create a slippery slope for short sellers. Apples and oranges. The uptick rule v naked short selling. I'm all in favor of eliminating the uptick rule, but for severly limiting naked shorting. Next time someone tries to soft peddle their opposition to naked short selling as "I just want to make sure both sides play by the same rules," ask them if they are in favor of capping risk on short selling and abolishing the Uptick Rule. Whoever wrote that piece must have intentionally mixed concepts or has no clue as to the differences and theories with respect to naked short selling, short selling, etc.