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: 10K a day who wrote (91038)	3/16/2005 5:59:04 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 122088

Silly, you're the one who supposed to be naked. But of course, you wouldn't pass the physical given by the MM's and hedgies. the only prob with naked shorting is a can't find any more naked shares to short.

To: 10K a day who wrote (91038)	3/16/2005 11:50:11 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122088

Here's a question for all you deep thinkers... The whole anti naked shorting argument goes that it's terribly unfair to be able to short companies without borrowing "real" shares of stock. The obvious rationale is that you could theoretically just keep selling unlimited shares of stock and just keep hauling in the dough. Such a deal! So why, then, do companies take such scam "risks" as hiring touts to pump up their stocks before dumping? Eliminate the middle-man and just dump! Just think how much money one could make setting up some off-shore fund that just sells shares of MSFT all day. They'd be richer than Bill Gates in no time! I can't understand why the number of undeliverable shares is not in the trillions. Such easy money... unless, of course, I've somehow misunderstood how this whole naked shorting thing works. But all those people writing to the SEC, the media, and their Congressmen about how it's done couldn't possibly have gotten it all wrong, right? ;^) - Jeff