To: Dr. Voodoo who wrote (81187 ) 9/21/2008 12:35:04 PM From: Casaubon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 94695 The orderlyness of the market is not a huge concern to me. It is, what it is. So, I question what your motive is in the last post. Would you care to elaborate your statement? I merely posted some opinions and provided some supporting statements to those opinions. If you wish to discuss the merits of those statements, could you do so in a non hostile and confrontational demeanor?The SEC has just pulled the floor out of the market. Regarding the floor under the market: Which would produce a larger downdraft? a) Many redemptions from funds due to a loss in confidence in the underlying soundness of the system? or b) Gov't intervention in the rules by which the game is played? The choice was made and we shall judge the decision in time. The ethics of shorting has been discussed for generations. Examples are finally coming to light which cast the practice in a dubious manner, such as millions of shares trading in a stock whose shares are supposedly locked up, and entirely unavailable. This has nothing to do with the soundness of the business. Rather, it has everything to do with the equilibrium share price, which needs to achieve price discovery in the open market, based on supply and demand. Shorting drastically disrupts and corrupts that price discovery process. Whereas, options strategies can be constructed to mimic the profitability curves of shorting strategies, without artificially influencing the price discovery process. I am merely positing the opinion that the game can (and in my opinion will) be played in essentially the same manner using synthetic shorts, which can not effect the supply and demand curve of the underlying.