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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dvdw© who wrote (79031)	9/5/2011 1:26:12 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 217739

In other words, the markets can stay irrational than naked short sellers can stay solvent. Naked short sellers do no harm to investors. If naked short sellers make Qualcomm "worth" only $1, that's not a problem to me as a Qualcomm shareholder. I will buy more of them at $1. The problem is if somebody gives them $1 and then the seller defaults on delivering said shares which I own. Hey, wait a minute. No, the problem is if the naked short seller borrows my shares and does not return them. Hmmmm.... shoot naked short sellers. It would be very annoying to pay a naked short seller $1 for my shares which he borrows from me and does not return to me. "Hey, you already have them. Thanks for the $1. Goodbye sucker." No, wait, it's worse than that. They didn't even bother borrowing shares to sell. Shoot short sellers too. No, wait. I'm a short seller of JPM and WFC. No shooting shorts. Mqurice