Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

Post by dragosmocrii » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 10:00 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #11

dragosmocrii wrote: post #5

Holly shit, this is an exceptionally informative piece of information. It makes sense now why the GME movement, but I doubt that most who joined it actually understand the purpose. This needs to be more widespread

There needs to be a lot more evidence than some random screed on the web. He barely gave a single example 'TASER' and frankly didn't really specifically indicate how that worked. With 100 companies at any time under the squeeze it should be relatively easy for him to give a lot of examples and to specifically list the trades themselves, but also point at the 'media barrage' and highlight the asymmetrical effect those…

Post by theaeolist » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 10:05 AM UTC

kgwgk wrote: post #101

kebman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I purchase a stock, I do it in the express belief that I will get a physical (though digitally stored) share of that company, and possibly one that gives me a voting right if the stock is marked as such. When a stock “fails to clear” this gives me a ton of problems such as slippage and volatility, and possibly a quite substantial loss. Same if you buy an apple, I'm sure you'd only do it in the belief that you wi…

> Same if you bought a stock, and your broker suddenly decides to steal it without your knowledge You have agreed to it at some point. If your broker doesn't give you a choice you may go to another broker.

Post by kgwgk » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 10:08 AM UTC

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #65

sokoloff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no difference. If you’re going to allow B to borrow A’s share and sell it to D, now both A and D own a share. D can lend their share to E, who sells it to F. (D has no idea they bought some special share, because they didn’t.) Now, F to lend to G who can sell to H, etc.

Yeah this is the explanation I've seen people give. It's kind of weird to distinguish "naked" shorting from this when they're functionally the same.

Post by Taniwha » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 10:10 AM UTC

kebman wrote: post #73

woopwoop wrote: post #18

The author seems to be really upset about this, but I don't understand why. Nothing they are describing, if you ignore histrionic language like "counterfeiting", seems especially nefarious. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Basically, a short is when A borrows from B a share of corporation C with the promise to return a share of corporation C at a later time, plus some cash interest. A naked short is where instead B gives…

When I purchase a stock, I do it in the express belief that I will get a physical (though digitally stored) share of that company, and possibly one that gives me a voting right if the stock is marked as such. When a stock “fails to clear” this gives me a ton of problems such as slippage and volatility, and possibly a quite substantial loss. Same if you buy an apple, I'm sure you'd only do it in the belief that you wi…

Post by kgwgk » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 10:12 AM UTC

theaeolist wrote: post #104

kgwgk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same if you bought a stock, and your broker suddenly decides to steal it without your knowledge You have agreed to it at some point. If your broker doesn't give you a choice you may go to another broker.

That is a generic and ideological objection. If that was the case we would never need any regulations, just T&Cs. I get that some people believe that, but equally some people believe such a world would have way too much friction.