111–120 of 403 posts
Very, very much a crank site. One pinch fact, two cups of confusion, and generous splash of seething rage. It's interesting in much the way the Timecube site is interesting...and is informative about financial markets in much the same way the Timecube site is as well.
Very, very much a crank site. One pinch fact, two cups of confusion, and generous splash of seething rage. It's interesting in much the way the Timecube site is interesting...and is informative about financial markets in much the same way the Timecube site is as well.
Non American asking: What does crank mean here?
Very, very much a crank site. One pinch fact, two cups of confusion, and generous splash of seething rage. It's interesting in much the way the Timecube site is interesting...and is informative about financial markets in much the same way the Timecube site is as well.
Non American asking: What does crank mean here?
Very, very much a crank site. One pinch fact, two cups of confusion, and generous splash of seething rage. It's interesting in much the way the Timecube site is interesting...and is informative about financial markets in much the same way the Timecube site is as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? 1 stock = 1 stock. 1 stock should never be 2 stocks. It’s because I believe in ownership of what you make. If you founded a company, sold 10% on public markets for float, and magically 20% of your cap table now exists on the NYSE; something is horrifically wrong. And yes, you would have suffered negative financial outcomes because of the counterfeiting.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Nonetheless it's bit of a hard sell as it seems to parallel fractional reserve banking to a degree, and we've come to accept the later as the best currently available compromise.
You never look at the value of a dollar as the % of total dollars in circulation. The value of a dollar is rather defined by how many goods/services/other currencies you can get in exchange for it.
With stock it matters a lot more how many % of a company is represented by a single share.
Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. Maybe Wirecard's fraud scheme would still be going on if it wasn't for short sellers. Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not id…
What about shitty hedge funds overusing illegal[1] financial mechanisms to their advantage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article also deals with the parts about actually defaming, attacking in courts and otherwise doing everything possible to actually bankrupt the company... It doesn't only cover the stock market, it covers the whole operation, which goes way beyond only the stock market.
Rules already exist around what you can and can't say as a short seller. What is it that you don't like about them? Do you think no one should be allowed to say negative things about companies? Shorts can't drive companies in the ground if that's not where they're headed anyway. First of all most short sellers are not activists. The perception that shorts causing companies to tank is because activist short sellers ar…
This article isn't about the stock market, it's about short sellers and the activity of those isn't contained to the stock market.
Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. Maybe Wirecard's fraud scheme would still be going on if it wasn't for short sellers. Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not id…
And there's already a less risky mechanism for that: put options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the mechanism by which you think shortsellers cause companies to go bankrupt? Can you think of any examples of short sellers causing a bankruptcy?
They soak up investor money that would have otherwise gone towards sufficiently capitalizing the company (via equity raises).
I would say that short sellers are even more important around primary transactions because then share price matters more. Good prices prevent new investors being left holding the bag and inefficient allocation of capital which could have gone to a different business with better investment opportunities.
Very, very much a crank site. One pinch fact, two cups of confusion, and generous splash of seething rage. It's interesting in much the way the Timecube site is interesting...and is informative about financial markets in much the same way the Timecube site is as well.