121–130 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.
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…
I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are basically arguing against the idea of fungibility in finance. It's one of those fundamental concepts that banking is built on. It's one thing to argue for making sure shorts are well-regulated, but this something entirely different that has the risk of fundamentally breaking our society.
I think he is arguing against the idea of applying fractional reserves to brokers.
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…
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…
Japan banned naked shorting (of course Japan did not ban shorting) and seems to be doing fine. US probably can ban naked shorting without much problem too.
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…
You give stock borrow consent when you sign up for a brokerage account. It’s also trivial to turn off, though there isn’t an informed reason for non-activist investors to do this. Some brokers share stock loan income with the account holder, though most keep it from retail accounts.
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…
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…
You shouldn't. When the economy collapses because of the aforementioned practices and you family loses their jobs, housing etc, you should not be upset either.
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.
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…
"At any given point in time more than 100 emerging companies are under attack as described above.... The success rate for short attacks is over ninety percent—a success being defined as putting the company into bankruptcy or driving the stock price to pennies. It is estimated that 1000 small companies have been put out of business by the shorts. Admittedly, not every small company deserves to succeed, but they do deserve a level playing field...."
"There are are 71 million shares of GME that have ever been issued by the company. Institutions have reported to the SEC via 13F filings [0] that they own more than 102,000,000 shares" Quote from https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l97ykd/the_... [0]: https://fintel.io/so/us/gme
To add to the confusion we're still within the 45-day filing window for the end of the last quarter, so some investors may not have filed yet either.