The ban on short-selling hurt investors

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

Fiscally Dry — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:47:22 GMT

This is a result of taking the term 'laissez faire' a bit too literally.

There are many executives that need to be held financially, if not legally responsible for the disturbing situation we are in. We should start with the morally bankrupt, unremorseful execs like Fuld.

And our government, whether it be heavy-handed or they use a scalpel, need to introduce a plan to fix this because our corporations are not making the steps themselves. The bailout will eventually be seen as being the wrong approach. Fix the gaping holes in the ship BEFORE you paint it. AIG execs are already pissing away their bailout money! It will be an embarrassing thing to see $700 billion go to waste because we didn't properly manage the situation.

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

AverageJoe — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:14:41 GMT

Pleeeeeeaaaassseee!

You BUY stocks because they are an investment-not a gamble!

Short and Long positions are about assessing possibilities...if you want to gamble go to to Vegas.

The stock exchanges don't even know what they ARE anymore.

I'm not going to get longwinded-let's just say we need to get back to basics ASAP; before there aren" any "basics" to get back to...

HappyTrails,

AverageJoe

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

George — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:03 GMT

It seems that others have come to similar opinions of short-selling, and that is that it serves no good purpose.

Perfectly stable companies could get caught up in this destructive behavior. It defies logic to embrace a system that "bets" on the demise of a publicy traded company.

You have a choice to invest in a company, or not, based on your investmant opinions. These other transactions are "funny money" activities that should have no place on Wall Street. As one previous entry states, there is no real value added to the economy.

This activity should be pushed one block over to Las Vegas Street, and not condoned on Wall Street.

Short-selling activity is analagous to betting on the demise of a person, so you can collect money (possibly life insurance?) This is certainly unethical, if not illegal?, depending on how you might help the process.

Short-selling is also similar to "betting" on the demise of someones house. This also may get you in legal hot water if the purpose is to profit from this unfortunate event.

How is an individual investor to operate in this type of environment when so many activities of hedge funds, and other Wall Street actors are outside of his control ??

How are prudent individuals to plan for their retirement, or any possibility of social security privitization to occur, when so many "funny money" transactions are affecting the market??

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

Mike — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:16:53 GMT

If short selling remains legal after this unprecedented financial debacle, Pete Rose should walk right into the hall of fame & hang his plaque himself.

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

monkeyfurball — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:24:16 GMT

Put the uptick rule back in place. Then, fire all top management at the SEC.

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

knolly — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:16:24 GMT

I have been in the markets for almost 40 years and have always felt that shorting was ok, but when they over turned the uptick rule, I had this uneasy feeling that something wasn't right. What is happening today, I feel exacerbates the decline, and unrestricted shorting forces it to feed on itself. Very large trading funds can enhance the market in both ways, but the downside is much more volatile and damaging. If you have read any marke history you will know that "bear raids" happened all of time, which is why the upick rule was initiated. Also, we have and SEC that is asleep at the switch: naked shorts, financial reporting that has become a joke. no need to say more

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

Manny Reyes — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:50:51 GMT

Sustained short selling by a hedge fund or by a conspiring group of hedge funds with unlimited funds and support from their sophisticated computers for no other purpose but to make a filthy buck or run down a company so they can acquire it dirt cheap is what is evil. But short selling a company's stock for reasons similar to those that afflicted ENRON is perfectly alright as smaller inverstos like me are able get information and signals available only to the big investors. Greed and conspiracy among the big players and/or goverment regulators is what is going to kill the small investors, retirement funds and the capitalist system.

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

nbctjon — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:31:16 GMT

You are correct about Russia not pretending to be capitalist. Russia and China are prime examples of how unregulated capitalism benefits the very few at the expense of the majority. He who holds the capital rules. Short selling? Short selling creates wealth out of loss of wealth, adds nothing to the economy but false wealth, therby devaluing the currency. The stock market no longer works as a vehicle to capitalize business, expand the economy, and create jobs. It's nothing more than a pyramid scheme that is on the verge of running out of enough suckers to fuel the flow of wealth upward.

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

pdl — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:25:54 GMT

You have to be a masochist to let someone borrow your stock and sell it at a lower price, i.e. unless they pay you more for borrowing it than they can make by driving the price down and giving it back to you. Logically short sellers are thieves. It is the only guaranteed way that Wall Street can syphon the hard earned money of the American people into their pockets everyday. Without short selling, these criminal minded folks would have to actually put on their masks

re: The ban on short-selling hurt investors

bdavis — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:12:46 GMT

Ah yes, let's blame the people who sold in panic and took losses, not those who calmly took advantage of the crash to make a profit. Of course, nearly all people invest in order to make money, not to be a "whole hearted supporter" as you put it. The difference is that many of them bought the line that they could invest in the American economy and that everyone would gain. Many will likely now stay out or invest in such a way that they can get out quicker. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that foreign investors and central banks from whom we are now borrowing about $2 billion a day are looking for alternative investments. I am of course not blaming the entire crash on short sellers. But those who piled on after it began doubtlessly made it more severe. Do you have any problem with enforcing the rule against naked short selling or restoring the uptick rule?

In any event, let's give all participants a say in this matter. How about if we say that, by default, no shares held by brokerages can be borrowed without the consent of their actual owners? Then those who believe that short selling is a benefit (like yourself) can notify the brokerage that their shares can be borrowed. Would you agree to that?