so gary....how's the NSS doesn't exist working out for you lately>

LOL.

You've been used. What a waste.

Weird how the google news coverage is tangled between the U.S., Britain, and Australia. I guess they decided to crack down the same time we did?

If only there would be a crackdown on naked sock shilling.

I see that the US government has "indefinitely blocked" naked short selling by abusive sockmasters, to a degree.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080919/091908_se...rt_selling.html

I wonder if You-Know-Who is upset at about unable to touch these articles now...

Doh, can we merge this to:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20399

At your service.

Root, it's not "indefinite", since they put an expiry of October 2nd. However, it is more comprehensive than prohibiting "naked" short selling on these 799 privileged stocks. It prohibits ALL short selling on the stocks, even if you have long shares in hand to cover! Kind of amazing... that if I held 1,000 long shares of Wachovia, and I felt that I've made a very nice gain on a 2-day surge, I am legally NOT ALLOWED to turn around and short 1,000 shares of Wachovia. I can (until October 2nd) merely sell the shares I own, but not go so far as to bet against the company's share price.

It is ridiculous. The Republicans have scared us about the "Liberal Left" wants to let the government take over everything, and here we have seen no less than the nearly complete Socialization of our entire banking and lending sector. How insane is that? "Folks, we're setting aside 799 stocks that for the next couple of weeks, we only want to allow you to buy them, but you can't sell them, unless you have physical shares in your name that you want to sell."

The end is near.

And why is this a bad thing?

Maybe I just don't understand the purpose underlying short selling. If you like a company, buy their stock, right? If you don't like a company, then don't buy their stock.

But to "short" a company, then go around and proclaim that the company sucks, is full of liars and crooks, etc. and drive the price down all so you can make a buck . . . just seems sinister to me. But educate me. Why is shorting a good thing?

It is a mechanism to return equities to their fair value, once they have become overpriced. Because the government rewards long-term gains with lower tax rates than short-term gains, merely relying on longs to sell their shares is often not a sufficient mechanism to keep "irrational exuberance" in check. You've heard of that concept, right?

When I short a stock, I don't say anything adverse about the company, other than that I believe their capitalization has recently outpaced the reality of their fair value. Continental Airlines was a recent short of mine, viewing that Hurricane Ike was going to cause significant damage to their Houston hub. I got a bit burned, being that oil dropped dramatically at about the same time. But, as you could see from the last 5 days of trading on CAL, even a market exchanging 14 million shares of CAL a day, can't seem to consistently decide if the company is worth $1.8 billion or $2.2 billion.

In a case like that, I believe shorts provide a much-needed dose of reality and fairness.

Look at it this way...

If you want to buy CAL right now, you can, without any additional tax consequences in your decision. Fine. If John Q. Shareholder wants to SELL you his shares, his decision will be affected by whether he has been holding those long shares for less than 12 months (a higher short-term gains rate) or for more than 12 months (a lower long-term gains rate). You don't seem to complain that you're less restricted in your decision-making as a buyer than is (potentially) John Q. Shareholder. Then you ALSO want to prevent me from having the same less-restricted opportunity to sell shares that I promise to replace in the future, taking the consequences on my unleveraged portfolio? Talk about something that's NOT FAIR!

Why do graphs like that never show detailed information for overnight trading (instead just having a big jump between 4pm and 9:30am the next day) - does that information not exist?

The overnight trading is done on an "unofficial" market exchange. Quite literally, a stock that is available on the overnight exchanges could close on the NYSE at $50 a share, run up to $75 overnight, then down to $25 in the early morning, then back toward $50 just prior to the opening bell, and you'd never know the difference.

Those "gaps" that you speak of are simply because it's not the official exchange's problem to track and record the unofficial overnight trades. That's between the buyers, the sellers, and their unofficial exchange. I'm sure each overnight exchange does keep careful track of that data, and probably makes it available to subscribers.

I should also add that even stocks that don't trade overnight can still have significant "gap up" or "gap down" in the morning. All that matters is that there's a buyer and a seller willing to meet on a price at 9:30:01 AM.

Yes. That opening price even for closed-market stocks that do NOT trade overnight, is a synthesized price done by computer (at least at NASDAQ) in a process called the "opening cross", which takes into account overnight orders (which haven't executed-- they're just various market orders you've entered, say, at your brokerage screen after the market has closed), plus a limited amount of trading that is allowed to a few brokers in a few minutes before the market formally opens, and that determines what the formal AM's first bid and ask prices are, and the official opening price.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/nasdaq-open...sing-cross1.htm

Classic. This is either a Mantanmoreland sock or a great impersonator trying to rack up fake MM socks to get him even more deeply banned.

Patrick Byrne has now been published in Forbes more than Gary Weiss has this year, and Gary claims to work for them.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/23/naked-sho..._0923byrne.html

Feel free to include this material in Wikipedia on Naked Short Selling, Patrick Byrne, and Overstock right next to Gary's bullshit.

Forbes appears to think they're equally "reliable" sources.



according to other trusty sources, this article was squashed some years ago, at the same time Gary was running roughshod all over Wikipedia and the Blogosphere for his special friends in the hedgie world, the DTCC stock swindle laundering world, and the lapdog offshorecashcard journalist world.

I'm sure he had nothing to do with that, unlike his emails where he boasted of getting BusinessWeek to not hire Liz Moyer because she also liked to investigate short-side stock manipulation involving gary's circle of friends. Unlike Gary, Liz writes for Forbes now regularly. Hilarious.

Ouch. If Forbes considers Byrne an authority on NSS, that's pretty much indisputable then.

And has Byrne really been published more in Forbes than Weiss this year? Ouch.

per this:
http://search.forbes.com/search/find?&star...quot;&sort=Date

Mantanmoreland is MIA since 3/10/08 on Forbes.

So if you go by the Pagan calendar (and who doesn't?), it's Patrick 1 Gary 0 in the Forbes Bowl since the Easter Bunny came out of tomb after 3 days and saw his shadow. Sorry, I always mix up those early year holidays.

Maybe Johnny Nevard or Janeyryan will update Gary's Forbes status on his wikiautobiography?