Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
I agree that short selling is not in itself fraudulent -- of course not! However, naked shorting or counterfeiting is real, is becoming more prevalent, and should not be allowed under any circumstances.

When NEITHER of two sides of a transaction hold actual certificates, how can such a practice be condoned? Have we pushed the multi-million dollar mathemeticians to the brink of inanity with an ever-increasing desire to come up with new ways to play the game?

You can bet the the originators of the idea of naked short-selling did not have the best interest of the companies they were trading in nor the real stockholders of said companies at heart.

When the markets become PURELY about personal gain without any sense of fiscal discretion, people will leave in droves, and not come back.

It reminds me of the fatherly broker figure in the movie with Charlie Sheen...There has to be a sense of fiduciary responsibility....somewhere.

86 posted on 09/04/2005 3:25:19 PM PDT by ImaGraftedBranch (God is my Fulcrum; prayer is my lever -- Saint Therese of Lisieux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: ImaGraftedBranch
When the markets become PURELY about personal gain without any sense of fiscal discretion, people will leave in droves, and not come back.

Let me simply ask us to consider whether this is a realistic principle from which to proceed.

The Founding Fathers understood that human beings will tend to look out for their own narrow self-interest, and that is why we are so fortunate to have a government with so many checks and balances. This is because, I believe, they understood the scriptures, and that there is no better understanding of human nature than that given us by the Holy Spirit, who said "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

The same principle in my opinion applies to the markets, including the financial markets. In designing our laws and regulations, we have to assume that all participants are looking out for their own narrow self-interest and will cut corners if they can, and proceed from there.

I am all for vigorous enforcement of the securities laws, and believe it is good thing for wall street to be read the Riot Act from time to time. However, when issues are misportrayed and overhyped in order to mislead people, we tend to get bad regulation as a result. The classic example in my mind is Sarbanes-Oxley. When confidence in the markets is undermined, politicians will do something, anything. While some of Sarbanes-Oxley included needed reforms, other parts were simply grandstanding sound-bites translated into law that produced enormous costs with little benefit, in my opinion.

90 posted on 09/04/2005 5:18:53 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson