How the SEC Can Level the Playing Field [View article]
By your logic, the SEC should sanction naked long buying instead (or in addition).
On May 10 12:00 PM Nazbuster wrote:
> I agree that shorting naked is an abuse, but if you are so fond of > an uptick rule for shorts, why are you not advocating a "downtick" > rule for longs? Or alternatively, why not have ALL sales, including > the unloading of long shares, be required to have an uptick prior > to being able to sell the shares? Why not go even further and only > allow sales of shares at prices above their purchase only if not > held for one year or more? That would guarantee that prices only > go UP unless there are strong reasons to unload a stock. Would you > be happy with those rules as well? > > Rigging the market to favor one direction over the other is still > rigging.
My mistake, you are correct (although perhaps less confusing if stated as "sales to the U.S. market" rather than "U.S. sales").
On Dec 11 01:02 PM Phrrrrzzzppt wrote:
> "The weak dollar has helped too, as U.S. sales are less attractive > to foreign steelmakers when this is the case." I think you have it > backwards. Also, don't forget the antidumping duties on imports of > steel from certain foreign contries, which strengthens Nucor's "competitive"... > advantage.
"The weak dollar has helped too, as U.S. sales are less attractive to foreign steelmakers when this is the case." I think you have it backwards. Also, don't forget the antidumping duties on imports of steel from certain foreign contries, which strengthens Nucor's "competitive" advantage.
Agree that "real investment does not need short sales." Why is it that short sellers have such a pathological need for acceptance that they must publish a never-ending stream of such sanctimonious bullshit to justify their piracy?
Obama is a closet communist, period. His "redistributivist" policies call for soaking the "top 1%" by an average increase of $800,000 in taxes per year. What the hell is "fair" about that? The NYT's article's author, Leonhardt, complains that "the rich have been getting much richer before taxes [and] their tax rates have also been falling far faster than the rates of any other income group," but so what? The 35% tax bracket for "the rich" is STILL 25% to 200% HIGHER than lowe to middle inclome classes, who are the ones who glom onto the lion's share of all the b.s. government credits and deductions and givebacks etc. etc. etc. I rent, and I pay FULL taxes. I don't get "child care credits" or "home interest mortgage deductions" or "property tax deductions" or any of the other consumption-encouragin... social-engineering, government tax-tweaking class warfare BULLSHIT that's part of the sacred cow of tax "FAIRNESS." There is NOTHING fair about "redistributive" tax policies in any way shape or form. "The rich" earned their money, they are the ones who create most of the jobs in this country, and their earnings are, or ought to be, their own.
Obama vs. McCain: Which Candidate is Better for Ethanol and Equipment Companies? [View article]
Leave the Daily Kos screeds at the door. This article concerns post-election investment strategies in enthanol and agricultural-equipment companies.
I think Poirier's assessment will prove incorrect. Big Corn, just like Big Sugar, can't wean itself from sucking off the federal teat, regardless of who will become prez. As for agricultural equipment, projections are always overstated, and I expect worldwide market saturation to come about sooner than everyone anticipates.
Illegal Short Sellers May Face RICO Indictments [View article]
All I can say is, the U.S financial market is so corrupt, from the SEC on down, it is mindboggling. If my proverbial ship comes in on a particular stock I own that has been victimized by these naked shorting thieves, I'm outta here for good. But thank you, Patrick O'B, for keeping a light shined on these a-holes.
How Low Can This Market Go? The 40 Percent Solution [View article]
I don't know about inflation-adjusted back to the '30s, but this chart has an interesting story to tell: www.simplestockinvesti... Currently, the pullback trendline on the S&P500 since December 9, 1994 predicts 1200, which we almost touched this morning. If it holds (and so far it is), we should see a bounceback to 1300~1350 over the next several weeks.
The SEC has long had an institutional bias against the hype that is used for pump and dumps. And now you complain about the SEC attempting to balance that bias by making disparagement leading to distort-and-short manipulation unlawful as well? I suppose those billions and billions of dollars worth of fails-to-deliver trades that are posted every day are just a figment of everyone's imagination too?
Stagflation and the Limits of Growth [View article]
It isn't merely demand. Supply too will rise to accomodate, but that takes time. It is not the "below ground" resources that are bottlenecking, it's the above-ground.
Flawed WSJ Editorial: Wages Are Also a Price [View article]
Quite simply, Ranson confuses income and wealth. With inflation of 4%, tomorrow's retirees will need to plan on accumulating more than twice as much wealth (in tomorrow's dollars) just to live on a par with today's retirees (who, as far as I can see, have feathered their nests by bilking the system for all its worth).
Sort by:
Latest comments | Highest ratedWhile I Went Fishing, The Fed Slowed Down [View article]
How the SEC Can Level the Playing Field [View article]
On May 10 12:00 PM Nazbuster wrote:
> I agree that shorting naked is an abuse, but if you are so fond of
> an uptick rule for shorts, why are you not advocating a "downtick"
> rule for longs? Or alternatively, why not have ALL sales, including
> the unloading of long shares, be required to have an uptick prior
> to being able to sell the shares? Why not go even further and only
> allow sales of shares at prices above their purchase only if not
> held for one year or more? That would guarantee that prices only
> go UP unless there are strong reasons to unload a stock. Would you
> be happy with those rules as well?
>
> Rigging the market to favor one direction over the other is still
> rigging.
Quick Take: Nucor Corporation [View article]
On Dec 11 01:02 PM Phrrrrzzzppt wrote:
> "The weak dollar has helped too, as U.S. sales are less attractive
> to foreign steelmakers when this is the case." I think you have it
> backwards. Also, don't forget the antidumping duties on imports of
> steel from certain foreign contries, which strengthens Nucor's "competitive"...
> advantage.
Quick Take: Nucor Corporation [View article]
Why Punish the Whistle Blower? [View article]
Retail Investors Refuse to Globalize [View article]
Two Takes on Obanomics [View article]
The Great Consumer Crash of 2009 [View article]
Obama vs. McCain: Which Candidate is Better for Ethanol and Equipment Companies? [View article]
I think Poirier's assessment will prove incorrect. Big Corn, just like Big Sugar, can't wean itself from sucking off the federal teat, regardless of who will become prez. As for agricultural equipment, projections are always overstated, and I expect worldwide market saturation to come about sooner than everyone anticipates.
Illegal Short Sellers May Face RICO Indictments [View article]
How Low Can This Market Go? The 40 Percent Solution [View article]
www.simplestockinvesti...
Currently, the pullback trendline on the S&P500 since December 9, 1994 predicts 1200, which we almost touched this morning. If it holds (and so far it is), we should see a bounceback to 1300~1350 over the next several weeks.
Can the SEC Really 'Quell Rumors'? [View article]
Stagflation and the Limits of Growth [View article]
Flawed WSJ Editorial: Wages Are Also a Price [View article]