On 28 Jun 2008, at 23:07, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
While I was researching *why* New York Brad was
"forced to resign",
one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real
the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com
I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually
wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the
issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks
at WR respond
in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail.
one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole
Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own
have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Editing under your own name doesn't make things simpler.
It just moves the criticism on to another level!
As for naked short selling, it is simply selling shares you don't have
in your possession.
Normal short selling involve borrowing shares from someone (for a fee)
and selling them
on so the buyer gets shares and your willing counter party may lose
out if you default.
With naked short selling, if you go bust, your buyer ends up without
even though he never consented to take this risk.
In the UK, Market Makers do this all the time to ensure an orderly
market, so they can
hold (on average over time) no net position in a share.
I'm sorry to hear NewYorkBrad is leaving - he is a very knowledgeable