InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 195
Posts 24598
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/03/2010

Re: Stillwell888 post# 84411

Sunday, 11/20/2016 8:50:41 PM

Sunday, November 20, 2016 8:50:41 PM

Post# of 696905
I would not be surprised if, via any prime brokerage activity to funds, and securities lending, they have large liquidity positions that might not fit the legal description of naked short positions, but upon scrutiny they might or might not, appear to be such positions. But generally, there is, by nature of any financing function like that, a kind of multiplier effect, just like how the bank multiplies your dollars, by lending them out to someone at the same time they claim they are in your account. It's not as tightly controlled, I believe, as the SEC suggests in their comments in response to questions on these sorts of issues, and I think they know some of that liquidity is a part of the market making process.

And the fact is, those positions typically roll over every morning, so, the notion that there is a restriction is sometimes defeated by the practical reality that underlies the rule.

And Goldman Sachs got fined a year or so ago because their systems skipped a critical part... actually getting the shares. The system told the clerk putting in the trade that they HAD the shares, but they never actually GOT the shares. Whoever put the back end and screens together, probably did not know the full process and someone along the way had a brain fart or intentionally avoided putting 2 + 2 together, for the purpose of making it more profitable for Goldman. Whatever the case, they were fined for it. Effectively, those were naked shorts though they did not show up anywhere in any systems.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News