No Own - No Sell

[Georgia Bard]

Temporary is nonsense. Permanent and the art of this scheme should be totally looked at and investigated completely.

Temporary would cause the market to go up but we would be right back down here once shorting is brought back into practice.

Now you do not agree so lets break it down to see where our differences are specifically.

The way I understand Short Selling, it's merely the shuffling of money, stock, coupons, whatever. Something of value is put up as collateral on the anticipation of buying later. Now is this accurate to you.

Long investors put up their money to buy and hold long their positions. However, the long positions are pooled at the clearing houses of the brokerages where ever the certificates are deposited and even more pooling at the DTC/CEDE. Now is this accurate to you.

Now someone thinks a property is over valued so they merely borrow against this long position pool thus using other people's property as collateral (if you do not agree then what is the collateral base). Now they have to pay a interest on the loan of this position ($2.00 a share I believe at prime plus) but the base collateral for this loan is against the pooling of long position. Now is this accurate to you.

Now in doing so they have to sell the short position to someone (another long position buyer). Thus this long position is now considered the short position thus not diluting the long position according to you because it is an anticipated buy later down the road. Now is this accurate to you.

Now depending on the number of people shorting the short position grows depending on the amount borrowed again the pooled long position. But you claim the people that bought the new long position from ths short is not a long position it is the short position. Even thought the brokerage shows it as a long position on their books. Now is this accurate to you.

Now this Short position is basically is an anticipated buy because the shorter has not bought the position yet he has only borrowed and sold. Now is this accurate to you.

Now say the owner of the original long position pulls his certificate. The short has to cover but according to the broker I talk to that only shorts for a living that is true. However, the short does not have to actually cover, all he has to do through his broker is "float the short position" or the broker does it automatically. Floating the short position merely borrows against the pooled long position again to cover the first long position loan. Now is this accurate to you.

Now if the old investor's or even the new long position (who bought the loan from the first loan) pull their certs that would deplete the pooled long position and thus create a short squeeze because the collateral is being taken out of the market by the rightful owners. Thus the short positions will have to be covered by going into the market and have to physically buy the stock, coupons, whatever with his own money. Now is this accurate to you.

Now one other way is that buying over takes the selling, floating, etc. and the short is faces to have to buy and thus the market price increases. Now is this accurate to you.

Now is this right if not please clarify.



"NO OWN - NO SELL" Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NoShorts/petition.html
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey