Replies to post #216478 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[bar1080]

Warren Buffett has often said short selling isn't a problem and he loves when BRK shares are shorted because they eventually have to be covered. But BRK is a real company -- America's 7th biggest -- with tons of profits and real audited assets including ~$130 BILLION in T-securities.

BTW, none of my rock-solid blue chips has ever experienced significant short selling.

[janice shell]

To the first article you cite:

We've recently discussed James Stafford, the editor or OilPrice.com. He's a stock promoter who's paid for this stuff.

"The ability to sell an unlimited number of non-existent shares in a publicly-traded company gives a short seller the ultimate power: To destroy and manipulate a company’s share price at will."

That is absolute nonsense. First of all, shorts are not allowed to sell an unlimited number of nonexistent shares. Reg SHO, which was adopted by the SEC in 2005, and refined in 2007, does not allow it. And since then, naked shorting has not been much of a problem. Not that it really was before that.

You might find this interesting:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914847dadd7b049344b79b6

It's an appellate ruing that has not been overturned.

As to the SEC's new regulations, they did it because people have been whining about it for years. Here's the new rule:

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-221

See also this letter from SIFMA:

https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-22/s70822-20126803-287514.pdf