Replies to post #181001 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[cloud3]

roadog: RE: that news item...

You mean no more selling shares that weren't borrowed. But I'm here raising a glass with you to that news. Better late than never, and it sure is FASCINATING that:

In 2006, the Cox SEC said it doesn't exist. Later, they admitted that it exists but claimed that it's small in scope and not a problem for the market. Then in late summer 2008, a light bulb apparently went on, because suddenly it was a crisis and Cox told Congress in that now famous session that it posed systemic risk.

Now, finally, things are being done about it. But I'm not sure justice is done until all existing shorts that do not have a 1:1 borrow associated with them are forced to cover.

[hiijacker]

Not correct. You described short selling which has always been permitted. Its the NAKED aspect that is banned. Meaning the shares you sell must exist and be borrowed. So unless you call your broker and restrict your shares from lending, or just put a high strike price sell order, you shares will be lent for the everyday short selling.