"So your saying naked shorting is a significant factor is every listed stock around the globe?"
While there are some who do say that, and not without some reasonable and interesting justification... No, that's not what I'm saying, here, rather than discussing the specific situation here. I am saying that naked shorting is a significantly greater factor to be considered in those stocks that do have a proven history in having had large numbers of FTDs.
Don't know why anyone would find that unreasonable. But, I find some of the crap that gets posted about the short trade is quite wildly unreasonable... all the 'no short participation here' and 'never been a short position or a naked short, here'm stuff.
I don't expect SRSR is magically immune to all the market issues other stocks face... and, only less will I expect SRSR is somehow magically immune to the SRSR specific issues in the trade ?
"Shorting happens, significant naked shorts doesn't happen in every stock."
Agree... but, even then, naked or not is still only one question... even if it is a significant aspect of the larger question re shorts participation in the markets.
"Significant" or not... is another question. And, then, (if we were to agree) even within the range we might agree constitutes "significant," there is still an obvious range in variation that exists in the trade... a range of different reasons one might find it useful to short a stock... and a range of different trading strategies that might find shorts are a useful tool.
So, "significant" or not isn't a simple question... given the trade itself and the utility of any trading strategy can be complex, and that it is, by design, true that the short trade is not in the least bit transparent. But, all of that still leaves that narrow aspect of it as a fairly simple question... to ask whether a specific stock has ever had a "significant" issue with naked shorts ?
And then... given a "significant issue with naked shorts"... you still need to determine both the purpose, the extent of the impact that it had, its resolution, or not, over time... and the degree to which that legacy in the trading history still has an impact in the future.
"Not everything in the markets is a big conspiracy."
LOL!! That's a remarkably naive view. The markets are nothing other than a unending game hosting a perpetual contest between competitors... whether you're talking competition between Niobec and CBMM for niobium market share... or that between longs and shorts, traders and investors, in any stock. That reality "sort of" means that the only difference between any "legal market function" and "a conspiracy" is whether or not the functions used in conducting a trade violate the law. But, then, when the laws are easily rewritten to enable "conspirators" in doing things that are "legal" by definition... but that, in spite of the law, are not proper, or legitimate ? Legitimacy, legality and propriety are each very different things... as we're going to see acted out in a real Greek tragedy over the next 6 to 8 weeks ?
"Folks like JP Chase lose sometimes too. If it was all a conspiracy wouldn't they just avoid that?"
It's an interesting way to address the problems JPM makes obvious... but, the answer is "no"...
That they do lose... is a fact... rather than a question. The question to be asked isn't IF they'll lose, or even how large the risks should be that they're allowed to take with THEIR capital... but, instead, the proper questions are what the impact of their losing will be... in terms of risks that are imposed on others. The public debate, recently, has incorrectly drawn a line in interest at the limit of "systemic risk". I agree it is not a legitimate function of banks to enable themselves in taking risks that posture systemic scale risks... but, more fundamentally, it is not a legitimate function of banks to enable themselves in taking any risks that aren't their own... that posture risks for others. Why should JPM ever care if they "fail"... when the cost of their "failure" is born by others ?
I don't recall ever advocating the position that cheating, in itself, naturally insulates cheaters from failure. Perhaps it does so, only "unnaturally" for a time. So, it seems to me that the experience of 2008/2009 "almost" proves something of the opposite... cheaters aren't insulated from failure... save that in that instance the cheaters did manage to make taxpayers, and not the banks, bear the trillions in cost due to their failure ?
FWIW, I'm not a fan of Jamie Dimon or what I consider JPM's fundamentally unethical practices, which fully intend to practice "piracy" as their core principle. I'd not ever argue that pirates haven't ever been successful, as they have succeed, at times... only when for some reason "the rules" have enabled them to be. Still, when they've become a significant enough problem... as they have become, now... pirates, whether sanctioned by some state power or not... have often ended up hanging from yardarms. That it seems now that the core business principles and practices of our banks and those of Somali pirates have become virtually indistinguishable ?
That's the real point of "moral hazard"... that when you enlist a cadre of pirates, empower them in pillaging as a "good", and then enable them in pillaging your own population... ? There's really a fairly finite set of probabilities in the longer term outcomes.
When pirate roam the coasts... there are fairly predictable responses and defensive measures that need to be taken by coastal communities. It's a fairly simple (and correct) parallel to draw between that bit of history... and our modern market situation.
SRSR management appear appropriately aware of the market reality.
As I've noted often... I value aspects of their efforts in advancing SRSR's position that others seem to ignore...
I find it useful, for instance, that SRSR now controls their properties... lock, stock, and barrel... which is more than you can say of some lesser "competitors". Coastal fortifications, if you will...
So, that should point out that while the reality is complex in the details, more given the lack of transparency, there are at least two separate things to consider in relation to shorts...
One the market reality... that includes the fact that the market is populated by, and perhaps is run by pirates...
At SRSR... I'm not basing my trade betting on the shorts having made a mistake... rather than based on "the rocks" and what I see SRSR management accomplishing... which seems to me it is exactly the opposite of what the shorts are claiming, while they're also claiming they don't exist ?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
