News Focus
News Focus
icon url

SevenTenEleven

07/24/12 9:01 AM

#152459 RE: jb1967lbk #152457

Of course they have influence on some companies getting revoked. Just ask the Boston SEC Office!

If a naked short seller is correct about his or her assessment of a company, then obviously they're not going to have to cover. But it's not the naked short seller that's causing these hideous companies to get their stocks revoked.



Nothing like cellar boxing a company into submission.

How badly was BCIT cellar boxed?
icon url

CarltonH

07/24/12 9:04 AM

#152461 RE: jb1967lbk #152457

You said There is nothing abusive, or fraudulent, about naked short selling.

The Chairman of the SEC said otherwise.

With the greatest respect the SEC are the regulators (cough)and enforcers of US securities law so they should know what they are talking about.

Mind you, to be fair Mary Schaprio said in writing that she knew that Bancorp had not changed its name, but a few months later the SEC still revoked a non existent company called Energy Source.