| Latest Forum Topics / Others |
 Post Reply
|
|
US ban on shorting
|
|||
|
CWQuah
Master |
28-Jul-2008 13:47
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Heh - having a public float > 100% means that the total no. of shares in circulation in the stock market exceeded the initial no. of shares issued during IPO for trading. I.e. there are some 'counterfeit' shares as a result of excessive/naked shortselling. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
novena_33
Veteran |
28-Jul-2008 13:43
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hey bro...can u explain "Some stocks in US are probably having a public float well above 100%! "
|
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|
|||
|
CWQuah
Master |
28-Jul-2008 12:28
|
||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4490541725797746038 This explains partly why the shorting ban was considered. Apparently, it's been far harder to manage the shorting practice as compared to SGX. Some stocks in US are probably having a public float well above 100%! |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
Luostock
Senior |
28-Jul-2008 10:27
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Can market be that free---can everyone has the same info ? In practice, never. So free market is not that free after all --- there will always someone manipulating and someone have to control it before it runs wildly for survival of fittest in the concrete jungle. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
ten4one
Master |
28-Jul-2008 09:36
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Let The Market Forces decide................and don't try to 'play god' and let 'Nature' takes its course. How can a Market be free when some bad businesses were not allowed to fold and being 'proctected' again and again! | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|
|||
|
singaporegal
Supreme |
28-Jul-2008 08:54
Yells: "Female TA nut" |
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
The temporary ban on shorting should end soon. I hope the US markets will not correct again once the ban ends. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
ten4one
Master |
25-Jul-2008 10:33
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
The truth when used intentionally to cause harm could be more painful as in the case of the F&F saga. If any of the listed GLC has a USD5.2T worth of outstanding morgage loan out of the total of USD12T exposed and unable to recover some of the losses and require MAS to bail them out............Jesus! I think George Bush maybe right when he said : " Wall St got drunk... and now it's got hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruements." Cheers! |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
178investors
Veteran |
24-Jul-2008 12:31
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
if there is some truths in the beginning to it, then it's factual. how could it be malicious. Take an example, Dr Oppose blah blah PM and MM with malicious intent. Rumours get circulated and if both the ministers don't stop it immediately. The rumours would gain currency and belief. If a system does not enforce its rules/regulations timely and thoroughly, in time, everyone will think the rules/regulations are only facial not in spirit. It is because Singapore has always take no nonsense from people acting with malice that very few dare to take chances with the system. Would anyone here dare spread a malicious rumour on any of the listed GLC. God bless you. |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|
|||
|
ten4one
Master |
24-Jul-2008 10:09
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
No matter how 'malicious' is the rumour, there is always some truths in the beginning. I don't think you could create a 'malicious' rumour without some 'reasonable' truths to expand on to begin with. The mouth is the most poisonous 'tool'. Anything that could spread thru the mouth is fast & deadly if not stop in time. You can't blame the Traders or Investors for wanting to exist from the ailing Companies that have loss billions and may need The Treasury to bail them out - so much for FREE ECONOMY! I could understand why the Treasury wouldn't allow F&F to fail and they're being 'asked' by The Treasury to support the troubled Housing Morgage-Finances (USD12t in total). In fact, The Law-makers have agreed on the bail out Bill yesterday! How long would it take to stabilize the Market is anybody guess? Cheers! |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
cathylmg
Elite |
24-Jul-2008 00:09
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Thank you for taking the initiative to explain this situation. I hope this will put a stop to those manupulators.. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
178investors
Veteran |
23-Jul-2008 00:06
|
||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
sorry so late to reply, not spending much time in the forum lately. i don't think shorting is the cause of malicious rumours. Shorting is a trading action. Malicious rumours come from people's mouth or thru poison pen. It's more the other way where malicious rumour spread by an initial party (the manipulator) causes systemic panic leading to many more others (traders) joining in to short an already bad situation. In that sense, malicious rumour generated by the perpetrator (manipulator) is the cause leading to more shorting actions. So in such dire situation where systemic failure could have dire consequences, usually the security regulator like the SEC will have to step in and do something out of the norm, like a temporary no naked shorting action. (If everyone recall, some local broking houses also stopped naked shorting temporarily on a few stocks of companies related to anthony soh a few months back at the height of panic related to jade's fiasco.) The above temporary action is normally to arrest the dire situation from spinning out of control (death spiral) which the manipulator would be happy to gain from. That leads to one conclusion. To nail the cause of the problem, the power that be must heavily punish the originator of the malicious rumour. That's a deterrent sentence. Secondary deterrents should also be meted out on others who acted as conduits for malicious rumours. While i'm writing, investigations are already underway by SEC to nail and bring manipulators for initiating and spreading malicious rumours related to bear stearns, lehman brothers, fannie mae, freddie mac, indymac, and a host of other banks where naked shorting has been disallowed. Let's see what the SEC finds out. Sure alot of security regulators around the world are watching what will transpire and if something good can be learned from it. Sorry for lo-so-ing and boring you all... bye. |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
cathylmg
Elite |
22-Jul-2008 15:15
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
And shorting is the cause of all these malicious rumours. Don't you agree?
|
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|
|||
|
178investors
Veteran |
22-Jul-2008 14:44
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I think there is something missing in all the discussions about shorting. It is not shorting per se that is causing problem. The real problem is the spreading of false malicious rumours. Alot of these malicious rumours are spreaded by shortists, regardless of if they borrow to short or naked short. Spreading of false malicious rumour to profit from it is a crime in all regulated markets. |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
ten4one
Master |
22-Jul-2008 14:03
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I think there is no right or wrong in naked shorting. It is just a trading strategy to profit from the Market (if you're right)! Here, The Authority is trying to prevent a 'herd' of naked shortings which could break the Banks (so to speak). I'd rather prefer that the Authority 'suspend' the trading of the counter concerned and investigate the cause and inform Investors timely. Cheers! |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
jasonfaxingliu
Senior |
22-Jul-2008 09:18
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Shanghai market is not an flexible and open like rest of the world. When they bought the shares, can't sell off the same day. Earliest to sell the next day and definately they don't know what is shorting ! So poor general population their got to suffer losses when market is down. The only way to make money is to push it up (that's way it goes all the way up to 6000). Insider trading is the game to win in China. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
elvischin
Member |
22-Jul-2008 01:35
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
What happen in US, is to stop "naked shorting" especially the hedge fund selling the big bank, this is not right..... But, shorting by borrow shares or the use of "CFD" is prefectly alright, as it is an instrument in the financial market.................. Ask youself, u dare to naked short the market and let singapore exchange buy back for u after 4 workings day, but in US the hedge fund have the fun to do that.... The right way of shorting by using the right instrument is allows, as market rebound partly due the cover short position, unlike in Shanghai where no instrument allow to short, and the SSE became a "died cat bound" |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
CWQuah
Master |
22-Jul-2008 00:16
|
||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
Hmm... I'm thinking that perhaps for stock markets with far more volatility or trading volumes, it might be a good thing to limit excessive downside pressure from shorting. But seriously, for SGX, if shorting is going to be banned outright, it might just kill off interest in an already illiquid market (compared to say, SSE, HSI). Remember that sometimes, shorting can actually work to push markets up - when the short squeeze happens at 4pm onwards; or when the mandatory buy in happens on T + 4 11.30am. |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
des_khor
Supreme |
21-Jul-2008 23:02
Yells: "Tell me who is the God or MFT from this forum??" |
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Is good to follow in Singapore . |
||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
cathylmg
Elite |
21-Jul-2008 22:11
|
||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
But then it will be better for traditional investors and there will be less manupilation of the stocks. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
AK_Francis
Supreme |
21-Jul-2008 12:04
Yells: "Happy go lucky, cheers." |
||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
walau, SGX better don't follow leh. if not our Polar bears short of one revenue for kopi $ loh. cheers. | ||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||