Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Prove my view of short-sellers wrong. I can drive down the value of any stock given enough money. Once its down I buy it back and cash-in stealing the small investors' money. The FEDS NEED TO BAN NAKED SHORT-SELLING. I'M OUT UNTIL THEY DO.
Short sellers provide a counter measure to longs that are woefully misinformed about the value of their stock.
You do not have enough money to drive down the price of any stock. No one does. But you might as well complain about entities driving up the value of stocks in a pump n dump scheme.
Exactly. The Feds need to address both ends of the scale and strive for long term stability and job creation.
If market fundamentals and balance sheets were all that it took to game the market there'd be no market.
Every investor would correctly price every stock and the only trading that would be happening would come from those whose personal needs were to get into our out of the market.
This isn't obvious to those of you who play the market?
If the market was perfect (that is to say if the market was only moving on publically held information) it wouldn't be very vital.
The theory of a perfect market is that under such conditions the "invisible hand of the market" correctly prices the stocks based on all KNOWN data.
Nobody SANE thinks the market is perfect, on that we completely agree, Rabbi.
That's because nobody who is SANE believes that the PUBLIC has the same information (at the same time) as the insiders.Sounds familiar, huh???
"To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.
Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.
It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.
Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact."
If market fundamentals and balance sheets were all that it took to game the market there'd be no market.
Every investor would correctly price every stock and the only trading that would be happening would come from those whose personal needs were to get into our out of the market.
This isn't obvious to those of you who play the market?
If the market was perfect (that is to say if the market was only moving on publically held information) it wouldn't be very vital.
Simply wrong because business conditions change.
A perfect market is one where all information pertainent to the value of the stock is publically known.
The theory of a perfect market is that under such conditions the "invisible hand of the market" correctly prices the stocks based on all KNOWN data.
Nobody SANE thinks the market is perfect, on that we completely agree, Rabbi.
That's because nobody who is SANE believes that the PUBLIC has the same information (at the same time) as the insiders.
To that extent, yes the game is fixed. (or perhaps it would be better described as broken)
And really, there's absolutely nothing that can really done about that, either.
Even if the insiders were scrupulously honest, the public (particularly the retail investing public) is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to investing wisely.
That's called letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It wouldn't matter if all facts were known since different people interpret those in different ways. This is what drives markets. There is far less insider trading today than there was 30 or 50 years ago.
I can't help thinking that the stock market is a rigged game. Its not just that the unscrupulous CEOs and their assorted white collar criminal cohorts can do just about whatever they want. Nope. Its cases like Goldman-Sachs as an example.
They get a $500m fine (without any wrongdoing?!) then in order to pay the fine they could simply use massive leverage to sell the market short, take the sucker's 401k money, and then pay the fine with bozo money. What a country.
Many of my contacts are saying that they are not going to get burned again by the stock market crooks. Hence today's poll question.
If the Feds wanted to do something about it, they would prohibit short-selling and derivatives, only allowing capital raising (job creating) long term investments.
I'm not getting back in until the SEC levels the playing field for small investors.
Your understanding of the stock market is rivaled only by your understanding of the role of short selling.
Both suck.
Prove my view of short-sellers wrong. I can drive down the value of any stock given enough money. Once its down I buy it back and cash-in stealing the small investors' money. The FEDS NEED TO BAN NAKED SHORT-SELLING. I'M OUT UNTIL THEY DO.
That's called letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Nonsense.
That's called describing reality.
You seem to have forgetten what we were talking about.
The topic under review is " Is the stock market legitimate"
I just pointed out why, even under scupulously honest managment, (in a perfect market) the retail investor is serverely disadvantaged.
I also pointed out at least a couple major scandals (like the most recent Goldman Sachs scandal) where the market was anything but scrupulously managed.
It wouldn't matter if all facts were known since different people interpret those in different ways.
That is actually a good point.
That point, and the other point I made ( different personal needs drive people to buy or sell based on their needs for investments at the time) would continue to create a market for stocks.
On those two points, Rab, we agree.
My point was however, that the market, were it perfect, would be far less vital than it is now, in this IMPERFECT market.
This is what drives markets.
Those are some of the elements that drives markets, not all of them.
There is far less insider trading today than there was 30 or 50 years ago.
Is there?
You'd be hard pressed to prove that claim.
There is far less insider trading today than there was 30 or 50 years ago.....And, you can PROVE that, HOW??!!!!
(....And, "Everybody knows..." doesn't count.
I think your way overstating the imperfection.
Your understanding of the stock market is rivaled only by your understanding of the role of short selling.
Both suck.
Prove my view of short-sellers wrong. I can drive down the value of any stock given enough money. Once its down I buy it back and cash-in stealing the small investors' money. The FEDS NEED TO BAN NAKED SHORT-SELLING. I'M OUT UNTIL THEY DO.
What happens if you drive it down,down further,down firther and down even further and then run out of $? And then it gets driven down another 50% How do you buy it back then?
You ran out of $.
"The Passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabled cable companies to start to offer Internet telephony services to customers.
Brainchild of the company's first VP of Engineering and later Chief Technology Officer Milo Medin, the company got its start from venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
On July 11, 1997, @Home Network went public with an initial public offering of $10.50 a share and raised $94.5 million in capital by the end of the first day with 9 million shares issued.
On October 1, 2001 the company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The company's remaining 1,350 employees would be laid off over the following months into the first quarter of 2002. As part of the agreement @Home's national high-speed fiber network access would be sold back to AT&T for $307 million in cash. At Home Liquidating Trust became the successor company to Excite@Home charged with the sale of all assets of the former company."
nobody knew anything would fail. They were big boys on both sides.
At the time Wall Street mock Paulson for being against their money printing machine.
Don't let fact's get in the way of you blanketly demonizing wall street.
How many rich people you know don't own lots of stock? I only know 1.
I'm sure your right, and like most in the middle class huddling afraid looking for OBama to help them they will jump back in when everything looks great and most of the gains have been had.
"A stock market that rewards quality is one that is thinking long-term, Titche says. Investors have become very short-sighted, he says. "People have totally lost faith in long-term investing."
In the past year, broad trendsfrom issues in the U.S. economy to the European debt crisishave shaped the stock market. Soon, however, investors are going to have to make "stock-specific" distinctions between the strong and weak players in each industry, Krosby says. Despite "a slowdown in the economy, many stocks are going to do very well," she says."
