I blocked forbes a long time ago. Online they are fake influence peddlers. They allow “contributors” to use their platform as a marketing tool for businesses to lie and say they were published by forbes in phony top ## stories.
Forbes picks up the traffic and likely a piece of the bribe paid to these contributors to allow it to continue.
Unpopular opinion here, but shorting has it's place. It seems absolutely ludacrous to have an unbacked dollar, based only in consumer confidence, in a market where skepticism (i.e. shorting) is illegal. When stocks are over-speculated, shorting serves as a safeguard. Or at least, in a free market it would.
Example: Ideally, the shorting going on before the housing market crash should have preceded a re-evaluation and restructuring of of sub-prime mortgages. The shorting should have motivated an overall restructuring, and modest retreat of the housing market, instead of the crash. Unfortunately, that game was also rigged. Those that rigged it, have blamed it on the short stock people, but in reality, those at fault were the ones who propped up a shit market and attempted to pass it as solid gold with impunity.
So the guys that, I’m guessing, drove 08-09 recession, I’m assuming or at least had a hand in it because that money went somewhere, are captain America? Hmmm
If I knew for sure that the shorts haven't already covered, I'd buy the shit out of GME and hold for spite. The only way things change is for these assholes suffer consequences, instead of forcing consequences upon others.
Using a media platform to openly threaten businesses with slander for merely hiring people who worked for a former President is the textbook definition of terrorism. Randall Lane is not a journalist, he is an activist and a terrorist and he ought to be in jail for engaging in such behavior.
Weren't the airline stocks short sold just before 911 (KNOWINGLY) that made millions if not billions for some of these elites? That was never investigated and swept under the rug.
The same scandal that took out Italy and a dozen other governments is currently taking out ours. Thats why the military is in DC, because half the US government is about to pull a Renzi and disappear.
If you are going to try to steal an election with a satellite, dont do it with one built by the Jews. They will sell you out for a piece of Centcom pie.
The popular opinion is that shorting a company is evil or cruel and the act of doing so grinds a company into the dirt so that rich people can get richer. I have heard loads of people repeat this and it is clearly the opinion that most people have, and I have been downvoted many times for suggesting otherwise here and in other places.
Short selling is not, in fact, evil. and no, I am not defending the hedge funds. What they did with GME was worse than intentionally driving the price down (which is not what they did), what they actually did was engage in levels of capital management stupidity that rivaled the pumping and massive long positions on margin in mortgage backed securities prior to 2008. Every single investment firm that was short GME and did not close their position as soon as they saw that ilthe stock was over 100% shorted should go out of business.
Shorting a stock that is 140% shorted is really, really stupid, because you are exposing yourself to immense risk of a very big squeeze and being forced to close your position at a massive loss that far exceeds your initial investment without any chance of holding the position until the price comes back down after the squeeze. Any professional capital management firm that shorts a 140% shorted stock and then loses their shirt during the inevitable squeeze deserves to be bankrupt and deserves zero stimulus or bailouts because they fucking suck at investing.
If you think that the act of shorting itself is somehow immoral or intended to drive the price down, you do not understand what shorting is. It is no different from taking profit or bailing out on a long position, and nobody considers that to be evil. Closing a long is the exact same thing as opening a short, the difference is that short selling is done on margin and you run the risk of getting shares called back and being forced to close at a loss, plus there is unbounded downside risk and you can only gain 100% returns on your principle. Shorting is fine and not a bad thing, it can be a useful tool for ALL investors, but it has caveats that give it additional risk compared with long positions and if you do not take that risk into consideration (like Citron) then you are just a bad investor.
In fact shorting can bring companies back from the dead as short sellers take profit on the fall of a stock. Short selling can make the difference between a vertical cliff crash in a long-only market, and a slow decline in a balanced short-long market, buying a company valuable time to find profitability.
The stupid risks by elites with political power over the system are not exactly stupid per se, they’re more like evil, corrupt, dishonest risks..... Risks taken with the calculation that you’ll get bailed out if you lose due to the power you have over the government. Same thing with the S&L scandal. Disregard for the economic consequences to everyone else as long as you’re still high on the hog.
Trump said “our leaders are so stupid” regarding China, because that explanation is less controversial than the reality, but that wasn’t the real issue. The real issue is that they’re corrupt and will sell out the country and merge with the CCP if they think they can make money off of it. That’s the real problem. Disregard for the population as long as you’re still in the oligarchy.
If they were ethical then they’d just be stupid, but they’re not ethical and the reality is that it’s corruption.
Well yes, I agree. Capital management funds are free to take "stupid risks" because they know their corrupt government buddies will undermine the free market and bail them out if they fuck up.
This is what is evil, not short selling. We should all be allowed to take on the risks associated with volatile or unbounded-risk investments, but we should ALL have to suffer the consequences of those choices equally, big firms and government officials should not be exempt and play by different rules. When they fuck up, they should burn like everyone else would in the same position.
I agree that short selling isn’t bad in theory, honestly though I still wonder if it should be illegal or more limited somehow or if put options should be used instead. But what do you think about naked short selling? I mean being able to borrow, sell, then borrow what you sold again to sell it again seems like a massive recipe for abuse.
Of course it should not be illegal. You might as well make it illegal to sell a long position too at that point, or make trading on margin illegal.
Naked puts are even riskier than shorting common stock (just as risky as naked calls) and are derivatives so they don't drive the price (as much).
This is why it is a red flag when Nancy Pelosi buys 1M in calls. They could easily expire out of the money and worthless, and she would lose the entire premium she spent. Nobody buys 1M in naked contracts without knowing something. The fact that New TSLA dealings were announced a week later means she should be in prison.
And it doesn't work like you said, because you have to BUY to close out a short sale of common stock, which drives prices up. You don't short, drive the price down, and then immediately profit because you now owe a debt that varies in value greatly with time to whoever you borrowed from.
Thats how short squeezes work. People short, price goes up, the short sellers owe stock to someone and they have to buy it back but don't want to pay more to buy it back than what they originally sold for, so this drives the price up further, more short sellers have to buy to cover, ect. Ect. So anyone that shorts a stock will eventually drive the price up in the future when they close the position, just like any long buyer will drive the price down when they eventually sell to take profit. Until then, any and all gains or losses are unrealized.
Trading on margin isn’t illegal, but it is more limited now than it was in say 1920. My vague understanding is that the 1929 crash was caused by insane margin trading like 1000%.
I guess what I’m getting as is, can you think of any limit on short sales that would prevent the “stupid” corrupt risk taking by hedge funds? I mean the obvious answer is “don’t bail them out” so they just destroy themselves, but it seems impossible to prevent this sort of political corruption.
Blocking short sales will not prevent corruption. The only solution is "dont bail them out." Banning shorts of common stock has all kinds of really bad consequences for the market and doesn't fix the problem. Its like the NFA. It makes it confusing and hard as hell for law abiding citizens to own a rifle, but does literally nothing to stop criminals.
The fact is, markets go down sometimes, and if you eliminate the ability for people to react to that or profit off of it, you fuck a whole lot of people over and the markets too. The consumer needs to be able to bet against companies as well as for them, or you will have major, major crashes in the market all the time, or you will make it confusing AF as to what a short sale actually is. The reality is that short selling is just regular selling, but you borrowed the stock first, so do you prevent people from borrowing stock? How does that work when our entire economy runs on lending?
Unfortunately the ONLY solution is capitalism and eliminating corruption. Until we do that, we will have cronyism and pseudo-controlled economic dystopia, like some sort of half-asses pussy form of communism that just doesn't suck as much as the real thing but still sucks pretty bad.
Trading on margin, by the way, is a fantastic way for the underclass to break out of poverty, provided you are responsible. Margin is basically required for day trading.
I wasn’t really thinking ban anything, just limit it. I mean one thing that could help is if you broke large funds up just like monopolies should be broken up but are increasingly not broken up. Not only should that be better for competition but it helps eliminate “too big to fail” single points of failure. I just don’t know how anyone can break up a monopoly anymore. Like alphabet/google should have been broken up a long time ago.
My favorite part about the guy trying to blacklist anyone who worked for Trump by threatening to "investigate" everything the company says is that he's basically saying "you won't be able to represent a criminal/lying company!"
No shit? What kind of penalty is that? If the company you're doing business with isn't stupid in the first place they're already doing that.
There is not now nor has there ever been any virtue within the financial industry or Forbes. The only transparency they show has been forced by law and that law has only been enacted when they have been caught red handed perpetrating fraud, not on any other financial institution, but upon the American public.
I hope everyone is now comprehending why Jefferson and other Founding Fathers hated the media with such ferocity. They can easily be turned into a threat to the Republic.
Wow... I've never seen anyone actually bend over and kiss their own ass like that!
He even gave his knob a lick on the way down.
Might as well, it's on the way there.
I have relatives that not only do that, they go the extra mile and stick their head firmly up it.
Everyone has a different way of dealing with the great toilet paper shortage of circa 2020.
I blocked forbes a long time ago. Online they are fake influence peddlers. They allow “contributors” to use their platform as a marketing tool for businesses to lie and say they were published by forbes in phony top ## stories.
Forbes picks up the traffic and likely a piece of the bribe paid to these contributors to allow it to continue.
TL;DR: forbes sucks, don’t visit them
Unpopular opinion here, but shorting has it's place. It seems absolutely ludacrous to have an unbacked dollar, based only in consumer confidence, in a market where skepticism (i.e. shorting) is illegal. When stocks are over-speculated, shorting serves as a safeguard. Or at least, in a free market it would.
Example: Ideally, the shorting going on before the housing market crash should have preceded a re-evaluation and restructuring of of sub-prime mortgages. The shorting should have motivated an overall restructuring, and modest retreat of the housing market, instead of the crash. Unfortunately, that game was also rigged. Those that rigged it, have blamed it on the short stock people, but in reality, those at fault were the ones who propped up a shit market and attempted to pass it as solid gold with impunity.
Shorting might be fine, as long as you let people who take on infinite down side actually suffer it.
If the people who take such stupid risks are protected, it's not fine.
We do need regulation. Regulation against the hedge funds from doing this. How can you buy more than available?
That's not what short-selling is. At all.
In theory it isn't. But the large hedge funds that place massive shorts certainly aren't content with sitting back and hoping they chose correctly.
Shorting is a fine thing, in my opinion. But the large entities that engage in it on a massive scale abuse it.
In principle, to short a single share is to bet everything you have on someone else's poor fortune.
If you make such bets, you better be willing to lose everything you have. Cause that's the bet.
Maybe not in theory, but in practice, it is clearly being abused.
When he says the "world's biggest business media brand" it sounds a little too specific to actually qualify as anything that important. ha.
"If the elite weren't so idiotic and corrupt, I'd be fine with being an elitist. But they are." - Michael Knowles
Again - when NYC Hedge Firms short 140% of ALL THE STOCK in a company - they did this to themselves. Exactly no one else did that.
So the guys that, I’m guessing, drove 08-09 recession, I’m assuming or at least had a hand in it because that money went somewhere, are captain America? Hmmm
If I knew for sure that the shorts haven't already covered, I'd buy the shit out of GME and hold for spite. The only way things change is for these assholes suffer consequences, instead of forcing consequences upon others.
Using a media platform to openly threaten businesses with slander for merely hiring people who worked for a former President is the textbook definition of terrorism. Randall Lane is not a journalist, he is an activist and a terrorist and he ought to be in jail for engaging in such behavior.
Forbes is owned by China
Forbes = Chyna
Short sellers are parasites. Purely entropic, never productive.
Weren't the airline stocks short sold just before 911 (KNOWINGLY) that made millions if not billions for some of these elites? That was never investigated and swept under the rug.
i love how big corpo loves big government
Isn't that like big fash?
bingo
meanwhile, your military preparing to attack Libya.
it would be 3-4 T$ thank you.
but trust the plan. military is in your side. military loves Trump's peace on earth policy.
i should start getting in to WAR BUSINESS with COMMUNIST USA.
MILITARY IS COMING GUYS!
TO LIBYA!
The same scandal that took out Italy and a dozen other governments is currently taking out ours. Thats why the military is in DC, because half the US government is about to pull a Renzi and disappear.
If you are going to try to steal an election with a satellite, dont do it with one built by the Jews. They will sell you out for a piece of Centcom pie.
Q people like you is the CANCER on the Trump Train.
MILITARY IS THE DEEP STATE.
LIBYA WAR IS ON.
The popular opinion is that shorting a company is evil or cruel and the act of doing so grinds a company into the dirt so that rich people can get richer. I have heard loads of people repeat this and it is clearly the opinion that most people have, and I have been downvoted many times for suggesting otherwise here and in other places.
Short selling is not, in fact, evil. and no, I am not defending the hedge funds. What they did with GME was worse than intentionally driving the price down (which is not what they did), what they actually did was engage in levels of capital management stupidity that rivaled the pumping and massive long positions on margin in mortgage backed securities prior to 2008. Every single investment firm that was short GME and did not close their position as soon as they saw that ilthe stock was over 100% shorted should go out of business.
Shorting a stock that is 140% shorted is really, really stupid, because you are exposing yourself to immense risk of a very big squeeze and being forced to close your position at a massive loss that far exceeds your initial investment without any chance of holding the position until the price comes back down after the squeeze. Any professional capital management firm that shorts a 140% shorted stock and then loses their shirt during the inevitable squeeze deserves to be bankrupt and deserves zero stimulus or bailouts because they fucking suck at investing.
If you think that the act of shorting itself is somehow immoral or intended to drive the price down, you do not understand what shorting is. It is no different from taking profit or bailing out on a long position, and nobody considers that to be evil. Closing a long is the exact same thing as opening a short, the difference is that short selling is done on margin and you run the risk of getting shares called back and being forced to close at a loss, plus there is unbounded downside risk and you can only gain 100% returns on your principle. Shorting is fine and not a bad thing, it can be a useful tool for ALL investors, but it has caveats that give it additional risk compared with long positions and if you do not take that risk into consideration (like Citron) then you are just a bad investor.
In fact shorting can bring companies back from the dead as short sellers take profit on the fall of a stock. Short selling can make the difference between a vertical cliff crash in a long-only market, and a slow decline in a balanced short-long market, buying a company valuable time to find profitability.
The stupid risks by elites with political power over the system are not exactly stupid per se, they’re more like evil, corrupt, dishonest risks..... Risks taken with the calculation that you’ll get bailed out if you lose due to the power you have over the government. Same thing with the S&L scandal. Disregard for the economic consequences to everyone else as long as you’re still high on the hog.
Trump said “our leaders are so stupid” regarding China, because that explanation is less controversial than the reality, but that wasn’t the real issue. The real issue is that they’re corrupt and will sell out the country and merge with the CCP if they think they can make money off of it. That’s the real problem. Disregard for the population as long as you’re still in the oligarchy.
If they were ethical then they’d just be stupid, but they’re not ethical and the reality is that it’s corruption.
Well yes, I agree. Capital management funds are free to take "stupid risks" because they know their corrupt government buddies will undermine the free market and bail them out if they fuck up.
This is what is evil, not short selling. We should all be allowed to take on the risks associated with volatile or unbounded-risk investments, but we should ALL have to suffer the consequences of those choices equally, big firms and government officials should not be exempt and play by different rules. When they fuck up, they should burn like everyone else would in the same position.
I agree that short selling isn’t bad in theory, honestly though I still wonder if it should be illegal or more limited somehow or if put options should be used instead. But what do you think about naked short selling? I mean being able to borrow, sell, then borrow what you sold again to sell it again seems like a massive recipe for abuse.
Of course it should not be illegal. You might as well make it illegal to sell a long position too at that point, or make trading on margin illegal.
Naked puts are even riskier than shorting common stock (just as risky as naked calls) and are derivatives so they don't drive the price (as much).
This is why it is a red flag when Nancy Pelosi buys 1M in calls. They could easily expire out of the money and worthless, and she would lose the entire premium she spent. Nobody buys 1M in naked contracts without knowing something. The fact that New TSLA dealings were announced a week later means she should be in prison.
And it doesn't work like you said, because you have to BUY to close out a short sale of common stock, which drives prices up. You don't short, drive the price down, and then immediately profit because you now owe a debt that varies in value greatly with time to whoever you borrowed from.
Thats how short squeezes work. People short, price goes up, the short sellers owe stock to someone and they have to buy it back but don't want to pay more to buy it back than what they originally sold for, so this drives the price up further, more short sellers have to buy to cover, ect. Ect. So anyone that shorts a stock will eventually drive the price up in the future when they close the position, just like any long buyer will drive the price down when they eventually sell to take profit. Until then, any and all gains or losses are unrealized.
Trading on margin isn’t illegal, but it is more limited now than it was in say 1920. My vague understanding is that the 1929 crash was caused by insane margin trading like 1000%.
I guess what I’m getting as is, can you think of any limit on short sales that would prevent the “stupid” corrupt risk taking by hedge funds? I mean the obvious answer is “don’t bail them out” so they just destroy themselves, but it seems impossible to prevent this sort of political corruption.
Blocking short sales will not prevent corruption. The only solution is "dont bail them out." Banning shorts of common stock has all kinds of really bad consequences for the market and doesn't fix the problem. Its like the NFA. It makes it confusing and hard as hell for law abiding citizens to own a rifle, but does literally nothing to stop criminals.
The fact is, markets go down sometimes, and if you eliminate the ability for people to react to that or profit off of it, you fuck a whole lot of people over and the markets too. The consumer needs to be able to bet against companies as well as for them, or you will have major, major crashes in the market all the time, or you will make it confusing AF as to what a short sale actually is. The reality is that short selling is just regular selling, but you borrowed the stock first, so do you prevent people from borrowing stock? How does that work when our entire economy runs on lending?
Unfortunately the ONLY solution is capitalism and eliminating corruption. Until we do that, we will have cronyism and pseudo-controlled economic dystopia, like some sort of half-asses pussy form of communism that just doesn't suck as much as the real thing but still sucks pretty bad.
Trading on margin, by the way, is a fantastic way for the underclass to break out of poverty, provided you are responsible. Margin is basically required for day trading.
I wasn’t really thinking ban anything, just limit it. I mean one thing that could help is if you broke large funds up just like monopolies should be broken up but are increasingly not broken up. Not only should that be better for competition but it helps eliminate “too big to fail” single points of failure. I just don’t know how anyone can break up a monopoly anymore. Like alphabet/google should have been broken up a long time ago.
If 2020 showed us anything, the term "heroes" means nothing anymore anyway.
Besides elitist hacks that have their heads up their ass, who reads Forbes these days?
So Randall just got put on a bunch of lists “himself” I bet.
Short sellers are heroes? Heroes? Oh for fucks sake!
Lets destroy all of them
Cool Hat. I take you much more seriously just because of it.
My favorite part about the guy trying to blacklist anyone who worked for Trump by threatening to "investigate" everything the company says is that he's basically saying "you won't be able to represent a criminal/lying company!"
No shit? What kind of penalty is that? If the company you're doing business with isn't stupid in the first place they're already doing that.
Eventually the lights will go out.
Red pepe face
There is not now nor has there ever been any virtue within the financial industry or Forbes. The only transparency they show has been forced by law and that law has only been enacted when they have been caught red handed perpetrating fraud, not on any other financial institution, but upon the American public.
Fuck you, Forbes!
Forbes has been cucked for years now. If you actually want to get rich don’t read Forbes.
I hope everyone is now comprehending why Jefferson and other Founding Fathers hated the media with such ferocity. They can easily be turned into a threat to the Republic.
There's nothing wrong with short-selling, at all. If a company is over-valued, or poorly run, you should be shorting it.