(Total Views: 159)
Posted On: 01/01/2018 3:58:08 PM
Post# of 72443
The 110% short interest in overstock.com was clearly illegal naked shorting. Even if they borrowed 100% of the stock, where did the other 10% come from?
It would be nice if everyone were honest and played by the rules. But everyone isn't, and doesn't.
We don't have any way of judging what illegal naked shorting exists for any given stock. We know that it does exist for some stocks. Overstock's case proves it.
So does AMBS's case, in which there was a tremendous illegal naked short interest.
I've posted about that one so many times I'm sure people are sick of it.
It would be nice if everyone were honest and played by the rules. But everyone isn't, and doesn't.
We don't have any way of judging what illegal naked shorting exists for any given stock. We know that it does exist for some stocks. Overstock's case proves it.
So does AMBS's case, in which there was a tremendous illegal naked short interest.
I've posted about that one so many times I'm sure people are sick of it.
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
