article from 2010 worth digesting
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politic...le-194908/
re: IPIX .. decoy MM VERT has been one busy *entity* regarding this week's *trading* on IPIX
be interesting to see % of volume (actual activity) for October's MM Monthly in relation to CDEL/ETRF/NITE
4kids
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politic...le-194908/
re: IPIX .. decoy MM VERT has been one busy *entity* regarding this week's *trading* on IPIX
be interesting to see % of volume (actual activity) for October's MM Monthly in relation to CDEL/ETRF/NITE
4kids
Quote:That's not what the article states. It states that LEGAl shorts have to PROVE THE BORROW.
That is absolutely consistent with what the compliance guy at the national brokerage office told me.
A reputable national brokerage that caters to individual small traders does not allow naked shorting. When he said that a short is merely transferred without covering, he should know.
Your claim that having to prove it's a legal short means it has to be covered is untrue.
1