Your stamina in posting about a stock you do not hold is astonishing. The last few posts are truly awe-inspiring.
Rather than seizing an opportunity to accuse me of lying or being a liar * why don't you argue why the propositions contained in them are incorrect?
That is, are you saying that shorting is not used a means to acquire a stock cheaply? Let's leave aside what you said or did not say previously on the subject (although your gift at side stepping issues is astonishing, going on the personal attack is only one device at your disposal and I've seem you are very keen to use it particularly in the last week or so).
Yes, we all understand that shorting involves lending out the stock. And we also know that naked shorting exists.
But that's not the same as what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is a series of legal devices, which hide the ultimate beneficial holder of the stock and make it very difficult to work out who is actually behind a transaction and who is not. An accumulator might be at work, but they can conduct the activity without being detected.
Are you saying no such problem exists? Because I say it does.
(The issue arose in a discussion with another poster about why accumulation doesn't always become evident under the 5% rule, but never mind. I am bored by the prospect of having to find the post.)
Naked short selling is a far simpler proposition. Quite simply the stock is sold when it is not actually held by the seller. Regulators find it very difficult to identify and isolate the activity, but the total number of shares on issue at any one time is very difficult to reconcile at a given time. To do so takes a colossal effort and the regulatory agencies are simply not funded to do that. This is the reason why in the last financial crisis, short selling was banned.
I disagree that you made your comment solely in the context of naked shorting.*
(*If my recollection is different to yours, that does not make me a liar. I have never made such inflammatory accusations of you, even though you have twisted my words to suit your purposes many many times.)
Rather than conduct a civilised discussion, it seems that you'd rather go on the personal attack.
IMO activities that occur in the stock market are the wild west in terms of regulation. We haven't begun to really properly control what is taking place. It's not surprising that many brokers and banks resist regulation. These days a lot of the wild west stuff is happening with hedge funds, but it's not all, not by a long shot.
(20min delay)