Not many who know how markets work do though:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_s...rchbishops_are_wrong_shortselling_is_virtuous
'It is market abuse which is wrong and this can occur both when holding either long or short positions,'
I'd say the clergy are incredibly economically literate Wayne...
After all, for centuries they stole and controlled the wealth of the unquestioning, uneducated and illiterate masses. It's a pity none of them could short the church. They might have had to live up to their actual words and teachings then.
Good point chops.
What is one the wealthiest organisations/institutions in the world?
Wall Street Firms Provide Way Around Short-Sell Ban
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26891418
Hedge funds executives have told CNBC that several Wall Street firms are marketing a new hedging product that would allow them to "short" stocks””even those on the banned short sale list.
The new "product" is being pitched to major hedge funds today to gauge their interest””it's unclear if any funds have agreed to implement it........... etc
OOOOOMPH!I've very much enjoyed the interventions of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in the credit crunch debate. Their criticisms reflect a strong feeling that markets these days lack morality.
But markets have always lacked morality. Their success has been based on being amoral. Free markets don't discriminate. Operating within legal frameworks, their amorality is the best way to distribute scarce resources, everything from corn seed to capital, rather than leave those decisions to central planners.
If there is a question of morality, then markets are the most moral systems of all in the way they enable liberty. Like archbishops, markets are not infallible and are guilty of mistakes. They get pricing wrong – the recent mispricing of risk, which has caused the credit bubble, being one of their biggest.
There are clear contradictions in capitalism, just as there are in the views of Dr Rowan Williams and particularly the rather more outspoken Dr John Sentamu.
His views are passionately held. But perhaps he should review his church's own wealth, with billions tied up in the very markets which he attacks for harbouring "asset strippers", a practice that was not exactly absent when the Church of England was created with the dissolution of the monasteries.
You don't deserve an answer but like the terrible two year old in the supermarket you will keep screaming until you get either a clip in the ear or get your lolly. To shut you up I will give you my answer.Wow.
And you really proved your point there.
Others have asked you a legitimate question and it deserves to be answered.
Should shorting be banned from oil?
Targeted shorting can (and has) been used to bankrupt companies or to drop their value for other reasons. You can not dispute this fact.
My original gripe with you was about delta hedging.Shorting a product can not be compared to shorting a stock. Shorting oil can not be used to bring a company towards an undeserved bankrupsy. Targeted shorting can (and has) been used to bankrupt companies or to drop their value for other reasons. You can not dispute this fact.
Therefore I have no attitude one way or the other regarding futures trading in the likes of oil, wheat, gold, silver, nickel etc.In some cases it is probably a necessary business activity as an insurance against uncertain prices.
This comment is staggering.Targeted shorting can (and has) been used to bankrupt companies or to drop their value for other reasons. You can not dispute this fact.
Shorting a product can not be compared to shorting a stock.
Shorting oil can not be used to bring a company towards an undeserved bankruptcy.
My original gripe with you was about delta hedging.
Which in the case of any physical delivery of product, at its core, is entirely necessary to any market, vis a vis, all markets.
From what I can gather about the sub-prime disaster, is that the IB's were not hedging to delta, artificially the opposite in fact, hence the problem. They were carrying and fronting longs, at the same time they were long in the market they were dealing with. The opposite now seems to have been the case for the firms that have survived.
Despite all the rhetoric on here from yourself and others, no-one has as yet shown any example where a company has been bankrupted by short sellers. The companies that are failing are failing because no-one is prepared to deal with them, which is nothing to do with shorters.
I think your different view between products and stock is also flawed. Index futures contain stock, yet are a product.
Umm... without sellers there can be no buyers in the futures market. They are contracts.
But unlike short selling stock, shorting futures and similar products, as can be seen in the corporate bond market etc. has a massive MATERIAL impact on the companies themselves.
So shorting oil, or any other fundamental product can bring about bankruptcy in a company. Although if they are hedged, something impossible if a broking firm for the company cannot do delta hedging, that may not happen.
This comment is staggering.
Please someone give an example of shorters bankrupting a company. Please. Someone. Anyone.
And the comment implies you honestly don't think directors pump up share prices for various reasons. Absurd. But as most of us know, it ends up being a nil nil result in the end anyway.
Why do you think WBC and BOQ have held up well? I could just as easily short them as NAB, BNB etc.
At the end of the day, prices reach a point where people are prepared to buy.
But what your opinion supposes is that people and institutions should forego risk management at a time where risk aversion, and risk punishment is at an all time high, when looking at a good buying entry point. It makes no sense.
Who do we blame now for tanking shares?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?