| Revision as of 23:00, 30 January 2006 view sourceMantanmoreland (talk | contribs)5,801 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:20, 14 August 2011 view source Cla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits add cat |
| (144 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{banned|time=indef|by=}} |
|
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with the following statement made by you. |
|
|
|
{{sockpuppeteer|proven|evidence=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
"Counterfeit" Securities: See the answer to Question 7.1, SEC FAQ. The SEC's answer is a clear and unequivocal no. "Naked short selling has no effect on an issuer's total shares outstanding." Thus the cornerstone of the pressure groups' concerns is simply not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Naked short selling dramatically dilutes the target company's capital worth and, in the case of an MREIT, it dilutes the company's attempts to obtain necessary increase in capital by issuing new share offerings to continue growing their business. You have to understand that the SEC does not want the investing public to know how widespread this practice is. They therefore downplay the seriousness and will not allow any transparency as to the true extent of the FTD situation. Also, through naked shorting in which the share sold short are never covered with real shares artificially inflates the total number of shares outstanding with non-existent shares which can not be obtained by the retail investor. A pig in a poke situation.] 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your argument is with the SEC, not me. They say the counterfeit securities issue is bogus. --] 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
