bj4paul (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I agree, Cramer has recommended many stocks that tanked and he only mentions his winners. Absolute ego-maniac and only people that feed his ego are on the calls.

shakaama (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i agree with don, about shorts

kailynleto (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The companies' bankruptcies have nothing to do with the Uptick Rule. They have everything to do with the fact that the system is on the brink of total collapse. I fail to understand how the elimination of the Rule made anything worse. And couldn't you also say that having no Rule would have let the market work itself out faster?

Yourdeadmeat69 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Naked shorts are the issue--increase the volume of stock shares, causing further decline. Those shares need to be proffered in 3 days or those clowns go to jail. I lost a fortune when FNM rug was pulled out from under us, foreign debt owners paid, American common and preferred screwed. I don't mind losing, but changing the rules in the middle of the game? They should allow more than 3K off the tax return, that would return some equity to REAL investors.

StiggyStigStig2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The CEOs of these companies will be axed, they'll be gone .... but that's not enough. They should go furthest to bailing out their companies, not us. They should be made bankrupt, and all of their personal wealth, sometimes 100s of millions, given to fund this mess

sirdarklust (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The blame placed on hedge funds is nonsense. Hedge funds still have to short stocks through a broker. If the broker allows them to naked short, then it is the fault of the broker. Lehmen, AIG, etc and lack of government regulation are to blame for their own problems. Hedge funds merely did the proper thing to make money off the dying animals. The overall problem is the amount of debt/leverage that is permitted to be accrued against actual cash holdings. That system needs to be fixed.

glatt76 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Naked shorting is not a problem on the street. The only people that do it are day-traders who's impact on the market is insignificant at best. Any large institution makes sure to get the borrow first because they don't want to deal with the litigation that would take place otherwise. This naked short-selling phenomenon is more myth than reality.. looking for something to blame that's easy for Avg.Joe to understand, but difficult to prove.

He101A (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

After this short selling ban is lifted, a lot of people will get their money out of Wall Street.

earthpet (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

False and misleading information. Shorting stocks with borrowed shares puts a trader on a level playing field with longs. Nothing wrong with that. But naked shorting is different. On a small scale it is not very relevant. But when naked shorters look for the stocks other naked shorters are attacking, the dogpile effect can destroy a company (i.e. Lehman). The day I can buy stocks without money is the day I will agree that naked shorts can sell stocks without delivering them.

Yourdeadmeat69 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The Fed can't tell the difference between, or can't identify, the short from the naked short, the folks who never take possession of the shares, further diluting the number of shares, and causing more downward spiral. They don't police, so they ban outright.