Britain’s Financial Services Authority on Thursday announced the unprecedented move of banning short-selling and forbidding any increase in new positions. Also, disclosure will be required on all positions of more than 0.25% of a stock. The ban is due to remain in force until Jan. 16, but it will be reviewed in 30 days. “While we still regard short-selling as a legitimate investment technique in normal market conditions, the current extreme circumstances have given rise to disorderly markets. As a result, we have taken this decisive action, after careful consideration, to protect the fundamental integrity and quality of markets and to guard against further instability in the financial sector,” said Hecton Sants, chief executive of the FSA. Amazing, im speechless
Ridiculous.
brianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ridiculous. Ditto, I can’t believe it.
Reactionary dumb move by an airhead. Can’t believe this is from the homeland of the very Adam Smith…
They should instead ban it on select securities as they see fit. All you who thinks this violates free-market enterprise can suck my balls. The short-sellers contributed to Lehman’s demise and then they were going after Morgan and GS.
Adam Smith is Scottish.
thepinkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They should instead ban it on select securities as > they see fit. All you who thinks this violates > free-market enterprise can suck my balls. The > short-sellers contributed to Lehman’s demise and > then they were going after Morgan and GS. Why should certain companies be protected? There would not be short interest if there were no problems at these firms. Granted speculation is at play but the short sellers did not over leverage companies with shitty assets.
thepinkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They should instead ban it on select securities as > they see fit. All you who thinks this violates > free-market enterprise can suck my balls. Well I’m getting out my blender for a pinkman testicle daiquiri then. This is BS. Fundamentally, why can’t I lend you something I own and you make a promise to return it to me? If the traffic in London gets too bad are they going to ban auto renting? > The > short-sellers contributed to Lehman’s demise and > then they were going after Morgan and GS. Structured finance products contributed to Lehman’s demise too.
Normally I’d say leave the market alone…errr but the stuff that’s going down out there just ain’t normal and I don’t think we can apply normal rules and sit around and wait for it to sort itself out anymore. We need a new playbook for this shi@t.
“Well I’m getting out my blender for a pinkman testicle daiquiri then.” That is funny
Ban naked short selling? Yes. Ban all short selling? No.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thepinkman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They should instead ban it on select securities > as > > they see fit. All you who thinks this violates > > free-market enterprise can suck my balls. > > Well I’m getting out my blender for a pinkman > testicle daiquiri then. This is BS. > Fundamentally, why can’t I lend you something I > own and you make a promise to return it to me? If > the traffic in London gets too bad are they going > to ban auto renting? > > > The > > short-sellers contributed to Lehman’s demise > and > > then they were going after Morgan and GS. > > Structured finance products contributed to > Lehman’s demise too. I normally agree but these are f’d up times. We need financial martial law. Goldman and Morgan cannnot go the way of Lehman. And by the way nothing confuses the argument more than the an inperfect analogy.
what if I am selling puts? I am not allowed to hedge myself shorting the stock?
No better way to win an argument than sow confusion… I want Costco to buy GS. I think that it would be excellent to call the desk at Goldman and have the phone say “To access a Goldman representative, please enter your Costco Card number. If you do not have a Costco card, please hold on the line for a Costco Membership specialist.”
hala_madrid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what if I am selling puts? I am not allowed to > hedge myself shorting the stock? It’s illegal and unpatriotic to buy puts. Gitmo.
Futures markets must start to go wacky with only one end of the arbitrage zone actually arbitrageable.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adam Smith is Scottish. And Scotland is part of the UK. Buy a fucking atlas. This has all been done in a vain attempt to protect a lame duck Scottish left wing prime minister from the fallout of him facilitating a deal that will cost shitloads of Labour voting jobs. HBOS = Halifax Bank Of Scotland. So lets take a look at those areas: Halifax: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/289.stm 6000 Labour voters out of work Bank of SCOTLAND (NakedIgnorantPrick take note): Labour have 41 out of 59 seats: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/region_7.stm This all came about because of idiotic class warrior pornographer wankers at the Express: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/61804/Don-t-let-the-spivs-destroy-Britain Talking absolute bollocks blaming short sellers for the ills of the over-leveraged banking sector. I’m truly ashamed to be British today.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hala_madrid Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > what if I am selling puts? I am not allowed to > > hedge myself shorting the stock? > > It’s illegal and unpatriotic to buy puts. Gitmo. Don´t worry Joey, I would do it with stocks from a different country than mine 
For all of you chaps who might not be versed in the history of the Bank of Scotland, it was set up in 1695 to facilitate and finance the Darien expedition (where a bunch of idiot jocks tried to colonise Panama). The utter failure of the expedition and the subsequent bankruptcy of Scotland led directly to the Act of Union in 1707 in which the newly formed United Kingdom took on the debt of the idiot Scots (who as usual blamed the English for their own idiocy) in return for taking away the idiots’ right to rule themselves and come up with idiot plans again. What happens? Idiot Labour creat a cretin Scottish parliament (at a cost of $800m just for the fucking building) devolving power back to the idiot socialist self-pitying wankers. Result: bollocks.
Well, the language suggests that this is a temporary measure to respond to a crisis. Of course, it could be extended indefinitely. It’s common in crises for governments to do extreme things like this to try to calm stuff (price ceilings in supply shocks are another example). They almost always result in bad outcomes, unless the implementation period is VERY short. Even in those cases, when restrictions are lifted, you tend to get extreme behavior as people try to do what was prohibited as much as they can before things get re-enacted. Definitely a bad sign.