Filed in archive
markets
by leon on October 9, 2008
A few weeks ago, I did a blog entry condemning the way regulators around the world had cracked down on short selling. At the time, I maintained that short sellers play an important role in the market.
In the New York Times, Louise Story raises the question whether the ban made any difference. The short sellers are allowed back but the market imploded in their absence. They were an easy target but without them there, who do you blame?
As the piece suggests, it's not the short sellers who are at fault, it's the weakness of the institutions that have lived on the oxygen of debt. And with regulators turning a Blind Eye, it was a disaster waiting to happen. There is no point blaming the short sellers. If a stock is going to collapse, it's going to collapse.
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/135862
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for Did the short selling ban make any difference?:
|
Rating: 9.25 out of 4 vote(s) cast.
|
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
