Has anyone read the motion (available from an economist.com server)? This what the Rolling Stone article is based on.
Is the issue whether and how GS makes money from the practice of naked short selling? Maybe the issue is that feeding the market with info about short sales that are never actually cleared (but which the market assumes will be cleared), can destroy the value of a company's stock.
Obviously if you can sell something without ever having to own or deliver it (is that really a sale?), you can do a lot of selling; and you can exert considerable influence on the market for a stock.
Maybe what happened here is a company, Overstock, believes they got screwed by naked short selling.
I need to read the motion to get a better idea of what happened.
Is the issue whether and how GS makes money from the practice of naked short selling? Maybe the issue is that feeding the market with info about short sales that are never actually cleared (but which the market assumes will be cleared), can destroy the value of a company's stock.
Obviously if you can sell something without ever having to own or deliver it (is that really a sale?), you can do a lot of selling; and you can exert considerable influence on the market for a stock.
Maybe what happened here is a company, Overstock, believes they got screwed by naked short selling.
I need to read the motion to get a better idea of what happened.