tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 11:00
- 6 of 26
BERLIN - German lawmakers on Friday approved a government bill that would cement in law and extend curbs on speculative trading practices following the country's abrupt imposition of restrictions in May.
The bill which the government said is aimed at speeding agreement on stronger European rules, but the opposition denounced as ineffective passed parliament's lower house with the votes of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right coalition.
Germany's regulator in May banned so-called naked short-selling of eurozone government debt and major financial stocks, as well as naked credit default swaps involving eurozone debt.
The legislation, which now goes to parliament's upper house, would extend the ban to all stocks traded on German exchanges.
The abrupt initial ban rattled financial markets, with analysts saying unilateral action by one government suggested lack of unity in combatting the market turmoil from Europe's government debt crisis.
Politicians and many others argue that markets' behavior worsened Europe's debt crisis. In Germany there have been increasing calls across the political spectrum for tougher regulation.
Gausie
- 02 Jul 2010 11:44
- 7 of 26
Oh dear.
Bans on short selling are entirely ineffective measures born out of desparation, failure to find a real solution, and the need to find a scapegoat. They usually indicate that far worse is about to come.
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 12:29
- 8 of 26
I would have thought an IMO was missing from the last post.
jkd
- 02 Jul 2010 12:48
- 9 of 26
"IMO"
also.
regards
jkd
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 13:03
- 10 of 26
JKD.the last poster stated his point as a matter of factno need for my IMOI started my sentenceI would have thought
There is a subtle differenceand being as you are so subtle????
Regards
T
jkd
- 02 Jul 2010 13:44
- 11 of 26
t
thanks for that, but just so as not to leave any doubt as to my own opinion i will state that i agree with gausie's original comment.he did state "usually" which suggests "not always" lighten up.sometimes we forget. anyway if you want to be so pedantic then just consider your own posts which dont add the rider IMO, and there are many, if not most.in fact i cant think of even one,but then i could be wrong. i often am.
regards
jkd
edit imo.-;)
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 14:14
- 12 of 26
Well of course you do JKDyou are a traderI could give you twenty or more names on here that also agree that point
I am an investor and could not careless if all traders developed rickets through insufficient exposure to sunlightin their dark little den causing their keyboard fingers to drop off.
I believe the World is getting wise to short sellingtime will tellbut Germany is a great start!!!
And I am as chilled as liquid hydrogen
Clubman3509
- 02 Jul 2010 14:20
- 13 of 26
Traders are like infections, they are everywhere but there is medicine out there to get rid of them.
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 14:23
- 14 of 26
Lets hope it taste like sh*t!
Clubman3509
- 02 Jul 2010 14:29
- 15 of 26
edited moneyam
Gausie
- 02 Jul 2010 15:07
- 16 of 26
Tabby
It's probably a bad idea for you to go out playing with the big boys. You'll end up in tears again.
In your opinion, was it the ban on shorting banks that saved them? Did it signal the end of the crisis? Was it shorting that caused the crisis in the first place?
Can you point to a single instance of a shorting ban that fixed an economic problem? I can point to a few that have failed.
Let's hear your pearls of wisdom.
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 15:23
- 17 of 26
I dont want to get in a heated debate with youbecause I simply dont like youyou have even fallen out with your old mate Haystacks.
But if the Holy Grail... Goldman Sachs were implicated and responsible for triggering Lehman Brothers downfall by shorting its rivals shares there is know hope for short selling. then there was CDOs it was designing and selling to its clients knowing they were highly risky. But rather than warning clients of the dangers Goldman spent millions of dollars "short-selling" the instruments having it off when they imploded.
it's easy to back a loser...look at you?
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 15:24
- 18 of 26
that's it bye bye!
Gausie
- 02 Jul 2010 15:45
- 19 of 26
Oh dear tabby - here we go again.
If you didn't want the debate then why open it?
Shorting shares before buying them to close is no different to when your beloved wife takes the punters' money before performing the oral service round the back of Rainham M&S.
As long as the shorter buys to close and as long as your mrs performs her obligation then everyone's happy.
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 15:57
- 20 of 26
I answered your questionwith the largest investment Bank on the planet as an example you had no answers and was rude as usual
Germany's financial markets regulator said it is banning naked short sellingas "excessive price movements" could endanger the stability of the financial systemthere own Deutsche Bank... Germany's largest bank and protected from the shorting of its shares after a government ban has a 1.5bn short position on the debt of Spanish and Portuguese companiesit dont take a full grown idiot to realise the harm short selling does
You obviously come below that threshold!!!
Gausie
- 02 Jul 2010 16:05
- 21 of 26
No hope for you tabby. You think Lehman was a perfectly good and viable bank that only got into trouble because another bank was shorting it? streuth!
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 16:06
- 22 of 26
Good answer...lol
Big Al
- 02 Jul 2010 16:10
- 23 of 26
"I am an investor"
And not a particularly good one. ;-)))
tabasco
- 02 Jul 2010 16:17
- 24 of 26
Good job I have both my team on todayracingfootball tennisAM nutters
Big Al
- 02 Jul 2010 17:42
- 25 of 26
Which one of the four mentioned comes under "both" ........................ or can you bloody count??
Rhetorical question. ;-0