"IMO"
also.
regards
jkd

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

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.-;)

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

Traders are like infections, they are everywhere but there is medicine out there to get rid of them.

Lets hope it taste like sh*t!

edited moneyam

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.

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?

that's it bye bye!

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.

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!!!

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!

Good answer...lol

"I am an investor"


And not a particularly good one. ;-)))

Good job I have both my team on todayracingfootball tennisAM nutters

Which one of the four mentioned comes under "both" ........................ or can you bloody count??

Rhetorical question. ;-0

Hysterical writer.