BlackBerry Ltd T.BB

Naked Shorting

[NorthOntKid]

The real problem is Naked Shorting by the "Big Boys" (the brokerage firms and the hedge  funds).They sell shares which they haven't borrowed, driving the price down all day long and then they buy back the shares at the end of the day at a much lower price to cover their selling at a much higher price and pocketing a profit. This is not legal but it happens every day!
It happened to BB on Friday. Why was BB down at the end of the day when all the American company's that Robinhood and Reddit were promoting were up?
The answer is Wall Steet doesn't like Candian company's even though BB has better fundamentals than the other American company's that Reddit is promoting to buy.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that there are days when 60-70% of the trading on BB is between a major Canadian brokerage firm and Anonymous? Who is Anonymous? 
 We the "Little Guys" need more transparency!
Email IIROC. I do on a regular basis.You should too.
.

[Hedgetrimmer]

  Good question. I've thought about it many times and after talking 'naked shorting' earlier today I've come to the conclusion that for the most part, anonymous simply doesn't exist as a person. I'm thinking now that anonymous is a naked short selling entity who's hitting the sell button without an actual order. I dug a little deeper and discovered the TSX

[blackhawk562]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[Hedgetrimmer]

I believe illegal in USA.  

[blackhawk562]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[Hedgetrimmer]

Won't get an argument from me. Do you want a share of the Hedge Funds profit or if you have shares in a margin account would you like part of the fee brokerages charge short sellers to borrow. As Nakate pointed out yesterday, technically the brokerage is a co-owner for the latter. Maybe at the end of the day everyone should put their stake for sale @ $100 and if by chance it gets there before

[NorthOntKid]

Yup, you should if you want to take on the risk but that's not how it works. You should also know that the brokerage firm earns fees from lending your shares out. Nice gig if you can get it. 

[NorthOntKid]

Yup, you should if you want to take on the risk but that@s not how it works. You should also know that the brokerage firm earns fees from lending your shares out. Nice gig if you can get it.@

[VENMan]

HT, Anonymous is a Sub-Company of the Brokerage Firm. I could be wrong but I could be right! Think about that! A Brokerage firm is selling to a Sub-Company they may own! In this example the only thing that would change is the value of the shares but the total shares they own would remain the same. Not saying it's happening just saying what IF! All IMO! food for thought, GLTA! anda alway DYODD!

[Nakate]

anon is basically a brokerage option provided by the exchanges for a fee of course to facilitate anonymous trading for brokerages that want to keep there name out of it or by smaller brokerages that don't own a seat on the exchange. A broker can trade though any house for a fee but usually stick with there own to maximize returns.  The industry sells  "product" for a

[NorthOntKid]

Why do they want to keep their name out of it if what they are doing is above board? We need more tranparency in the markkets, not more secrecy.BTW I am not a bagholder.

[konaguy]

Though gargantuan compared to the last 7 years, the volume on Friday was EXTREMELY low  compared to the last 6 or 7 days.  And the shares dropped with this mucho volume.  The prediction has always been by the cheap seats,  huge volume, SP going north. .  I can't seem to reconcile what happened Friday.  400 million one day, less than a million 2 days later.?!?!##%*