Analysts and Manipulation | Forex Factory

Options

Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Broker's Feed Manipulation??? 54 replies

Forex manipulation and how to take advantage of it 15 replies

Price manipulation and SL hunting 31 replies

Broker Price Manipulation? 35 replies

EURO Manipulation - Call the cops 12 replies

Analysts and Manipulation

  • #1
  • First Post: Mar 11, 2009 6:53pm Mar 11, 2009 6:53pm
There was some brief discussion over CW's thread about CNBC and analysts. I don't know who all has ran into this particular video, but it's very telling...

Linky:
Inserted Video


Jim Cramer discusses how he uses a combination of market manipulation and news sources to create a "fiction" about the market in order to drive price.

Yet for some reason people still trade off analyst advice. Amazing...
  • #2
  • Mar 11, 2009 7:22pm Mar 11, 2009 7:22pm
ah Mr. Cramer.

You know, there's another way - plain naked short selling. Take the little guy and dump his shares to the ground - then let the shares blow themselves up n' smoke. Well, at least when I was on the pits, that practice was on style.

That's cruel. It's illegal. But the cat (SEC) is asleep so, the rats will keep on digging the cheese...yipee!
Peace
  • #3
  • Mar 11, 2009 7:49pm Mar 11, 2009 7:49pm
Yeh, naked shorting needs fixed.
  • #4
  • Mar 11, 2009 8:23pm Mar 11, 2009 8:23pm
Quoting Rabid
Yeh, naked shorting needs fixed.
are you serious or is this a stupid joke ?
  • #5
  • Mar 11, 2009 9:13pm Mar 11, 2009 9:13pm
Quote
are you serious or is this a stupid joke ?
LOL. A bit of both.

From a "more serious" point of view, the practice of selling shares that haven't actually been borrowed (aka naked shorting) has traditionally been illegal. Late 2008 the SEC gave a stern face and declared a little war on naked shorts, but they aren't very good at policing it. Never have been. The practice continues in the dark.

The reason it's dangerous is clear if you think about it. They're selling stock that may or may not actually exist. Being able to sell more stock than actually exists means that nobody can buy enough stock to balance out the fall. Anyone that goes long will just get pushed below their SL, and eventually make the problem worse. So people steer clear.

You have people, like Cramer (see the video) that openly suggest breaking SEC rules in order to move the market. It's sad how lax enforcement of these rules is. It's even sadder that people listen to news shows and analysts when they're only a tool for those manipulating the markets.
  • #6
  • Mar 11, 2009 9:21pm Mar 11, 2009 9:21pm
Quoting Rabid
LOL. A bit of both.

From a "more serious" point of view, the practice of selling shares that haven't actually been borrowed (aka naked shorting) has traditionally been illegal. Late 2008 the SEC gave a stern face and declared a little war on naked shorts, but they aren't very good at policing it. Never have been. The practice continues in the dark.

The reason it's dangerous is clear if you think about it. They're selling stock that may or may not actually exist. Being able to sell more stock than actually exists means that nobody can buy enough...
Cramer is known as a idiot and bad stock picker or maybe good enough for the moms and dads only. well as for manipulation of the market , every press conference or any other news form a corporate can be considered as a such, as for naked shorting i do support it, ok then make the market more transparent if you feel it is not so, how you do it ?

peace
  • #7
  • Last Post: Mar 11, 2009 9:31pm Mar 11, 2009 9:31pm
Quote
Cramer is known as a idiot and bad stock picker or maybe good enough for the moms and dads only. well as for manipulation of the market , every press conference or any other news form a corporate can be considered as a such, as for naked shorting i do support it, ok then make the market more transparent if you feel it is not so, how you do it ?

When people portray themselves as analysts and give recommendations, they're putting themselves in the position of advisor. A person who's in an advisory role really shouldn't allow such conflicts of interest. Unfortunately they do. This isn't news really, it's been doing on for hundreds of years, but how many people do you think have bought based on these recommendations?

Buyer beware, I suppose. It's amazing to me tho that people keep making these same mistakes.

Naked shorting isn't something to be supported. Allowing anyone to short a security they can't actually borrow first means allowing them to borrow something that doesn't exist. It means that with enough money a short seller can always drive the market, regardless of the number of buyers out there.

That's not healthy for the markets. It should be banned. Nothing about transparency there, people that practice it should be fined an amount equal to the amount of money they made. Easy fix.
0 traders viewing now