B A R R Y wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman
what
with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get?

From a non-paritisan standpoint:

In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

These should be re-regulated.

I'm about as anti regulation as you get, and I at least partly agree
with you. The idea of naked shorting seems to be the ultimate
ponzi scheme to me. It distorts the financial reality of the markets
by trading "value" that doesn't even exist. On its face, it sure
feels like a scam to me ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/