3 ms·
Should have a [2005] in the title. This is probably showing up on HN because naked short selling is topical, but the information in the article might be mislead
by fractionalhare 6y ago
Should have a [2005] in the title. This is probably showing up on HN because naked short selling is topical, but the information in the article might be misleading if it's out of date.
- cheschire 6y agoHonestly when I saw this link prior to the edit it was less interesting due to how topical it was. Now it’s more interesting and carries an historical aspect.
- dalbasal 6y agoI expect that ongoing events are actually more historically significant than this one.
- dalbasal 6y agoThis is basically a crosspost from reddit. /wallstreetbets are, in their own insane way, doing research into the most extreme tactics that short sellers have employed in the past.. expecting the entire arsenal to be employed tomorrow when trading begins.
- airstrike 6y agoGood old DD
- dang 6y agoYear added. Thanks!