Monday, September 22, 2008
Diamond Hill Opts Out of SEC List of "Protected" Firms!!
If I am understanding this NASDAQ announcement correctly, it is the coolest thing I have heard in a while. Apparently
If this announcement is legit, I bet it won't last. After all, the other relatively safe firms could take themselves off the list, so that the remaining ones look unsafe. This defeats the whole (ostensible) purpose of the SEC ban. So I think they are going to say DHIL isn't allowed to invite short selling of its stock. If people can't decide whether to use heroin, they obviously can't be trusted to decide whether to take the SEC's offer of a ban on short selling.
(HT2 Tim Swanson.)
NASDAQ issuer Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (DHIL) has voluntarily opted-out of NASDAQ's list of Covered Securities under the SEC's Emergency Order. Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. will not be subject to the restrictions of the Emergency Order.
If this announcement is legit, I bet it won't last. After all, the other relatively safe firms could take themselves off the list, so that the remaining ones look unsafe. This defeats the whole (ostensible) purpose of the SEC ban. So I think they are going to say DHIL isn't allowed to invite short selling of its stock. If people can't decide whether to use heroin, they obviously can't be trusted to decide whether to take the SEC's offer of a ban on short selling.
(HT2 Tim Swanson.)
Comments:
Do you kind of see a parallel to the debates about privacy? There's the argument, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of [from new intrusive policy X]."
Here we have, "If you're solvent, you have nothing to be afraid of by opting out of the list."
And just as some believe non-consent to search implies guilt, non-opting out of the list implies...
Here we have, "If you're solvent, you have nothing to be afraid of by opting out of the list."
And just as some believe non-consent to search implies guilt, non-opting out of the list implies...
Right, except of course that here the government is interfering in the opposite direction. It would be as if the government forbade insurance companies from taking a urine sample from people before writing a policy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]