This article is quite biased. There are a few problems with it:
1- The stock market should not kill a healthy company. Sure, it can affect its money raising capabilities (and maybe hiring) but it should not drive it out of business.
2- Naked Short-sellers still have to pay interest and dividend on their sold shares. This would create a certain equilibrium. If you nake-shorted a company at x2 its value, you suddenly doubled its profit; and that's being paid by the short-sellers. Profit (dividend) gives a reason to investor to hold on that stock; which brings us to point
3- Naked short-selling is probably done on very short time frames that doesn't extend between quarterly dividend payments. The company is probably going under anyway.
1- The stock market should not kill a healthy company. Sure, it can affect its money raising capabilities (and maybe hiring) but it should not drive it out of business.
2- Naked Short-sellers still have to pay interest and dividend on their sold shares. This would create a certain equilibrium. If you nake-shorted a company at x2 its value, you suddenly doubled its profit; and that's being paid by the short-sellers. Profit (dividend) gives a reason to investor to hold on that stock; which brings us to point
3- Naked short-selling is probably done on very short time frames that doesn't extend between quarterly dividend payments. The company is probably going under anyway.