Thanks for posting that. Mostly I admire Cramer for sticking with his principles. Unfortunately he missed the main point for public consumption on this one. Of course buyers of both long and short interest were quite sophisticated. The point was that s______y shortable product itself should not have existed in the first place. If your one neighbour were allowed to and actually took out fire and life insurance on your property and family, and your other neighbour underwrote the insurance, would you sleep at night ? I don't think so, and obviously no one would knowingly allow it to happen . Cramer's similar logic here would support unrestricted shorting regardless of the invitation to fraud and manipulation that creates.

Here is an iconic and powerful corporation, with very special rights and privileges to borrow from the public and the Fed , using its position to create fundamentally anti-social product not in the public interest. Someone should feel defrauded and it is likely the millions of poor suckers who were set up with unaffordable mortgages. There are times when only seeing the world through dollar signs can lead very bright people to rationalize very bad things.

The mortgage debtors should never have been exposed an iota to the possibility of a third party benefitting from their default. That was a fraud of the first order.