Comments on: Bring back the uptick rule http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/03/23/bring-back-the-uptick-rule/ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:26:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: LG http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/03/23/bring-back-the-uptick-rule/#comment-314327 LG Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:35:28 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/03/23/bring-back-the-uptick-rule/#comment-314327 First of all id like to say that the post by "gs" is completely wrong and it sounds to me like gs works for the SEC....look at the decline since that confident post in March....its all about the uptick rule and the u.s government must seize the SEC with the F.B.I (at gun point if nessessary)to stop this mass nationwide scandal led by Christopher Cox and the SEC. First of all id like to say that the post by “gs” is completely wrong and it sounds to me like gs works for the SEC….look at the decline since that confident post in March….its all about the uptick rule and the u.s government must seize the SEC with the F.B.I (at gun point if nessessary)to stop this mass nationwide scandal led by Christopher Cox and the SEC.

]]> By: gs http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/03/23/bring-back-the-uptick-rule/#comment-302778 gs Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:40:22 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/03/23/bring-back-the-uptick-rule/#comment-302778 IMHO the real malefactors have been the investment banks that fabricated toxic mortgage securities and the rating agencies that issued investment-grade ratings. IMHO most stock manipulation is done to get the public to buy: in many cases, I suspect, done by the very investment banks that created CMOs. Selling short should be regulated along with the rest of the market, but it shouldn't be turned into a scapegoat. What are Cramer's proposals for rectifying the underlying abuses in the mortgage mess? When short selling was mentioned previously at Dinocrat, I <a href="http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/11/10/bear-raids-appear-to-be-back/#comment-302112" rel="nofollow">commented</a>:<blockquote>Iirc the SEC prefaced the rule change with a crackdown on naked shorting, i.e. shorting a stock which one has not borrowed. Iirc an SEC motivation was to treat buyers and sellers evenhandedly. Conceivably it would also be evenhanded to restore the uptick rule and disallow leveraged purchases except after a downtick. I dunno. The NYSE and Nasdaq have circuit breakers: trading will be paused or halted if the market drops too much too fast.</blockquote>My opinion on another <a href="http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2008/01/25/some-numbers-of-concern-2/#comment-302345" rel="nofollow">occasion</a> was that much of the current mess is due to the lack of transparency (and that regulation can stifle the formation of competitors to the entrenched big players). Certainly the SEC should be monitoring how uptick-free short selling is going in a declining market, but I see no immediate reason to retreat from my previous remarks. ********* I have to think more about this sentence in the post:<blockquote>Why make it any easier for computerized bear raids on shares that profit traders but do no one else any good at all?</blockquote>Who is qualified to discern the distinction between trading profits and social utility? IMHO the real malefactors have been the investment banks that fabricated toxic mortgage securities and the rating agencies that issued investment-grade ratings. IMHO most stock manipulation is done to get the public to buy: in many cases, I suspect, done by the very investment banks that created CMOs. Selling short should be regulated along with the rest of the market, but it shouldn’t be turned into a scapegoat. What are Cramer’s proposals for rectifying the underlying abuses in the mortgage mess?

When short selling was mentioned previously at Dinocrat, I commented:

Iirc the SEC prefaced the rule change with a crackdown on naked shorting, i.e. shorting a stock which one has not borrowed. Iirc an SEC motivation was to treat buyers and sellers evenhandedly. Conceivably it would also be evenhanded to restore the uptick rule and disallow leveraged purchases except after a downtick. I dunno.

The NYSE and Nasdaq have circuit breakers: trading will be paused or halted if the market drops too much too fast.

My opinion on another occasion was that much of the current mess is due to the lack of transparency (and that regulation can stifle the formation of competitors to the entrenched big players).

Certainly the SEC should be monitoring how uptick-free short selling is going in a declining market, but I see no immediate reason to retreat from my previous remarks.
*********
I have to think more about this sentence in the post:

Why make it any easier for computerized bear raids on shares that profit traders but do no one else any good at all?

Who is qualified to discern the distinction between trading profits and social utility?

]]>