SEC may Reinstate Uptick Rule

bevo,

Fair enough. As I said, the uptick rule is mostly a psychological/symbolic measure anyway.

Quote from bevo96:

MK,

I have to respectfully disagree here. I think the perception of fair value is different from actual fair value in these cases. If you have a company that is actually making a REAL NET profit then at some price money is willing to come in and buy that series of cash flows, taking the company private if need be. If a company is highly levered in a low margin business and the stock price triggers debt covenants, then I can see where there is a problem. This is the risk you take by employing leverage in a low margin space.

I am not saying that naked short selling, in excess of the outstanding should be tolerated at all. The SEC should focus their energies on enforcing borrows and deliveries instead of this Cramer driven "witch hunt" of the up-tick rule. We all know the real players will either be exempt or use other methods to circumvent the rule anyways. Why artifically influence the market mechanism to appease people who think short selling downticks is the reason their stocks are down, not the change in the present value of future cash flows.
 
Quote from lolatBushites:

The uptick rule should never have been eliminated in the first place.

It's yet another FUCK BUSH moment.

If bush voters have their way and there is another bush in office, given enough time, the imbecile will remove traffic lights. They want us to go back to how they operate on their farm. Hand signals for everyone.

With all his deregulation nonsense, how did bush manage to explode the size of the govt. bureaucracy? Yet another bush wonder.

Wrong Forum Comrade.
 
Quote from ang_99:

Honestly, I don't see how they can do this logistically.

Penny spreads, 500 trades a second.

Its a stupid, pointless idea.

They can't. None of the exchanges have the capability to implement it. If it comes back, the process will take a long long time and there will be a billion ways to get around it.
 
Quote from coolice:

The uptick rule should have never been applied. Naked shortselling policy must be enforced as much as possible. The uptick rule provided an unfair unnatural advantage for the market to move higher for many decades after 1930. By eliminating the uptick rule the market has to find the new equilibrium of short sand long positions even if it means a much lower level for the indexes and equities. Finally electronic trading alongside with the elimination of the uptick rule will make the market more efficient and fair than ever it has been before.

I agree with everything you said except the naked short selling bit.

If the logic of disallowing naked short selling is that it exceeds the float, then we should also disallow commodity futures because the number of obligations to deliver outstrips the supply of (insert your favourite commodity here) at any given time.

In addition, to discharge their duties as market makers & specialists, this group is allowed to short naked and always has been. So, all disallowing naked short selling really does is decide WHO gets to short. It puts the customer at a disadvantage relative to the MM & Specialist, much like the uptick rule.
 
Quote from Angrycat:

I agree with everything you said except the naked short selling bit.

If the logic of disallowing naked short selling is that it exceeds the float, then we should also disallow commodity futures because the number of obligations to deliver outstrips the supply of (insert your favourite commodity here) at any given time.

In addition, to discharge their duties as market makers & specialists, this group is allowed to short naked and always has been. So, all disallowing naked short selling really does is decide WHO gets to short. It puts the customer at a disadvantage relative to the MM & Specialist, much like the uptick rule.

(Hmm. Good point...)
 
Quote from dtrader98:

Notice the 80A collar rule was put in place as a protection mechanism as a direct result of the 87 crash.

Guess what other rule was simultaneously removed right before this debacle?

Couldn't have picked a better combination to exasperate a crash if you wanted to.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.:D

Bingo!
We have a Winner here!
:)
 
Well the big meeting is tomorrow. Here is what they will be discussing. Doesn't sound too promising...

U.S. SEC to consider about 4 short sale proposals - Reuters.com

Reuters.com reports U.S. securities regulators will consider about 4 proposals to restrict short selling, a type of investing blamed for accelerating the severe downturn in financial services stocks. Proposals the SEC will consider at its Wednesday meeting include the restoration of the "uptick rule," which allowed short sales -- a bet that a stock's price will fall -- only when the last sale price was higher than the previous price, the chief of the SEC said. "We are going to put forward about four different proposals, and one of them does include the original (uptick rule)," SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro told reporters. "There are different modified versions because the markets have changed a lot, even since 2007." Schapiro said other proposals on the table include a so-called "bid test" and a "circuit breaker." One source familiar with the matter said the SEC bid test proposal would only allow shorting at a price above the highest available bid. The SEC also is crafting two circuit breaker proposals: One would temporarily halt short sales of a stock if the stock has already fallen by a certain percentage, the source said. The other would trigger the application of an uptick rule or bid test after the price of a stock experienced a decline by a certain percentage, such as 10%, the source said.
 
Quote from Angrycat:

I agree with everything you said except the naked short selling bit.

If the logic of disallowing naked short selling is that it exceeds the float, then we should also disallow commodity futures because the number of obligations to deliver outstrips the supply of (insert your favourite commodity here) at any given time.

In addition, to discharge their duties as market makers & specialists, this group is allowed to short naked and always has been. So, all disallowing naked short selling really does is decide WHO gets to short. It puts the customer at a disadvantage relative to the MM & Specialist, much like the uptick rule.

First off, the margin requirements that would trigger position liquidation are much lower for the futures than for the stocks. Secondly, the naked short selling should be banned for all participants including market makers.
 
Quote from Landis82:

I don't believe that these studies ( or at least some of the ones that I took a look at ) covered the effect of ETF's on the market.

And from a purely subjective point of you, I think that one could easily argue that the stock market has frequently had days where the market collapses triple digits into the close (ie. the last 7 minutes of trading) . . . which I would argue would not be the case if you were not allowed to simply "machine-gun" down the bids.

For me, it's really about slowing down the VELOCITY of the market.

re:velocity

exactly. the politicians and the masses prefer a long lingering pain to a quick sharp pain. one of the purposes of markets is price discovery which the above mentioned and of late many ET posters are clueless about.
 
Back
Top