You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SEC's Restrictive New Short Sale Proposal --- NOW is your only chance to influence it
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Quote from zdreg:
goldman was successful with HFT even when there was an uptick rule. HFT is on the way out. exemption from the uptick rule for market makers, arbitrage activity etc will be an annuity for GS.
HFT & program trading did benefit from the abolition of the uptick rule. Even retail automated systems did.
As for exemptions, you have to understand that there have always been ways to get around the uptick rule to the point where whole daytrader LLCs grew on it. Even the specialist who were supposedly regulated from doing so, took advantage of it with their buddies on the floor.
So complaining about these special exemptions is nonsensical.
I've traded with the uptick rule in the past, and if it's back, I say "Great!". I might be wrong in forecasting that there will be a worthwhile exploitable edge for the smaller daytrader, but it's definitely worth a look.
Quote from flytiger:
You might wish to read this. You won't see it in the MSM.
http://www.deepcapture.com/goldman-pillages-goldman-steals-goldman-sachs/
something has to change. The next time, and it's coming, Sam can't write a check.
Thank you for the informative link. I also find my resting heart rate elevated when i read this sort of thing.
Quote from ang_99:
Yeah, and the jews bombed the wtc. Enough with the conspiracy bullshit. Have you ever seen the overstock.com ceo, the guy is complete wack job.
I don't buy into conspiracy nonsense, not easily anyway. The problem is often what are facts and what are not, and what is being left out. If a person can get by that difficulty, then i think one has to go where the facts (once confirmed) lead.
The MM's argue that they need to be exempt from shorting restrictions to do their job. I have not seen good arguments against this, and the SEC uses language like "bona fide market making." But how will they enforce what is bona fide and what isn't? If they don't enforce there will be abuses aplenty..
We traders want few restrictions, or at least to be on a level field with the MM's. That the playing field can be absolutely level seems an impossibility, but certainly the job of the SEC should be to maintain the field as level as possible.
I'm more or less in the middle. I want to see the ban on naked shorting strongly enforced, but isn't it impractical to enforce it for legitimate short term MM activities. I mean, how does one do that without harming market liquidity?
I don't know for sure about the uptick rule, but i sure don't want to give up anything to the market makers. They already have huge advantages.
One thing missing from this debate seems to be good alternative ideas to those already proposed that would get runaway shorting under control and still allow for relatively unrestricted shorting in the normal course of trading.
I do really want to see abusive naked shorting brought to an end, regardless of what other measures are taken. There must be delivery, or the positions must be closed forthwith. No long term naked shorting without delivery, please!
Will those in this forum who have market making experience please step forward with some constructive proposals that will keep the playing field as level and as flexible as practicable.
Quote from piezoe:
I don't buy into conspiracy nonsense, not easily anyway. The problem is often what are facts and what are not, and what is being left out. If a person can get by that difficulty, then i think one has to go where the facts (once confirmed) lead.
The MM's argue that they need to be exempt from shorting restrictions to do their job. I have not seen good arguments against this, and the SEC uses language like "bona fide market making." But how will they enforce what is bona fide and what isn't? If they don't enforce there will be abuses aplenty..
We traders want few restrictions, or at least to be on a level field with the MM's. That the playing field can be absolutely level seems an impossibility, but certainly the job of the SEC should be to maintain the field as level as possible.
I'm more or less in the middle. I want to see the ban on naked shorting strongly enforced, but isn't it impractical to enforce it for legitimate short term MM activities. I mean, how does one do that without harming market liquidity?
I don't know for sure about the uptick rule, but i sure don't want to give up anything to the market makers. They already have huge advantages.
One thing missing from this debate seems to be good alternative ideas to those already proposed that would get runaway shorting under control and still allow for relatively unrestricted shorting in the normal course of trading.
I do really want to see abusive naked shorting brought to an end, regardless of what other measures are taken. There must be delivery, or the positions must be closed forthwith. No long term naked shorting without delivery, please!
Will those in this forum who have market making experience please step forward with some constructive proposals that will keep the playing field as level and as flexible as practicable.
Short-selling is an agreement between 2 market participants and it's none of the regulators business. By the same token they can ban the selling of stocks altogether.
you guys are easily deceived.
The talk of short selling (ban it, limit it, change it, whatever) is a SMOKESCREEN put up by SEC.
I repeat, the whole talk is a SMOKESCREEN.
SEC, as any other government agency, is to serve the influential. Who are the influential in the finance business?
So whatever SEC does, it creates, maintains or reinforces an UNEVEN playing field in favor of the influential.
The whole purpose of retail traders' fight in the past decades is totally lost in this meaningless debate on short sale: An EVEN PLAYING FIELD between retail traders and institutions.
Let's not forget that retail traders want an EVEN playing field. If SEC bans, restricts or expands short sale rule, it should cover EVERYONE, both retail traders and institutions (hedge funds, mutual funds, brokers, market makers of all colors and shapes, etc.).
Again, changing a rule is not a problem, it is the UNEVEN playing field that is the problem.
PS: On a level playing field, retaining or banning short selling both benefit retail traders. That's why some traders secretly enjoy the prospect of banning short sell. But let me remind you: SEC is not going to give retail traders the satisfaction of taking money from institutions easily. SEC is bound to create an UNEVEN playing field, so forget your secret joy.
The talk of short selling (ban it, limit it, change it, whatever) is a SMOKESCREEN put up by SEC.
I repeat, the whole talk is a SMOKESCREEN.
SEC, as any other government agency, is to serve the influential. Who are the influential in the finance business?
So whatever SEC does, it creates, maintains or reinforces an UNEVEN playing field in favor of the influential.
The whole purpose of retail traders' fight in the past decades is totally lost in this meaningless debate on short sale: An EVEN PLAYING FIELD between retail traders and institutions.
Let's not forget that retail traders want an EVEN playing field. If SEC bans, restricts or expands short sale rule, it should cover EVERYONE, both retail traders and institutions (hedge funds, mutual funds, brokers, market makers of all colors and shapes, etc.).
Again, changing a rule is not a problem, it is the UNEVEN playing field that is the problem.
PS: On a level playing field, retaining or banning short selling both benefit retail traders. That's why some traders secretly enjoy the prospect of banning short sell. But let me remind you: SEC is not going to give retail traders the satisfaction of taking money from institutions easily. SEC is bound to create an UNEVEN playing field, so forget your secret joy.
Quote from gkishot:
Short-selling is an agreement between 2 market participants and it's none of the regulators business. By the same token they can ban the selling of stocks altogether.
I have no problem with short selling as long as it involves a minimum of 3 participants. The one who sells the stock, the one who buys it, and the one who loans it. I have a BIG problem with the kind of short selling that involves only two market participants!!!