The Chinese market is also mostly made up of small retail traders, unlike fallstreet where the big money controls the action. The uptick rule was there for a reason to begin with, and of all the times to remove it they do it right as a major global financial meltdown is about to occur. If that doesn't make you stop for a minute and think about corruption then I don't know what would.
The Uptick Rule - Your Thoughts
- Thread starter tomahawk
- Start date
The Chinese market is also mostly made up of small retail traders, unlike fallstreet where the big money controls the action. The uptick rule was there for a reason to begin with, and of all the times to remove it they do it right as a major global financial meltdown is about to occur. If that doesn't make you stop for a minute and think about corruption then I don't know what would.
I believe she used the phrase 'emperical data'. The problem is, she has no emperical data that says it is not either.
Political pressure, circumstance, what ever you choose. There has been no real study out that looked at the isolated cases and determined the impact on the lack of an uptick rule since it was repealed.
I don't disagree which is why it is so confusing to see so many short interest funds coming out condeming this move. James Chanos and Richard Baker are already out on a full PR campaign with all sorts of rhetoric about how this single change will impact short selling and market price efficiencies forever. Funny how before last year they had an Uptick rule and they never once complained about it.
In a messy complex problem, you need to isolate the suspected issues in order to figure out where the root cause of the problem. However, the way law makers are questioning whether Uptick Rule could have significant weight mean that they still haven't figured out yet what was really the problem that made banks became zombie.
The sad part about these stupid "law makers" is many of them actually believe the market fell more because of the absence of the no-uptick rule.
What good did the rule do back in 1987 when the market collapsed *huge* in 1 day?
It seems the dumb bagholders prefer to bleed a slow agonizing death as opposed to a quick stab!
What good did the rule do back in 1987 when the market collapsed *huge* in 1 day?
It seems the dumb bagholders prefer to bleed a slow agonizing death as opposed to a quick stab!
They haven't figured it out because they are short the talent to research it. there have been many accusations lobbied but only surface data presented. The SEC hasn't the skills or the desire to do a deep dive into the data to go well below surface information.
The real emperical data involve trade tickets and verifications. It requires a staff to select certain specific markets and break them down by trade and circumstance. Why did fails rise? To what extent was short selling or market making participating in the slide? Did the short sale initiate a slide or a radical change in the markets or did it follow the markets? To what extend did short sales block out the long sales during the free fall? Unless the SEC understands this they can not say for sure whether they had no impact, little impact, or a major impact.
The SEC chooses not to run such a study because it is difficult. So instead the SEC manifactures results by looking at a global picture and averaging the numbers out like that is how a market works.
