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.
The Uptick Rule - Your Thoughts
- Thread starter tomahawk
- Start date
Quote from kevin107:
A downtick rule is not going to happen. But it would only be fair if they reinstate the uptick rule to fill all buy to cover orders before filling any buy to open orders at a given price.
Probably right. They don't want the market to be "gunned" to the downside, but if done to the upside, Viola!
Quote from CET:
The SEC commissioner said she does not see evidence that the uptick rule is meaningful. This comment period is for show. The only way it gets reinstated is because of political pressure.
There's plenty political pressure. The SEC understands that the rule is bullshit. It doesn't really want to re-instate it.
However, it's under an incredible amount of pressure from the cesspit of morons on capital hill and from bankers. I think the SEC is trying to find an alternative that will do as little damage as possible and satisfy the halfwits in congress.
Anytime you get the government involved in making trading decisions its a bad idea.
Quote from canuckrookie:
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 chinese market allowed shorting for the first time in history right in the middle of the meltdown.
There was no way for the SEC to know that we were headed into a major meltdown. If they did, they would have all quit and became traders, retiring to untold riches right about now. Even if they did miraculously know, the uptick rule wouldn't have stopped the meltdown - as it didn't in 1987 and 2000.
From bankers? Thats tell, here could be the reason behind...
Dear Customers,
The risk of collapsing wasn't due to our false that we had been gambling on mortgage backed securities, but it was due to the SEC faulty rule. Now the good rule is back and you are reassured.
Thank you for your understanding.
--
Your Trusted Bank
Dear Customers,
The risk of collapsing wasn't due to our false that we had been gambling on mortgage backed securities, but it was due to the SEC faulty rule. Now the good rule is back and you are reassured.
Thank you for your understanding.
--
Your Trusted Bank
Quote from Angrycat:
it's under an incredible amount of pressure from the cesspit of morons on capital hill and from bankers.
Quote from patchie:
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.
Patchie, you demand rigorous empirical data to remove the uptick rule.
Where's the rigorous empirical data to support the need for one?
If there's no data for one, then how do you justify putting in place such a market manipulation?
The rule won't stop prices going down and going down fast because there's tons of academic research showing that lack of demand, not short selling, drives down price. However, it is yet another hurdle for traders and other exchanges in developed countries don't have short sale price tests. Combined with Sarb-Ox, it'll do its part to drive even more listing and trading off American exchanges and suck liquidity out of the U.S. markets. That's the real damage of the uptick rule.
Quote from patchie:
Angrycat - stay angry.
You clearly miss the point. There is a 70 year history in having one and one year without it. the year without it was - Chaotic from all sides of the fence.
Patchie,
There are hundreds of years of stock market history before the uptick was a gleam in anyone's eye.
There was no rigorous empirical research to justify putting it in place,
There was no rigorous empirical research on its effect when it was in place.
Why are you insisting on rigorous empirical research for its removal?
On what JUSTIFIABLE grounds do you insist rigorous empirical research only the for the removal but not for the implementation? "We had it for 70 years" is very poor reasoning and even poorer grounds.