Comments on Brad Ginesin's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/brad-ginesin/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-448740 448740 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:40:34 -0400
G Clark]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-448664 448664 Brad - Are you talking your "book?" Sorry pal-game over. You now > how to work for a living instead of gaming the system. By the way > - what did you do prior to opening your hedge fund? > > Are you trying to tell us the uptick rule made the market function > poorly for 70 years? Is it a coincidence that the market fell apart > when the upticjk rule was banished and FAS 157 was implemented? > No. > > On the flip side - is it a coincidence that the S&P rallied 22% > after the gov't hinted that it would reinstate the uptick rule and > revaluate FAS 157? No. > > Enough said.]]> Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:18:20 -0400

On Mar 29 09:41 PM Sigmax wrote:

> Brad - Are you talking your "book?" Sorry pal-game over. You now
> how to work for a living instead of gaming the system. By the way
> - what did you do prior to opening your hedge fund?
>
> Are you trying to tell us the uptick rule made the market function
> poorly for 70 years? Is it a coincidence that the market fell apart
> when the upticjk rule was banished and FAS 157 was implemented?
> No.
>
> On the flip side - is it a coincidence that the S&P rallied 22%
> after the gov't hinted that it would reinstate the uptick rule and
> revaluate FAS 157? No.
>
> Enough said.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-446963 446963 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:43:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-445267 445267 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:00:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444607 444607 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:41:56 -0400
Are you trying to tell us the uptick rule made the market function poorly for 70 years? Is it a coincidence that the market fell apart when the upticjk rule was banished and FAS 157 was implemented? No.

On the flip side - is it a coincidence that the S&P rallied 22% after the gov't hinted that it would reinstate the uptick rule and revaluate FAS 157? No.

Enough said.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444578 444578 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:48:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444490 444490 trade on fundamentals, which is what "efficient pricing" is all about. Efficient pricing would put GM, Chrysler and Ford at zero. Sorry but the fundamental problem of the market is government regulation of mortgage interest deductions and retirement funds. If mortgages were not tax deductible then most people would pay of their homes prior to dumping money into unknown investment options. Then couple that with a tax break for saving for retirement, though not in your own company, has fueled unreasonable amounts of money being dumped into the markets. The whole problem lies in the financial sector and the governments desire to socially engineer the world. Regulation is a good thing, however, the uptick rule will have little effect on the whole of the situation. There are too many obligations the government must meet, high inflation are probably going to rule to roost for the United States. People just better get ready for it, as it is coming and gold and silver are dead assets so you better plan on how to combat the deteriorating purchasing power we will have in the United States and probably Europe as the rest of the world will probably not want to support will not want to support our lifestyles forever and they control most manufacturing today.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:44:17 -0400 > trade on fundamentals, which is what "efficient pricing" is all about.

Efficient pricing would put GM, Chrysler and Ford at zero.

Sorry but the fundamental problem of the market is government regulation of mortgage interest deductions and retirement funds. If mortgages were not tax deductible then most people would pay of their homes prior to dumping money into unknown investment options. Then couple that with a tax break for saving for retirement, though not in your own company, has fueled unreasonable amounts of money being dumped into the markets.

The whole problem lies in the financial sector and the governments desire to socially engineer the world.

Regulation is a good thing, however, the uptick rule will have little effect on the whole of the situation. There are too many obligations the government must meet, high inflation are probably going to rule to roost for the United States. People just better get ready for it, as it is coming and gold and silver are dead assets so you better plan on how to combat the deteriorating purchasing power we will have in the United States and probably Europe as the rest of the world will probably not want to support will not want to support our lifestyles forever and they control most manufacturing today.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444488 444488 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:42:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444476 444476 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:27:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444463 444463 Short selling forms the core of a price discovery engine that normally > acts to prevent a crash. When a stock declines rapidly, short interest > is the force that acts to slow the decline as short sellers buy to > cover and take profit. Anything that interferes with this process > causes a disorderly market and enhances downside risk. That said, > long selling is far more dangerous than short selling because long > sellers do not generate any buying pressure - they never reenter > the market to buy at a lower price. > > The uptick rule creates an asymmetric market because there is no > equivalent "downtick" rule to prevent large institutions from continually > buying large blocks of stock to drive the price up. The uptick rule, > therefore, should not be reinstated in the absence of an equivalent > rule that forces buyers to purchase on a downtick. Taken together, > both rules would wreak havoc and create a totally illiquid market. > reinstating the uptick rule creates half the problem.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:08:11 -0400

On Mar 29 04:17 PM JCA wrote:

> Short selling forms the core of a price discovery engine that normally
> acts to prevent a crash. When a stock declines rapidly, short interest
> is the force that acts to slow the decline as short sellers buy to
> cover and take profit. Anything that interferes with this process
> causes a disorderly market and enhances downside risk. That said,
> long selling is far more dangerous than short selling because long
> sellers do not generate any buying pressure - they never reenter
> the market to buy at a lower price.
>
> The uptick rule creates an asymmetric market because there is no
> equivalent "downtick" rule to prevent large institutions from continually
> buying large blocks of stock to drive the price up. The uptick rule,
> therefore, should not be reinstated in the absence of an equivalent
> rule that forces buyers to purchase on a downtick. Taken together,
> both rules would wreak havoc and create a totally illiquid market.
> reinstating the uptick rule creates half the problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444460 444460 People that do not own the stock should not be allowed to play. That's > like letting you in the card game with no money.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:04:49 -0400 If the investors think that the short-sellers drive the market down unduly so why they won't step up to the plate and start buying? Because they see no value in prices. The prices are going down because of the lack of buyers.

The market players should be able to play both sides of the market with no limitations.


On Mar 29 02:46 PM aspag wrote:

> People that do not own the stock should not be allowed to play. That's
> like letting you in the card game with no money.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444431 444431 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:17:48 -0400
One other point on short sellers. Some of the spikes in the oil price last summer were caused by large numbers of short sellers having to cover their position. They lost a lot of money, but they also created the false perception that the high prices were economically justified, which disrupted the market to everyone's disadvantage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444423 444423 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:18 -0400
I agree with you. Require all shorts be covered by the broker. That is presumably the law, but the law is apparently ignored by some (or many).

My broker does not allow naked shorting, at least for me. I was forced out of several positions last fall when I was unable to short against the box to protect long-term gains because my broker quoted "No shares available for shorting". This was inspite of my owning the exact number of shares I wanted to short.

I was particularly unhappy to sell and pay capital gains taxes on several stocks I wanted continue to hold but did not want to risk short-term losses. The premiums for puts were much higher than I wanted to pay.

So I sold, paid a big tax bill and bought a couple back a few weeks ago. This was not the most efficient way for me to have managed my portfolio.

The one exception to "naked shorting" prohibition should be allowed for shorting against the box, with a restriction on the broker to cover with the next available shares before allowing covered shorting by someone else.

MCS:

I believe brokerages allow the restriction against shorting. Most investors either do not know about that or don't care.

Berninvestor and JCA:

You make some very good points. I have one caveat: I don't think someone shorting against the box should pay a tax penalty.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444383 444383 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:17:04 -0400
The uptick rule creates an asymmetric market because there is no equivalent "downtick" rule to prevent large institutions from continually buying large blocks of stock to drive the price up. The uptick rule, therefore, should not be reinstated in the absence of an equivalent rule that forces buyers to purchase on a downtick. Taken together, both rules would wreak havoc and create a totally illiquid market. reinstating the uptick rule creates half the problem.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444372 444372 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:02:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444350 444350 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:34:46 -0400
Let each margin account specify by stock whether they would allow their street name share to be lent to the shorts. This would be on a stock by stock election. Moreover compensate the lender for the activity in addition to the broker.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444297 444297 Why the regulators are trying to control of the stock market? Volatility > brings the opportunities for the traders as well as for the investors. > People who are afraid of the market's volatility should stay away > from it and invest in something less volatile like bonds.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:46:22 -0400

On Mar 29 12:11 PM Baboon wrote:

> Why the regulators are trying to control of the stock market? Volatility
> brings the opportunities for the traders as well as for the investors.
> People who are afraid of the market's volatility should stay away
> from it and invest in something less volatile like bonds.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444276 444276 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:35:05 -0400
Your article is quite self-serving and you are part of the problem that uptick-type rules are designed to protect us from.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444275 444275 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:34:53 -0400 That's also what these dangerous times call out for: More responsibility by everyone.
I also think longinvestor is onto something:
Taxing short-sellers more than long-term
investors. After all, there is already an incentive for having long-term gains. Why not institite a "short-selling" tax? This might encourage investors to think long-term.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444223 444223 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:49:08 -0400
TaurusTrader
www.taurustrader.wordp...
www.headhurts.wordpres...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444162 444162 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:17:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444151 444151 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:09:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444135 444135 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:04:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444129 444129 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:59:05 -0400
I had no idea this column was a comic's column. So, the author likes not having the uptick rule. Really? Funnnnnnneeeee. Thanks for giving all some comic relief from the current market conditions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444122 444122 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:53:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444120 444120 We need responsible financial people to speak out more on the purpose > of the stock market. Is the market's primary purpose for long term > steady growth of the economy for the general good or is it for people > to compete in speculative manner for personal profit? One may argue > that each person should try to profit as much as possible for oneself; > but the unlimited tendency for personal profit is similar to the > unlimited tendency for excessive salaries and bonuses regardless > of the consequences for the companies and for all the stake holders. > > > A lot of common sense restrictions on banks and financial institutions > had been relaxed and conveniently forgotten, when people focus on > profit taking for themselves. We need efficiency for long term sustainable > growth of the economy more than for short term un-sustainable speculative > profit taking. > > The people in the financial industry has the responsibility to build > trust back into the capital system and has the obligation to take > all efforts to guard against unfair advantage over the less knowing > public by making the system easy prey for un-ethical profit taking. > We should hear about ethical discussions in the financial circle > as much as in other circles such as in political, social, medical, > engineering, etc. Let's talk about social responsibility.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:51:40 -0400 For you professionals and day traders it wont be liked because you can not sell short to HELL!!
For us peasants that invest for the future you have turned us away. WE can not play the market hourly or daily. SO< selling short without a uptick just lets YOU run wild.
The stock market started as a investment tool NOT a short term INCOME TOOL for Hedgefunds, day traders, you and the like.
You have forced millions of little people out of the market.
Watch the increase in small investor purchases after the market settles down and the uptick rule is back in force.

YES, I should know.
Have always been self employed and invested MYSELF since 1981
Jim J.


On Mar 29 12:36 PM Responsibility wrote:

> We need responsible financial people to speak out more on the purpose
> of the stock market. Is the market's primary purpose for long term
> steady growth of the economy for the general good or is it for people
> to compete in speculative manner for personal profit? One may argue
> that each person should try to profit as much as possible for oneself;
> but the unlimited tendency for personal profit is similar to the
> unlimited tendency for excessive salaries and bonuses regardless
> of the consequences for the companies and for all the stake holders.
>
>
> A lot of common sense restrictions on banks and financial institutions
> had been relaxed and conveniently forgotten, when people focus on
> profit taking for themselves. We need efficiency for long term sustainable
> growth of the economy more than for short term un-sustainable speculative
> profit taking.
>
> The people in the financial industry has the responsibility to build
> trust back into the capital system and has the obligation to take
> all efforts to guard against unfair advantage over the less knowing
> public by making the system easy prey for un-ethical profit taking.
> We should hear about ethical discussions in the financial circle
> as much as in other circles such as in political, social, medical,
> engineering, etc. Let's talk about social responsibility.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444096 444096 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:36:23 -0400
A lot of common sense restrictions on banks and financial institutions had been relaxed and conveniently forgotten, when people focus on profit taking for themselves. We need efficiency for long term sustainable growth of the economy more than for short term un-sustainable speculative profit taking.

The people in the financial industry has the responsibility to build trust back into the capital system and has the obligation to take all efforts to guard against unfair advantage over the less knowing public by making the system easy prey for un-ethical profit taking. We should hear about ethical discussions in the financial circle as much as in other circles such as in political, social, medical, engineering, etc. Let's talk about social responsibility.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444078 444078 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:22:58 -0400
The real solution deals with ELIMINATING SHARES-NOT-DELIVERED! Hedge Funds can SHORT "without first Borrowing shares"...........prom... to borrow within 3 days..... Then not being prosecuted for never borrowing!!!!!!!!!
Anybody want to speculate on how many Hundreds of Millions of Phantom shares exist because of Naked Shorting!!!!!!!!! An SEC secret!!!!!!!!! Wall Street's next SCANDAL OF GREED...........
The very essence of SHORTING is in the original law, which the SEC changed to accommodate Wall Street GREED!!!!!!!
SOLUTION = NO CONFIRMATION FOR A SHORT SALE WITHOUT FIRST BORROWING THE SHARES.......... PERIOD
Problem solved!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMHO]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444066 444066 'combatting bear raids on stocks' - that's the whole idea.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:11:50 -0400

On Mar 29 11:56 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> 'combatting bear raids on stocks' - that's the whole idea.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128355-the-up-tick-rule-reimplementation-is-bad-for-markets?source=feed#comment-444039 444039 jack]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:56:39 -0400 > jack]]>