STFU....YOU VE NEVER TRADED AN EQUITY IN YOUR LIFE!!!SOMEONE BLOCK HIS IP FROM POSTING UNDER THIS ID AND STOCKTRADR3 AND DAY7793....13 YR OLD PUNKBITCH SPAMMING THE BOARDS WITH HIS BRAINLESS COMMENTS.ONLY PUSSY'S ARE AFRAID TO SHORT THATS WHY YOU BITCH,BITCH.
Your view is understandable. The uptick rule should not be restored. Volatility reflects uncertainty. There is always an 'uncertainty' factor in markets. It is smaller or larger. Uncertainty this year has been extraordinarily exacerbated by the usual wide scale panic mongering which accompanies big crises. As a micro example there has been a flood of panic views and silly hopes of more disaster on ET. Uncertainty is very large now and has been recently, because of the financial meltdown (so-called credit crunch) which spiralled up, out of the collapse of the value of sub-prime mortgages in the US which had become collaterised banking assets. This heightened uncertainty has affected all markets, equities and futures, and it has become worldwide. Bernanke, to his great credit, has been innovative and pro-active in maintaining financial order and in moderating the crisis. But Cramer is a noisey clown who falls below contempt. He is thoroughly untrustworthy but wants to show he is the man to solve current woes by getting the uptick rule reinstated. He wants to be doing something to get a great deal of attention because he so discredited himself over supporting Bear Stearns just before it collapsed.
A victory for the small guy????? So you think because you can slam the bid with 200 shares, and SAC can slam it with 2mm, that's good for the small guy? Have you ever built a business? Tried to make a payroll? Tried to survive in times like this. Hard enough. But having fat cats in Greenwich, load, rumor, plant stories and reload is unconscionable. I don't know the reason Cramer is finding religion: I doubt it's a good one. But this robbing the middle class has got to stop. We'll have nothing but Barney Frank overseeing the markets. These acts do come with consequences, you know (not). Here's my bet. Most of you are so lazy, you didn't view the link. Only a few did that. The rest of you , more than likely those against reinstatement, saw the headline and spewed. Be honest with yourselves. that's what happened. Been around too long, seen too many guys like that. I'd be building a postion in a stock, guys would overhear me, start pitching it, and then bitch at me when it went down. Never read a filing, never called the company........ Here's the link. At least watch it: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=690802125&play=1
The uptick rule never applied to Market Makers and specialists. Either have the rule removed (like it is now), or make a rule so that NOBODY is able to short on a d/t. But a rule that doesnt' apply to the big guys and only applies to the smaller traders (like it did before) makes absolutly ZERO sence, and that's why it finally got removed. Of course Cramer wants it back like it was before and so do the specialists and Market makers. But if you're a 'normal' trader, then be careful what you wish for ... About Cramer in general: please understand that this clown has his own agenda ...
Someone mentioned the "little guy." What they meant is that mm's and hedge funds will still be able to short, just like they were before the rule was abolished. They will be the ones who benefit if this were reinstated, not the average joe trader and not the investor. Commodities are shortable and they are on a huge bull run (mostly driven on the last leg up by speculators). Thats like saying we should only let beople buy oil for their homes and cars. There are ETF's that bet on the downside in virtually every sector. You can even short sell your house!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ma...-1&view=SUMMARY&grid=F2&siteId=1&targetRule=2 The Brits are way ahead of us in outrage. They obviously haven't paid the Press off like we've done here. This is the best source I found Sunday Nite to follow the Bear debacle. But go thru this, and look at the outrage they are expressing over dirty tricks of hedgefunds. Someone paid people at theSEC to push thru the downtick rule change. Somebody came up with naked shorting, fails. Somebody came up with subprime to fleece everybody. The end result of this will be excessive regulation which will kill everybody here. You can't rob the same bank forever. Do some reading. See what will happen in our Press over the next 60 days. We'll be reading these articles in the NY Times.
I actually don't get it, all the major firms spread rumors, this isn't anything new. Gosh, if you would have sold on the BSC rumors when they were coming out, you would have saved yourself a bundle. If you listened to the talking heads on CNBC, well let's just say you would have lost the ranch on that one. So let me see if I get this, if the rumors turn out to be not true and you lose money, the rumors were propagated by rogue traders. If the rumors were true, and the company is worthless, then we forget it was the "rumors" that warned us to what was going to happen and we also forget that the "talking heads" told us that everything is great. Nice, another example of a collective lack of irresponsibilty that continues to lead us into these messes time and time again.
The SEC did not just decide to eliminate the uptick rule on a "whim". It was studied for several years. This quote is from the SEC website--- "On July 28, 2004, the Commission issued an order creating a one-year pilot temporarily suspending the tick test and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities association for certain securities. The pilot was created so that the Commission could study the effectiveness of short sale price tests. The Commission's Office of Economic Analysis and academic researchers provided the Commission with analyses of the empirical data obtained from the pilot. In addition, the Commission held a roundtable to discuss the results of the pilot. The general consensus from these analyses and the roundtable was that the Commission should remove price test restrictions because they modestly reduce liquidity and do not appear necessary to prevent manipulation. In addition, the empirical evidence did not provide strong support for extending a price test to either small or thinly-traded securities not currently subject to a price test." See http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-114.htm