Did short ban on financials help or hurt?

Discussion in 'Stocks' started by timscott, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. It seems like the short ban did more damage than good by squeezing out shorts en masse who would be natural buyers around now.

    We got a quick pop in return for an even faster slide.

    Just look at C, MS, COF, STT

    Markets at new lows and I haven't heard a peep from the media "blaming the short sellers".

    So maybe it was good in that aspect of showing the general public the shorts didn't cause this slide.
  2. The public will always blame short sellers because they don't understand what they do.

    Right now the media isn't talking about them, so the 5 second attention span of most people has moved onto the next blame target.

    True - even more buyers were taken out of the market when they banned it temp., and it's possible it aided in those drastic collapsing days when the financials wiped out (in 3 days) the small rally that took a few weeks to build.
  3. The public will always blame short sellers because they don't understand what they do.

    I've been asking around. Eggsacktley what, does the public understand with their public edjucation?
  4. promagma


    A lot of shorts piled on the first day after the ban. And then the volatility picked up and things stabilized, somewhat.

  5. Whoever started the ban is an idiot. Short sellers are very good liquidity providers and its not really a debate whether they help or hurt a market. I would say help more than hurt, but the uptick rule needs to come back.
  6. lassic


    keep it fair, we need a downtick rule when buying
  7. WHY! PILE ONTO THE UPSIDE! LOL. Take it and bid it.

  8. Hello, can you help me a little bit? What is the downtick rule? is there a source I could read about this rule more?
  9. Agreed. Uptick rule is and was a dumb idea.
  10. I think it helped.
    #10     Oct 29, 2008