SEC may Reinstate Uptick Rule

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by listedguru, Feb 23, 2009.

  1. sprstpd

    sprstpd

    Okay, so gunning the market higher into the close = OKAY!

    Gunning the market lower into the close = BAD BAD BAD!

    VELOCITY of the market up = GREAT!

    VELOCITY of the market down = BAD BAD BAD!

    Anyone wanting the uptick rule reinstated is misguided. Anyone who says that the uptick rule is responsible for the market's decline is conveniently denying reality. Shorting was deemed illegal for financial stocks and what happened to them? They got HAMMERED and they got HAMMERED QUICKLY WITH GREAT VELOCITY. Yep, the uptick rule would have helped out there!

    If you advocate bringing back the uptick rule along with your pal Cramer, just know that you actually just want to take away an individual's freedom to transact the way they want to in the markets. Nothing more, nothing less. There will be no change in volatility, there will be no change in the ultimate outcome for many of these financial stocks, but boy I'm sure you'll be glad for giving away one of your financial rights!
     
    #41     Feb 26, 2009
  2. Tide31

    Tide31

    Reinstate uptick. Transaction tax. Do away with ETF's like SKF. I think Cramer and beaurocrats are trying to rig the market only to go higher. They all have a vested interest in a higher market, as do we all in the long run. However, we are/were a free-market system.

    SKF's have no specific # of outstanding shares. If there are more sellers than buyers, then more are created by the sponsor bank, much like ADR's. For anyone buying a share, someone has sold it to them and has taken the opposite view. I would say that the majority of buying in SKF is done by people tryng to hedge out risk and not speculators. Seeing as they are trading at $163 which is almost half their 52 week high, I also don't see the point of ranting and raving, which is what Cramer often does, to eliminate these. To say they are the reason for pressure on bank stocks is misguided to say the least. How about overleverage, bad lending practices, recession, dividend cuts, etc...

    There is a reason that the market is where it is. Stocks trade off of defineable parameters, like PE, cash flow multiples, margins, book value, etc... I hear noone saying that the market, or bank stocks specifically, are so very under-valued with the current economy that it warrants a change. I hear these people saying lets rig the market so that stocks only go up and create the illusion that things are better than they are. Buying over-priced investments only hurts the investor, which doesn't seem to concern them. Majority of investors would be people that have the resources to invest. These are the same people that are going to be taxed more by new administration and pay higher transaction taxes too. These are the same people that were affected the most last year with the market down over 40%.

    Modern day Robinhoods, thats what we have here. Re-distribution of wealth. This scares me to no end. It's like we are in Sweden, except without all the blonde women. New healthcare system financed by taxing the wealthy in headlines today. Am I crazy, or does this concern anyone else?


    :confused:
     
    #42     Feb 26, 2009
  3. gnome

    gnome

    Big concern. Sort of takes away any incentive to better yourself and try to become rich.

    All of this "tax the rich" stuff will ultimately mean that the incentive to become successful/wealthy is greatly diminished. Same will apply to future generations. (Makes me question why the NObamabots would be so selfish as to deny their children and grandchildren their lifetime of opportunity.. all for a little "free ice cream" today... tsk, tsk)
     
    #43     Feb 26, 2009
  4. bevo96

    bevo96

    I can't wait to hear the positive responses from the liberals to this tax. Its amazing how many people on this board are sitting in their moms basement smoking pot and posting on this board. The only thing that will complete their liberal wet dream is for BHO to legalize pot.

    This forum should change its name to socialisttrader.com
     
    #44     Feb 26, 2009
  5. sprstpd

    sprstpd

    Somewhat, however I'm sure people wanted to become rich when the top tax bracket was 39% and when it goes back to that level, I'm sure people won't mind becoming rich then either. And yes, people got rich when the highest tax bracket was 39%.

    All I've heard from Obama is that he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts. You may not agree with that, but it seems reasonable to me.
     
    #45     Feb 26, 2009
  6. gnome

    gnome

    Great irony here.

    Trading is pure capitalistic enterprise... "trader vs. the world"... no hand outs, no subsidies, no do-overs or mulligans.

    Do it well and you can become wealthy. Do it poorly and you could lose all you have. Your success or failure is all on you.

    Yet, many on ET whine in favor of Socialistic everything.

    Yeah, SocialistTrader.com ...
     
    #46     Feb 26, 2009
  7. gnome

    gnome

    So, you think 39% is IT, huh? More like the "1st stepping stone to the NObamination of the USSA"...

    Seems more reasonable to REPEAL DEFICIT SPENDING!!!
     
    #47     Feb 26, 2009
  8. bevo96

    bevo96

    Quote from sprstpd:

    Somewhat, however I'm sure people wanted to become rich when the top tax bracket was 39% and when it goes back to that level, I'm sure people won't mind becoming rich then either. And yes, people got rich when the highest tax bracket was 39%.

    All I've heard from Obama is that he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts. You may not agree with that, but it seems reasonable to me.



    You have to understand its not the tax that pisses us off. Its the fact that the MORONS in Washington are just going to piss it away on nothing. The country would get just as much benefit if I took the money and threw it into the Atlantic.
     
    #48     Feb 26, 2009
  9. guess what. senators are as stupid as landscape rocks. they are working up the rule right now. It's going to happen. It's politically popular, it may not mean anything, but you're gong to get it.

    They have to look like they are dong something.
     
    #49     Feb 26, 2009
  10. sprstpd

    sprstpd

    I agree that the government seems to piss away money like its nothing and if they are going to do that, why give them anymore money? Obviously if I could see the future and knew whether or not the money would be pissed away beforehand, it would make my decision pretty easy. However, I do know that the deficit will eventually crush us all and if we need to tax the more fortunate people who live in this country a little more in order to reduce that deficit, then it seems reasonable to me.
     
    #50     Feb 26, 2009