April 27, 2008
In 2007, the SEC eliminated the "Uptick Rule" stating that there is sufficient liquidity in the market place to make an "Orderly" market without the rule. I find it incredible that, at that very time, a huge "Liquidity" crisis was developing before the eyes of the SEC. Why was it important for the SEC to make the change at that particular time? Were there hordes of investors pleading with the SEC to eliminate the "Uptick Rule? I think not. On the other hand: Did the SEC buckle under to pressure from the hedge funds to eliminate the "Uptick Rule" so they could cover some of their losses in the impending liquidity crisis and down market which followed July 2007? I think, probably so. The elimination of the "Uptick Rule" has cost me many thousands of my retirement dollars. One only need look at the 33% short interest in SCRX, a strong, viable, profitable company to witness "FRAUD" in action.
This "Naked short selling anti-fraud rule" is a sham. It has no teeth. It is meant to be an inocuous appeasement for eliminating the "Uptick Rule". Naked short selling must be eliminated. Period. It is fraud.