July 18, 2008
I am not a professional trader, just an average person with a 401(k) and a modest brokerage account.
It seems to me that Regulation SHO and this amendment is a bit unfair to all the shareholders of companies who don't happen to be one of the 19 financial stocks being monitored for illegal naked short selling. I wonder why the SEC is implying that it's ok to naked short sell other stocks. I believe this is the implication because -- when has the SEC enforced the illegality of naked short selling in the past? This behavior has destroyed many people and companies financially, yet only when the financials get in trouble does the SEC act.
Further, what incentive does the broker have to verify that the short seller is actually borrowing the shares? Are they to just trust their word (hah)
And, this doesn't prevent foreign exchange
Exempting "primary" dealers is a big loophole -- naked short selling can still be done without anyone knowing it with primary dealers.
8701 W Parmer Ln #6327
Austin, TX, 78729