Subject: File No. S7-08-09
From: Jeffrey T Lowell
Affiliation: Citizen of The United States of America

May 8, 2009

If were up to me, short selling would be banned all together. What is the purpose of the stock markets? I'll answer my own question: To raise capital. How does short-selling facilitate the raising of capital? What public good does short-selling serve?

Short-selling only hurts companies and ultimately costs jobs. Short-selling exists only as a means to manipulate stock prices forcing them lower so the short-seller gets a better spread. It turns one of the main means of capital generation into something resembling a casino game. At the very least the old uptick rule should be put back in place. Why was it removed? Who benefited from its removal? Can anyone legitimately claim that the markets and the country are better off because of its removal? There's ample evidence that what happened on March 6th of 2009 would not have been possible if the uptick rule had been in place. Not having the uptick rule in place during a naturally occurring downward trend is akin to allowing gasoline to be thrown on a fire. All you're left with in the end is ashes.

Is it to much to hope for that this new administration will deliver on it promise of "change we can count on" by stopping rampant greed from being allowed to destroy ordinary American's investments and hurting corporate America in the process? Additionally, rampant short-selling has driven the retail investor out of the market. Is that what the administration wants? Frankly, I'm appalled that there is even any debate about this. A "modified" uptick rule's only purpose would be to appease the forces of greed. Is that what is in the best interests of the markets and the people of this country? Short of banning short-selling altogether, at the very least, put the old uptick rule back in place.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.