May 28, 2009
The outline of your proposal for the uptick rule may be ineffective without the pre-borrow rule enforced.
It would be very satisfying to have new SEC commissioners understand the reality of naked short selling and the ramifications of it, pushing them to enforce the securities laws with penalties that match the damage done by naked short sellers which previous SEC commissioners have protected and fueled with their inaction. Our markets certainly gained liquidity, but not the kind an individual investor seeks.
I seek to buy and/or sell real shares to those who would do the same. The companies who issued the shares initially received compensation for the shares sold. They filed with the SEC the prospectus describing the shares, their numbers, and their compensation. Nowhere have the naked short sellers filed with the SEC that they have issued additional shares in a company, or advised the company that they have done so, yet every time they sell without pre-borrowing they sell into the market counterfeit shares of a company they do not own.
The SEC not only accommodates this illegal practice, they provide rules to make it "legal" to steal. How can this be?
Unsuspecting investors presume to believe the SEC will protect them from fraudulent practices. Are they less important to protect than the hedge funds, the options market maker, and others who are provided these loopholes? How can this be?