May 30, 2009
The SEC must uphold its most important responsibility - protect investors from practices that can be manipulative or misleading in nature. I can not fathom why the SEC would be reluctant in instituting a rule that I see providing little deceleration to investment philosophicies in good times, but provides sure protection in markets with little liquidity as is true today. In the grand context of investing, the uptick rule does not impose punitive damages to short sellers, but at the margin creates a braking mechanism to manipulation opportunities. I certainly do not support SEC measures that enhance profit opportunities at the expense of investor protection and with an understanding of the beneficial, technical and academic nauances of shorting, I ask with the utmost conviction that the SEC restore the uptick rule, perform its duty of strictly enforcing rules on naked short selling and not just settle for the best bid version. Providing investor protection should be of utmose importance and any efforts to enhance this protection on balance should be restored. The uptick rule does not eliminate abilility to short, and if shorting investors will be derailed in their conviction by a few pennies "cost", their argument does not resonate with me.
I hope to see the SEC on the side of small, retail investors again.