June 16, 2009
The removal of the uptick rule was without as much commentary.
In removing the uptick rule additional risk aversion was created for short sellers: if only able to short on an "uptick" doubt can be created to the ongoing momentum of the subsequent trades, and a deterrent to jumping in with large lots. Making the short seller take a more moderate approach in creating a short position, as well as a longer time horizon in their hedging efforts, much like that of the investor of the long position.
Without such a balance, short sellers can have more of an immediate, yet long lasting impact on the share price for a company, which presents two serious issues:
1.) The inability for innovators that add value to our culture and society to raise capital, enter the marketplace, and pursue their goal as a profitable enterprise. A positive economic development.
2.) An incentive for collusive efforts by short sellers, and unregulated "hedge fund managers" to make short-term profits with their combined capital and relentless negative propaganda. A negative economic development.
Companies should only be force to fail if there is no market for their product or service...no revenue. The marketplace is certainly not short sellers, yet by removing risk for those who take the short position (no uptick rule), that is exactly who controls a companys ability to raise capital.
Combine these to the lackluster accountability for settling of short trades (REGSho is a joke), it becomes virtually impossible for innovative public enterprise to raise capital in the equities market, and presents the quintessential chicken or egg scenario. A timeless scenario we can ill afford in an era where so much time has been wasted in not doing something about conclusions drawn 40 years ago...