Subject: File No. S7-08-09
From: Ben L Wilks

September 29, 2009

The SEC claims that the best reasons for the alternative up tick rule are

1. Unlike proposals in April, the alternative uptick rule would not require monitoring of the sequence of bids (that is, whether the current national best bid is above or below the previous national best bid), and as a result the alternative uptick rule would be easier to monitor.
2. It also may be possible to implement this approach more quickly and with less cost than the prior proposals.

Since computers can automatically, instantaneously, and inexpensively the monitor sequence of bids, the first reasoning has no logical basis and is therefore false.

Similarly, the second reason has no merit since, once again computers can monitor the sequence of bids quickly and inexpensively and this can be done with the current programs monitoring the market with little changes in the software so the pretense that the alternative uptick rule is implement quicker and cheaper is once again a false argument that leads to a false conclusion.

Surely, if the original uptick rule was monitored prior to its elimination, it can be done so once again as it was done in the past and the cost should be less today than it was before.

I have to also wonder when the SEC has become so concerned and has made a priority of saving money after large numbers of investors lost trillions of dollars and majors corporations were wiped out of existence (not to mention the 10 of thousand of people who lost their jobs) due to the abuses of short selling following the elimination of the uptick rule.

Finally, there has been no discussion as to why eliminating the original uptick rule, in existence since following the Great Depression, was thought to be such a wonderful idea in the first place. A simple observation would seem that the SEC did not understand the wisdom that lead to the first Great Depression and in eliminating the uptick rule aided in starting what appears to be the second Great Depression.

The augments presented for a modified uptick rule are felonious and appears to only be presented for obfuscation and delay in implementing the original uptick rule it has been over a year since this disaster happened and still the feet dragging goes on.

Just implement the old uptick rule as it once was and get it done now.

If the SEC is so concerned about cost, then what is the cost of inaction? The SEC does not have the luxury of time in addressing this problem.