January 26, 2010
Stock investment has always been rigged with a favorable bias towards short trading. When a long owns more than 4%( don't remember the exact percentage)SEC wants the new investor name disclosed to public and the percentage of the float he or she owns. But SEC will not disclose to public when big money assumes 4% or more of the short position. Why is it rigged with a bias towards shorts?
Again after ex-dividend date the share price drops by a specific amount calculated using the precise number of outstanding shares but for naked shorting it does not matter if with shorting it exceeds the number of outstanding shares. Why is it rigged with a bias towards shorts?
Again count the number of comments by public for re-implementation of the short only on uptick rule. It is an overwhelming majority of public comments. Count the number of comments against implementation of the uptick rule... very few of them but they are powerful hedge funds. Why is it rigged with a bias towards these hedge fund shorts?
When Ex-chairman abolished the shorting on uptick rule he introduced the rule without giving a day for public to comment on it(But on the last day of his office he regretted abolishing shorting only on uptick rule...read his letter response to a senator). But we started the saga on this uptick rule reimplementation if I remember right in June/July 2009 and even with overwhelming support from general public (who saw their retirement savings decimated in part by shorts)there is still no sign of the final rule. Why did Christopher Cox give no time for public comments and why is Chairwoman Mary Schapiro giving so much time for comments? When was the last date for comments on this proposed rule? Why is it rigged with a bias towards shorts? Why is it wasting general public's time by taking comments from thousands of investors for the re-implementation of the rule but seemingly has been persuaded by a few hedge funds not to implement the rule?