Dear Secretary Paulson: It's the Uptick Rule, sir.

James48843

TSP Talk Royalty
Reaction score
569
Dear Secretary Paulson:

I know you read TSPTALK to get a sense of what is really happening out in the markets. After all, you are a government employee too, and you have your TSP just like the rest of us.

Now, I know I'm just a lowly TSP shareholder. And I have no special knowledge of the markets. After all, you are the guy who gets paid the big bucks to monitor and regulate the financials of the U.S. - and thereby infuencing the World economy. That's a pretty big job.

But let me give you a little something to think about, ok?

You don't need to go out and save the world, using taxpayer dollars.

You only need to do one thing. And that one thing is a little, minor rule, and that in and of itself is going to save the markets from the meltdown now in process.

Are you listening yet?

Ok- here we go.

It's something that USED to be there in the rulebook, from 1938 until you removed it last year. It's called "the uptick rule".

Secretary Paulson- look at this chart:


You changed the perfectly good rule, which had been in place since 1938, on July 6th, 2007. When the markets opened the next day, that's when things began to really fall apart.​

You see, from 1938 until July 6, 2007, if someone wanted to short a stock, they had to wait until the shares moved up ever so slightly. That prevented a snow-ball downward push on a stock price, when everyone out there saw a company going down, and all jumped on the bandwagon to kill a company through their bearish greed shorting.​

When you removed that rule, you let loose some powerful forces. And we now are seeing their instability effect.​

Instead of forming these hundred billion dollar bailouts, and suspending some, (but only 799 financial companies) but not all companies "shorting", you need to reimpose the Uptick Rule.​

Do that, sir, and the market will stabilize, and you will save your 2 trillion dollars that are in jeoparday from Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Lehmen Brothers, AIG, and whoever else is next.​

BY the way- by eliminating "shorting" on those 799 companies you imposed last night, you are now adversely affecting all the index funds that invest in those companies, as many investment vehciles have "short" positions as hedges to reduce expenses. For example, Barclays, which manages the TSP, maintains short positions in some stocks in the index, just as a hedge against expenses. By eliminating ALL shorting, not just doing an "uptick rule", you now have potentially further destabilzed things, but that won't become appearent for a couple of days.​


It's the uptick rule, sir.​

Reimpose it.​

Today.​

Thank you.​

Signed--​

A shareholder.​
 
Last edited:
Uptick rule

From Wikipedia

The uptick rule is a securities trading rule used to regulate short selling in financial markets. The rule mandates that, subject to certain exceptions, when sold a listed security must either be sold short at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected, or at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price. In 1938, the SEC adopted the uptick rule, more formally known as rule 10a-1, after conducting an inquiry into the effects of concentrated short selling during the market break of 1937. [1]

The NASD and Nasdaq adopted their own short sale price tests based on the last bid rather than on the last reported sale.[2




Elimination


The SEC eliminated the uptick rule on July 6, 2007.[3] The elimination of the rule was preceded by a SEC order, placed on July 28, 2004, to create a one-year pilot temporarily suspending the uptick rule on select securities. The purpose of the suspension was so that the commission could study the effectiveness of the rule. The SEC's Office of Economic Analysis and academic researchers provided the SEC with analysis of the data obtained during the pilot. The general consensus was against the uptick rule, with the commission concluding that the uptick rule "modestly reduce[d] liquidity and do[es] not appear necessary to prevent manipulation."[2]


The rule was originally put in place to avoid the perpetration of a financial crime known as a bear raid. However, short sellers themselves viewed the rule as "largely symbolic" and having little actual effect on short selling.[4]


Criticism

On July 3, 2008 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, an adviser on mergers and acquisitions, said short-selling was at record levels and asked the SEC to take urgent action and reinstate the 70-year-old uptick rule.[5]

On the March 20, 2008 episode of Mad Money, Jim Cramer launched his campaign to reinstate the uptick rule.[6] Citing the wild swings of the market since its elimination, Cramer said that the SEC eliminated the rule during a bull market, when liquidity was not a problem. Cramer believes that, without the uptick rule in place, short sellers are devaluing perfectly solid stocks.


Reenactment

On September 19, 2008 the SEC enacted a temporary ban on the short selling of 799 financial institutions. . [7] This will have the net effect of acting as a quasi-uptick like rule, but only for these selected 799 companies. And only for a limited time. The temporary ban expires in 30 days. And there is, as yet, no new "uptick rule".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptick_rule"
 
Wow, they did the test from 2004? No test during a downturn? That's like saying that the L funds will do great all the time since they've gone up in value since their inception. :blink: Even the TSP folks don't say that the L funds will do great all the time.
 
Correlation does not imply causation.


True.

But pause a moment to consider the category of this thread- it's filed under '"Psycology of Trading".

Is the uptick rule directly responsible for causation? I don't know.

What I DO know is that the lack of an uptick rule has made things much worse with gyrations that wouldn't be possible had the uptick rule been in place.

And, the one thing that Paulson is looking for at this exact moment in time, is for the public to have confidence in the markets. There is just too much emotion this week. Wild rides up, wilder rides down.

A marketwide return to the 1938-2007 Uptick rule, if imposed today, would greatly help reduce gyrations.

And it doesn't cost taxpayers one thin dime.
 
Is the uptick rule directly responsible for causation? I don't know.
A marketwide return to the 1938-2007 Uptick rule, if imposed today, would greatly help reduce gyrations.
You are much more comfortable recommending a law that may or may not address the problem than I ever would be. The price is much higher than free, its another slice of freedom being whittled away just because it looks like a good idea. Next thing you know, we will not be able to walk into a bank with a pair of nail clippers...
 
Has anything *improved* without the uptick rule? Nothing good for the market seems to have come from removing it. Did Wall Street function under it, just fine? Seems it did! Is there crazy volitility since? Yes!

Sometimes you have to define the dimensions of the field so that we aren't catching passes out in the parking lot. See China and their Milk mess for details - they never thought they would have to regulate non-powdered milk but melanine is appearing in regular milk, yogurt, etc. There are laws against adding non-milk ingredients in powdered milk so those doing that can be prosecuted (yes I know China's got enforcement issues). But they never expected (sound familiar?) tampering with milk so there is some question whether they can prosecute those adding Melanine to regular milk. I know pasturization laws in the U.S. make things nearly impossible for sellers of raw milk in the U.S. But you *have* to set the size of the field so you don't get a broken car window from a "Hail Mary" pass.
 
Last edited:
Has anything *improved* without the uptick rule? Nothing good for the market seems to have come from removing it. Did Wall Street function under it, just fine? Seems it did! Is there crazy volitility since? Yes!
My boy was born in December and look at how crazy the markets been since. Perhaps if I don't have anymore children, the markets will improve?
 
My boy was born in December and look at how crazy the markets been since. Perhaps if I don't have anymore children, the markets will improve?
He was playing in the Markets? Isn't that dangerous, letting babies play in the Big Leagues? :toung: C'mon, at least use an event that affects the market. Unless he *is* personally allowed to make investment decisions right after birth, then I'm really worried about who's running the markets.
 
I would never begin a letter to Paulson with Dear. I wonder if he is on the FBI watch list ????????????????????
 
Back
Top