May 5, 2009
I would like to comment on the above proposed rule and make additional comments.
I am retired and invest my own portfolio. I invest both long term and trade stocks on a short term basis also.
The proposed circuit breaker rule is a poor, watered down excuse and I cannot understand why you would be considering it at all.
Bring back the 1930's rule, which worked. Its that simple.
I understand the SEC chose to study 2005 short selling. Why? If you really wanted to study short selling you should have looked 2007 and 2008 to see how bad these people (professional short sellers) are for the markets.
In addition Naked Short Selling should be abolished. Why should a small group be allowed to get into the market without having the cash to buy in. In effect playing with make-believe money. I believe there have been cases of people not being able to pay when the trades went against them. To allow this is a criminal act against everyone else who is playing fairly.
On another subject, The 2times and now 3times Short ETF's should not be allowed, or, if allowed, there should be an impediment in place. Something like waiting 2days to activate the trade with the last of those two having an up closing, for a 2x fund and 3days with a similar 3 day rule for a 3x ETF fund. These funds do not seem to preform according to their billing by the selling companies.
The SEC has done such a poor job of policing the markets in the past that the new Director has her work cut out for her. So many poor decisions and non-decisions that it may not be possible for Ms. Smith to do a good job against an entrenched bureaucracy.
Perhaps it is time for the SEC to go the way of the FAA, and we put in a completely new department to replace it.
Hope you do the right thing this time instead of voting with the people who can afford to pay for access, rather than the public good.
Hope we will see a new 'bright and shining' period the SEC can look back on with pride in the decisions it has made, and which will ultimately work for the long term good of the country (and probably the world markets)and even work for the long term good of those who are currently opposing and or trying to get a new rule watered down to the point of effectively making it meaningless.
Respectfully
L. Abbate