Revision as of 22:20, 17 December 2008

"The elimination of the rule preceded an SEC order, placed on July 28, 2004, to create a one-year pilot temporarily suspending the uptick rule on select securities." : Shouldn't this be proceeded since 2007 comes after 2004? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.232 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Wherewithal (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not censor the aftermath section. The information was gathered with the help of the Google Stock Screener at July 12, 2008, one year after the elimination of the rule.

This page has some serious POV and original research issues. Using Google Stock Screener is tantamount to original research, additionally the citations are transient and will not yield the same results in a few months. Most importantly, we are in a bear market which renders your findings moot.--Wherewithal (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "aftermath" section is simply wrong, I am removing the conspiracy theory based on "google stock screener" as that is in no way evidence of anything--a proper study would control for historical effects, the person who did this plainly does not understand the first thing about research in the financial space. Second, a basic flaw in that theory is that the downturn has affected equities worldwide and yet only in the US was the uptick rule eliminated. Conventional finance theory would say that any effect based on the uptick rule would be short-lived, lasting probably no more than a few hours or at most a day or two, whereas the downturn in the market has been long and sustained. It's simply wrong and should be removed. The claims attributed to Jim Cramer are more reasonable, that it leads to increased volatility--but I do not see a proper citation for even that. Rjwells --(talk) 23:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas or clues as to why this 70 year old rule is eliminated by SEC, and by whom, under whose authority, based on what study? Butter formula (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC

The SEC has did many studies prior to the removal of the uptick rule, including the initial repeal of the uptick rule for a limited number of securities to study the effects. The page as it stands now is filled with extreme bias. --Wherewithal (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps deleting most of the page's content. Please, stop the censorship.

The entry is very opinionated to make the "Uptick Rule" seem like a good thing. Very biased, I am wondering who is responsible for posting this - I think there might be some special interest involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunhazen (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the troll that keeps on deleting the information he/she doesn't want others to know: I suggest you to improve the article by extending it instead of deleting other people's contributions. If you think the elimination of the uptick rule did not have any effect on the markets write a section with whatever you have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.91.213 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

write a section with whatever you have to say: Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox, nor is it a collection of opinions. Further tampering/reverting will result in escalation to admins.Wherewithal (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that user Wherewithal is deleting other user's version because he dislikes it or disagrees. I think the analysis is opinionated but valuable. This article should be restored as the other user left it and then locked to prevent Wherewithal to delete it.

Constant removal op pro-uptick sections

I agree, Wherewithal is doing this. He has a history of "toeing the party line", relying on well-paid research by stock firms to bolster his opinions, while ignoring other evidence. There are other markets besides the U.S. that have the uptick rule, and you can compare them to see if it work to reduce volatility. There are many prominent analysts and economists that believe the uptick rule has a moderating effect on volatility.

. http://www.reuters.com/article/americasDealsNews/idUSTRE49089920081002
. http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/102225-1.html

Banning short sales is considerably more heavy-handed, biased against (or for, depending on who you ask) stocks that aren't in the ban, and is completely non-reactive to daily changes and market pressures. The uptick rule satisfies investors need to have rules that attempt to reduce volatility without singling out specific stocks.

76.182.46.60 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this nonsense?

"The rule mandates that, subject to certain exceptions, a listed security may 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."

Edited out my own previous comment. I had some trouble understanding this.. I think the word either needed to be included and must rather than may is clearer, even though it is redundant after "mandated"

Typo in "Calls for reinstatement" section

"On the March 20, 2008 episode of Mad Money, Jim Cramer launched his campaign to reinstate the uptick rule. 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.[7] On the Friday 22, 2008 episode, Jim Cramer further underscored the true scale of the absence of the uptick rule, exclaiming that Obama must "reinstate [the uptick rule], a rule put in place to prevent a repeat of the great crash.""

Obviously "the Friday 22, 2008 episode" isn't correct. Presumably it should be March 22, 2008, since the previously mentioned one is March 20, 2008. However, I have no proof that it was March 22, instead of some other month. How should a problem like this be dealt with?

Wow. Lots of garbage inserted in the final section today - 19 Sept 08, regarding crawford texas. While I agree, this doesn't belong in this entry. ===

♦ The paragraph related to ban on short sales of financial stocks on Sep 19 08 has nothing to do with the "uptick rule" and should be deleted or moved to the article on short selling, in my opinion. 68.210.216.173 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC) CHC[reply]