What Will Be The Effect Of Repeal of Rule 10A-1

[yakers]

http://tinyurl.com/37htnr

More volitility?
Will a non professional trader be left in the dust by the pros/insiders in a market decline?

[brewer12345]

I think it is criminal, especially since the prohibition on naked shorting is weak at best. What it means is more volatility, and stuff that starts to go down will really crash quickly as abusive short selling really has no limits now.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont think the question is whether its dangerous, being from the land of "if it aint broke dont fix it". The good question is who lobbied hard for the change?

Learn that part, you'll know why and what the implications will be.

[yakers]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny I dont think the question is whether its dangerous, being from the land of "if it aint broke dont fix it". The good question is who lobbied hard for the change? Learn that part, you'll know why and what the implications will be.

OK, that was a simple question, maybe it was ‘loaded’ in understanding the implications? For what its worth I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I understand that the liberals/Democrats play to the unions and lawyers and I do not approve. But this is IMHO a Republican/conservative (gulp, I don’t know what word to use, I tend to like the word conservative, but in this case thief seems more accurate) play to the rich/insiders. It is, IMHO, worse that most of the Democrat/liberal plays in that it is hidden and shifts risk from the insiders to the less advanced investor. Anyone hear a public discussion of this? Its like repealing the Glass-Steagall Act without discussion. This protection worked for a long, long time and added stability to the trading system which should be in everyones interest. Someone is going to make a killing if the market tanks and they bail out first at the expense of the outsiders which pretty much means you and me on this board.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yakers OK, that was a simple question, maybe it was ‘loaded’ in understanding the implications? For what its worth I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I understand that the liberals/Democrats play to the unions and lawyers and I do not approve. But this is IMHO a Republican/conservative (gulp, I don’t know what word to use, I tend to like the word conservative, but in this case thief seems more accurate) play to the rich/insiders. It is, IMHO, worse that most of the Democrat/liberal plays in that it is hidden and shifts risk from the insiders to the less advanced investor. Anyone hear a public discussion of this? Its like repealing the Glass-Steagall Act without discussion. This protection worked for a long, long time and added stability to the trading system which should be in everyones interest. Someone is going to make a killing if the market tanks and they bail out first at the expense of the outsiders which pretty much means you and me on this board.

yeah, the repealing of Glass-Steagall has worked real well, the customers got screwed and the banks got rich..........all so Sandy Weill could make another billion or so. Someone show me how the US investor is better off AFTER Glass-Steagall is repealed, and I'll listen.................

[bssc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude yeah, the repealing of Glass-Steagall has worked real well, the customers got screwed and the banks got rich..........all so Sandy Weill could make another billion or so. Someone show me how the US investor is better off AFTER Glass-Steagall is repealed, and I'll listen.................

There are banks on every corner now, and new ones being built. At least two restaurants near us went out of business, were torn down and are now banks.

For my bank, Wells Fargo, there are 5 branches within 3 miles of me. Checking out this map you can see that there are two branches, labeled 3 and 5, on the same block. It must be all that extra money at work.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

That was one of my jokes to the wife when we lived in the old house. A new strip mall went in about once a month. Always a bank, a taco/burrito place, a jamba juice, and a cell phone store.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc There are banks on every corner now, and new ones being built. At least two restaurants near us went out of business, were torn down and are now banks. For my bank, Wells Fargo, there are 5 branches within 3 miles of me. Checking out this map you can see that there are two branches, labeled 3 and 5, on the same block. It must be all that extra money at work.

Banks are one thing, then they put an insurance guy in there that sells annuities..............

[yakers]

Just as discussed in this thread, financial folks are saying that this 'new' rule adds to volitility:
Rule change may be adding to volatility - USATODAY.com