THE SHORT OF IT
‘Uptick rule’ to blame for volatility
Dear John: In all of the commentary on renewed market volatility, there has been no mention of the “uptick rule” for short sellers.
Just before the collapse of the markets in 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission removed the longstanding requirement that to sell short, a stock must first trade at an “uptick” from the prior price/trade.
When that change happened, it opened the floodgates to substantially increased volatility.
A short seller may now just keep downward pressure on markets and individual securities.
I wonder why this has not been addressed. Is it to facilitate high-frequency trading and other lobbies of this type at the expense of the general public?
Do you think the SEC should revisit its decision with the objective of returning some sanity to these volatile markets? R.B.
Dear R.B.: I think the SEC should do whatever it takes to reduce volatility. But I don’t think anything will be done until the next crash. Then all the usual suspects will be rounded up, pretend to be punished and — after an acceptable period of time — things will be allowed to get out of hand again.
Dear John: Last year I began dating a woman I met over Match.com who lives in northern Virginia. She stated in her profile that she was a widow. I have attached her profile.
After we started dating, she stated her husband became physically and mentally disabled shortly after their marriage in 2015.
She stated that she wanted him dead and she’d be better off if he were dead.
She is 66 and he is 68. I never met the man, but I sent a letter to his employer expressing my concerns he would not be safe if entrusted to this woman’s care.
I’ve never encountered a woman like this or a problem like this.
It is deeply troubling for me to have been drawn into this family situation. This woman considers her husband’s grown son and daughter “less than human.” I think she is less than human.
Is this not the worst thing, or one of the worst things, you’ve ever heard of ? Any advice? J.P.
Dear J.P.: It’s good that you reached out to try to help this guy. It’s bad that you didn’t immediately call the police. But I did call the police in his Virginia city and they checked on him.
According to a report sent to me by the Fairfax County Police Department: “After much research and tracking down people, we were able to reasonably determine that the man is safe with family members and not in the Northern Virginia area.”
A happy ending — or, at least a happier one than could have been.