I think that's what I said. My friend wrote: Thoughts on Rgulation,
"I have been sitting here quietly considering the baffle-speak today towards regulation of the various exchanges - and believe me, it is readily apparent that the situation (with the various exchanges having different rules about stop trades on drops) is inherently flawed.
But the thought that has been nagging me is this...it may be really good to have one system of rules that immediately stops trades after a certain percentile loss, and this might just prove a protection to a similar thing happening again (and I think that it will) but could also be an impediment to those manipulating too (but this could be another movie). BUT if they over regulate this - then would not the logical thing for any self-respecting market manipulator to do would be to simply pop the market upwards...and once the frenzy starts, start bailing all the way down again. Still theft, but under another name. Would this not then simply trigger a similar regulation the other way? The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and I can think of a fair number of stocks that popped hugely (and we think legitimately) on a news release...could this not make the whole system unworkable?"
I think that says that protection from super-drops will also steal the the core chance of upswing in the minor metals from their due profits. It's "nakeds" that have killed the market. Selling without owning is theft. They didn't even pay/register 'margin'.
Greycloud
