TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says you can call him all the names in the book, but he's right, and the shorts know it. It was a cause I didn't want to take up. I didn't want to take it up because I knew the short-sellers would paint me as a naïve, clueless defender of the bull, and the long owners wouldn't really understand the idiosyncrasies of the subject. It was a cause I knew the brokers would never defend because their best business that is left is prime brokerage, and they need giant hedge funds to trade with them and can't risk alienating them.
I am talking about the uptick rule, the 70-year-old rule put in by the SEC to stop the process of "raiding" stocks, meaning sending them down by knocking all bids down underneath to where panic could and would ensue.
Today's typical. The
Journal breaks its seeming 10-year embargo on mentioning me or my show with a piece that basically says I have no idea what I am talking about and am a fool to bring it up. It quotes James Bianco, from Bianco Research right after me saying, "Anyone who thinks the removal of this rule is somehow causing havoc in the financial markets is hopelessly lost in the bark of one tree and may never be able to see the forest." He then goes on to say, "To suggest that the removal of this rule is causing the markets to go down is to loudly announce, "I don't understand the credit crisis and I am incapable of ever understanding it.'"