And while we're at it, naked shorting. Barney Frank said back in the begininng of March, ironically right around the exact time the market bottomed, that the uptick rule would be reinstated "within a month". It hasn't yet, of course, and since the market has rallied heavily, I wonder if very many investors even care anymore. The other day the SEC announced plans to shine some light on short selling, not only reinstating the uptick rule, but also considering a move to list the aggregate volume of a stock's shorted shares. I like that idea, personally, but I invest long almost exclusively, too. I've only once ever invested short, and that was a double-short ETF. I made my money and got out. I don't really like shorting, personally, but I agree with its purpose of keeping the markets liquid. Without it, long investors would probably have a much harder time of buying in lower on dips and such. I agree with the uptick rule. I definitely DON'T agree with naked shorting, though. If you don't borrow the shares first, how can you possibly sell any? It's ridiculous and it needs to be done away with completely. So this all being said, obviously Barney pulled our chains. Should we bring back the uptick rule and do away with naked shorting? For those who don't know what those are, the uptick rule prevents short sellers from selling a security's shares short until that security's last move was on an "uptick", or a move upwards of a to-be-designated amount (probably a very small move relative to the share price...i.e. 1 cent on shares priced over $1.) And naked shorting is simply short selling shares you haven't borrowed first. Thoughts?