"[White's] résumé in the past decade has understandably alarmed advocates of financial reform, who fear that her work as a defender of Wall Street means that she is dangerously biased in favor of the banks and their deregulatory agenda. Her lack of a deep regulatory background is also a worry at a time when the agency’s top priority is to finish overdue rules to carry out the Dodd-Frank financial reform and other securities laws. Complicating matters further, her husband, John White, is also a corporate lawyer, at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, with his own long list of Wall Street clients.
We understand these concerns but do not believe they are disqualifying."
The editorial makes no mention of the Uptick Rule or White's position in respect thereto. Cancellation of the Uptick Rule in 2007 was thought to have contributed to the 2008 economic debacle and continues to shackle the US economy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/paul-krugman-friends-of-fraud-do-you.html). The Uptick Rule urgently needs to be reinstated.
The Times editorial concludes:
"[White's] qualities of toughness, tenacity and aggressiveness are just what the S.E.C. needs in a leader. The overarching question she must be asked — and that she must answer — is how she will use those qualities to advance the S.E.C.’s mission, which is to protect individual investors by ensuring that markets are transparent, well regulated and vigorously policed."
The Times wishes to "protect individual investors"? Nothing is more urgent than reinstatement of the Uptick Rule. Without it, Wall Street is a casino with the odds dangerously stacked against individual investors and in favor of voracious hedge funds, which are busy manipulating the activity of American financial markets.
Where does White stand regarding the Uptick Rule? An answer is needed.