The assertion that the presumption of market fraud dialectically opposes negative fraud tactics ignores the fundamental incentives for manipulation. If an actor artificially depresses a price to benefit from it, they are precisely exploiting investors' trust in the integrity of the market, which is not an opposition but an asymmetry of gains. Denying this complementarity weakens the ability of investors to recover losses, such as an American pension fund suing an issuer that deliberately depreciated its security before a buyback. The law aims to maintain an balance where the presumption discourages all manipulations, whether bullish or bearish. This is a classic case of moral hazard if manipulation that depresses prices is not punished.