Time is a finite resource for regulators, and asserting a dialectical opposition between the presumption of market fraud and negative fraud tactics is a simplification that wastes valuable analytical resources.
The presumption of fraud is a procedural tool, a mechanism to facilitate collective actions, recognizing investors' dependence on integrity market prices.
Negative fraud tactics, on the other hand, are a specific form of manipulation that exploits this dependence; there is no logical opposition, but a relationship where negative fraud is an application case of the presumption.
For example, if an entity issues false negative statements to drop the share price before a buyback, injured investors can invoke the presumption of market fraud because they relied on a distorted price.
The time for ASIC to act is short, and this distinction is crucial for effective allocation.