Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
finra did it at the request of the sec
--
4kids
all jmo
Oh yes, I know. And sleazy Tom Ronk of Buyins.net has been using them as a promotion tool as well.
When FINRA decided to publish these numbers, they created problems they unfortunately failed to foresee.
The stock promoters love the daily short numbers. It helps them bait the noobs into believing a short squeeze is imminent. I have seen many promo alerts where they used the short numbers as a tool to attract uneducated buyers.
Ha ha..transparent indeed. I am now laughing at myself for wasting so much of my time being perplexed and trying to analyze those bogus numbers.
lololol...
I know--it kinda sux biggly, right?
"Semantics" should *not* play a role, but that's just what it is.
there is way more *THERE* .. unfortunately it doesn't *last*
I can only wonder what your conversations with FINRA must be *like*.
Oh, give up on the nonsense about ex clearing. Ex clearing trades are reported, and they settle. I am so sick and tired of the message board bs written by people who don't know what they're talking about:
Ex-Clearing Comparison
"Ex-Clearing" simply means that the trade comparison process is performed without the services of an electronic clearing house. Ex-Clearing is a manual comparison process that is performed by the brokerage firm’s Purchase and Sales Department when the traded security does not meet the eligibility standards of the designated clearing corp.
The Ex-Clearing clerk in the P&S Department sends or faxes a standard comparison form – a "Comp" – to the P&S Department of the contra broker. The standardization of the trade Comp is provided for under New York Stock Exchange Rule 101. Rule 101 requires firms to include the following trade details on all manual comparison forms:
Trade Date
Settlement Date
Security Traded
Quantity Traded
Transaction Price
Accrued Interest (Fixed Income Only)
Net or Settlement Dollar Amount
Due to standardization set forth under rule 101, the term "101" is used synonymously with Comp to refer to the manual comparison form. The result is a compared Ex-Clearing trade.
If the contra broker agrees with the specific trade details on the Comp, the Comp is signed and returned to the originating brokerage firm.
On settlement date, the firm’s Settlement area will create a Fail Record on the firm’s accounting books and records to represent the open receivable or deliverable. The Settlements department will ‘set-up’ a Fail-to-Deliver for securities sold to another firm, and a Fail-to-Receive for securities purchased from another firm.
The transaction is concluded when the selling firm delivers the sold securities to the buying firm, and the buying firm pays the selling firm for the delivered securities. At such time, the open fail record is removed from the firm’s books and records. The ultimate removal of the open receivable or deliverable is referred to as a "Clean-Up".
If the contra broker does not agree with the specific trade details on the trade Comp, the contra broker will "DK" the Comp. DK is a brokerage industry acronym that stands for "Don’t Know". Upon receiving a DK notice, the P&S Department must refer the item back to the originating trader for investigation and resolution.
http://www.brokerage101.com/comparison.html
I have to wonder what the point is of publishing this daily list that FINRA seems so proud of.
Me too. The day after it came out, I called I guy I know who works there. He explained what it meant. Once I understood, I asked why on earth they'd done it, given that it would just cause trouble. He sighed and said that their critics want them to be "transparent", so they decided to publish the daily reports, even though they're meaningless for the purposes of ordinary investors.
This FINRA daily short list is a fashion now on iHub and strongly missinterpreted or used to manipulate the opinion .
Both. It drives me crazy.
more than welcome and good to know
particularly
in this case ~ because there are so many
*misinterpretations* as to what encompasses
finra's daily no.s (essentially it is the
short volume done out of each stock's total
for that respective day) but there are other
aspects one should be aware of ~
once you have your questions answered by the
good folks at finra .. there are other avenues
of knowledge .. including learning about how a
tactic known as ex clearing .. by passes finra's
daily data .. t trades do as well (trades done
both pre and post market hours)
it's been non stop learning for me .. these past
years .. oh and one last bit of advice .. realize
that *usually* calls made to both finra and the sec
wind up taking a little more time then anticipated
more like telephone tag .. but i've found almost
every call has been returned in due course
again best of luck to you with your info
--
4kids
all jmo
Hi 4kids. Thank you very much for the links. I don't "rely" on message boards for education or stock picking, but in this case I could find nothing anywhere that would explain the strange numbers. It never occurred to me to contact FINRA! Duh. So I will try first chance I get tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Thank you very much, Tex. This is a quote from that post: "The reason the number is not 100% is because not all orders are routed thru independent market makers."
I have to wonder what the point is of publishing this daily list that FINRA seems so proud of. Why call "short volume" short volume when it is NOT accurately reporting short volume? Not even close! It seems to be just a waste of everyone's time. Boo on them!
Thanks again.
:)
This the right explanation. This FINRA daily short list is a fashion now on iHub and strongly missinterpreted or used to manipulate the opinion . Should be sticked !
Cheers! ,0)
alyssa
do yourself a favor and *rely* on nothing posted
on a SMB for info where this and other topics are
concerned .. rather contact at finra directly
either jocelyn mello or her boss yvonne huber
and ask for the info to be explained to you
in *layman's* terms ..
pdf info
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2009/34-60807.pdf
finra website contacts
http://www.finra.org/Investors/Contacts/
best of luck to you
--
4kids
all jmo
I have looked everywhere for answers to my questions regarding FINRA's daily list, and if someone here could either answer my questions or point me in the right direction towards finding the answers, I would appreciate it. Of course, the possibility exists that I could be missing something BIG and/or that these are really stupid questions! OK, so here goes:
The “short volume” on EXPU on Friday was 423,000 on total volume of 477,000, leaving only 54,000 shares that are NOT considered short. If this is correct then how is that possible when I purchased long 75,000 shares that day? Am I interpreting these numbers supplied by FINRA wrong? Isn’t it odd that more that 88% of the day’s volume were short sales? This seems to happen on a daily basis on this stock and others as well.
Thanks in advance to anyone out there who will comment or provide answers and/or explanations... :)
http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20100716.txt
ya, it's like being around kids who can't simply be told: Don't tear up the house.
They want you to say, "Don't leave a mess in your room."
"No, you can't wreck the refrigerator."
"No, you can't dissect the pets." etc, etc...
hmm. well, there are several links in the chain.
the rules will have to go out for comment
but apparently, congress is going to make law, and then it's up to the SEC to regulate and require policy.
Man, I have no idea.
I entered a sell yesterday exactly on the bid for speed's sake, and the automated system took the order...then responded that I was too far away from the price. Had to call it in, thereby losing ~10%--but the broker "was happy" to give me the online commish...
implementation question: if i put in a limit order "stink bid" does that mean my broker/dealer will:
1. reject the order as out of market?
2. accept the order, but not route it?
3. route the order, but the MP will not display it?
market participants get paid for adding or removing liquidity from markets. this will impact that money flow?
Many stubs placed by market makers and others were executed May 6, for as little as a penny.
Never heard of this before, but can't say I'm shocked.
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Securities regulators are moving quickly to tighten rules for market makers and eliminate so-called stub quotes, to ensure there is liquidity during stressful times, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
Aiming to avoid a repeat of the stock market's "flash crash" on May 6, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and big exchanges are eyeing minimum obligations for market-making firms that would force them to submit quotes that are less than 10 percent away from a stock's current price, three sources said.
One of the sources said a rule proposal could come within weeks. Another source said the SEC was trying to firm up the market-making rules before it must start crafting dozens of new rules prescribed by financial reform legislation.
The sources requested anonymity because the talks are continuing.
The flash crash, which is still unexplained, saw the Dow Jones industrial average fall some 700 points within just minutes, then sharply rebound. The bounce rattled investors globally and sparked a handful of new rule proposals.
One key response was new market-wide circuit breakers, adopted last month, that halt trading when a stock moves 10 percent within five minutes. The new market-making obligations would force registered firms to quote inside that 10 percent band, the sources said.
An 8 percent quote band is an option being considered, one source said.
Market makers typically use their own capital to take both sides of the market, essentially buying and selling without taking long-term bets so that investors can easily trade. The disappearance of useful liquidity is seen as a cause of the flash crash.
The crash also brought calls for a crackdown on stub quotes, which are standing orders well off the current price of a stock. Many stubs placed by market makers and others were executed May 6, for as little as a penny.
'FRONT AND CENTER'
Market-making rules are "front and center for the SEC now," one source said. Another said the agency's focus on the issue has intensified this week.
An SEC spokesman declined to comment.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, speaking in Chicago on Friday about the flash crash investigation, said in prepared remarks that the agency was "looking at potentially significant imbalances between buyers and sellers that may have been exacerbated by the withdrawal of liquidity usually provided by a variety of market participants."
In a joint report on May 18, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said "stub quotes are not intended to be executed and effectively indicate that the market maker has pulled out of the market."
They added, "We will examine the extent to which market makers used stub quotes to nominally meet their market-making obligations on May 6."
Registered market makers on Nasdaq OMX Group Inc's Nasdaq Stock Market, NYSE Euronext's Arca exchange, and BATS Exchange are generally required to make two-sided markets.
The Big Board's five "designated market makers" are additionally required to post the best bid or offer a specified amount of the time.
Forcing market makers to quote inside the 10 percent circuit breaker threshold would likely help deflect plunging or soaring stocks from tripping the breakers. It could also significantly boost quote traffic at exchanges, where trading and data dissemination is high-speed and mostly electronic.
In Washington, Democrats are trying to shepherd the financial reform bill through Congress so that President Barack Obama can sign it into law. The bill requires the SEC to adopt rules to supervise hedge fund advisers and the over-the-counter derivatives market, among other things.
(Reporting by Jonathan Spicer in New York and Rachelle Younglai in Washington; edited by Gerald E. McCormick and John Wallace)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100709/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation_marketmakers_4
SEC Pushes Tighter Market-Making Rules -Sources
By Reuters July 9, 2010
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON - U.S. securities regulators are moving quickly to tighten rules for market makers and eliminate so-called stub quotes, to ensure there is liquidity during stressful times, people familiar with the escalating discussions told Reuters.
Aiming to avoid a repeat of the severe May "flash crash," the Securities and Exchange Commission and exchanges are eyeing minimum obligations for market-making firms that would force them to submit quotes that are less than 10 percent away from a stock's current price, three sources said.
One of the sources said a rule proposal could come within weeks. Another source said the SEC is trying to firm up the market-making rules before the regulator is forced to start crafting dozens of new rules prescribed by the Wall Street reform legislation.
Democrats are trying to pass the bill in the U.S. Senate so that President Barack Obama can sign it into law. After that happens, the SEC will be required to adopt rules to supervise hedge fund advisers and the over-the-counter derivatives market, among other things.
The sources requested anonymity because talks are ongoing. (Reporting by Jonathan Spicer and Rachelle Younglai, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Copyright 2010 by Reuters. All rights reserved.
No more stubs
SEC pushes tighter market-making rules: sources
Published 0:50 AM, 10 Jul 2010
Last update 0:50 AM, 10 Jul 2010
FULL STORY
Reuters
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON - US securities regulators are moving quickly to tighten rules for market makers and eliminate so-called stub quotes, to ensure there is liquidity during stressful times, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
Aiming to avoid a repeat of the stock market's "flash crash" on May 6, the US Securities and Exchange Commission and big exchanges are eyeing minimum obligations for market-making firms that would force them to submit quotes that are less than 10 per cent away from a stock's current price, three sources said.
One of the sources said a rule proposal could come within weeks. Another source said the SEC was trying to firm up the market-making rules before it must start crafting dozens of new rules prescribed by financial reform legislation.
The sources requested anonymity because the talks are continuing.
The flash crash, which is still unexplained, stripped the Dow Jones industrial average of some 700 points in minutes before it sharply recovered. The bounce rattled investors globally and sparked a handful of new rule proposals.
One key response was new market-wide circuit breakers, adopted last month, that halt trading when a stock moves 10 per cent within five minutes. The new market-making obligations would force registered firms to quote inside that 10 per cent band, the sources said.
An eight per cent quote band is one option being considered, one source said.
Market makers typically use their own capital to take both sides of the market, essentially buying and selling without taking long-term bets so that investors can easily trade. The disappearance of useful liquidity is seen as a cause of the May 6 crash.
The crash also brought calls for a crackdown on stub quotes, which are standing orders well off the current price of a stock. Many stubs placed by market makers and others were executed May 6, for as little as a penny.
Democrats are trying to shepherd the financial reform bill through Congress so that President Barack Obama can sign it into law. The bill requires the SEC to adopt rules to supervise hedge fund advisers and the over-the-counter derivatives market, among other things.
Your post should be a pop-up when you enter this website in big bold letters.
Kinda sounded like Mingy. LOL.
Well, I didn't see it. So I think there's a good chance it was a fabrication.
I think it's funny that whenever a stock is on a FTD list, somehow people claim naked shorts and the whole theory of a MOASS or whatever they call it starts to happen.
I also think it's funny that the biggest scams are always on top of the FTD list.
I also think it's funnier when the sheeple call the CEO and ask why the stock is down and the CEO replies it's being shorted or naked shorted by the evil bashers.
I also think it's the funniest when the sheeple believe that and preach it on the message boards while the CEO continues to dump his preferred convertible into the market place. Or you can dump unregisterd shares which pops up on the FTD list.
lol.
Janice,
I did read the post before it got deleted on what you said about the SEC, and others blah blah...
You must of been pretty upset when you wrote it.
Was it ignorance?
You seem to know alot more then your average investor on here, that's why the post surprised me a little.
He promoted that with a paid press release. Doesn't mention the Gary Weiss article about him on Weiss' blog.
The SEC vs Goldman Sachs, With Securities Fraud Specialist Wes Christian on 'Tim Connolly's Winning Strategies' April 23, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. ET
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-sec-vs-goldman-sachs-with-securities-fraud-specialist-wes-christian-on-tim-connollys-winning-strategies-april-23-2010-at-900-am-et-91831754.html
HOUSTON, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The newly filed civil fraud case of the SEC against Goldman Sachs will be featured on Tim Connolly's Winning Strategies this Friday at 9 am ET. Wes Christian, www.csj-law.com, is a nationally known securities fraud specialist and close associate of legendary trial attorney John O'Quinn, who jointly pursued stock fraud cases with Mr. Christian for many years before his tragic death in an automobile accident in 2009. Wes Christian will discuss his opinion of the likelihood of the SEC prevailing, the standards for upholding a claim of securities fraud, and the likelihood of further lawsuits being filed based on the SEC claims against Goldman Sachs. Call in live and toll free with questions at 800-336-2225, listen live at www.winningstrategies.net or email during the show to talk@winningstrategies.net.
Previous guests of Tim Connolly's Winning Strategies (formerly Corporate Strategies) have included former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, Changewave's Tobin Smith, CNBC "Mad Money" Host Jim Cramer, Gamco's Mario Gabelli, Muriel Siebert, U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John McCain, Enterprise Products CEO Dan Duncan, Celgene's CEO John Jackson, Landry's CEO Tilman Fertitta, former Compaq CEO Eckard Pfeiffer, Money Manager Louis Navellier, and many others.
About Wes Christian
Mr. Christian has devoted a majority of his practice to complex commercial litigation, including several substantial cases involving, among others, intellectual property, wrongful death, medical malpractice, fraud in real estate. In the last five years, Wes has led a consortium comprised of a number of distinguished law firms across the country pursuing several leading brokerage and clearing firms in six states (in state and federal court) for stock fraud and manipulation, seeking in excess of $9 billion in damage.
Mr. Christian has been featured in the following articles:
Christopher Faille, Christian Reflects on Mangan, Gryphon, HEDGEWORLD.com, Jan. 9, 2008
John R. Emschwiller and Kara Scannell, Blame the 'Stock Vault'? Clearinghouse Faulted On Short-Selling Abuse; Finding the Naked Truth, NY SUN, Jul 5, 2007
Liz Moyer, Naked Short Victim Strikes Back, FORBES.com, Feb. 2, 2007
Kara Scannell, 'Not MY Stock': The Latest Way to Fight Shorts, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Aug. 2, 2006
The Economist Staff, Betting on losers, THE ECONOMIST, Jun 22nd 2006
Jane Sassen, The Secret Lives of Short Sellers: the Rise of Hedge Funds and Indie Research Raises New Questions About a Shadowy World, BUSINESS WEEK, Apr. 10, 2006
Daniel Kadlec, Watch Out, They Bite! How Hedge Funds Tied to Embattled Broker Refco Used "Naked Short Selling" to Plunder Small Companies, TIME, Nov. 14, 2005 (SPECIAL ISSUE: INSIDE BUSINESS, December 2005)
About Winning Strategies
Tim Connolly's Winning Strategies (www.winningstrategies.net), formerly known as Corporate Strategies, is a network of financial news resources that provides you with the Low-Risk, High-Reward Strategies for Success necessary to succeed in today's fast-changing, competitive investment and business environment.
Winning Strategies shares the latest news, information, analysis and market intelligence with you through a unique and powerful combination of approaches including:
Tim Connolly's Winning Strategies Business Talk Show
Winning Strategies Newsletters and Strategic Intelligence Updates
Winning Strategies Video Updates
Winning Strategies Subscriber Emails, Blogs and Twitter updates
For more information on booking of interviews, call Marcy Dorotik at 713-621-2737 or email marcy@winningstrategies.net.
SOURCE Corporate Strategies, Inc.
Back to top
RELATED LINKS
www.winningstrategies.net
-------
Friday, September 04, 2009
'Renowned Attorney' Wes Christian Smacked Down in Baloney Lawsuit
http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/search/label/Wes%20Christian
One of the earliest of the recent spate of junk lawsuits involving the hobgoblin of "naked short selling" was filed back in 2002, by a company called ATSI Communications. In a press release at the time, the company announced that it had hired the "renowned trial lawyers" of Wes Christian's law firm to bring the suit.
Christian was indeed well reputed at the time (he certainly won "renown" for his share dumping). But he since has supped from the kool aid springs of baloney, filing one "nekkid short selling" lawsuit after another, as well as by representing the nitwits at Overstock.com in their junk suit against Rocker Partners--and getting nowhere.
ATSI said:
The suit alleges that during the relevant time period, the defendants masterminded what has commonly been called a "Death Spiral" funding scheme, and illegally manipulated the stock price through "toxic convertible Toxic Convertible.
Used by companies that are in such bad shape, that there is no other way to get financing. This instrument is similar to a convertible bond, but convertible at a discount to the share price at issuance and for a fixed dollar amount rather than a specific number of " mechanisms and the methodical operation of naked short selling Naked short selling, or naked shorting refers to the practice of selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or making an "affirmative determination" that the shares can be borrowed. to depress the value of the stock. In the Company's opinion, these actions have resulted in devastating losses to the Company's market capitalization.
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of appeals, in a ruling issued the other day in the ATSI suit, provides a clue as to why he's gotten nowhere with suits like this: because his claims have no merit. The court feels pretty dang strongly that his claim had no merit. It upheld a lower court decision imposing sanctions on him, his partner Gary Jewell, and another lawyer involved in the suit.
The lower court decision found that Christian and his pals "lacked any reasonable factual basis" for suing the principal defendant, Knight Capital Markets, and ordered them to cough up $69,656.69 in fees and costs. The appellate panel agreed, though it sent the case back to the lower court for review of the amount.
The lower court was really teed off. Knight hadn't even asked for monetary damages.
One interesting sidelight: seems that Wes Christian worked hard to keep this penalty out of the public record. As noted in a footnote on page four, Christian and Knight agreed on a settlement that would have vacated the lower court's judgment and short-circuited the appeals process. The judges of the Second Circuit, bless their hearts, would have none of it, observing that "it is precisely to avoid the public's scrutiny of the sanctions that ATSI's counsel seeks vacatur."
The court observed:
We would be hard pressed to conclude that the judgment here, sanctioning lawyers appearing before a United States District Court, is insignificant.
No, it sure ain't. Tough luck, Wes.
I wonder if journalists who have blithely quoted Wes Christian in the past, for articles such as this and this, will continue to swallow his drivel? I'll also be curious to see whether media outlets who picked up the initial press releases, in this and similar suits he's filed, will follow up by reporting the court's decision.
If you ask me, Christian and his buddies were treated leniently by the court. Stock manipulation is a serious allegation. Lawyers who throw around that charge without adequate basis should not be allowed to practice law.
© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.
Labels: junk lawsuits, naked short-selling, Wes Christian
posted by Gary Weiss @ 12:05 PM | links to this post
Tell me again... HOW many "NSS" case has Wes Christian won?
His number makes a nice headline, but sounds a bit inflated to me.
thanks for the link.
Andrew Cuomo: "Fails To Deiver is a $90 Trillion problem"
Andrew Cuomo says FTD is a 90 Trillion dollar problem
at the 38 min mark Wes Christian states:
Andrew Cuomo had told me he thought the scope of the program in the US is $90 TRILLION in fails to deliver of which naked shorting is part of that.
listen to the replay:
http://www.winningstrategies.net/business-talk-radio-show.php#show
then, if interested, click on "Recording Of The SECOND HOUR" and advance to the 1:45 point for the intro of Don Clark and Wes Christian....
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong when I am. In this case, I'm not.
And I could dig up detailed articles from the mainstream financial press that explain exactly what happened, but I can't be bothered, frankly.
Do you include "NSS" in every search you do?
Volkswagen was simply shorted. It was not shorted naked.
But do continue to drink the KoolAid.
Please do not quote from conspiracy websites here.
Germany ban on naked short selling and Goldman Sachs ties
SiriusNews on Jun 7, 2010 06:34 PM
To News Media worldwide, I want to write this letter to clearly put together the story about what took place on Wall Street since the elimination of the uptick rule on July 6th, 2007 up until the current crisis in the United States as of today June 2010, just weeks away from financial reform to be signed into Law here in the United States. May 2007 Goldman Sachs hired math wiz computer programmer Segei Aleynikov July 2007 Up Tick rule abolished and Naked Short Selling Scandal begins as Housing scandal ends July 2007 Massive downgrades in credit ratings as the Housing scandal slows and Goldman Sachs moves into Stock Scandal FY 2008 U.S in a full blown recession due to financial crisis and naked short selling and other scandals tied to Goldman Sachs and others June 2008 Secret meeting in Moscow between Goldman Sachs board members and Hank Paulson Sept 2008 Financial meltdown and Last days of Lehman Brothers. Hank calls Loydd 24 times within a few days July 3rd 2009 FBI arrest Segei Aleynikov as he had sent over 1,000 secret codes and files to German Web Site Feb 24th, 2010 Up tick rule voted back in but with some circuit breakers April 15th 2010 Goldman Sachs tied to Galleon trading investigation April 16th, 2010 Goldman Sachs Civil Fraud Charges brought by Government/SEC May 4th, 2010 Goldman Sachs guilty of Naked Short Selling and pays fine May 6th, 2010 Stock market crash down 700 ponts is minutes to almost down 1,000 points on day. still looking for answers in an ongoing investigation. May 18th, 2010 Germany bans naked short selling. What does the German secret service know about the Goldman Sachs secret files sent to German web site? Now today, Newsweek comes out with a story June 7th, 2010 on page 42, where they state the arrest ofthe Goldman Sachs computer programmer. Newsweek June 7th, 2010 page 42. http://bit.ly/cbM89b Goldman Sachs secret codes/ arrest These facts are all connected, yet the News media has not put the story together. see these two video's on youtube that just came out, that clearly explains the connections and it all leads back to Goldman Sachs. part 1 Utube
You might be interested in this news
DTCC Begins Aggregating Trade-for-Trade Obligations to Reduce Costs and Enhance Efficiencies for the Industry
Service Reduces the Number of Trade-for-Trade Transactions Requiring Financial Settlement
June 03, 2010 09:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
NEW YORK--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) has begun aggregating each side of certain equities transactions that settle outside its systems into one receive and one deliver order to eliminate the need for financial firms to manually settle multiple transactions each day.
---
How the Service Works
As transactions flow from the exchanges and trading venues into NSCC’s trade capture system each day, buy and sell orders between counterparties in a given security that are designated by the clearing corporation to settle trade-for-trade are aggregated into a single receive and a single deliver order. However, as is currently the case with trade-for-trade transactions, the aggregated obligations are not netted against each other and are not guaranteed by NSCC.
Here’s an example of how the service works: if Broker A had fifteen buys against Broker B in Security X, these items would be aggregated into one receive obligation for A and one deliver obligation for B for the total amount of shares for the 15 transactions in Security X. If Broker A also had 20 sells with Broker B on that same day for the same security, those items would also be aggregated into one deliver obligation for A and one receive obligation for B. In this example, A and B would each have two settlement obligations with the other for Security X rather than the 35 obligations they would each have without aggregation.
“Trade-for-trade aggregation further extends DTCC’s ability to leverage its core capabilities to develop solutions that automate securities processing and help reduce costs for financial firms while protecting the safety and soundness of the financial markets,” said Cosgrove.
http://eon.businesswire.com/portal/site/eon/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100603006033&newsLang=en
I'll re-take the mod chair here, and remind folks once again, this board is about listed stocks, and authoritative commentary and rulemaking on short selling.
PLEASE READ THE iBOX IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
There are plenty of other places on iHub for non-listed stocks, and sub-penny stock naked short selling fiction and conspiracy theories. Take it elsewhere.
nobody in Government gives a shit about non-listed stocks.
and they surely don't want to hear from conspiracy wackos over the phone and email.
it's 99% about selling worthless paper once you get below the Nasdaq. accept the risk, or don't play.
4kids, just to be clear, SHORT SALE VOLUME does not represent just SHORT SALES. So the fact that the volume rose does not mean the short positions rose, it just means that the methods of trade changed.
On the SEC website they post this data. It is called Fails to Deliver Data. http://sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Now, if the shorts you claim are being made on a daily basis are legal you hve no gripe. If they were not legal (naked short) at least SOME of those massive levels of short sale trades would show up in the FTD data correct? Can you show us where they showed up?
you know the drill .. anyone who *highlights* aspects
of the totally un level playing field .. is wearing tin
foil hats and is a conspiracy theorist .. riiiiiiight
but the sad reality is there is no co. that can't be
*destroyed*
what i find most disturbing is the *conditioning* that $$$$
is only made one way ~ it's beyond bizarre
--
4kids
all jmo
Apparently it's more fun to be an outlaw than a sheriff or a mere citizen.
Lets premise by admitting that a true con man/manipulator will take what they are given and find a way to work it.
Agree and a good starting point.
Thanks for your facts, thoughts, opinions, WAG's. Every issue deserves a chapter. First some clarification.
Short selling still allows the abuses of multiple stock locates in the execution of trades which for day traders could allow multiples of the legitimate levels of short sales to be executed intra-day into a market. You can use this loophole as leverage to take 2,3,5, etc...% out of a stock intraday and profit at anothers loss.
Are you saying that the same share of stock ABCD, say, 1 share or a block of 10 million, can be obtained (or promised) from multiple sources without the sources knowing that the block is going to one trader, Mr. X Trader? Therefore, with different brokerage accounts, Mr. X can short the same block multiple times?
Or are you saying that, say, Mr. Ex-Management has a paper cert for 10M shares. Mr. Ex is willing to lend his shares to Mr. X Trader. Mr. X, through different brokers, uses the same cert to short the stock multiple times?
I have a feeling that you meant something else entirely.
The answer: mandatory pre-borrow.
Agree. Period. It's the shuffle that seems possible, which is why every share of stock should have a bulletproof ID number, IMO.
good post: kept
patchman, interesting discussion.
I agree that the SEC has finally woken up, although it took a near meltdown of the economy to force them to acknowledge the problems.
Today we have transparency on fails in settlement.
Today we have more reporting cycles for short interest data.
Today we have regulators who are taking enforcement action against those that continue to violate Reg SHO rules.
All true, but all relative. I wish you could devote some time to the loopholes, which are darned near invisible. Yes, we need Ed 101.
When the SEC recently approved new short selling restrictions (tepid, IMO), for ex., it stamped Does Not Apply to unlisted stocks; OTCBB and the Pinks. In your opinion, why? To be clear, as I read it, the over-the-counter market below refers to the OTC derivatives market, which nobody has a handle on, a frighteningly unregulated $45 trillion market.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-26.htm
SEC Approves Short Selling Restrictions
The alternative uptick rule generally would apply to equity securities that are listed on a national securities exchange, whether traded on an exchange or in the over-the-counter market.
Per the new restrictions above, my opinion is that the SEC and FINRA simply don't have the tools to read the Pinks with any accuracy, which is why the SEC is finally getting out a consolidated microscope.
http://sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-86.htm
SEC Proposes Consolidated Audit Trail System to Better Track Market Trades
May 26, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed a new rule that would require the self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to establish a consolidated audit trail system that would enable regulators to track information related to trading orders received and executed across the securities markets.
In your opinion, are the loopholes below valid? Invalid?
the other nooks and crannies of the system - broker-level netting, pre-netting, Stock Borrow Program, ex-clearing and off-shore failures.
Has any financial gizmo replaced Reg S?
Until the Reg S loophole closed, companies were able to issue unlimited quantities of free trading shares to "foreign entities" who were exempt from registration. This allowed small companies to engage in highly toxic financings and led to many abuses in illegal short selling.
We haven't even gotten to the stock-loan issue, which is unreal, IMO.
Finally, a revealing comment in testimony before the SEC by Dennis Nixon, CEO of IBC:
On March 23rd, the day it hit a ten year low of $6.55, the stock traded over five million shares. Short volume rose by 891% to eleven million shares. Nixon said, “We’ve spent thirty years building this company, only to have it destroyed in 45 days.”
Nixon detailed the lengthy process that companies are required to go through to issue new shares, saying “I don’t understand why the long side of the market has such stringent regulations while the short side of the market is the wild, wild west.” Gesturing to the industry insiders on the panel, he added, “Why does this go on? Because these guys make a lot of money doing this.”
Followers
|
41
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
1794
|
Created
|
07/16/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
If Your Government Says It, It Must Be True.
All posts about naked short selling of listed stocks, how to do it, and why it's a good idea are welcome.
If you have that kind of information, after all, The Government wants to speak with you.
What got this board started?
Cox, Paulson and Bernanke went before Congess and suggested a short selling ban.
They helped perpetuate the "illegal naked short selling" myth...
The myth of "NSS" is everywhere on stock message boards.
It's like people think there is a secret vault somewhere hiding mythical naked shorts from the markeplace.
If that's true, somebody with AUTHORITY should PLEASE FIND IT!
To those who want to post about a stock that they claim has a Naked Short Position:
1. Prove it. (It is highly doubtful you can provide any verifiable proof, since short data is only published twice a month, and you would have to have information from a SRO).
2. Company claims in press releases are not a legitimate source of naked short claims or information. (Don't bother calling this "proof" of anything).
3. Posts about Patrick Byrne and his conspiracy theories are well covered elsewhere. No Sith Lord posts, please.
4. Mark Faulk and his get shorty campaign? Forget it.
5. Any more conspiracy nutjob people out there that claim to have proprietary models that produce daily short position data on stocks? Again, not interested.
This board was created to discuss PROVEN naked short positions in LISTED STOCKS.
This means using REGULATORY or GOVERNMENT data on naked short interest in a stock.
You got that? Post it.
P.S. Open invitation to the ANY SEC EMPLOYEE or REGULATORY AUTHORITY -- PLEASE join iHub and post about all these mythical naked short positions.
Bring your unicorn!
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |