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.
We are going to see a load of new rules over the next 6-18 months
I'd like to know more about this, too...
Theresa Molloy: Okay, Clarke. A question that comes up from many, many, many of our
issuers regarding short sale is -- an issuer will say, well, they've got to disclose everything that's
material in an 8-K as soon as it happens. And institutions who short their stock are not -- don't
have to follow the same type of rigor in reporting that an issuer does.
So, as part of this regulation, do you see that it could potentially impact institutions? And, do
you think that there is a possibility that it -- that institutions would have to file their short
positions on a monthly basis?
Clarke Camper: Yes, that's a great question, Theresa. And, yes, the answer is unequivocally
yes, but that possibility exists. It depends how the SEC ends up interpreting this provision. Like
I said, there's broad latitude. It's Section 929X. And the X shows you that they basically, again,
jammed this in at the last minute, a bunch of provisions, and said, oh, we'll stick them in Section
929 and just give them A through X numbers.
But, yes this is a license for the SEC to do almost anything. And to your point about will it
require institutions to disclose to the SEC monthly, my guess is the disclosures will be much
more frequent than monthly. But then, in fact, the public disclosure will be monthly.
Theresa Molloy: Right.
Clarke Camper: But some -- I would not be surprised to see traders, for instance, have to
report on a daily basis to the SEC. And, again, you would hope that there would be some kind
of tiered -- appropriately tiered reporting mechanism in terms of timing to the SEC, depending
upon what kind of market participant you are. But my guess is it's going to be whoever you are,
if you're shorting a stock, you're going to have to report to the SEC regularly.
Theresa Molloy: Okay. And what about a timeframe for implementation, discussion, looking at
six months, 12 months? We know that wheels of progress turn pretty slowly.
Clarke Camper: Yes, and -- again, a great question. When you read the language, if you're
lucky enough to do so -- I hope you know I'm saying that with a smile.
Theresa Molloy: Well, 2,300 pages -- you've got a long weekend coming up, guys. So, we're
going to put this in NYSE Connect, and I'm sure that all of you will be downloading it and
bringing it for beach reading.
Clarke Camper: Right. It's best if you have trouble sleeping. But you'll see that the SEC is
required just to issue regulations. And so, there are very few cases where they actually give a
requirement. For instance, on the proxy -- I'm sorry -- a chair and CEO position issue, the
number two issue on the slide, that one the SEC was required to issue a rule within six months
after the act.
The others are typically there is no timeline on these. I know that the SEC -- obviously, they're
going to be prioritizing themselves. Clearly, say on pay it's going to be a priority for them --
something they care about and are going to get out. Proxy access is going to be the same way. I
expect that there are going to get those things out quickly.
But, yes -- so, in some cases, the wheels are going to turn quickly, other cases, not so much.
But the takeaway I would say is, again, if you care about any of these provisions -- all of them
are important. You can't assume that you can sit back and get to these after -- right after your
summer vacation; you really should jump on them right away.
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/ViewWashingtontranscript.pdf
A Few Things in the DFA You May Not Have Heard Much About
07/28/2010
By Cydney Posner
http://www.cooley.com/shownewsbrief.aspx?Show=64089
Below are a few additional items in the Dodd-Frank Act that you may or may not have heard about (there are probably plenty more to come to light):
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND SHORT-SWING PROFIT REPORTING (Sections 766 and 929R)
The Act deletes the requirement in the Exchange Act that beneficial ownership reports under Section 13 be sent to the issuer and the applicable exchange and that short-swing trading reports under Section 16 be sent to the applicable exchange. In addition, for purposes of Sections 13 and 16, the Act expands the concept of acquisition of beneficial ownership of an equity security to include the purchase or sale of a security-based swap, to the extent determined by the SEC.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION (Section 922 et seq.)
New Section 21E of the Exchange Act adds incentives and protection for whistleblowers in any "covered judicial or administrative action" brought by the SEC under the securities laws that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. The awards payable to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information to the SEC leading to the successful enforcement of a covered <br>judicial or administrative action, or related action, can range from 10 % to 30% of the amount of the monetary sanctions collected in the action or related actions. In addition, the Act expressly prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers. The prospect of a 30% reward just might be enough to encourage some otherwise shy whistleblowers, but in some cases, it may just be an opportunity for some (perhaps disgruntled employees?) to try to catch the gravy train.
SHORT SALE REFORMS (Section 929X)
You may recall that in the middle of the crisis, there was a lot of concern about short sales and their potential use to manipulate stock prices. The DFA amended Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act to add a new section requiring the SEC to issue rules for the public disclosure of the aggregate amount of the number of short sales of each security, and any additional information determined by the SEC. (Presumably this disclosure will be limited to investment managers.) The DFA also makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to effect a manipulative short sale of any security. The SEC will also be issuing rules about enforcement and related remedies. In addition, Section 15 was amended to require brokers to notify their customers that they may elect not to allow their fully paid securities to be used in connection with short sales. Whether these rules will be enough to put an end to concerns about short sale manipulation remains to be seen.
CONFLICT MINERALS ORIGINATING IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (Section 1502)
Reportedly, this provision was co-sponsored by Senators Brownback and Feingold. That odd pairing should be enough to get your attention.
The provision is designed to help address the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals, originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are then used to finance "conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly sexual- and gender-based violence, and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation therein…."
The Act adds new Section 13(p) of the Exchange Act, which requires the SEC to issue new rules within 270 days after enactment mandating annual disclosure by reporting companies of whether "conflict minerals" that are "necessary to the functionality or production of a product" manufactured by the company in the reporting year originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the "DRC") or an adjoining country. "Conflict minerals'' include
- columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives; or
- any other mineral or its derivatives determined by the Secretary of State to be financing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country.
(Note, because of a lack of clarity in the drafting, some commentators are contending that the provision may even apply to private companies. The SEC rules should straighten that out).
The Washington Post reports that NGOs and others are concerned that DRC groups are financing themselves with minerals such as gold and the "three T's" -- tin, tungsten and tantalum (apparently, derivatives of the minerals identified above). The Post reports that the new provision could apply to electronics companies (laptops, cell phones, PDAs, DVD players, televisions), which are major users of Congolese tantalum, but also to companies that use tin and gold. Conflict minerals may also be present in medical devices. An "adjoining country" is one that shares an internationally recognized border with the Congo: looking at a map, that's Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.
When the conflict minerals used in the company's products did originate in one of those countries, the company must submit to the SEC a report that includes the following:
- a description of the measures taken by the company to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the minerals, which measures must include an independent private sector audit of the report submitted through the SEC that is conducted in accordance with standards established by the Comptroller General, in accordance with SEC rules and in consultation with the Secretary of State; and
- a description of the products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured that are not DRC conflict free (i.e., products that do not contain minerals that directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country), the entity that conducted the independent private sector audit, the facilities used to process the conflict minerals, the country of origin of the conflict minerals, and the efforts to determine the mine or location of origin with the greatest possible specificity.
The company submitting the report must certify the audit described above, which will constitute a critical component of due diligence in establishing the source and chain of custody of the minerals, unless it's determined to be unreliable. The disclosure must also be posted on the company's website. <br> <br>The Post reports that "[m]any firms in the high-tech sector have been trying to ensure their suppliers don't use ‘conflict minerals,' jointly running a pilot program at smelters to identify where minerals come from." However, "U.S. executives say it can be exceedingly difficult to figure out whether there are ‘conflict minerals' in their products. Such minerals may, for example, be smuggled from Congo through Rwanda, mixed with ore from other countries in a smelter in Kazakhstan and then sold to a company in Southeast Asia that supplies a parts manufacturer in China…. Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic affairs, said in an interview that tracing the source of minerals is much more complicated than tracing the source of diamonds. For one thing, he said, diamonds ‘aren't melted down.' In addition, the rebels sometimes gain or lose control over mines."
If the SEC was reluctant to comment on SOX 402 (loans to executives, reportedly on the basis that it really wasn't within the SEC's province), it should be just ecstatic with its role in developing these rules. There is a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the provisions –e.g., the rules for the required due diligence, the meaning of "necessary to the functionality or production of a product" – that will need to be clarified. Companies all along the supply chain may be affected, whether or not they themselves are required to report.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COAL OR OTHER MINE SAFETY (Section 1503)
Public reporting companies that operate, or have subsidiaries that operate, coal or other mines will be required to include, in each periodic report filed with the SEC, information regarding health and safety and other violations at each mine, including the total number of "flagrant violations" and " imminent danger orders," the total dollar value of proposed assessments for violations and the total number of mining-related fatalities. Operators will also have to file an 8-K regarding the receipt of an imminent danger order and other specified health and safety notices.
DISCLOSURE OF PAYMENTS BY RESOURCE EXTRACTION ISSUERS (Section 1504)
The Act adds Section 13(q) of the Exchange Act requiring each public "resource extraction issuer" to include in its annual report information relating to any payment made by company, its subsidiary or any other company under its control to a foreign government (including companies owned by that government) or the Federal Government for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals, including the type and total amount of the payments made for each project and made to each government. "Commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals" includes exploration, extraction, processing, export and other significant actions relating to oil, natural gas or minerals, or the acquisition of a license for any such activity, as determined by the SEC. "Payment" includes any (not de minimis) payment made to further the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals, including taxes, royalties, fees (e.g., license fees), production entitlements, bonuses and other material benefits, that the SEC determines to be part of the commonly recognized revenue stream for the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals. The information is required to be in XBRL. The SEC is required to issue rules within 270 days after enactment.
I hadn't even heard of it until today.
no clue--only just now read your post about it.
Did "Section 929X(a)" make the final cut?
I don't *think* I really care about individual IDs. But accurate, net totals would be nice, as opposed to the confusatron we have now. (*Note* the SEC and SROs should be able to see individual IDs, at a the click of a mouse...)
Is 929x(a) in the final language?
What does it say?
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/TitleIXcounter.pdf
25. Add the House provision requiring daily reporting on short sales, prohibiting manipulative short sales, and requiring notification to customers that they may elect not to allow their securities to be used in connection with short sales and that the broker may receive compensation if the shares are so used. (House § 7422, p. 1383) Accept in Part – Accept all of the House’s offer on short sale reforms except for Page 39 Line 20 through Page 40 Line 13 (SEC.929X. (a) “(2)(A)”) of the House offer. – Reject – Reject daily short sale reporting by every institutional investment manager (SEC.929X. (a) “(2)(A)”).
Finreg May Shine Light on Short Sellers
07/12/10 - 10:33 AM EDT
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- A little-noticed provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may require large investors to disclose short positions in stocks to the Securities and Exchange Commission, something they are not currently required to do.
The language in Section 929X(a) seems fairly clear in requiring the SEC to mandate detailed public disclosure of short interest on a monthly basis via what are known as 13(f) filings. Such filings currently require large investors -- defined as those that manage more than $100 million -- to disclose only their long positions.
The proposed new law reads as follows: "The Commission shall prescribe rules providing for the public disclosure of the name of the issuer and the title, class, CUSIP number, aggregate amount of the number of short sales of each security, and any additional information determined by the Commission following the end of the reporting period. At a minimum, such public disclosure shall occur every month."
An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the pending legislation.
Despite the detailed legislative language about what must be disclosed, there is some question about whether the SEC will find a way to avoid mandating such a disclosure, or whether it will allow short sellers to remain anonymous.
"There has been some discussion over the years about mandating disclosure of short positions and at different times the Commission has not been all that receptive to the idea that that's important market information," says Erich Schwartz, a former SEC official who is now a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Indeed, one Washington-based hedge fund lobbyist who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he was fairly confident the reporting requirements would not lead to the identities of short sellers being disclosed.
Still, the fact that the disclosures would come via 13(f) filings suggests to Skadden's Schwartz that money managers will be required to disclosure their individual short positions.
"That's certainly a likely outcome," he says.
It is also an appropriate outcome, according to Harvey Pitt, a former SEC chairman who is now CEO of consultant Kalorama Partners.
"There are any number of discrepancies between the way the law handles long positions and how short positions are handled," Pitt wrote in an e-mail exchange with TheStreet. "The law should not make such distinctions."
Disclosure requirements are greater for shareholders owning more than 5% of a company's stock, but a short position of comparable size does not need to be disclosed, Pitt points out.
"That strikes me as both bad policy and improper discrimination against long-position holders. There really is no reason that we deprive the markets of this critical information, and it should be changed," he wrote.
It is unlikely to be changed without a big fight by hedge funds. Among the arguments they are sure to make is that a disclosure of the identities of short sellers will cause them to be persecuted by the companies they are shorting.
Many executives at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns blamed short sellers for the downfall of those firms, and well-known short-seller Jim Chanos said of Bear CEO Alan Schwartz, "that f*cker was going to throw me under the bus no matter what,"in an interview with Portfolio magazine.
Short sellers including David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital and Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management have also talked and written publicly about being persecuted by both regulators and companies they shorted, such as Allied Capital (ALD) and MBIA(MBI).
A temporary ban on short sales of 799 companies in 2008 was part of an effort by regulators to stave off sharp declines in shares of Goldman Sachs(GS) and Morgan Stanley(MS) that appeared to threaten the ongoing viability of those companies. Large banks, including Citigroup(C), JPMorgan Chase(JPM) and Bank of America(BAC) were also among the companies protected by the ban.
Those institutions are all broker-dealers which profit by trading and lending securities to short sellers, and tend to oppose proposed rules that limit short-selling activity. However, some of them reluctantly supported the 2008 short-selling ban as they feared their companies might be taken apart in the panic following Lehman Brothers's bankruptcy filing in September of that year.
In addition to its requirements on short sale disclosure, the Dodd-Frank legislation will require broker-dealers to disclose that they may lend out customers' securities for a profit to short sellers. They must also give customers the option of not allowing their securities to be lent.
Short sellers bet against a stock by borrowing it in the hope that the price will go down. They can then buy the stock at the lower price to pay back the lender, and pocket the difference for a profit.
-- Written by Dan Freed in New York.
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10803132.html
the content of your posts is not authoritative in any way whatsoever.
posting the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
#msg-50830190
Thank you very much.
For Pinks and OTCBB, go here:
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/OTCE_Short_Interest.asp
depends on the stock but otcbb.com or pinksheets.com will give you the short interest b-weekly reports.
Janice, where do you get the twice-monthly short INTEREST report? Thanks.
Feel free to research the links...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49600596
Many have and many have reported what FINRA said including the links they direct people to that explain how a trade is marked. Unfortunately you choose to ignore what they have said, ignored the evidence, and chose to present false and misleading information. why?
the short volume reports are misleading and they are working on clarifications. Why do you continue to hype the misinformation?
it also
won't happen in one phone call ~
Sure it will, if you know the right person, and have some understanding of how the markets really work ~
You're re-hashing material on fails from 2008. See bold part, below.
Over the weekend you were re-hashing ex-clearing nonsense from 5-6 years ago.
Try and keep up.
Posted: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:28:38 AM
#msg-32900351
Fails-to-Deliver Data
This is now on the Spotlight Page, Please click the link, they made a few changes since I last looked
Frequently Requested FOIA Document:
Fails-to-Deliver Data
What You Should Know About the Data
This text file contains the date, CUSIP numbers, ticker symbols, issuer name, price, and total number of fails-to-deliver (i.e., the balance level outstanding) recorded in the National Securities Clearing Corporation’s (“NSCC”) Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) system aggregated over all NSCC members when that security has a balance of total fails-to-deliver of at least 10,000 shares as of a particular settlement date. The data includes fails-to-deliver in equity securities.
The values of total fails-to-deliver shares represent the aggregate net balance of shares that failed to be delivered as of a particular settlement date if the balance is 10,000 shares or more. If the aggregate net balance of shares that failed to be delivered is less than 10,000 as of a particular settlement date, then no record will be present in the file for that date even if there are fails in that security. Fails to deliver on a given day are a cumulative number of all fails outstanding until that day, plus new fails that occur that day, less fails that settle that day. The figure is not a daily amount of fails, but a combined figure that includes both new fails on the reporting day as well as existing fails. In other words, these numbers reflect aggregate fails as of a specific point in time, and may have little or no relationship to yesterday’s aggregate fails. Thus, it is important to note that the age of fails cannot be determined by looking at these numbers. In addition, the underlying source(s) of the fails-to-deliver shares is not necessarily the same as the underlying source(s) of the fails-to-deliver shares reported the day prior or the day after.
While the total fails-to-deliver shares represent the balance on a given day, the files contain each settlement date over a calendar month. The first month available is August 2007. The monthly files are archived in a zipped file for each calendar quarter. The most recent data for a quarter will be available at least two months after the last settlement date of the quarter. We cannot guarantee that the data will be posted by a particular date. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data.
The price field includes the closing price of the security on the previous day as long as the price is available and is greater than one penny. When the price is not available or is less than a penny, the field is filled with a “.”. Even when prices are included in the data, we cannot guarantee that this price matches closing prices available from other sources.
Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling. For more information on short selling and fails-to-deliver, see www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm, and http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.htm.
What You Should Know About the Data File
The information in this file is raw data — data that are meant to be used as input to another program. The data items are provided as a "pipe delimited" text file. Although the file can be viewed in any program that accepts ASCII text (for example, a word processor), the data fields are best viewed when imported into a program that accepts delimited data, such as a spreadsheet or a statistical application. The record layout and maximum field sizes are shown below for those who want to process the data into another form.
Field Name Field Description Maximum Size
SETTLEMENT DATE SETTLEMENT DATE Number - 8 digits
CUSIP CUSIP 9 characters
SYMBOL TICKER SYMBOL 10 characters
QUANTITY (FAILS) TOTAL FAILURE-TO-DELIVER SHARES Number - unlimited
DESCRIPTION COMPANY NAME 30 characters
PRICE CLOSING PRICE ON PREVIOUS DAY Number - unlimited
For technical questions regarding the website, send an e-mail message to webmaster@sec.gov. For additional information about the data, call the SEC's Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations at (202) 551-7900.
Current Data
Download the Current Fails-to-Deliver Data
Reports for the second quarter 2008
(ZIP archive size: 5.0 MB; decompressed size: approx. 12 MB)
Archive Data http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 09/02/2008
DD is irrelevant when the system in place is corrupt
messages are ignored when the sender is not credible
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.
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: |