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.
Does Nasdaq short interest include my shares (that I own)?
Or is it only shares borrowed to short are included in short interst settlement?
I know I should know this.....but I don't
Thanks in advance
Oppenheimer SEC today
3:58p ET
Oppenheimer & Co. agreed to pay a combined $20 million in settlements over allegations of misconduct in the brokerage's handling of penny-stock trades and ignoring red flags signaling potential violations, as part of a broader government effort to improve compliance with U.S. regulations.
The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Tuesday that Oppenheimer agreed to admit wrongdoing and pay $10 million to settle SEC's charges and an additional $10 million to settle a parallel case with the Treasury Department .
"Despite red flags suggesting that Oppenheimer's customer's stock sales were not exempt from registration, Oppenheimer nonetheless allowed unregistered sales to occur through its account, failing in its gatekeeper role," said Andrew J. Ceresney , director of the SEC's enforcement division.
For its part, Oppenheimer said it was "pleased to put these matters, which involve activity that occurred years ago, behind it. The ability to finalize matters involving two regulatory agencies in a coordinated manner was helpful in bringing this matter to a conclusion."
According to the SEC , Oppenheimer executed billions of shares of penny-stocks for a proprietary account of a customer, Bahamas -based Gibraltar Global Securities , which wasn't registered to do business in the U.S.
The agency said Oppenheimer apparently knew or was negligent in not knowing that Gibraltar was executing transactions and providing brokerage services for its underlying customers, including many in the U.S.
Gibraltar couldn't be reached for comment on Tuesday.
The SEC also found that Oppenheimer failed to report to report potential misconduct by Gibraltar and its customers, and that Oppenheimer failed to properly report, withhold and remit more than $3 million in backup withholding taxes from sales proceeds in Gibraltar's account.
The SEC said it is continuing its investigation into allegations Oppenheimer engaged in unregistered sales of penny stocks on behalf of another customer, which the SEC didn't identify. The SEC said that investigation found the sales generated approximately $12 million in profit, of which Oppenheimer was paid $588,400 in commissions. In that case, Oppenheimer again is accused of failing to respond to red flags and conduct a search into whether sales were exempt from registration requirements.
The SEC said it separately had charged Gibraltar with misconduct in 2013.
Write to Tess Stynes at tess.stynes@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the firm executed billions of dollars in penny-stock trades.
Access Investor Kit for Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc.
Visit http://www.companyspotlight.com/partner?cp_code=P479?=US6837971042
P&D by EPAZ, reminder of risks, story
http://www.pumpsanddumps.com/2014/10/motive-for-delinquent-filings-becomes.html
Motive for Delinquent Filings Becomes Clear As EPAZ Nukes Its Shareholder Base
No example can better illustrate the need for stricter regulation than the recent shenanigans undertaken by Epazz, Inc. (EPAZ and EPAZD). Only on the OTCmarkets can one commit such a blatant act of fraud without repercussions. Even in the wildest of the wild west days of the Vancouver Stock Exchange there is no way one could have pulled off the stunt that these shysters have just pulled.
The red flags were out and waving briskly. As an SEC registered reporting company, EPAZ is required to file financials every quarter as Forms 10-Q and 10-K. The company hadn't filed a timely financial since May 2010. It seems that whenever the overdue financials were finally filed, lottery balls were used to generate the numbers as most were the subject of subsequent amendments, some issued almost a year later. The consistently delinquent filings earned the ticker a STOP Sign from OTCmarkets signifying a "No Information" status. Only recently was EPAZ able to regain its "Current Information" designation.
Thanks you. Appreciate your help.
Etrade is the only one I know of trading it. Tda shows it as being global lock when you try to buy it. Scottrade will not trade it either.
That isn't a Chill removal, that is a removal of restrictions for a Global Lock. Interestingly there is a conflict, ALGF still shows up on the Global Lock list as of December 2014. It certainly appears trading did occur after resumption of DTCC services, it just went to no volume. So I guess the question is, what is the issue? Can people trade it or not? Is there a broker saying that it is still locked?
Technically speaking there are no DTC restrictions on that security due to that resumption of service Notice.
Yeah screenshots help as well as looking at other trade reporting platforms to confirm the same trade transactions occurring. You can have things show up on a broker feed that don't show on any other consolidated tape feeds.
Yep, the Global Lock is still there and it isn't going anywhere until the DTCC removes it. It was issued under ALGF.
Who said a "chill" was removed? A chill is the lowest service restriction, once a Global is applied a Chill is irrevelant, as all services are restricted with a Global Lock.
Dien had a name and ticker change.
The chill was taken off October 17th. The old symbol had a global lock on it. The old symbol was algf. It had a global lock on it. They are saying dien still has a global lock remaining on it.
Can that be the case?
If there is a Global Lock on the security then a chill cannot be lifted. A Global Lock is all DTCC services suspended, while a Chill is just one or potentially two services are restricted.
I don't know if this is technically the right place for this question, but not sure of other boards/people that might know the answer.
I've been seeing a LOT of weird prints on my L2 lately, and am unsure why. SAMP is showing bid/ask as .002 x .0023, but the last 10 prints have been between .0032-.0045, but the ask never got close to that.
DRAG has a bid/ask of .0085 x .01, and two prints of .0013 just happened at 13:54 and 13:56
Only been happening the last couple days, but have no idea why or what might be causing it. I'm using Etrade pro, so don't know if others are seeing these as well. Are these just misprints that are somehow fake, or will be rolled back or something?
Any input appreciated, and again apologies if this isn't the right board for this question
Is there a time frame from when a chill is lifted until the global lock can be removed? If so how long is it?
Thanks.
I will caution that one should read the list carefully and understand that if a chill was applied when the security was another name or ticker that it will be under that particular name and ticker.
For example SUGO is currently American Mineral Group, but the chill was placed on it as Sungro Mineral and thus shows on that list as "Sungro Mineral".
Thx link BB & Best New Year!! em
I wish there was a list or up to date feature of the DTCC website concerning Chills. Unfortunately there isnt anything there to provide an answer. They used to issue CNS Exit chills and when they lifted them they would also provide a notice "lifting" that type of chill. Since March 2012 they stopped issuing such types of chills and have been issuing what are called Deposit chills. These have no public notices filed at the DTCC website.
Global Locks however are published with public notices as well as resumption of services notices.
I did get a response from the DTCC as to providing a chill list, here is their response:
BigBake, I'm looking on DTCC.Com to find if a ticker was released from the chill (others that previously couldn't trade it now can) but I don't see it anywhere on DTC but I'm mobile and limited was hoping there may be a URL quick search or something I could just put in the ticker. Anything you know of?
SEC on stock promoter side deals IPOs
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a stock promoter based in Santa Barbara, Calif. , with fraudulently raising nearly $3.5 million from investors purportedly to purchase Facebook and Twitter shares prior to their initial public offerings (IPOs).
The SEC alleges that instead of purchasing the shares in the secondary market as promised, Efstratios “Elias” Argyropoulos and his firm Prima Capital Group misappropriated investor funds. They used the money primarily for day trading of stocks and options as well as to pay off certain investors who complained when they didn't receive the promised Facebook or Twitter shares.
Argyropoulos agreed to settle the SEC's charges and be barred from working for an investment adviser or broker-dealer, and financial penalties will be determined at a later date.
“Argyropoulos capitalized on the high demand for pre-IPO Facebook and Twitter shares to steal investor money and secretly fund his own day trading,” said Michele Wein Layne , Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
The SEC's complaint charges Argyropoulos and Prima Capital with violating the antifraud provisions and broker-dealer registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Argyropoulos and Prima Capital agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the allegations, and the settlement is subject to court approval.
The SEC separately announced an administrative proceeding against Khaled A. Eldaher, a registered representative living in Austin, Texas . The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that while working for a registered broker-dealer, Eldaher reached a side agreement with Argyropoulos to solicit investors and receive 50 percent of the mark-up on Facebook shares he sold. Eldaher sold $362,887.50 worth of Facebook shares and was paid $15,478 by Prima Capital . He was later terminated by the broker-dealer for selling securities other than through the firm. The Enforcement Division alleges that Eldaher's sales of unregistered securities violated Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge for proceedings to adjudicate the Enforcement Division's allegations and determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Tony Regenstreif and supervised by Victoria A. Levin of the Los Angeles Regional Office. The Enforcement Division's litigation against Eldaher will be led by Karen Matteson .
© 2014 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Well it certainly isnt the DTCC, they havent issued a Global Lock since June and in fact a few securities have been resumed services since then. Not sure what has happened, it seems the proposal from last year was dropped right before the SEC was to publish a decision on it. Nobody seems to know what is going on as the SEC was the regulator pushing for a standardized process of issuing and fair process to challenge such service restrictions.
I would simply say that some are just not buying into the grey market this time of the year after being suspended. The OTC itself is rather dead, seriously if it werent for FNMA and FMCC the stats on the OTC are some of the worst since 2008.
hello mr. bake,
the following 4 companies came off 10 day sec suspension on 12/5/14. to date there have been no transactions in any of the companies. is it simply a matter of buyers and sellers not coming together or is there something else going on?
thanks.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2014/34-73650.pdf
MDIN chill lifted http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=MDIN&id=130961
SEC small cap rule comment Dec. 22
13:56 pm ET By Eric Garcia, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- As the deadline for comment approaches for a program designed to improve market quality for stocks, many industry leaders are discussing the impact on the cost to investors.
Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a pilot program that would widen minimum quoting and trading increments for stocks with market capitalization of $5 billion or less, have an average trading volume of one million or less and have a closing share price of at least $2 a share.
The goal stated by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is to determine if the changes would improve market quality for smaller capitalization stocks. The deadline for comment is December 22nd.
Security Traders Association CEO and President Jim Toes said the association is currently writing its comment letter, which it hopes to have ready by a conference call Wednesday. Toes said it is possible to expect an increase in cost for some investors.
"From very early on we recognized that pilot programs would bring additional costs to private investors," he said. "The question is will investors be willing to accept these additional costs in exchange for opportunity to buy more companies that historically greater growth opportunity than larger-share companies."
Toes said the goal of the pilot program is to reduce the risk to investors while also offering them a benefit not previously available.
Joe Saluzzi , cofounder of Themis Trading, said contrary to some concern, the pilot program might make trading less expensive.
"If I can increase liquidity and have more stock available, it can decrease my transaction cost," he said. Saluzzi said this might drive liquidity makers back into the market.
Kevin McPartland , head of market structure and technology at Greenwich Associates , said in theory the pilot should improve liquidity.
"If the spreads are wider, there's more opportunity to make a profit," he said.
The pilot program has been criticized in the past. Robert Greifeld , CEO of the Nasdaq (NDAQ) , has said the pilot is not reflective of modern technology.
- Eric Garcia ; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
12-16-14 1356ET
A student in need of education
buried at the bottom of his novel on the other board. A photoshopped image of what he believes to be in KEYO's future
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109108689
Please be advised that effective December 05, 2014, DTC has reinstated all services, with the exception of Custody Services, for the below referenced issue.
CUSIP SECURITY NAME
53219E808 Lifeline Biotechnologies, Inc
You're awesome and under paid brother.
Bake,
Wondering if you could point me to a link to study up on the difference between the "Global Lock" and DTC Chills. Or if you have a post already if you could reply with link.
Appreciate your time and insight.
DTCC Launches Canadian Derivatives Trade Repository
Traders Magazine Online News, December 2, 2014
John D'Antona Jr.
The Great North is getting another central clearing repository.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) has launched a global derivatives trade repository in Canada -the seventh jurisdiction where DTCC is enabling financial firms to meet new regulatory mandates requiring the reporting of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
DTCC data repository (U.S.) LLC has been designated an authorized trade repository for Canadian derivatives trade reporting by the Ontario Securities Commission, the Autorite des Marches Financiers in Quebec and the Manitoba Securities Commission.
Under the Canadian rules, which were finalized in December 2013, reporting of trades involving a dealer or a clearing agency began on October 31, 2014, while other counterparties, such as buy-side firms, have until June 30, 2015 to comply with the reporting requirements.
"We have expanded our trade reporting services to Canada as part of our ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and to help mitigate systemic risk in the global derivatives market," said Marisol Collazo, managing director and CEO, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.). "We have longstanding, established relationships with Canadian banks - which play an important role in facilitating derivatives trading globally - and are working in partnership with them and the regulatory authorities to ensure that phased reporting - the implementation of which is expected to help them gain a more holistic view of the marketplace - progresses smoothly. We look forward to expanding our service to support the buy-side when new trade reporting rules go live later in 2015."
DTCC's Global Trade Repository (GTR) is the only repository that supports reporting in multiple jurisdictions and for all five major derivatives asset classes (credit, interest rate, equity, FX and commodity).
Over the past 24 months, DTCC's GTR has onboarded 3,400 firms and provided them with access to trade reporting infrastructure, in addition to connecting them to more than 220 vendors and middleware providers globally. On a weekly basis, DTCC's GTR processes hundreds of millions of submissions on behalf of 100,000 distinct accounts, covering all OTC and exchange traded derivatives (where applicable) across 33 countries.
Dug up this great post of yours thanks! Any idea how I can find out if a specific stock has a chill or lock on it?
As long as we are discussing strictly Exchange listed securities when it comes to Dark Pools and HFT, that doesnt exist on the OTC Markets. Although ECNs are on the OTC Markets they are used by mostly traders. On an Exchange it is much broader as to usage of an ECN, Brokers and Broker Dealers will in fact use the ECN as well as other large pool liquidity.
An ECN is a "Public Pool" of liquidty because you can see that actual order. Dark Pools are the opposite, nobody can publicly see the orders and transactions occurring there. It is like a Grey Market, where there isnt a publicized Bid and Offer and nobody knows the exact transactions happening there, it is like a private transactions if you will. At least on the greys you get a tape report to see the transaction, in a dark pool there isnt anything.
What you are observing isnt dark pool related, it is a big trader and or broker that is trying to move something.
nsph - nanopshere. Soros and Deerfield both sold out at 1.15 for months ended 9/30. Both philanthropist (like insider lurie). Peice never crossed 1.15. One would assume trade went off dark pool.
One "scenario" may be:
The buyer of shares (soros and Deerfield - albeit buyer didn't know at time) realized he was wrong (to be a buyer). He also realizes the dark pool (larger / smarter ) will not be able to support his liquidation; hence he hires a promo team to liquidAte into open market....he gets pps up to 1.15 via the promotion and he liquidates into the exchange / open / market?
This scenario doesn't exactly help my current position, but it's not necessarily bad either....I need help with limitations.....I'm wasting time scouring the universe when I could be narrowed down to a solar system....
Bigbake, my verbiage was a bit off...
I meant to say my awareness of such markets exists, but its limitations and exposure are not known to me (details).
Could you recommend a platform to assist a trader grow...
I also meant to say side "note"
I ask becuase said bid orders have been as large as $150k to $1.4m. With no substantial retail presence other than some wanna be traders (who may interpret the order as fake?) this would be more (in theory more) than a risk if they would be exposed to dark pool as well?
The orders have stood from seconds, to minutes, to hours....sometimes staying....sometimes vanish and comeback shortly thereafter (both lower and higher)...
Is arca exposed to dark pool?
Any expansion is appreciated...
I am aware of all; I lack details.
Side not question: in you opinion what's the best platform? Or for that matter a minimum tool (platform) a trader should have?
Are dark pool trades available to all markets like arca? My interpretation / guess is that the open market would participate in the dark pool if it is assisting in the execution? In a scenario arca has bid of $500k it would fill if black pool sold below? As it has priority?
Thank you for clarification regarding 10 seconds and arca....it is what I thought.
I'm trying to avoid theory on your board (this is difficult for me)...
How does an a position get liquidated without ever crossing the exchange?
A large fund, whose positions are publicized to Nasdaq.com (side question : is this site considered reliable/accurate?) says they liquidated a position within the last Q, but the price never crossed thier liquidation price?.?.? How? Will it ever?
Again if any additional information would assist, let me know.
When you execute a trade through your broker, your broker gets first execution rights on the trade, they may wait for other orders within their brokerage that meet the conditions of your order before executing it. They may do a partial also, part of it internal and the rest off to the market. But lets say your brokers just sends to their contracted broker dealer instead, right to the market, that order may not be the "Best" at that time for them, so it waits in line until it becomes the Best.
With an ECN you dont have to wait, your order is straight to the market and at your price. I can do a direct trade through ARCA and rep my own order without waiting for my broker to determine what is best and then of course the broker dealer who will then have to determine what is best.
Here is a great explanation from the SEC about order execution:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/tradexec.htm
The 10 seconds thing you keep referring to is about executing a trade and then 10 seconds to report that execution to the tape and that is all. If an MM executes a trade they have 10 seconds to report it to the tape, which is really nothing here in the OTC, it happens in less than a second in the majority of cases.
The individual often sets a condition for their order and if they start getting enough volume to complete the order they can decline the trade thus allowing it to fall to the next Bid in line.
I appreciate your time and knowledge.
Let me know If there is any other information that I could provide you with to help me better understand this scenario.
In my previous posts I asked again about obligation and arca as it is the lead bid...
I'm trying to evaluate a situation and my only bias is my current position in the equity.
Why arca instead of an mm?
Also, if they have the order up on the bid and somebody attempts to sell into it; are they obligated to take it? or do they have 10 seconds to retract order?
This large bid is typically the lead (highest)....
Well first thing is ARCA isnt a Market Maker, it is an ECN (Electronic Communication Network). Anyone can use an ECN to direct rout to a specific market or exchange including retail. Here in the OTC is always Retail looking for better pricing advantage.
As to your specific issue, it is exactly what you think is going on, Retail is putting up a fake Bid by directing routing. One of these times they will get caught and it is going to hurt, not only having to buy but there is additional per share charge for completing a transaction for using an ECN.
Does that mean an mm (arca) in this case has 10 seconds to remove an order before it fills if he doesn't really want it? Or is that simply that time alloted to print the trade?
Ie. 500k bid and then it Dissappears...I understand anybody can change remove orders, but if it's there are they required to take shares or do they get 10 seconds to cancel?
Hey Bake,
You made a post the other day that I meant to keep (I have a book of kept post by you btw)
I believe it is on the DD Fraud Board... But I can't find it anywhere, maybe you will recall if you have a link to it but it was in regards to the SEC filing requirements based on number of shareholders I believe.
SEC looking at system integrity
Not sure if will impact other setups but worth a mention. Home Depot trades latest mess up.
By Eric Garcia , MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- With repeated examples of technology failures hitting the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission is voting Wednesday on rules to ensure the integrity of technology infrastructure.
The regulation, known as Regulation Systems Compliance Integrity, would require organizations or systems considered essential to the market to create and enforce policies and procedures for their technology systems.
National securities exchanges, clearing agencies and alternative trading systems could possibly fall under the regulation. Wednesday's vote will determine whether to adopt the rule.
The regulation was proposed largely in light of system failures like the 2010 flash crash and in 2012, when Knight Capital lost $461 million because of a trading mistake. Though the cause is unclear, the New York Stock Exchange reviewed and then cancelled a sudden plunge in the stock of Home Depot late in Thursday's session.
Jeff Dinwoodie , an associate at Davis Polk, said it will be important to see what falls under the regulation.
"The key issue is what specific entities will be subject to the new requirement," he said. The Wall Street Journal reported that the rule would not extend to brokers that handle orders for retail investors.
Among the requirements under the law would be to establish and maintain policies that ensure capacity, integrity, resiliency and security of systems.
"The proposal included a highly controversial requirement that covered entities provide the SEC with access to their core systems," said Dinwoodie. "It will be interesting to see if this aspect of the proposal makes it into the final rule."
Kevin McPartland , principal of market structure and technology at Greenwich Associates , said it would be important to see to what extent alternative trading systems are included in the rule.
"ATS make up a sizeable portion of the market volume," McPartland said. But McPartland said he disagrees with needing to require something market forces already are incentivized to do. Alternative trading systems refer to venues not regulated as full stock markets, usually set up to trade big blocks of shares. Major brokerages such as Credit Suisse , UBS and Deutsche Bank operate such venues, as does upstart IEX.
"They have to go through an onerous process to prove compliance," he said, saying it might add an extra cost to some smaller groups. "That will be a burden to entering or staying into the market."
Dave Lauer , president of KOR Group LLC , said the rule might provide for more market stability, and particularly supported the idea of industry-wide testing.
"It will encourage more resiliency and helps change the incentive from strictly speed of performance to incentivizing stability," he said.
- Eric Garcia ; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
11-19-14 0923ET
SEC plan for larger tick on small stocks
Brokers Attack SEC’s Plan as Trojan Horse Designed to Hurt Them
Traders Magazine Online News, November 11, 2014
Dave Michaels and Sam Mamudi
(Bloomberg) -- Wall Street brokers are in rebellion against a plan to test ways of encouraging more trading of the smallest U.S. stocks, saying the effort was hijacked by exchanges seeking an edge over their rivals.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s pilot program is meant to spur trades in about 30 percent of publicly traded U.S. companies. One of its provisions -- called a trade-at rule -- is really a stealth attempt to hurt brokers that run private trading systems that compete with the likes of the New York Stock Exchange, representatives from JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. said yesterday at an industry conference.
“The exchanges who have a hand in this and seek to benefit from the onerous version of a trade-at basically put the screws to us,” Michael Masone, legal counsel for equities at Citigroup, said at an event sponsored by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Supporters of the one-year pilot program, including lawmakers in Congress, say it will encourage market makers to buy and sell shares by making each transaction potentially more profitable. This, the theory goes, could stimulate initial public offerings because investment banks would have more money to bankroll research departments to tout newly public companies.
The SEC started seeking public comment on the proposals on Nov. 3. The securities regulator must approve the program’s final design. The experiment, which could start next year, will widen the minimum price, or tick, at which shares are quoted on exchanges. For many companies, the tick size is now 1 cent.
Wrong Target
Stephen Luparello, the SEC’s director of trading and markets, said at the same industry event yesterday that brokerage firms have read too much into the regulator’s plans. The SEC is open to feedback and hasn’t sided with the goals of exchanges, he said. If the SEC’s primary goal was really to test ways of discouraging trading on private trading platforms, the regulator wouldn’t target the smallest companies, he said.
“If you were going to do a trade-at pilot, that is not the segment of the market you do it in,” Luparello said.
Joe Christinat, a Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. spokesman, declined to comment, as did Eric Ryan of Intercontinental Exchange Inc.’s NYSE Group division. Bats spokesman Randy Williams said the company remains opposed to the trade-at rule.
The plan as proposed would create four groups of companies with market values less than $5 billion. One segment will require quotes in increments of 5 cents or more, and another will require both quotes and trades to be in 5-cent steps. In a third group, trading will be discouraged on private venues that compete with public exchanges. A fourth group will trade normally.
‘Heavy Comment’
“It almost feels a little bit like, ‘Is this a tick pilot or a trade-at pilot?’” said Brett Redfearn, Americas head of market structure strategy at JPMorgan, speaking at the same event as Masone and Luparello.
Opposition to the program isn’t new. The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee voted 13-3 in January to urge the agency not to conduct the pilot program. The SEC went ahead anyway. Opponents including Fidelity Investments say investors will have to pay more to buy and sell shares of small companies.
“Getting it done this year would be pretty complicated,” SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher, a Republican, said last month at a conference in Washington. “My guess is we’ll get some pretty heavy comment on this thing, and it might buckle under its own weight.”
LVGI resumption of service
http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/pdf/2014/11/10/2188-14.pdf
It is likely more to do with the recent RS and the settlement of shares for each of their customers accounts. Some Brokers restrict trading in that security to ensure proper settlement of the newly issued shares, once that is achieved they no longer restrict trading.
Thanks for the info! I hear that the D is due to be removed from the ticker tomorrow. Will brokers be comfortable trading the stock when the D is gone?
Not as of September 2014, not certain why the question is being asked as I see no indication of a DTC chill in place. However that doesnt stop individual brokers from placing their own trading restrictions on a security. Considering it just did a 1 for 40 RS less than 30 days ago it is likely that some brokers may not allow trading yet.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |