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.
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.
better yet could go under the rico rule
Know how rich we all could be if we operated under the grandfather rule !! we could sell thing all day/year long, make tons of money, and the best part we never have to deliver the good we sell !!! WoW $$$$$$$$$$ no wonder they dont want this appeald !!!
Me thinks B/K is coming !! But it's not smmw, Its some brokers, MM's oh yea let's not forget about the hedge piggies
Now why don't they want this passed ?? If they bought a car i bet they would want delivery !!!!!!
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
serious impact on our ability to make markets ??
In English, now we have to buy real shares !!!
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street's Lobbies for more Profit Protection - January 4, 2007
David Patch
In today's Traders Magazine columnist Peter Chapman discussed the most recent Wall Street debate over Regulation SHO and the now infamous grandfather clause imbedded in the law. In reading between the lines of the article, Wall Street appears to be looking for more party favors from the SEC to keep the 2006 jamboree rolling into 2007.
Recall, in 2004 the SEC released the final version of Regulation SHO to the public and with this release they presented, for the first time, this otherwise unheard of hall pass called the "grandfather clause". After succumbing to the lobbying of the Securities Industry Association (SIA) the SEC incorporated this controversial clause into law without the benefit of public comment or even public awareness. The clause, intended to protect the industry members from their responsibility (liability) in settling what were considered to be excessive and sometimes illegal short positions, was quietly added to the fine print of the released at the 12th hour against the wishes and recommendations of Congressional oversight.
Today, after reconsidering such rule making, the SEC has proposed eliminating this controversial clause identifying it as a loophole that needs to be closed. One SEC Commissioner has called the revision under consideration a mere fine-tuning of the newly created law.
"In fine-tuning Reg SHO," SEC Commissioner Roel Campos remarked in a speech this summer, "our efforts are targeted at protecting a small universe of thinly-capitalized securities from abusive trading wherein the level of fails to deliver can harm the market for the security."
Consider that the difference between today and June 2004 is merely 18-months of opportunity for Wall Street to slowly cover potentially abusive trade liabilities profitably.
As for that "small universe of thinly-capitalized securities" referenced by Campos, to date more than 25% of all NYSE and 30% of all NASDAQ listed securities have held a position on the SEC's threshold security list for excessive failures with neither market rarely considered as being loaded with thinly capitalized companies. In total over, 4000 of the near 13,000 publicly traded companies have seen time on the list.
No small universe by my standards.
The 18-month delay by the regulators in enforcing the laws still may not satisfy Wall Street as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), formerly SIA, apparently continues to lobby the SEC on behalf of the members of Wall Street.
SIFMA contends that the elimination of the grandfather clause would lead to a rash of short squeezes as presented in an industry sponsored comment memo to the SEC by the lobbyist organization. Preventing short squeezes was why the SEC created the grandfather exemption in the first place, SIFMA contends.
A short squeeze occurs when shorts are forced to buy in their positions. In this case, Industry concern is over being responsible to cover shorts sold to investors but never delivered beyond a 13-day trading period.
But short squeezes are not illegal and certainly not illegal if they are the result of simply making the seller deliver what he/she sold. Manipulating the market by flooding the market with stock that does not exist to deliver, and gaining the leverage by upsetting the true balance of supply and demand, is.
By law, any short that is executed on behalf of an investor must settle within 3 business days. Rules 15c3-3 and 15c6-1 of the Exchange Act of 1934 spell that out very clearly. Any failure thereafter becomes the liability of he industry members who executed such orders without fully performing the duties of execution.
Wall Street broker dealers will charge the short seller the fee to borrow the security making the liability of the fail for not borrowing the shares the firms. It is this liability that SIFMA seeks to eliminate from the financial service operations and pass on to the investing public.
The only exempted short from the 3-day settlement period are those shorts created by market makers and specialists who are exempted from the 3-day settlement while making a bona-fide market in a security; creating liquidity. However, bona-fide market making laws also maintain that such transactions must be done to address temporary volatility in the market and can not be claimed exempt if it is for a house account under a trading strategy.
Trading into indefinite deliveries is a trading strategy and not a temporary adjustment for market volume volatility.
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
There is only one problem with Madoff's assertions.
Making markets is about matching legitimate buyers and sellers and about only creating temporary liquidity when they two can't be matched. Using a naked shorting exemption to sell off securities to unsuspecting buyers, and then failing to make good on delivery of these securities for long indefinite periods in time, is not considered temporary market making. Such a trading strategy is no longer making a bona-fide market but executing a trading strategy. When involved in this type of trading strategy market makers then fall under the same trading guidelines as every other market investor and carry the equivalent risk an investor would carry.
In law, there should never be any legal exemption for market makers in any security to execute a trading strategy that insures risk is only passed on to the investor. Such a legal exemption would be the first step to creating a rigged marketplace and would be the cornerstone to possible market manipulation. To make such concessions into law would disrupt investor confidence in the system and the regulators and have an overall negative impact on our markets.
But to a Wall Street Industry where $57 Million bonuses are being handed out to top executives that produce record earnings, this is exactly what is being expected of industry laws and exactly what the industries top lobbyist is preaching in the very halls of the SEC.
Total Wall Street bonuses, using trading profits as a catalyst, peaked at over $27 Billion for 2006 and still that is not enough. SIFMA, representing the industry, wants more and wants it at investor risk.
Protect us from any possible losses is what the SIFMA is requesting and until now how the SEC has responded favorably. Ultimately what SIFMA really wants is for Wall Street to continue to grow and thus continue to invest heavily in SIFMA's high-powered lobbying efforts.
SIFMA, who claims to represent the interests of nearly 93 Million investors, is actually representing none. SIFMA speaks for the industry interests at the expense of 93 Million investors financial safety.
How the SEC will finally conclude this saga is anyone's guess. They have shown little backbone in standing up to industry lobbyists in the past and may very well cower under industry pressures again. One thing is for sure however, Congress is watching this time and Congress, unlike Commissioner Campos, are seeing the results of the data and have concluded one in three companies is not a small universe of companies after all.
If applied equally, one in three investors would equal more than 30 million people who may have been impacted by this reportedly small problem.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006
illu: I think were going to be $$$$$$$ok !!
SOON $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Only 3 mill so far today , I guess B/K is next.
I'll take a total 25,000 dollar loss, before i sell at market .00002
Well when you do i hope you post it, Then i hope the people that are saying my post if false has the B's to say sorry !
OT: To Missinglink: assume its not real ! You assume WRONG !! loke i said e-mail my post to the company, ask if it's real ! so easy !!
correction: MM/Broker !!
Billy The Kid Verses Danny The Kid !
In the 1800's Billy used pistols
In the 200's Danny uses sell buttons
Wonder who would of been faster at the triger if they ever met ??
I think last nite when he tucked danny into bed ! lol
Notice Who's against it !! And we wonder why everytime we look like were going to go look who stops it !!!
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
serious impact on our ability to make markets ???
More like you going to have to sell REAL shares !!
this is all my opinion and as long as im giving opinions Me thinks that rs4racing clown on R&B works for one of these brokers, cause once when i posted on that trash board i ask which MM he works for , and he said I CAN'T ANSWER THAT !!!
OT: By: gusjarvis
04 Jan 2007, 08:42 PM EST
Msg. 465078 of 465093
Jump to msg. #
grandfather is going going
gone:
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street's Lobbies for more Profit Protection - January 4, 2007
David Patch
In today's Traders Magazine columnist Peter Chapman discussed the most recent Wall Street debate over Regulation SHO and the now infamous grandfather clause imbedded in the law. In reading between the lines of the article, Wall Street appears to be looking for more party favors from the SEC to keep the 2006 jamboree rolling into 2007.
Recall, in 2004 the SEC released the final version of Regulation SHO to the public and with this release they presented, for the first time, this otherwise unheard of hall pass called the "grandfather clause". After succumbing to the lobbying of the Securities Industry Association (SIA) the SEC incorporated this controversial clause into law without the benefit of public comment or even public awareness. The clause, intended to protect the industry members from their responsibility (liability) in settling what were considered to be excessive and sometimes illegal short positions, was quietly added to the fine print of the released at the 12th hour against the wishes and recommendations of Congressional oversight.
Today, after reconsidering such rule making, the SEC has proposed eliminating this controversial clause identifying it as a loophole that needs to be closed. One SEC Commissioner has called the revision under consideration a mere fine-tuning of the newly created law.
"In fine-tuning Reg SHO," SEC Commissioner Roel Campos remarked in a speech this summer, "our efforts are targeted at protecting a small universe of thinly-capitalized securities from abusive trading wherein the level of fails to deliver can harm the market for the security."
Consider that the difference between today and June 2004 is merely 18-months of opportunity for Wall Street to slowly cover potentially abusive trade liabilities profitably.
As for that "small universe of thinly-capitalized securities" referenced by Campos, to date more than 25% of all NYSE and 30% of all NASDAQ listed securities have held a position on the SEC's threshold security list for excessive failures with neither market rarely considered as being loaded with thinly capitalized companies. In total over, 4000 of the near 13,000 publicly traded companies have seen time on the list.
No small universe by my standards.
The 18-month delay by the regulators in enforcing the laws still may not satisfy Wall Street as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), formerly SIA, apparently continues to lobby the SEC on behalf of the members of Wall Street.
SIFMA contends that the elimination of the grandfather clause would lead to a rash of short squeezes as presented in an industry sponsored comment memo to the SEC by the lobbyist organization. Preventing short squeezes was why the SEC created the grandfather exemption in the first place, SIFMA contends.
A short squeeze occurs when shorts are forced to buy in their positions. In this case, Industry concern is over being responsible to cover shorts sold to investors but never delivered beyond a 13-day trading period.
But short squeezes are not illegal and certainly not illegal if they are the result of simply making the seller deliver what he/she sold. Manipulating the market by flooding the market with stock that does not exist to deliver, and gaining the leverage by upsetting the true balance of supply and demand, is.
By law, any short that is executed on behalf of an investor must settle within 3 business days. Rules 15c3-3 and 15c6-1 of the Exchange Act of 1934 spell that out very clearly. Any failure thereafter becomes the liability of he industry members who executed such orders without fully performing the duties of execution.
Wall Street broker dealers will charge the short seller the fee to borrow the security making the liability of the fail for not borrowing the shares the firms. It is this liability that SIFMA seeks to eliminate from the financial service operations and pass on to the investing public.
The only exempted short from the 3-day settlement period are those shorts created by market makers and specialists who are exempted from the 3-day settlement while making a bona-fide market in a security; creating liquidity. However, bona-fide market making laws also maintain that such transactions must be done to address temporary volatility in the market and can not be claimed exempt if it is for a house account under a trading strategy.
Trading into indefinite deliveries is a trading strategy and not a temporary adjustment for market volume volatility.
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
There is only one problem with Madoff's assertions.
Making markets is about matching legitimate buyers and sellers and about only creating temporary liquidity when they two can't be matched. Using a naked shorting exemption to sell off securities to unsuspecting buyers, and then failing to make good on delivery of these securities for long indefinite periods in time, is not considered temporary market making. Such a trading strategy is no longer making a bona-fide market but executing a trading strategy. When involved in this type of trading strategy market makers then fall under the same trading guidelines as every other market investor and carry the equivalent risk an investor would carry.
In law, there should never be any legal exemption for market makers in any security to execute a trading strategy that insures risk is only passed on to the investor. Such a legal exemption would be the first step to creating a rigged marketplace and would be the cornerstone to possible market manipulation. To make such concessions into law would disrupt investor confidence in the system and the regulators and have an overall negative impact on our markets.
But to a Wall Street Industry where $57 Million bonuses are being handed out to top executives that produce record earnings, this is exactly what is being expected of industry laws and exactly what the industries top lobbyist is preaching in the very halls of the SEC.
Total Wall Street bonuses, using trading profits as a catalyst, peaked at over $27 Billion for 2006 and still that is not enough. SIFMA, representing the industry, wants more and wants it at investor risk.
Protect us from any possible losses is what the SIFMA is requesting and until now how the SEC has responded favorably. Ultimately what SIFMA really wants is for Wall Street to continue to grow and thus continue to invest heavily in SIFMA's high-powered lobbying efforts.
SIFMA, who claims to represent the interests of nearly 93 Million investors, is actually representing none. SIFMA speaks for the industry interests at the expense of 93 Million investors financial safety.
How the SEC will finally conclude this saga is anyone's guess. They have shown little backbone in standing up to industry lobbyists in the past and may very well cower under industry pressures again. One thing is for sure however, Congress is watching this time and Congress, unlike Commissioner Campos, are seeing the results of the data and have concluded one in three companies is not a small universe of companies after all.
If applied equally, one in three investors would equal more than 30 million people who may have been impacted by this reportedly small problem.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006
OT: BUT A MUST READ< NOTICE WHO IS AGAINST IT !!
By: gusjarvis
04 Jan 2007, 08:42 PM EST
Msg. 465078 of 465093
Jump to msg. #
grandfather is going going
gone:
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street's Lobbies for more Profit Protection - January 4, 2007
David Patch
In today's Traders Magazine columnist Peter Chapman discussed the most recent Wall Street debate over Regulation SHO and the now infamous grandfather clause imbedded in the law. In reading between the lines of the article, Wall Street appears to be looking for more party favors from the SEC to keep the 2006 jamboree rolling into 2007.
Recall, in 2004 the SEC released the final version of Regulation SHO to the public and with this release they presented, for the first time, this otherwise unheard of hall pass called the "grandfather clause". After succumbing to the lobbying of the Securities Industry Association (SIA) the SEC incorporated this controversial clause into law without the benefit of public comment or even public awareness. The clause, intended to protect the industry members from their responsibility (liability) in settling what were considered to be excessive and sometimes illegal short positions, was quietly added to the fine print of the released at the 12th hour against the wishes and recommendations of Congressional oversight.
Today, after reconsidering such rule making, the SEC has proposed eliminating this controversial clause identifying it as a loophole that needs to be closed. One SEC Commissioner has called the revision under consideration a mere fine-tuning of the newly created law.
"In fine-tuning Reg SHO," SEC Commissioner Roel Campos remarked in a speech this summer, "our efforts are targeted at protecting a small universe of thinly-capitalized securities from abusive trading wherein the level of fails to deliver can harm the market for the security."
Consider that the difference between today and June 2004 is merely 18-months of opportunity for Wall Street to slowly cover potentially abusive trade liabilities profitably.
As for that "small universe of thinly-capitalized securities" referenced by Campos, to date more than 25% of all NYSE and 30% of all NASDAQ listed securities have held a position on the SEC's threshold security list for excessive failures with neither market rarely considered as being loaded with thinly capitalized companies. In total over, 4000 of the near 13,000 publicly traded companies have seen time on the list.
No small universe by my standards.
The 18-month delay by the regulators in enforcing the laws still may not satisfy Wall Street as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), formerly SIA, apparently continues to lobby the SEC on behalf of the members of Wall Street.
SIFMA contends that the elimination of the grandfather clause would lead to a rash of short squeezes as presented in an industry sponsored comment memo to the SEC by the lobbyist organization. Preventing short squeezes was why the SEC created the grandfather exemption in the first place, SIFMA contends.
A short squeeze occurs when shorts are forced to buy in their positions. In this case, Industry concern is over being responsible to cover shorts sold to investors but never delivered beyond a 13-day trading period.
But short squeezes are not illegal and certainly not illegal if they are the result of simply making the seller deliver what he/she sold. Manipulating the market by flooding the market with stock that does not exist to deliver, and gaining the leverage by upsetting the true balance of supply and demand, is.
By law, any short that is executed on behalf of an investor must settle within 3 business days. Rules 15c3-3 and 15c6-1 of the Exchange Act of 1934 spell that out very clearly. Any failure thereafter becomes the liability of he industry members who executed such orders without fully performing the duties of execution.
Wall Street broker dealers will charge the short seller the fee to borrow the security making the liability of the fail for not borrowing the shares the firms. It is this liability that SIFMA seeks to eliminate from the financial service operations and pass on to the investing public.
The only exempted short from the 3-day settlement period are those shorts created by market makers and specialists who are exempted from the 3-day settlement while making a bona-fide market in a security; creating liquidity. However, bona-fide market making laws also maintain that such transactions must be done to address temporary volatility in the market and can not be claimed exempt if it is for a house account under a trading strategy.
Trading into indefinite deliveries is a trading strategy and not a temporary adjustment for market volume volatility.
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
There is only one problem with Madoff's assertions.
Making markets is about matching legitimate buyers and sellers and about only creating temporary liquidity when they two can't be matched. Using a naked shorting exemption to sell off securities to unsuspecting buyers, and then failing to make good on delivery of these securities for long indefinite periods in time, is not considered temporary market making. Such a trading strategy is no longer making a bona-fide market but executing a trading strategy. When involved in this type of trading strategy market makers then fall under the same trading guidelines as every other market investor and carry the equivalent risk an investor would carry.
In law, there should never be any legal exemption for market makers in any security to execute a trading strategy that insures risk is only passed on to the investor. Such a legal exemption would be the first step to creating a rigged marketplace and would be the cornerstone to possible market manipulation. To make such concessions into law would disrupt investor confidence in the system and the regulators and have an overall negative impact on our markets.
But to a Wall Street Industry where $57 Million bonuses are being handed out to top executives that produce record earnings, this is exactly what is being expected of industry laws and exactly what the industries top lobbyist is preaching in the very halls of the SEC.
Total Wall Street bonuses, using trading profits as a catalyst, peaked at over $27 Billion for 2006 and still that is not enough. SIFMA, representing the industry, wants more and wants it at investor risk.
Protect us from any possible losses is what the SIFMA is requesting and until now how the SEC has responded favorably. Ultimately what SIFMA really wants is for Wall Street to continue to grow and thus continue to invest heavily in SIFMA's high-powered lobbying efforts.
SIFMA, who claims to represent the interests of nearly 93 Million investors, is actually representing none. SIFMA speaks for the industry interests at the expense of 93 Million investors financial safety.
How the SEC will finally conclude this saga is anyone's guess. They have shown little backbone in standing up to industry lobbyists in the past and may very well cower under industry pressures again. One thing is for sure however, Congress is watching this time and Congress, unlike Commissioner Campos, are seeing the results of the data and have concluded one in three companies is not a small universe of companies after all.
If applied equally, one in three investors would equal more than 30 million people who may have been impacted by this reportedly small problem.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006
e*trade shows vol: 793,615,032 pps: .0003 down 25%
E*trade says O/S is 1.8 bill, Over 600mill shares traded and its down, this tells me one thing , another POS i got into glta
IMO) Stu was smart by taking money and NOT shares for his service.
Next P/R, New LOI ? Buyback ? Raised the A/S ? R/S ? B/K ?
Danny's v v v is now /\ /\ V
If M/O's are going for .00002 Is dan buying at .00003 ??
LOI's are droping like fly's
cam: our luck the tree will die :>) lol
Good news they sell Bad news they buy !! man whata stock !! comon dan more bad news !! lmaoooo
RR, I think i read your post just for the picture :>) lol
You all know i don't pump this, But for thoses that saw the dvd, Could dan be changing courses and maybe just maybe going to have his own ski resort ???
Appears the 06 pumps ran full circle, Wonder what the 07 pump will be !!!
Gorb: Buying ??? we lost the bid on that 3 bill, day !! this is my last post for the day, if you want you can e-mail me
OT: But you may want to sign up, http://www.petitiononline.com/mrktrfrm/petition.html
LOL !! Another p/r like that and he can buy back at .000001
Maybe its for the BIG buy back !!! lolol
Anyone think the SEC is on dan's ass ?? Prety Brave of him to use stu's name and get this p/r out !! Hummmmmm jmho
alien, lmao your having to much fun !! lololol
gorb:
hey i like you, from our e-mails you seem like a honest person, good nature and all, but i think dan is using you as a tool, look at clockwatcher,mettro,casscounty, it's the same pattern repeted over and over, i hope you didn't put money in this that you can't afford to lose. glta show me a bid ! and all my opinion
Ok, I think !
RJ/Bob: if dan did step down that would open the door for a r/s, and dan would be in the clear
wind: you can have mine, and if you weren't pizzed before you saw the dvd, you will be !
gorb: Not busting your chops, but how can you feel good about your investment here ?? this game has been played for years now.
Thank God for drinks !! You should come over sometime, We can listen to hook on smmw, or play ski pole javlin, dvd frisbee,danny darts, pin the tail on the hoursey, guess which cup the loi is under, just a whole hoast of summus games !!