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.
"janice, one of my 3 coworkers, larry, got lucky and got in at .0001 before the buy back.. me and the others only got .0002 before amtd shut buys out...
at the time, we thought that may be the time to get in.. but my point is, his break even was .002 and hes double now, not sold any, has some set for .01, but if not, hes happy with anything above, .002."
Posted by: janice shell
In reply to: eliaman who wrote msg# 42828 Date:8/7/2007 9:30:58 PM
Post #of 42872
from .0001 to .004 nice ROI..WOULDN'T YOU SAY??
Didn't happen. It wasn't possible to buy at 0.0001 on the 23rd or later.
Permit me to point you how many BILLIONS of shares executed by the following BROKERS. in what you call UNSOLICITED!!
http://otcbb.com/asp/tradeact_mv.asp?SearchBy=issue&Issue=PAIM&SortBy=volume&Month=12-1-...
janice..unsolicited?? explain NITES 17 BILLION over the past 1 year and 7 months...YOU CALL THIS UNSOLICITED??
janice you saying nobody bought at .0001?? ISNT THERE A BUYER FOR EVERY SELLER??
jimmy from .0001 to .004 nice ROI..WOULDN'T YOU SAY??
ot:=DJ IN THE MONEY:AMEX Nabs 2 For Reg SHO Abuse; 1 Traded Overstock
By Carol S. Remond
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
Struggling Internet retailer Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) just got some new
ammunition in its quixotic fight against short-sellers, those investors who bet
against a company.
Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company
sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades
surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against
Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.
While SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive
conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne
and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against
short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.
Arenstein and SBA, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to disgorge
$1.4 million in trading profits and pay a $3.6 million fine. Arenstein also
consented to a five-year ban.
Overstock isn't named in the regulatory decision against Arenstein and SBA,
but an example of their trading activities included in the document provides
tantalizing clues that company ABCD with Dec 45 calls at $3.70, Dec 45 puts at
$6.40 and a stock price of $43.70 a share is in fact Salt Lake City-based
Overstock.
Arenstein's brother Brian Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading LLC also
separately settled, without admitting or denying liability, similar charges and
agreed to disgorge $1.8 million in trading profits and pay a $1.2 million fine
for trading between Nov. 16 and Dec. 17, 2006. Brian Arenstein also agreed to a
five-year ban. In Brian's case, the example provided by AMEX indicates that he
was improperly selling short NYSE Euronext (NYX).
A lawyer for the Arensteins declined to comment. Those were the largest fines
ever levied by AMEX. AMEX said in a press release that the improper trading was
detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or
FINRA.
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms violated the so-called Reg SHO,
a regulation enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to
modernize short-selling rules and address failures to deliver stock on
settlement date. The firms had no customer and only traded for their own
accounts.
Under Reg SHO, exchanges provide daily lists of securities with large amounts
of failure to deliver. Once a security gets on one of these threshold lists, it
becomes harder and more expansive to short the stock. The SEC recently decided
to strengthen its rules by doing away with a clause that "grandfathered"
pre-existing failures to deliver into the system.
The SEC is also considering eliminating some exemptions contained in Reg SHO,
including one that allows options market makers providing liquidity to the
market to avoid having to locate stock prior to selling the underlying equity
short.
The regulatory decisions against Scott and Brian Arenstein show that they
failed to meet requirements to be classified as a market maker. In both cases,
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms effected a number of complex
synthetic transactions to circumvent the delivery requirements of Reg SHO. The
exchange found that to avoid buy-ins that would have forced them to close out
transactions after they failed to deliver stock on time, the firms executed
one-day Flex option transactions, in effect resetting the clock on their failed
trades.
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of
a decrease in the stock price. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a
security for 13 consecutive settlement days have to execute mandatory buy-in to
clean the fails.
Overstock is one of a handful of companies under regulatory scrutiny that over
the last two years have launched massive legal and public relations campaigns
against bearish hedge funds and research firms. Overstock's CEO Byrne claims
that the entire financial system is bent against his company and others and that
failures to deliver are so pervasive that the entire system is in danger of
collapsing. While acknowledging that failures to deliver must be addressed and
cleaned up, securities regulators insist that the problem is minimal.
Byrne started a very vocal crusade against short sellers in late 2004 after
his company's performance and stock price started to take a turn for the worse.
The SEC began an informal inquiry into Overstock in 2005. The Commission also
looked into Overstock's claims that its stock price had been manipulated by
short sellers and a research firm called Gradient Analytics Inc. But the SEC
said in February that it had closed its probe into Gradient without bringing
charges against the Arizona research firm.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit brought by Overstock against hedge fund Rocker Partners
LP and Gradient is ongoing in California state court. The company is also suing
a group of brokerage firms in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco
County, alleging that the brokers participated in a massive illegal stock market
manipulation scheme involving illegal short selling.
Reg SHO's threshold lists gave investors a new criterion by which to gauge the
value of a company's stock when they first appeared in late 2004. Once a stock
gets on one of these lists, it becomes harder to borrow and short and resulting
forced buy-ins of short positions can lead to stock appreciation.
But those lists had a particularly drastic impact in the options market where
put options for hard to borrow stocks started trading at a premium to call
options because of higher borrowing costs and the risk of buy-ins.
In those two cases, Scott and Brian Arenstein were essentially trying to
capture that premium without baring any of the added risk.
A call option provides the holder the right to purchase the underlying stock
at a specified price, while a put option gives him the right to sell the stock
at a specified price.
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist who won a Gerald Loeb Award in
2005 for best news service content with "Exposing Small-Cap fraud," a series of
articles that described how three small companies unscrupulously pumped up their
stocks.)
-By Carol S. Remond, Dow Jones Newswires; 303-997-5783;
carol.remond@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-08-07 1903GMT
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Judith Burns
Reporter
Dow Jones Newswires
(202) 862-6692
fax (202) 862-6644
1.7 BILLION SHARES BY NITE IN JULY ALONE
Monthly Share Volume Report
Select a different report by entering an issue or MPID: Sort By: Report Date:
Issue Market Participant
Volume Issue/MPID
Jul 2007 Jun 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sep 2006 Aug 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAIM - PEARL ASIAN MNG WY
Page of 1
July 2007 June 2007 Year-to-Date
Volume Rank % Volume Rank % Volume Rank %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Share Volume 4,920,991,312
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NITE
KNIGHT EQUITY MARKETS, L.P. 1,723,171,914 1 35 551,778,756 2 27 4,630,356,406 1 31
ETRD
NITE traded another 4,630,356,406 31% of volume from jan thru july in 2007
Monthly Share Volume Report
Select a different report by entering an issue or MPID: Sort By: Report Date:
Issue Market Participant
Volume Issue/MPID
Jul 2007 Jun 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sep 2006 Aug 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAIM - PEARL ASIAN MNG WY
Page of 1
July 2007 June 2007 Year-to-Date
Volume Rank % Volume Rank % Volume Rank %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Share Volume 4,920,991,312
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NITE
KNIGHT EQUITY MARKETS, L.P. 1,723,171,914 1 35 551,778,756 2 27 4,630,356,406 1 31
ETRD
NITE traded 12.8 BILLION SHARES IN 2006 45% of total volume Monthly Share Volume Report
Select a different report by entering an issue or MPID: Sort By: Report Date:
Issue Market Participant
Volume Issue/MPID
Jul 2007 Jun 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sep 2006 Aug 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAIM - PEARL ASIAN MNG WY
Page of 1
December 2006 November 2006 Year-to-Date
Volume Rank % Volume Rank % Volume Rank %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Share Volume 1,729,987,366
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NITE
KNIGHT EQUITY MARKETS, L.P. 424,552,114 1 24 553,983,506 1 25 12,895,376,145 1 45
does the elimination of the grandfather clause have anything to do with the desperate action of a few here??? when does this go into effect???
question does the company/shareholders file civil suit for damages??
=DJ IN THE MONEY:AMEX Nabs 2 For Reg SHO Abuse; 1 Traded Overstock
By Carol S. Remond
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
Struggling Internet retailer Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) just got some new
ammunition in its quixotic fight against short-sellers, those investors who bet
against a company.
Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company
sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades
surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against
Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.
While SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive
conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne
and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against
short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.
Arenstein and SBA, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to disgorge
$1.4 million in trading profits and pay a $3.6 million fine. Arenstein also
consented to a five-year ban.
Overstock isn't named in the regulatory decision against Arenstein and SBA,
but an example of their trading activities included in the document provides
tantalizing clues that company ABCD with Dec 45 calls at $3.70, Dec 45 puts at
$6.40 and a stock price of $43.70 a share is in fact Salt Lake City-based
Overstock.
Arenstein's brother Brian Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading LLC also
separately settled, without admitting or denying liability, similar charges and
agreed to disgorge $1.8 million in trading profits and pay a $1.2 million fine
for trading between Nov. 16 and Dec. 17, 2006. Brian Arenstein also agreed to a
five-year ban. In Brian's case, the example provided by AMEX indicates that he
was improperly selling short NYSE Euronext (NYX).
A lawyer for the Arensteins declined to comment. Those were the largest fines
ever levied by AMEX. AMEX said in a press release that the improper trading was
detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or
FINRA.
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms violated the so-called Reg SHO,
a regulation enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to
modernize short-selling rules and address failures to deliver stock on
settlement date. The firms had no customer and only traded for their own
accounts.
Under Reg SHO, exchanges provide daily lists of securities with large amounts
of failure to deliver. Once a security gets on one of these threshold lists, it
becomes harder and more expansive to short the stock. The SEC recently decided
to strengthen its rules by doing away with a clause that "grandfathered"
pre-existing failures to deliver into the system.
The SEC is also considering eliminating some exemptions contained in Reg SHO,
including one that allows options market makers providing liquidity to the
market to avoid having to locate stock prior to selling the underlying equity
short.
The regulatory decisions against Scott and Brian Arenstein show that they
failed to meet requirements to be classified as a market maker. In both cases,
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms effected a number of complex
synthetic transactions to circumvent the delivery requirements of Reg SHO. The
exchange found that to avoid buy-ins that would have forced them to close out
transactions after they failed to deliver stock on time, the firms executed
one-day Flex option transactions, in effect resetting the clock on their failed
trades.
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of
a decrease in the stock price. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a
security for 13 consecutive settlement days have to execute mandatory buy-in to
clean the fails.
Overstock is one of a handful of companies under regulatory scrutiny that over
the last two years have launched massive legal and public relations campaigns
against bearish hedge funds and research firms. Overstock's CEO Byrne claims
that the entire financial system is bent against his company and others and that
failures to deliver are so pervasive that the entire system is in danger of
collapsing. While acknowledging that failures to deliver must be addressed and
cleaned up, securities regulators insist that the problem is minimal.
Byrne started a very vocal crusade against short sellers in late 2004 after
his company's performance and stock price started to take a turn for the worse.
The SEC began an informal inquiry into Overstock in 2005. The Commission also
looked into Overstock's claims that its stock price had been manipulated by
short sellers and a research firm called Gradient Analytics Inc. But the SEC
said in February that it had closed its probe into Gradient without bringing
charges against the Arizona research firm.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit brought by Overstock against hedge fund Rocker Partners
LP and Gradient is ongoing in California state court. The company is also suing
a group of brokerage firms in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco
County, alleging that the brokers participated in a massive illegal stock market
manipulation scheme involving illegal short selling.
Reg SHO's threshold lists gave investors a new criterion by which to gauge the
value of a company's stock when they first appeared in late 2004. Once a stock
gets on one of these lists, it becomes harder to borrow and short and resulting
forced buy-ins of short positions can lead to stock appreciation.
But those lists had a particularly drastic impact in the options market where
put options for hard to borrow stocks started trading at a premium to call
options because of higher borrowing costs and the risk of buy-ins.
In those two cases, Scott and Brian Arenstein were essentially trying to
capture that premium without baring any of the added risk.
A call option provides the holder the right to purchase the underlying stock
at a specified price, while a put option gives him the right to sell the stock
at a specified price.
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist who won a Gerald Loeb Award in
2005 for best news service content with "Exposing Small-Cap fraud," a series of
articles that described how three small companies unscrupulously pumped up their
stocks.)
-By Carol S. Remond, Dow Jones Newswires; 303-997-5783;
carol.remond@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-08-07 1903GMT
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Judith Burns
Reporter
Dow Jones Newswires
(202) 862-6692
fax (202) 862-6644
=DJ IN THE MONEY:AMEX Nabs 2 For Reg SHO Abuse; 1 Traded Overstock
By Carol S. Remond
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
Struggling Internet retailer Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) just got some new
ammunition in its quixotic fight against short-sellers, those investors who bet
against a company.
Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company
sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades
surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against
Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.
While SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive
conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne
and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against
short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.
Arenstein and SBA, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to disgorge
$1.4 million in trading profits and pay a $3.6 million fine. Arenstein also
consented to a five-year ban.
Overstock isn't named in the regulatory decision against Arenstein and SBA,
but an example of their trading activities included in the document provides
tantalizing clues that company ABCD with Dec 45 calls at $3.70, Dec 45 puts at
$6.40 and a stock price of $43.70 a share is in fact Salt Lake City-based
Overstock.
Arenstein's brother Brian Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading LLC also
separately settled, without admitting or denying liability, similar charges and
agreed to disgorge $1.8 million in trading profits and pay a $1.2 million fine
for trading between Nov. 16 and Dec. 17, 2006. Brian Arenstein also agreed to a
five-year ban. In Brian's case, the example provided by AMEX indicates that he
was improperly selling short NYSE Euronext (NYX).
A lawyer for the Arensteins declined to comment. Those were the largest fines
ever levied by AMEX. AMEX said in a press release that the improper trading was
detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or
FINRA.
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms violated the so-called Reg SHO,
a regulation enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to
modernize short-selling rules and address failures to deliver stock on
settlement date. The firms had no customer and only traded for their own
accounts.
Under Reg SHO, exchanges provide daily lists of securities with large amounts
of failure to deliver. Once a security gets on one of these threshold lists, it
becomes harder and more expansive to short the stock. The SEC recently decided
to strengthen its rules by doing away with a clause that "grandfathered"
pre-existing failures to deliver into the system.
The SEC is also considering eliminating some exemptions contained in Reg SHO,
including one that allows options market makers providing liquidity to the
market to avoid having to locate stock prior to selling the underlying equity
short.
The regulatory decisions against Scott and Brian Arenstein show that they
failed to meet requirements to be classified as a market maker. In both cases,
AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms effected a number of complex
synthetic transactions to circumvent the delivery requirements of Reg SHO. The
exchange found that to avoid buy-ins that would have forced them to close out
transactions after they failed to deliver stock on time, the firms executed
one-day Flex option transactions, in effect resetting the clock on their failed
trades.
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of
a decrease in the stock price. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a
security for 13 consecutive settlement days have to execute mandatory buy-in to
clean the fails.
Overstock is one of a handful of companies under regulatory scrutiny that over
the last two years have launched massive legal and public relations campaigns
against bearish hedge funds and research firms. Overstock's CEO Byrne claims
that the entire financial system is bent against his company and others and that
failures to deliver are so pervasive that the entire system is in danger of
collapsing. While acknowledging that failures to deliver must be addressed and
cleaned up, securities regulators insist that the problem is minimal.
Byrne started a very vocal crusade against short sellers in late 2004 after
his company's performance and stock price started to take a turn for the worse.
The SEC began an informal inquiry into Overstock in 2005. The Commission also
looked into Overstock's claims that its stock price had been manipulated by
short sellers and a research firm called Gradient Analytics Inc. But the SEC
said in February that it had closed its probe into Gradient without bringing
charges against the Arizona research firm.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit brought by Overstock against hedge fund Rocker Partners
LP and Gradient is ongoing in California state court. The company is also suing
a group of brokerage firms in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco
County, alleging that the brokers participated in a massive illegal stock market
manipulation scheme involving illegal short selling.
Reg SHO's threshold lists gave investors a new criterion by which to gauge the
value of a company's stock when they first appeared in late 2004. Once a stock
gets on one of these lists, it becomes harder to borrow and short and resulting
forced buy-ins of short positions can lead to stock appreciation.
But those lists had a particularly drastic impact in the options market where
put options for hard to borrow stocks started trading at a premium to call
options because of higher borrowing costs and the risk of buy-ins.
In those two cases, Scott and Brian Arenstein were essentially trying to
capture that premium without baring any of the added risk.
A call option provides the holder the right to purchase the underlying stock
at a specified price, while a put option gives him the right to sell the stock
at a specified price.
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist who won a Gerald Loeb Award in
2005 for best news service content with "Exposing Small-Cap fraud," a series of
articles that described how three small companies unscrupulously pumped up their
stocks.)
-By Carol S. Remond, Dow Jones Newswires; 303-997-5783;
carol.remond@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-08-07 1903GMT
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Judith Burns
Reporter
Dow Jones Newswires
(202) 862-6692
fax (202) 862-6644
certs..what companies/shareholders were victimized by this illegal activity and do they get a piece of the fine?? wil this info become available to the public?? were paid message board bashers involved along with the NAKED SHORT SELLING???
ot:MUST READ>>American Stock Exchange Announces Two Disciplinary Actions for Violations of Regulation SHO Short Sale Rules
>
THIS IS THE SAME GUY IN 2004 OPPOSING REG SHO
AMAZING!!!!!
From the REGSHO Comment file:
"Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: File No. S7-23-03
To whom it may concern:
I am the managing member of SBA Trading, LLC and LTA Trading, LLC,
both
market making firms on the American Stock Exchange. This letter is
written
to express our opposition to the proposed short sale rule. We
support the
current exemption of market makers not being forced to locate stocks
before
shorting them.
This proposed rule would greatly inhibit broker dealers from making
markets
in many securities.
It would artificially temporarily inflate stock prices and make the
stock
market inefficient. Allowing flexibility for shorting stocks
promotes
liquidity, efficiency, and an orderly market place.
Sincerely,
Scott Arenstein
Managing Member, SBA Trading, LLC and LTA Trading, LLC
241 Central Park West, 6E
NY, NY 10024
212-579-0731"
>
> American Stock Exchange Announces Two Disciplinary Actions for
> Violations of Regulation SHO Short Sale Rules
>
>
> Posted : Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:16:51 GMT
> Author : American Stock Exchange
> Category : PressRelease
> News Alerts by Email click here )
> Create your own RSS
>
> PressRelease News | Create your own RSS | Home
>
>
>
>
>
> NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Stock Exchangeâ
> (Amexâ) today announced two final disciplinary actions for
> violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation
> SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in
> threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity
> exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm
SBA
> Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4
> million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension
> from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or
> association with an Amex member or member organization during such
> period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA
> Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of
$1.8
> million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension
> from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or
> association with an Amex member or member organization during such
> period.
>
> SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to
locate
> shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction.
> However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from
this
> requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to
> hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide
> options market making activity.
>
> Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide
> options market maker in the particular securities in question,
each
> of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to
> impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate
> securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out
> transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery
> obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a
bona
> fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a
> result of this violative trading activity, they were able to
> maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of
> Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited
period
> of time.
>
> "Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory
> requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling
and
> reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention
> of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to
> persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold
> securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief
> Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a
> strong message to other market participants that trading which
> involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker
locate
> exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obligations
> are unacceptable and will result in serious sanctions."
>
> Scott H. Arenstein, SBA Trading, Brian A. Arenstein and ALA
Trading
> consented to findings that they violated SEC Rule 203, Article V,
> Sections 4(h) and (i) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 958 -
> ANTE. In settling these matters the respondents neither admitted
nor
> denied the charges.
>
> This violative activity was detected and investigated by the
> Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), formerly the
NASD,
> acting on behalf of the Amex's Regulatory Division.
>
> The Decisions and related Stipulations of Facts and Consent to
> Penalty can be viewed at the following link:
>
> http://www.amex.com/?
> href=/atamex/regulation/discipline/at_regdiscipline.html
>
> About the American Stock Exchange
>
> The American Stock Exchange(R) (Amex(R)) offers trading across a
> full range of equities, options and exchange traded funds (ETFs),
> including structured products and HOLDRS(SM). In addition to its
> role as a national equities market, the Amex is the pioneer of the
> ETF, responsible for bringing the first domestic product to market
> in 1993. Leading the industry in ETF listings, the Amex lists 336
> ETFs to date. The Amex is also one of the largest options
exchanges
> in the U.S., trading options on broad-based and sector indexes as
> well as domestic and foreign stocks. American Stock Exchange
>
> CONTACT: Mary Chung, American Stock Exchange, +1-212-306-1641,
> mary.chung@...
>
> Web site: http://www.amex.com/
>
American Stock Exchange Announces Two Disciplinary Actions for Violations of Regulation SHO Short Sale Rules
Posted : Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:16:51 GMT
Author : American Stock Exchange
Category : PressRelease
News Alerts by Email click here )
Create your own RSS
PressRelease News | Create your own RSS | Home
NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Stock Exchangeâ (Amexâ) today announced two final disciplinary actions for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm SBA Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of $1.8 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period.
SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to locate shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction. However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from this requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide options market making activity.
Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide options market maker in the particular securities in question, each of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a bona fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a result of this violative trading activity, they were able to maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited period of time.
"Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling and reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a strong message to other market participants that trading which involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker locate exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obligations are unacceptable and will result in serious sanctions."
Scott H. Arenstein, SBA Trading, Brian A. Arenstein and ALA Trading consented to findings that they violated SEC Rule 203, Article V, Sections 4(h) and (i) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 958 - ANTE. In settling these matters the respondents neither admitted nor denied the charges.
This violative activity was detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), formerly the NASD, acting on behalf of the Amex's Regulatory Division.
The Decisions and related Stipulations of Facts and Consent to Penalty can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.amex.com/?href=/atamex/regulation/discipline/at_regdiscipline.html
About the American Stock Exchange
The American Stock Exchange(R) (Amex(R)) offers trading across a full range of equities, options and exchange traded funds (ETFs), including structured products and HOLDRS(SM). In addition to its role as a national equities market, the Amex is the pioneer of the ETF, responsible for bringing the first domestic product to market in 1993. Leading the industry in ETF listings, the Amex lists 336 ETFs to date. The Amex is also one of the largest options exchanges in the U.S., trading options on broad-based and sector indexes as well as domestic and foreign stocks. American Stock Exchange
CONTACT: Mary Chung, American Stock Exchange, +1-212-306-1641,
mary.chung@amex.com
Web site: http://www.amex.com/
correct virg 30 days
virg i read it, but you see how they drag their feet in the process does not go into effect for 60 days afer its recieved the federal registar..more time for cover imo!!!
read it thanks
virg..its taken the sec 7 years to correct the naked short issue...how many companies were destroyed over the past 7 years?
why is the sec accessing fines on hedge fund managers for illegally naked shorting theu canada??
why did they create the grandfather clause and not force the naked short or fails to cover in jan 2005??
its now mid 2007 and the issue has yet to be resolved
but imo those who enaged in this activity are now covering the larger cap stocks..looking at how the market has gone up over the last 3-4 months!! imo
virg..the naked short issue dates back to 1998, its nothing new...however in 2000 when it really became a issue these same people denied the existance of naked short selling ...forward to 2007 and we are now dealing with the a sec that's now trying to remove the "GRANFATHER CLAUSE" which they now admit is a problem!! if naked shorting was not a problem why did they create the grandfather clause???
question if usxp was given a chance to finance the company at much higher prices do you think they would have to issue this many shares to grow the company or to stay alive?? does the ceo earn a excessive salary....imo yes!! however, the market participants and those who engaged in naked shorting these penny stocks had one intent BK or destroying any chance of the survival of these companies!!
well..she can label a ceo a criminal, but doesnt have anything negative to say about the financeer who destroyed the stock...its called being fair and balanced!! ask her what she thinks of mark v.'s activities in jag or what anthony e. did to companies...lets see what her opinion is on those who helped destroy start-up companies!!
virg...you gonna sell because of her contstant negative posts?? if you dont how many others have?? point is someone looking at her posts sold jag shares and at this point they could have recouped their investment!! to be so negative day-in day-out others need to see it thats all!! imo
investing meaning shorting??
janice naked short selling bust by canadian authorities
THIS IS HOW INVESTORS GET SCREWED BY NAKED SHORTING
"then "sold short the issuer's underlying common stock by initiating `naked' short sales in the Stonestreet account,"
"were involved in "naked short selling," which involves short selling without first having borrowed the shares."
"not restricting an unfair strategy called "naked short selling."
Canaccord fined over short sales..Supervision inadequate, industry regulator rules
Jul 07, 2007 04:30 AM
VANCOUVER–The Investment Dealers Association of Canada has fined Canaccord Capital $85,000 for failing to adequately supervise an account and not restricting an unfair strategy called "naked short selling."
The industry regulator said yesterday Canaccord failed to "establish procedures which would enable it to detect whether the trading in the account was fair to other market participants or contrary to the public interest."
According to a negotiated settlement reviewed by a hearing panel June 29, the activity took place from November 2001 to November 2002 and involved two Toronto-based employees who dealt with options. They were responsible for managing the assets of Stonestreet LP, a hedge fund with an account at Canaccord, and, according to a statement of facts, were involved in "naked short selling," which involves short selling without first having borrowed the shares.
The seller then may be unable to deliver the shares to the buyer when due.
Stonestreet's trading strategy involved securing private placement deals in which it bought shares at a discount, then "sold short the issuer's underlying common stock by initiating `naked' short sales in the Stonestreet account," the agreement said.
"Stonestreet LP continued to short the underlying stock until the accumulated short position was approximately equal to the number of shares that Stonestreet LP would receive through the private placement. Eventually, the shares purchased in the private placement were used, either directly or indirectly, to close out the accumulated short positions. This trading strategy generated profits for Stonestreet LP on the difference between the short sale price and the discount price of the private placement."
The panel ruled the strategy was unfair since Stonestreet began the short sales with advance knowledge of the private placement.
The panel ruled Canaccord supervisors were aware of the unfair strategy but failed to restrict it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mighty mezz were you a subscriber of anthonys website??
buyins show over over 1 BILLION SHARES SHORTED in may valued at $1million
836 million shares SHORTED in june
http://i19.tinypic.com/6767xfk.jpg
ckys may have been a scam but the trading data was not..jmho
has anyone proven that buyins.net info re: FTD'S is inaccurate?
doesnt mean buyins.net software does not work!!! exposes NSS
buyins.net has huge naked short position reported in usxp
FAILURE TO DELIVERS=NAKED SHORTS
same article repeated 3x in 2 days????????
ms.rem needs to write another article not repeat it!! jmho
usxp bashers bashed JAGH its now $1.10 and they are nowhere to be found!!
failed attempt at manipulating the price of the stock??