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.
I hope you are right. Although I have been buying at every significant down-turn (as I will always be involved in any movement that I think has a real potential to change America's socioeconomic trajectory), I really don't think our Government will allow Apes to reap the full reward from wall-street's over-leveraging. If the government was about providing real oversight, Kenny G would have already been suspended.
However, with all that said, sometimes seemingly random events are aligned in such a way that the best laid plans of the most powerful are turned to sh!t. I'm hoping this is one of those rare times.
If I were going to buy call options I would do the same. Actually I started to buy some but purchased shares instead. The shorts/hedgies will can manipulate the stock at any time to position the pps so as to benefit them. Most AMC retail investors, I suspect, loose their money which goes into the pocket and plans of hedgies.
Congratulations, is in order so far, I hope it all works out for you! I hope even more that Citadel and those at the SEC who allowed naked shorting to to get out of hand, get a severe and fatal @zz-kicking.
Selling option calls yes, buying-- for most-- no. Just look at the OTM options every week. Almost EVERY WEEK more options are OTM. Those funds could have purchased more AMC shares, period.
Buying options allows citadel to make real money... taken from amc investors who stupidly buy options instead of AMC shares. We should stop buying AMC options and buy only stock!
The latest battle over high-speed trading is being fought out in one of the nation’s federal appellate courts. The subject this time is a new order proposed by Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX”), the Discretionary Limit, or D-Limit, order. IEX’s stated mission is to protect investors, institutional and individual investors alike, from latency arbitrage, a strategy practiced by high-speed trading firms.
First, some background. In 2016, the SEC approved IEX’s exchange, along with rules to discourage predatory behavior of some market participants by combatting latency arbitrage. IEX’s early innovation, known as the “speed bump,” consists of 38 miles of coiled fiber-optic cable, which adds 350 microseconds (350 millionths of a second) to the time it takes an order to reach IEX’s system. The purpose of the speed-bump is to blunt the advantage of high-speed traders, which look for signals that other buyers and sellers are in the market and then insert themselves ahead of the slower orders so they can profit from short-term trades.
Latency arbitrage, the target of IEX’s speed bump, is a strategy utilized by a small number of firms with the wherewithal to invest in high-speed infrastructure. The technology allows the firm to predict price changes, leverage small latency advantages and trade opportunistically against stale quotes. Say a stock price is in the process of increasing by a penny across different exchanges. Armed with the advantage its technology affords, the high-speed trader can buy at the lower price from an investor who does not have the tools to change its quote fast enough and sell at the higher (by one penny) price.
All of this happens in roughly 300 microseconds, a small fraction of the time is takes to blink your eye. That’s why a 350-microsecond speed bump erases the advantage of high-speed traders, who are denied signals that other buyers and sellers are in the market.
According to IEX, the speed bump, while effective for market orders, does not provide protection against predatory strategies for investors who place limit orders. Its D-Limit order, which IEX proposed to the SEC in 2019, permits traders to publicly display the highest price they are willing to pay to buy or the lowest price at which they are willing to sell until IEX’s Crumbling Quote Indicator (“CQI”) is triggered. The CQI uses a sophisticated empirical model that predicts when prices are about to change. At that point, the order is repriced, typically by a penny, to protect the trader from poor execution. The high-speed trader is thus prevented from trading at the stale price. According to data IEX provided to the SEC, CQI is typically activated for far less than 1% of the trading day, while 24% of trades occur within that brief period.
On March 27, 2020, the SEC instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove IEX’s proposed the D-Limit order. The SEC considered 51 comments from various market participants and conducted meetings with 17 of them. The agency analyzed extensive data from IEX submitted in support of the rule.
The SEC ultimately found that the D-Limit order type was a narrowly-tailored means of mitigating the effects of latency arbitrage for long-term investors.[1] The agency predicted that the order type would encourage more displayed liquidity on IEX, as several investors with institutional trading experience commented that market participants were reluctant to post displayed liquidity because of their experience of having that interest adversely selected by high-speed traders, whose technology they could not afford and with whom they could not compete. The lack of displayed liquidity, the SEC concluded, harms price discovery and leads to greater off-exchange trading, which can negatively impact markets and market participants.
Citadel Securities LLC, a high-speed trader, which submitted the most aggressive comments to the SEC opposing approval of the rule, petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate (void) the SEC’s order. [2] Many of Citadel’s arguments—mainly that the SEC overlooked inaccuracies in IEX’s filings, disregarded data which contradicted IEX’s submissions and failed to conduct its own independent analysis--are unlikely to gain much traction with the court.
One issue Citadel raised, which is central to its case, is more interesting: that the IEX proposal, by design, unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of those who post orders to the detriment of those who seek to trade with such orders. By repricing posted orders, while intentionally delaying inbound orders seeking to trade with those posted orders at their displayed prices, the new price would be worse for the parties seeking to trade. In claiming to represent the interests of countless retail investors, Citadel offered the following analogy:
To put it in practical terms, imagine a grocery store that has deliberately installed extra-long conveyer belts on a checkout line. After you’ve committed to buy your items at the advertised price by placing them on the belt, the store uses the extra time required to traverse the belt to determine whether any item that was available at the same price at competitors’ stores had sold out. If so, the store’s computers quickly raise its own price before your item reaches the cashier. You can either pay the higher price or try to find the item elsewhere. (emphasis supplied).
Citadel has a point. While CQI is only activated for brief periods during the day, the only times the D-Limit order does not behave like an ordinary limit order, once the CQI is triggered, traders may not get the execution they think they’re going to get. The SEC acknowledged that D-Limit orders would benefit liquidity providers and work to the detriment of some liquidity takers.
The question then is whether this claimed harm to market participants should be fatal to the rule. The SEC didn’t think so, and an appellate court likely wouldn’t either. On closer inspection, Citadel’s argument looks less persuasive.
While Citadel suggested that the victims of the rule would be ordinary investors relying on quoted prices of resting limit orders, IEX’s submission showed, and logic dictates, that if CQI works as intended, most of the orders that arrive during the period of price instability which triggers CQI are placed by high-speed traders like Citadel which are deploying their latency arbitration strategies. In other words, evidence in the record showed, and the SEC determined, that the most likely “victims” of D-Limit orders would be Citadel and others employing latency arbitrage, the very target of IEX’s rule proposal.
But won’t other market participants be harmed as well? Likely, they will be. The ultimate question for the SEC, and now for the court, was whether this discrimination is unfair to traders and poses a burden on competition that does not further the purpose of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[3] The SEC plausibly concluded that, where a small number of traders would be disadvantaged, the benefits of a narrowly tailored rule that generally promotes investor protection and transparency, and encourages liquidity providers to post limit orders on the exchanges, and thereby contributes in a meaningful way to price discovery, justifies the attendant harm.
The comments in favor of the IEX proposal came from a broad swath of the financial community—the Council of Institutional Investors, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs—and an unexpected source, Virtu Financial, a high-speed market maker, which argued: “In leveling the playing field, D-Limit will result in fairer, more competitive, and more efficient markets, and will enhance execution quality for investors.”[4]
Citadel and Virtu are in the same business. It’s hard to imagine either one is actually the champion of the retail investors Citadel claims will be the victims of D-Limit orders. So what is it that explains the polar opposite approaches they take? Maybe one recognizes that it’s just not politic to oppose a rule aimed at fostering fairness in the financial markets in a case with limited prospects for success on the merits.
Whatever the motivation, what remains to be seen is whether this new order type will add value by providing traders with a means to compete with the Citadels of the world which can afford the infrastructure necessary to benefit from latency arbitrage.
[1] Securities and Exchange Commission, Release No. 34-89686 (Aug. 26, 2020). [2] Citadel Securities LLC v. Securities & Exchange Commission, Case No. 20-1424 (D.C. Cir. Filed April 12, 2021). [3] See Timpinaro v. SEC, 2 F.3d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1993). [4] Letter of January 16, 2020 from Virtu Financial to SEC.
Your view is also consistent with LP's comment around the time this occurred, about DCVax naysayers making good news appear to be bad.
I think the German's convinced the others it was wrong not to dose all patients, and that's what essentially the last third of the patients received. If that's right, how can they deny an approval that's based on comparing the SOC with the experimental therapeutic that's been added to it.
Citadel Advisors Llc has a history of taking positions in derivatives of the underlying security (AMC) in the form of stock options. The firm currently holds call options representing 5,965,900 of underlying shares valued at $338,147,000 USD and put options representing 8,406,600 of underlying shares valued at $476,486,000 USD.
Other investors with positions similar to Citadel Advisors Llc include Cim Investment Mangement Inc, Antara Capital LP, BlackRock Advisors LLC, Royal Bank Of Canada, Point72 Hong Kong Ltd, and RVW Wealth, LLC.
Question. I am seriously considering moving my shares to computershare so the shares can be in my name and not my broker. Does anyone no if (1) there is a cost involved in this transfer and (2) if this transfer will result in any difficulty selling them ([a] will I have to transfer them to another broker or can I sell them within my computershare account)?
Let’s shine a light on Barclays for a second. Barclays is one of Citadel’s clearing brokers (makes sure trades are settled) has recently been fined for inaccurately reporting large amounts of options to the exchange. Paper trail of fraud everywhere.
You have a point...but we do have a voice. We need to use it in every way possible to try to bring about change. Keep buying/holding AMC, write the SEC and vote for people who want to defang wallstreet/hedgies.
Isn't this similar to what hedgies are doing to reset FTDs?
Gu and Lee chose put options on meme stocks that were far out of the money, meaning the strike price was well below the underlying stock price, to trade against themselves because retail interest in those stocks was sending the prices higher, making put options less attractive, the regulator said.
Mon, September 27, 2021, 8:29 AM WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) -The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday charged two individuals for a fraudulent trading scheme involving so-called "meme stocks" aimed at taking advantage of a surge in retail trading driven by social media in early 2021.
The securities regulator said it charged a Florida resident and his friend for allegedly using a form of market manipulation called wash trading to collect rebate payments from exchanges as retail traders piled into "meme stocks" - stocks being actively promoted on social media.
The SEC said Suyun Gu devised a scheme to illegally profit off of so-called "maker-taker" pricing offered by exchanges, in which resting orders that provide liquidity by executing against other orders receive a rebate payment, by trading options contracts with himself using various brokers.
"In addition to collecting these ill-gotten rebates, the wash-trading scheme allegedly impacted the market as it skewed the volume in certain option contracts and induced other traders to place trades in otherwise illiquid option contracts," the SEC said.
Gu executed around 11,400 trades with himself, netting more than $668,000 in rebates, while his friend, Yong Lee, executed around 2,300 trades with himself, netting more than $50,000 in rebates, the SEC said.
Gu and Lee chose put options on meme stocks that were far out of the money, meaning the strike price was well below the underlying stock price, to trade against themselves because retail interest in those stocks was sending the prices higher, making put options less attractive, the regulator said.
In March, two brokers closed Gu's and Lee's accounts over wash-trading concerns but Gu continued the scheme through mid-April by lying about his trading strategy, using accounts in other peoples names and accessing accounts through virtual private networks to hide his activity, the SEC said.
A few million shares a day would do absolutely do nothing to cover the naked shares! This could be bigger than we even imaging. The hedgies, overly confident from consistently getting a way with all their dirt for decades+, went all-in and over-leveraged themselves to no end. If these hedgies weren't way over leveraged, they would have covered numerous times when the stock fell into the late 20s. They didn't because they can't...because of the naked shares!
Also, Look at all of the nscc/dtcc rules implemented (or in the process) to protect the market. You may not think the MOASS will happen...but they clearly these oversight agencies think otherwise. Look at their actions.
It appears the issuance of a digital dividend, did stop the shorts, cold (See bolded red sections below)!
Case Background according to the plaintiff’s attorney, Cohen Milstein
Overstock (NASDAQ: OSTK) is an e-commerce retail company founded by Defendant and former Chief Executive Officer, Patrick M. Byrne. It went public pursuant to an initial public offering in 2002. Just three years after it went public, however, Overstock began to struggle, and its stock price began to slide.
By 2017, Overstock was in peril. Its core retail e-commerce business (the “Retail division”) was highly unprofitable. Overstock attempted, but failed to sell the division. Around the same time, former CEO, Byrne, shifted Overstock’s focus to a new business – Medici Ventures, a subsidiary of Overstock with numerous blockchain technology businesses under its umbrella. tZERO is the flagship business within Medici Ventures, and is the home of an alternative trading system (“ATS”). Byrne’s goal was to create a digital platform that would substitute for existing security lending markets. Unfortunately, tZERO, fared no better than Overstock’s Retail division.
Plaintiffs allege that given Defendants inability to fix Overstock’s businesses legitimately, Defendants turned to fraud starting at the beginning of and through the Class Period, including:
--On May 9, 2019, Overstock falsely told investors that the Retail division was purportedly EBITDA positive for the first time in years, and its profitability had grown so rapidly that Overstock increased year-end Retail Adjusted EBITDA guidance by 50% - from $10 million to $15 million. Predictably Overstock’s shares rose based on this unexpected news of this financial turnaround. At this time, Byrne sold 19.5% of his Overstock holdings for a profit of $10 million.
--Two months later, on July 15, 2019, Defendants raised the Retail division’s Adjusted EBITDA guidance even higher – from $15 million to $17.5 million, reflecting a 75% increase over the Company’s initial $10 million projection. They then reiterated this guidance again on August 8, 2019.
--Defendants, allegedly guided by Byrne, hatched a plan to issue a dividend that would manipulate the market and generate a “short squeeze,” i.e., a rapid stock price increase, which forces short sellers to close their positions by purchasing shares, adding to the upward pressure on the stock. But instead of issuing a typical cash dividend, Overstock announced on July 30, 2019, that the dividend would be in the form of referred shares issued as a blockchain-based digital “security token” available only through Overstock’s own blockchain trading platform, operated by tZERO. At the same time of this announcement, Plaintiffs allege, Byrne ordered 200,000 of his shares of Overstock common stock be sold in September, when entitlements to the Locked-Up Dividend were set to be issued and the stock price would inevitably spike.
--On August 22, 2019, Byrne resigned as CEO. At that time, Plaintiffs allege, he secretly increased his July stock sale instructions from 200,000 shares to his entire remaining stake. Then, Byrne allegedly absconded to South America and later Indonesia – a country he noted had no extradition treaty with the United States.
--As predicted, as lenders began to recall their shares and short sellers frantically began to make “cover” purchases of Overstock common stock, Overstock shot up. At its peak of trading during the day on September 13, Overstock’s stock price shot up 97%, from $15.07 to $29.75, and trading volume increased by 776%, from 2,122,416 to 18,613,100 shares traded, causing investors to purchase Overstock common stock at wildly inflated prices.
The problem is too much debt. With today’s decline, Evergrande has about a $4 billion market capitalization and $90 billion in debt on its balance sheet, but $300 billion including unpaid bills. Fears of default are hitting markets everywhere. European stock markets are down about 2%. S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average futures are down 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively.
Evergrande debt isn’t enough to derail the global economy on its own. The problem is if Evergrande problems lead to problems for lenders to Evergrande and then for other companies that need to borrow money from banks and the bond markets. That’s the nature of credit contagion.
I got a feeling apes have been played by institutions. Institutions goobled up tens of millions of shares of AMC and some of us apes thought they were positioning themselves to take advantage of the squeeze. Institutions are loaning their shares out, for peanuts, enabling AMC shorts to keep this game going indefinitely or until apes give up.
We need a catalyst like a market crash, a giant AMC stock buy-back, or some other event other than the bs rule changes that have done nothing.
FDA and EMA launch a pilot program to provide scientific advice on complex generic /hybrid products for prospective generic drug applicants
Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in partnership with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), launched a pilot program to provide parallel scientific advice (PSA) to applicants of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for FDA’s complex generic drug products and of marketing authorization applications (MAAs) for EMA’s hybrid products. This pilot program is an expansion of FDA and EMA’s existing PSA for new drugs and biological products. The goal of the PSA pilot program being launched today is to allow FDA and EMA assessors to concurrently exchange their views with applicants on scientific issues during the development phase of complex generic drug/hybrid products.
Successful collaboration between FDA and EMA via the PSA pilot program is expected to provide applicants with a deeper understanding of the basis of regulatory decisions from both agencies, optimize applicants’ global product development program, and help applicants avoid unnecessary replication of studies or unnecessary testing methodologies to satisfy both agencies, which can prolong the development of complex generic products.
Applicants can now submit a request for a meeting with both agencies to discuss specific questions regarding the development of a complex generic drug/hybrid product. Applicants should send a single “Request for PSA” letter (justification letter) to both EMA at emainternational@ema.europa.eu and FDA at preANDAHelp@fda.hhs.gov to initiate the PSA process.
Meeting requests will be received until FDA and EMA determine the number of completed PSA meetings is sufficient to assess the pilot program. During and after conclusion of the pilot, each agency will evaluate the benefits and challenges of the program, including the resources required, and determine next steps. Refer to the General Principles document for FDA and EMA’s recommendations on what to include in this request and the subsequent PSA processes.
Questions about the program may be directed to preANDAHelp@fda.hhs.gov.
According to New Multinational Survey, Healthcare Providers Believe Immunotherapy Has Potential to Positively Impact Earlier-Stage Cancer Treatment Landscape Across Tumor Types
Oncologists, surgeons, and specialists surveyed cite long-term survival, prevention of relapse or recurrence and quality of life as most important factors when making treatment decisions before and/or after surgery
PRINCETON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Results of a new multinational survey of healthcare providers revealed that the majority of participants expect immunotherapy to have a positive impact on the treatment landscape for patients with earlier-stage cancers in the adjuvant (after surgery), neo-adjuvant (before surgery) and peri-operative (both before and after surgery) settings, if approved by regulatory bodies. The survey, commissioned by Bristol Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY), included over 250 oncologists, surgeons and specialists in the U.S., Japan, Germany, Italy and France who currently treat patients with stage I-III disease across eight different types of cancer. While healthcare providers surveyed are more satisfied with current treatments in cancers where earlier options are well established, they do not always use treatment before or after surgery, and the vast majority of respondents express enthusiasm for the potential of immunotherapy in earlier-stage cancers.
“Cancer recurrence often marks the transition from curable to incurable disease and can be life-altering for patients, which is why we continually investigate ways to improve upon the standard of care,” said Michele Maio, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena. “Optimizing cancer treatment in its early phases, before the disease returns or spreads, represents a significant opportunity and unmet need. Research with immunotherapy in these settings is growing, and the survey results announced today reinforce that a majority of healthcare providers surveyed are enthusiastic about its future potential.”
Current Treatment Approaches in Earlier Stages of Cancer
Today, treatment in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant or peri-operative settings may consist of chemotherapy, radiation, targeted therapy, chemoradiation therapy, and increasingly in a subset of tumors, immunotherapy. The survey identified a number of trends on the current use, satisfaction and drivers of treatment choices in earlier-stage cancers.
HCPs surveyed do not always use treatment beyond surgery: The majority of HCPs surveyed report that they “sometimes” use neoadjuvant (62%), adjuvant (55%) or peri-operative (54%) treatments for patients with earlier stages of cancer, highlighting the opportunity for earlier intervention. HCPs surveyed are more satisfied with current treatments in cancers where earlier options are well established :Six out of 10 or more survey respondents are “very” or “fairly” satisfied with current neoadjuvant (67%), adjuvant (70%) and peri-operative (61%) treatment options as a whole. However, satisfaction varies by tumor* and is highest among cancers with well-established therapies, like breast cancer (87% satisfaction in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings) and melanoma (77% satisfaction in adjuvant). In kidney and liver cancers, satisfaction is noticeably lower (less than 35% satisfaction with neoadjuvant, adjuvant and peri-operative options), signaling the need for additional research. HCPs surveyed use immunotherapy in earlier stages (either as approved therapies or in clinical trials), but not as often as other treatments : Currently, respondents report more experience using chemotherapy (85%, 86% and 73% for neoadjuvant, adjuvant and peri-operative, respectively) than immunotherapy (48%, 65% and 39%, respectively), likely reflecting that immunotherapy remains under investigation in a number of tumor types and only recently emerged as an approved option in others. The Potential of Immunotherapy for the Future of Earlier-Stage Treatment
To better understand the future landscape of neoadjuvant, adjuvant and peri-operative treatment, the survey explored HCPs’ perceptions of immunotherapy and found:
Many HCPs surveyed see potential for a positive impact with immunotherapy in earlier stages of disease: Participants see the greatest potential for positive outcomes in melanoma (92% report positive potential impact in the adjuvant setting), lung cancer (89% in the neoadjuvant setting) and bladder or urothelial cancer (84% in the adjuvant setting).* HCPs surveyed believe the potential benefits of immunotherapy align with what currently drives treatment preferences in earlier settings : Selecting from a list, HCPs surveyed state the most important potential benefits of immunotherapy as longer overall survival (64%), increased disease-free, event-free or recurrence-free survival (57%) and maintenance of quality of life (54%). These responses align with the factors HCPs surveyed report as most important in making treatment decisions in patients with operable tumors (long-term survival, prevention of relapse or recurrence and quality of life). HCPs surveyed cite the need for more data as a leading barrier to adoption of immunotherapy in earlier stages of cancer : From a list, surveyed participants selected the need for long-term and overall survival data as leading barriers to adoption of immunotherapy in earlier stages of cancer (53% and 50%, respectively), reinforcing the importance of ongoing research and follow-up analyses. “Over the past decade, immunotherapy research has evolved, starting with a focus on metastatic cancers, and more recently, expanding to explore the role of these treatments in earlier stages of the disease,” said Jonathan Cheng, senior vice president, head of Oncology Development, Bristol Myers Squibb. “We hope that by addressing cancer in earlier stages, when the immune system may be more responsive and intact, immunotherapy may have the potential to prevent recurrence and ultimately lead to patients living longer. Oncologists, surgeons and specialists who responded to this survey are similarly optimistic about the potential of bringing immunotherapy into earlier stages of cancer.”
*Tumor-specific results are based on responses from HCPs who currently treat these types of cancer, a subset of the full sample.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
