News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Seminole Red

09/19/08 4:32 PM

#598473 RE: langostino #598470

SEC Staff Recommends Extending Option Market-Maker Exception
09/19 4:25 am (ON)
Story 0761

By Judith Burns

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Securities and Exchange Commission staff is recommending the commission modify its temporary ban on short sales in 799 financial stocks to exempt option market makers for the duration of the ban.

An SEC emergency order banning short sales in designated stocks took effect Friday, but the SEC exempted option market makers from it for the day, citing the expiration of September options contracts. Options market makers had raised concerns about the ban. In an announcement Friday afternoon, the SEC's staff said it will recommend that options market makers remain exempt from it as long as the ban is in effect. The ban, set to run for 10 days, could be extended for up to 30 calendar days.

If the commission agrees with the staff's proposed change, the short-sale ban would not apply to hedging activities by exchange and over-the-counter market makers in derivatives on the 799 financial stocks targeted by the ban, the SEC said.


Short-sellers seek to profit from stock price declines by borrowing shares for sale and replacing them later at a lower price. The practice is legal but the SEC issued an emergency ban on short sales for publicly traded banks, insurance companies and other financial firms, citing concerns that short selling might be causing "excessive fluctuations" in stock prices that threaten fair and orderly markets.

-By Judith Burns, Dow Jones Newswires; 202 -862 -6692; Judith.Burns@dowjones.com

Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/al?rnd=Tuf6jlTSR 9asUD 3iYofXbg%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

09 -19 -08 1625ET

Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Previous Story Next Story
Top of Story Return to Headlines



icon url

Bruce A Thompson

09/19/08 5:47 PM

#598484 RE: langostino #598470

Langostino

I have a more than rudimentary understanding of the markets for options. Thank you. Your insult aside, I will ask you to explain in at least as much detail your side of my argument I am about to make. Please try to do so without ridiculing me.

First, explain how the options maker got the right in the name of "liquidity" to issue more shares by a multiple of 3 than a company like Novastar did? I mean that Novastar had to file forms with the SEC to issue a single share. Novastar had to find underwriters. Novastar has to comply with disclosure laws and produce audited financials and Q's and K's on a regular basis. What has been made public about those options MMs that I can use to determine whether I want to enter into an undated futures contract with them? Why wasn't I told that the shares I was buying did not exist? Why is my broker allowed to take my real money and not take delivery? Why do you think that is perfectly fine?

I bought and paid real money in good faith for real shares and they sold me fluff. Now they say I should just STFU because, in their opinion, the companies were not so good and deserve what is happening to them. They also ridicule me and call me names instead of answering the specific charges with a real answer. My question to you is are you going to feel the same way when your daughter's rapist says she deserved it because, in his opinion, her dress was too short? How are you going to feel about that when the police side with the rapist?

On the other hand, a hedge fund in a single transaction can buy enough puts to cause the options MM to issue bogus shares that don't exist and totaling over 20% of what Novastar issued without issuing a single disclosure to anyone. They don't even have to mark the sales as being short. How are the stockholders benefitting when that happens. What benefit is the additional "liquidity" of millions of bogus shares being issued every day by options MMs in a single company and mercilessly dumped into the market driving the share price down to pennies?

Why should an options market maker be allowed, without having to register them and at zero cost to him, to issue millions of shares in a target company? How is the investing public benefitting when 2/3 of what they think are shares held in their accounts are not real?

Who, exactly, are the beneficiaries of this practice?

For too long, the shorts have been running the game. Anyone who thinks we can run a market forever where the majority of shares in a given stock are not real is not being honest with themselves. What happened to the regulators? How could they have allowed a system where anybody who wants to short can just start issuing millions upon millions of counterfeit shares in the target company until it collapses under the weight?

Who gave the options MMs special status to violate laws that have been in place and not repealed since 1934?

The stock answer is "liquidity". The question is how much fraud can you accept in the name of "liquidity"?

icon url

brightness

09/20/08 3:34 AM

#598507 RE: langostino #598470

I routinely write call and put options . . . just not standing on the offer for both at the same strike price at the same time . . . not because I don't want to but because I'm not allowed to engage in "market making."

Why should there be special provileges for MM's anyway? If they don't want to make markets, they should step aside, and let the market transact like electronic network tradings. Theoretically the spread could widen, but that's what MM's predicted when NASDAQ moved to electronic trading . . . reality turned out that the electronic trading resulted in the narrowest spread ever.

I'm not for banning shorts (who are the buyers of last resort before government socialist intervention, and a moderating influence at market extremes at both ends), but naked shorting privilege is quite unnecessary for writing puts. If share borrowing is difficult on a particular issue, make smaller offers and raise the offer price on puts! There shouldn't be an unlimited number of put contracts available for buying to begin with if sharing borrowing is impossible. Options are delivery contracts, not future contracts with cash-settle requirement.