InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

henke

12/03/10 1:53 PM

#221177 RE: cloud3 #221173

what bothers me here, is this 'moaning/whining/nagging on this board ...
this is not 'conducive' to this stock for 'newbies' coming to 'have a look' at this company...me thinks...

what me also 'bothers' is that it seems that the people from neom don't have shares from their own company??

also... those MM's trading 'between' the 2 digits ... 'sub-pennies'(3 digits behind the 'dot') annoys me :

Sub-pennying

An abusive strategy that has been occurring with increased frequency is a practice called “sub-pennying”. It is the practice of a market participant stepping in front of a displayed limit order by 1/100ths of a penny (this practice is outlined in detail on my website, http://www.defendtrading.com).

SEC rule 612 prohibits market participants from displaying orders in a sub-penny increment. Most broker-dealers will not even accept these sub-penny orders from their customers. So brokers can’t accept order in sub pennies, but they can trade them. Huh? While I get mid point pricing, that does not explain all the 1/100th of a penny reports etc.

Broker-Dealer Internalization

However, broker-dealers themselves are exempt from SEC Rule 612, to provide “price improvement” to their customers. When an investor places a market order from their retail brokerage account, their broker-dealer routes this order to their OTC market maker. The market maker then decides if they want to trade against their customer, by taking the opposite side of the order. If the market maker believes they can make money by trading against their customer, they will fill the order from their own inventory. In this case, the market order never makes it to the public exchange. This practice is known as broker-dealer internalization.


http://blog.themistrading.com/?p=778

also i just sold 65k neom shares today(still have a lot left though)...maybe that's why it is down...


icon url

jeffz2

12/05/10 12:02 PM

#221219 RE: cloud3 #221173

Excellent post Cloud - my confusing sentiment also !!!

I have cosidered it a complete conflict of interest when IM or LM or whomever claims to be taking on the fudiciary responsibility to shareholders ( which simply means adding value to the pps) and in the next breath claim that a rising sp is detrimental to the company. How can this NOT be a conflict.

Yes I have questioned how can this be legal too along with a few other questionable actions.

IM can run all he wants - LM can dance all she wants
The board can manipulate all they want

But one day the piper will come calling and we will watch them all dance together IMO
Let the music begin !!!