posted
NASD is delaying the effective date of amendments to Rule 3370 (Prompt Receipt and Delivery of Securities—the "Affirmative Determination" Rule) approved by the SEC in November 2003,1 until April 1, 2004. The amendments expand the scope of the affirmative determination requirements to include orders received from broker/dealers that are not members of NASD ("non-member broker/dealers"). The effective date of the amendments originally was February 20, 2004.2 NASD understands that some members need to make significant technological changes to their systems to comply with the new requirements; therefore, NASD is extending the effective date to provide members with additional time to make such changes.
quote:Originally posted by EverGreen: grrrrrr !!!!! MM win again
posted
Great! I was just holding many stocks the last few days and buying up some just for the 20th. Guess the SEC took another bribe, ha
Posts: 973 | From: usa | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interpretation: NASD has extended the effective date to provide members with additional time to recover losses and get more profits before the next "soft" deadline.
quote:Originally posted by emunahstock: Great! I was just holding many stocks the last few days and buying up some just for the 20th. Guess the SEC took another bribe, ha
Y'know we should all complain, write to our congressman and bombard the NASD with complaints to the extent that we were holding positions and adding to our positions BASED on the 2/20 date and for them to change it on 2/18 is not only ridiculous but a COMPLETE disregard for shareholders who have made large financial decisions based on 2/20!!!
I'm starting to get pissed off!
FS
[This message has been edited by Fallstaff (edited February 18, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Fallstaff (edited February 18, 2004).]
posted
ANYONE HAVE THE URL OF THAT PETITION WEBSITE? I WANT TO ASK THEM TO MAKE A NEW ONE FOR THIS!
Posts: 973 | From: usa | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shushan: Could anyone precisely explain what naked shorting is and how it differs from the regular practice of selling short and then covering the sale?
Many thanks,
Shushan
------------------ But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
[This message has been edited by PAUL (edited February 18, 2004).]
posted
Fallstaff, I like the idea! but do you think this is a matter for congressmen? another idea! post ideas that you would include in a complaint/congressman letter to assure that we cover all points, thereby sending the best possible letter!
Posts: 1148 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
[This message has been edited by Fallstaff (edited February 18, 2004).]
Thanks FALLSTAFF I wrote John Edwards for NC told him about the fincial decisions made based on their statements. I also said something about a 20% flat tax on trading. I will post a reply if I get one.
quote:Originally posted by The Hippo: Fallstaff, I like the idea! but do you think this is a matter for congressmen? another idea! post ideas that you would include in a complaint/congressman letter to assure that we cover all points, thereby sending the best possible letter!
I do feel congress and our legislature should be involved. When an organization that has been riddled with corruption for years fails investors and has proven once again to be uncapable of enforcing new rules our only choice is to go over the head of the NASD and let our elected officials know that we will not tollerate anymore confusion and manipulation. I only wish to make our government aware that I have expectations of what a "free and fair" market means in the US and that this decision causes investors to lose faith in that expectation. Here is the letter I sent to my congressmen, the vice president Dick Chenney and President George W. Bush:
LETTER BEGINS HERE:
I am contacting my members of Congress regarding an issue of concern to me.
I am writing in regards to the NASD decision today 2/18/04 to delay the implementation of the new short selling rule from 2/20/04 to 4/1/04. I am a little outraged by the decision of the NASD for three reasons. One, when the NASD announced this rule implementation last month individual investors, like myself, saw it as a sign that some of the naked short selling abuses would come to an end and hence we made decisions to hold positions we believed may have been subject to naked short selling and, in some instances, increased our positions in anticipation of the 2/20/04 rule implementation date. Myself and many other investors were hoping that the rule would help some of our positions price per share based on the fact that naked short selling abuses has historically been a manipulation tool to keep stock pps down. Second, the decision of the NASD to change their deadline TWO days before implementation is not only a complete disregard for investors but sends the message that the NASD is itself not capable to enforcing it's rules and deadlines. Finally, delaying the rule implementation until 4/1/2004 will force investors to make unfair decisions to either hold on to positions that are now being and will continue to be subject to naked short selling or to sell, sometimes at significant loss, because we are losing faith in the ability of the market to act fairly. Who is to say the NASD won't delay the ruling on 3/29/04, two days before the new "soft" deadline. I raise this issue to point out that in the end the ones responsible for making and enforcing the rules for these markets are the same people who are to be affected by these rules. Not conducive to a fair system of checks and balances.
posted
Market makers engaged in bone fide market making activities will continue to be exempt from affirmative determination.----- What does that mean??? I copied it straight from the link ... http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040218/1056000599_2.html ------- Does it mean MM's arent affected by the NakedShort rule and just Hedge funds and investors are??
Posts: 206 | From: silver spring, MD, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me play devils advocate for a moment. Let's say the MMs indeed could not be ready technically to handle the rule and it went into effect as planned. What would they do? Would they suspend trading in some of these issues until they are ready? What would that do to the prices of the stocks they make market in? Or would they find a way around the problem and still meet the new ruling?
I'm not siding with the MMs but I am trying to look at this objectivly and without some of the emotion. (The wife hates it when I do that.)
quote:Originally posted by GatorMan: Let me play devils advocate for a moment. Let's say the MMs indeed could not be ready technically to handle the rule and it went into effect as planned. What would they do? Would they suspend trading in some of these issues until they are ready? What would that do to the prices of the stocks they make market in? Or would they find a way around the problem and still meet the new ruling?
I'm not siding with the MMs but I am trying to look at this objectivly and without some of the emotion. (The wife hates it when I do that.)
No doubt Gator that the group/s affected are not "ready". That part of the statement is not what upsets me. What does upset me is that the NASD waited until today, two days before the deadline, to announce this "oversight" and also shows the lack of planning and understading of this issue or the extent of the abuses. I am a little skeptical of the excuse used about upgrading their technology to handle orders differently because they have ALWAYS been able to place "normal" orders. It's not like the NASD has invented a new order system they are just changing a process. But that is not for me to say. Reminds me of the Y2K hype a little.
quote:Originally posted by bigeyerah: Where did this wuote come from? I cannot confirm that this was released. - thanx
Ill assume your replying to my post.. If so, click the link I posted above and scroll about half way down. Im confused on the meaning of the quote... help appreciated..thanks!
Posts: 206 | From: silver spring, MD, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fallstaff: No doubt Gator that the group/s affected are not "ready". That part of the statement is not what upsets me. What does upset me is that the NASD waited until today, two days before the deadline, to announce this "oversight" and also shows the lack of planning and understading of this issue or the extent of the abuses. I am a little skeptical of the excuse used about upgrading their technology to handle orders differently because they have ALWAYS been able to place "normal" orders. It's not like the NASD has invented a new order system they are just changing a process. But that is not for me to say. Reminds me of the Y2K hype a little.
fs
And you (we) have every right to be angry about this. If it was just a technology issue they should have known long ago that they could not meet the deadline. If it were a matter of not quite having enough time the deadline would have been extended a week. I think the MMs whined to the NASD and are just trying to drag this out as long as possible to keep gaining profit.
And, BTW, I'm not sure I fully understand the concept of naked shorting. I understand shorting where you borrow the stock and sell it. And I understand naked shorting to be the same thing without the borrowning. So how does the sell deliver a certificate?
------------------ ~,-,-< GatorMan
[This message has been edited by GatorMan (edited February 18, 2004).]
posted
Gator, I don't think they have to be delivered until, say, the person you sold the "borrowed" shares to decides to sell them and THEN they will call you out. BUT, with MM's they are the unversal holders of the shares and are obligated to offer bids and asks once they make an accord to be that universal holder. So, if someone wishes to buy stock XXX from an MM and they do not have the shares to sell and can't confirm that they can get them they still have to make the sale. And if more people jump on the ask the MM has to keep selling and it is actually in their best interest to sell more at higher prices, kinda' like averaging down for us. Finally, what you see happen over and over is that an MM will walk the price down later in the day to recover the shares they sold. BUT they don't recover all of them and really don't care because there is no one to put a short sell call on an MM since they are the regulator!
posted
Thanks, Fallstaff. I think this explains why CMKM is reissuing shares and insisting on hard copy certificates. I only hope we all don't get screwed because our brokerages don't have a hard copy certificate. I wouldn't REALLY be out anything since all my shares are free in this case but a lot of people would be.
posted
What naked short selling really boils down to is the act of selling shares THAT DO NOT EXIST. Ghost shares.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK ---the SEC just fined the top 5 MM's on the NYSE hundreds of millions of dollars for manipulating the NYSE exch--the changes ARE coming-- have patience--we need to fix it right-I am miserable and impatient too but we don't want the markets to fail--------------------------
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i understand what naked short selling is, but I dont fully understand how it keeps prices down?
Posts: 1148 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
supply /demand is the basic rule of economy---if you have artificial supply or demand you can't operate the free market--
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Hippo: i understand what naked short selling is, but I dont fully understand how it keeps prices down?
If the major players of a stock are shorting the heck out of it, then what would happen to them if it went up? So, those players will try to manipulate the stock price to keep it down and even sink. Now, pr's, news, rumors, market pressure, all sorts of stuff will try to push the price up and usually does, for a short time. BUT, those who have seriously shorted a stock and don't have a borrower to buy back from would be in DEEP trouble if the stock kept going up or stayed above their sell price (then they would lose mucho!) SO, those players start to walk the stock price back down, slowly buying back what they sold. And bob's your uncle.
You nailed in two sentences the suspicion raised in this announcement. To announce something less than 48 hours of it taking effect, is enough to give one pause. But as you correctly pointed out, the excuse they gave about being technologically ready for the change is truly insulting. I saw the news around about 1/2 hour it being released. In speaking this afternoon with the person in the business and our reaction was the same as your response. I'll be drafting letters over the course of the next day to both senators of our state. Excellent insight as always. Be well, Bo
Posts: 256 | From: Altoona, Pa, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
LOOK at ALL the places my mail went to!!!..... by going to this site!!..... Pres Bush will get a copy!!!... And here is a site that will give you the email address of all of your congressmen: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ And it's ALL done in ONE message!!
Contacting the Congress Email Gateway Your message was processed by the Contacting the Congress Mail gateway with the following results: Your message has been sent via web-based mail form at http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Your message has been sent via web-based mail form at http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm to Senator John Cornyn. Your message has been sent via Write Your Rep to Representative Michael Burgess. Your message has been emailed to President George W. Bush at <president@whitehouse.gov>. Your message has been emailed to Vice President Richard Cheney at <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>. A carbon copy of your message has been emailed to you at (edited) In case you wish to contact these individuals in the future, the proper salulations are: Dear Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison Dear Senator John Cornyn Dear Congressman Michael Burgess Dear Mr. President Dear Mr. Vice President
You should receive a copy of your message (listed below) at <edited> shortly.
Subject: An Issue of Concern to me
Dear [Appropriate Salutation Will Be Inserted Here]: I am contacting my members of Congress regarding an issue of concern to me. Rule 3370 regarding the control of Market Makers ability to "naked Short" OTCBB stocks at will. Today it was announced the rule, schd. to be implemented on Feb. 20, will be delayed until Apr.1???? Why so the crooks can steal more of our money??? I admit the below is a "form" type letter, but it expresses MY opinion well. Please take it literally.... I am writing in regards to the NASD decision today 2/18/04 to delay the implementation of the new short selling rule from 2/20/04 to 4/1/04. I am a concerned and troubled by the decision of the NASD for three reasons. First, when the NASD announced this rule implementation last month individual investors, like myself, saw it as a sign that some of the naked short selling abuses would come to an end.Hence we made decisions to hold positions we believed may have been subject to naked short selling and, in some instances, increased our positions in anticipation of the 2/20/04 rule implementation date. Myself and many other investors were hoping that the rule would help market efficiency and the fact that naked short selling abuses has historically been a manipulative tool to keep stock pps down. Second, the decision of the NASD to change their deadline less than TWO days before implementation is not only a complete disregard for investors but sends the message that the NASD is itself not capable to enforcing it's rules and deadlines. Finally, delaying the rule implementation until 4/1/2004 will force investors to make unfair decisions to either hold on to positions that are now being and will continue to be subject to naked short selling or to sell, sometimes at significant loss, because we are losing faith in the ability of the market to act fairly. Who is to say the NASD won't delay the ruling on 3/29/04, two days before the new "soft" deadline. I raise this issue to point out that in the end the NASD gave the excuse about upgrading their technology to handle orders differently. This excuse is bunk, because they have ALWAYS been able to place "normal" orders. I would appreciate a public response to this issue.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
