quote:Subject: File No. S7-12-06 From: Janie White Affiliation: InvestorJanuary 28, 2007 I do not intend to "sugar-coat" my opinions about the Commission. While my remarks may offend you, I, as an investor, feel violated. I do not need an educational lesson on Regulation SHO or short selling. I am well aware of the rules, loopholes, and failures within the system. Needless to say, I am very disturbed by it all. By imposing the grandfather clause in REG SHO, you have made it possible for criminal entities to destroy thousands of small businesses. You have also gave them aid and comfort by continuing to ignore the requests of investors and companies, suffering at the hands of these abusers. 1. The SHO threshold securities list identifies the companies that have failures to deliver positions within them, but does not publicly disclose which brokerage, market making firm, or clearance corporation which is responsible for these open positions. This is a double standard, and is unacceptable. Why publish the name of the rape victims, if you refuse to publish the rapists? 2. The "grandfathering" clause is ridiculous. Do you think my creditors would pardon me for mounting up a massive amount of debt, more or less saying you still have to pay us, but your current actions are the ones' that will be penalized first? When I read this clause in the SHO regulation, my initial response was huh???? I had to read it several times because it seemed so preposterous, I could not believe what I was reading. 3. The stocks present on the threshold securities lists , in the most part, have remained on the lists indefinitely, without their open positions being relieved. What is the purpose of this regulation if it is not effective, and not enforced? 4. Do you honestly believe, or feel that investors believe that every company that alleges manipulation is guilty of dilution? No , this is not the case. Some of us are educated enough to know the differences between dilution and manipulation and this is why I have a very big problem trusting my retirement, and my personal investments, in a system that is rigged to benefit hedge funds, big business, self regulatory organizations, etc. other than providing a safeguard for my family's future. 5. If Sarbanes-Oxley is intent on scrutinizing every nook and cranny of a public company, shouldn't that company be privy to information about the amount of shares that have been "borrowed" by the DTCC's stock borrow program? I have witnessed several requests for this information from public companies to the DTCC, but their requests are ignored or denied, without so much as an utter from the enforcement division of the SEC. 6. Regulation SHO has failed to include some of the most abused companies on the market today, because they are non-reporting companies. While it is apparent that some of these companies may be termed as a "scam", there are many developing companies that enter this division of the market to gain funds to expand their projects. However, many of them are forced to shut their doors due to the value of their shares being massively manipulated by the system they depended on to further their efforts. 7. While it seems that the SEC looks closely at every aspect of public companies, it has been blind to the manipulation that has hampered the future existence of some of these companies, and has seriously thwarted the efforts of others. 8. When I go to a bank to borrow money, my payment is made to the bank that I borrowed the money from. How is it legitimate for the DTCC to lend shares of company stock, receive payment for that stock, fail to deliver that stock, yet go unpenalized? If my payment was in default from the bank I borrowed money from, I would incur massive penalties, and my credit would be ruined. If I failed to pay the debt, my purchases could be seized, and/or I could face criminal penalties for my actions, especially if I became a repeat offender. The company whose nonexistent shares were sold, did not benefit monetarily from the open failures to deliver, and if the company fails, or goes out of business, these open positions do not have to be closed out. Where does this money go? Do we see the income made from these sales on any IRS tax forms? Please inform me where I might obtain this information if I am incorrect. 9. Self regulatory organizations, hedge funds, and clearance corporations have no place in a fair market system. These organizations have crippled our markets, and undermined the confidence of individual investors like myself. If these organizations cannot be scrutinized and regulated as strict as publicly traded companies, they should not be present in any market in the world. 10. The Freedom of Information Act- I have not figured out the benefit of this yet. On one hand it is said that information is permitted under this act, but it can be denied for any number of reasons, one of which may/or may not be due to use in an ongoing investigation. This leads me to believe that information that might be pertinent to shareholders could be denied, without an explanation being disclosed. I thought it was the goal of the Commission to provide protection and "transparency" within the market. To deny information without an explanation is denying transparency.
Instead of penalizing companies for the sins of the abusers, it's past time the SEC did the job it was formed to do. This is middle America you are talking to, fully aware of the crimes that are going unpunished. If middle America is aware, I know that the Commission is fully aware. It's time for the Commission to stop hiding behind the disinformation it has been spoon fed, making excuses for the problems it fails to recognize. The Commission has been fully aware for years that this manipulation has been perpetrated, and has chosen to provide little to no resolve to end this painful situation. I can promise you, no matter how long this takes, the truth will be exposed. If the SEC chooses to be blind to this situation as it is currently, the Commission will be judged based on the fact that it was aware of the situation, and did nothing to correct it, resulting in the distabilization of our nation. I'm sure President Bush does not want an unfavorable light to be shed upon the market or the Commission in his efforts to reform social security. I wonder how he will feel when his whole plan is terminated because of lack of investor confidence within the current market? Those who are at the receiving end of this abuse are educated daily about the corrupt tactics involved in the money pit of the trading world. It is these people who will become educators to future investors persuading them to put their money in a safer environment, a better alternative than having a stacked deck in the stock market poker game. Secretary Paulson would like for everyone to believe the money and initial public offerings are leaving the US markets because of the expense of complying with Sarbanes-Oxley. I beg to differ. These companies and future companies are leaving our markets because you are not protecting them or their investors. Instead, you turn a blind eye while they are pillaged and raped of their fair market value. You, instead, have taken it upon yourselves to protect the Wall Street elite, at the expense of your reputations, as evidenced in the recent Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. It is not my job to inform you of specific events or information concerning fraud, manipulation, or corruption within the stock market. As you know, my hands are tied by the Commission's rules prohibiting me from obtaining certain information under the Freedom of Information Act ,while neither denying, or confirming any ongoing investigations(I think this is a "cop out"). It is indeed the job of the Commission to discern the boundaries,(if they are ever created) ,as to what defines manipulation, and to provide appropriate punishment for these crimes instead of ignoring them, or giving the offenders a" slap on the wrist".....and it is indeed a slap on the wrist when the Commission punishes offenders in the millions of dollars when their crimes netted them billions. How long will you allow these crimes to go unpunished? How long will you allow these criminals to suck the system dry will the puny penalties you impose? How long will crime pay? This was the SEC's mission statement, once upon a time. At least you do not look like hippocrites for eliminating the word integrity, as there is NONE left within this agency. "The primary mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets. As more and more first-time investors turn to the markets to help secure their futures, pay for homes, and send children to college, these goals are more compelling than ever. " (More people are losing money by investing in the current system) "The laws and rules that govern the securities industry in the United States derive from a simple and straightforward concept: all investors, whether large institutions or private individuals, should have access to certain basic facts about an investment prior to buying it. To achieve this, the SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful financial and other information to the public, which provides a common pool of knowledge for all investors to use to judge for themselves if a company's securities are a good investment. Only through the steady flow of timely, comprehensive and accurate information can people make sound investment decisions. " (What about the self regulatory organizations; What do you require of them?) "The SEC also oversees other key participants in the securities world, including stock exchanges, broker-dealers, investment advisors, mutual funds, and public utility holding companies. Here again, the SEC is concerned primarily with promoting disclosure of important information, enforcing the securities laws, and protecting investors who interact with these various organizations and individuals. " "Crucial to the SEC's effectiveness is its enforcement authority. Each year the SEC brings between 400-500 civil enforcement actions against individuals and companies that break the securities laws. Typical infractions include insider trading, accounting fraud, and providing false or misleading information about securities and the companies that issue them." (What about the alleged counterfeiting fraud perpetrated by clearance corporations, namely the DTCC, NSCC?) "Though it is the primary overseer and regulator of the U.S. securities markets, the SEC works closely with many other institutions, including Congress, other federal departments and agencies, the self-regulatory organizations (e.g. the stock exchanges), state securities regulators, and various private sector organizations." (The private sector should have no role in a governmental organization concerning financial securities) Maybe some members of the Commission should read from their own website, as it is obvious that they have failed to do so. As a matter of fact, maybe they should revise it to make them look as though they have been more competent than they have been. It wouldn't be the first time a statement or rule was revised to fit a particular situation. See approved rule below. http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/34-51669.pdf#search SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (Release No. 34-51669; File No. SR-NSCC-2004-09) May 9, 2005 Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Establish a Comprehensive Standard of Care and Limitation of Liability to its Members I. Introduction On December 8, 2004, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2004-09 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Act).1 Notice of the proposal was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2005.2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change. II. Description NSCC is establishing a comprehensive standard of care and limitation of liability with respect to its members. Historically, the Commission has left to user-governed clearing agencies the question of how to allocate losses associated with, among other things, clearing agency functions.3 The Commission has reviewed clearing agency services on a case-by-case basis and in determining the appropriate standard of care has balanced the need for a high degree of clearing agency care with the effect the resulting liabilities may have on clearing agency 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51458 (March 31, 2005), 70 FR 17494. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 20221 (September 23, 1983), 48 FR 45167 and 22940 (February 24, 1986), 51 FR 7169. 2 operations, costs, and safekeeping of securities and funds.4 Because standards of care represent an allocation of rights and liabilities between a clearing agency and its members, which are generally sophisticated financial entities, the Commission has refrained from establishing a unique federal standard of care and generally has allowed clearing agencies and other self-regulatory organizations and their members to establish their own standards of care.5 In addition, the Commission has recognized that a gross negligence standard of care is appropriate for certain noncustodial functions where a clearing agency, its board of directors, and its members determine to allocate risk to individual service users.6 NSCC believes that adopting a uniform rule7 limiting NSCCs liability to its members to 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26154 (October 3, 1988), 53 FR 39556. NSCCs services provided to members are noncustodial in that, other than clearing fund deposits, it does not hold its members funds or securities. 7 New Section 2 of Rule 58 states: SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Rules: (a) The Corporation will not be liable for any action taken, or any delay or failure to take any action, hereunder or otherwise to fulfill the Corporations obligations to its Members including Settling Members, Settling Bank Only Members, Municipal Comparison Only Members, Insurance Carrier Members, TPA Members, Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members, Non-Clearing Members, Fund Members and Data Services Only Members, other than for losses caused directly by the Corporations gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action. Under no circumstances will the Corporation be liable for the acts, delays, omissions, bankruptcy, or insolvency, of any third party, including, without limitation, any depository, custodian, sub-custodian, clearing or settlement system, transfer agent, registrar, data communication service or delivery service (Third Party), unless the Corporation was grossly negligent, engaged in willful misconduct, or in 3 direct losses caused by NSCCs gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of Federal (..continued) violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action in selecting such Third Party. (b) Under no circumstances will the Corporation be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or exemplary loss or damage (including, but not limited to, loss of business, loss of profits, trading losses, loss of opportunity and loss of use) howsoever suffered or incurred, regardless of whether the Corporation has been advised of the possibility of such damages or whether such damages otherwise could have been foreseen or prevented. (c) With respect to instructions given to the Corporation by a Special Representative/Index Recipient Agent, the Corporation shall have no responsibility or liability for any errors which may occur in the course of transmissions or recording of any transmissions or which may exist in any magnetic tape, document or other media so delivered to the Corporation. (d) With respect to the Corporations distribution facilities, the Corporation assumes no responsibility whatever for the form or content of any tickets, checks, papers, documents or other material (other than items prepared by it)placed in the boxes in its distribution facilities assigned to each Settling Member, Municipal Comparison Only Member, Insurance Carrier Member, TPA Member, Fund Member and Data Services Only Member, or otherwise handled by the Corporation; nor does the Corporation assume any responsibility for any improper or unauthorized removal from such boxes or from the Corporation's facilities of any such tickets, checks, papers, documents or other material, including items prepared by the Corporation. (e) With respect to Fund/Serv transactions, the Corporation will not be responsible for the completeness or accuracy of any transaction or instruction received from or transmitted to a Settling Member, Data Services Only Member, TPA Member, TPA Settling Entity, Mutual Fund Processor or Fund Member through Fund/Serv, nor for any errors, omissions or delays which may occur in the transmission of a transaction or instruction to or from a Settling Member, Data Services Only Member, TPA Member, TPA Settling Entity, Mutual Fund Processor or Fund Member. (f) The Corporation will not be responsible for the completeness or accuracy of any IPS Data and Repository Data received from or transmitted to an Insurance Carrier Member, Member or Data Services Only Member through IPS nor for any errors, omissions or delays which may occur in the transmission of such IPS Data and Repository Data to or from an Insurance Carrier Member, or Data Services Only Member. 4 securities laws for which there is a private right of action will: (1) memorialize an appropriate commercial standard of care that will protect NSCC from undue liability;8 (2) permit the resources of NSCC to be appropriately utilized for promoting the accurate clearance and settlement of securities; and (3) will be consistent with similar rules adopted by other self-regulatory organizations and approved by the Commission.9 III. Discussion Section 19(b) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control.10 The Commission believes that NSCCs rule change is consistent with this Section because it will permit the resources of NSCC to be appropriately utilized to protect funds and assets. 8 NSCC has always operated under a gross negligence standard of care and both internal and external counsel have consistently advised members that this is the case. NSCC is seeking to eliminate any confusion due to the absence of a clear standard set forth in its rules and to memorialize its historical practice. In addition, NSCC has in effect a service agreement with the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC) pursuant to which FICC provides services for NSCCs fixed income products. This service agreement provides for a gross negligence standard of care. In the absence of this new rule, NSCC could be in the position of having to pay for losses caused by FICC that are not recoverable under the agreement. 9 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37421 (July 11, 1996), 61 FR 37513 File No. SR-CBOE-96-02; 37563 (August 14, 1996), 61 FR 43285 File No. SR-PSE-96-21; 48201 (July 21, 2003), 68 FR 44128 File No. SR-GSCC-2002-10; and 49373 (March 8, 2004), 69 FR 11921 File No. SR-FICC-2003-09. 10 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). 5 Although the Act does not specify the standard of care that must be exercised by registered clearing agencies, the Commission has determined that a gross negligence standard of care is acceptable for noncustodial functions where a clearing agency and its participants contractually agree to limit the liability of the clearing agency.11 NSCCs functions are noncustodial in that it does not hold its members' funds or securities. It is reasonable for NSCC, which is member-owned and governed, and its members to agree through board approval of the proposed rule change and to contract with one another in a cooperative arrangement as to how to 11 In the release setting forth standards that would be used by the Division of Market Regulation in evaluating clearing agency registration applications, the Division of Market Regulation urged clearing agencies to embrace a strict standard of care in safeguarding participants funds and securities. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 16900 (June 17, 1980), 45 FR 4192. In the release granting permanent registration to The Depository Trust Company, the National Securities Clearing Corporation, and several other clearing agencies, however, the Commission indicated that it did not believe that sufficient justification existed at that time to require a unique federal standard of care for registered clearing agencies. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20221 (October 3, 1983), 48 FR 45167. In a subsequent release, the Commission stated that the clearing agency standard of care and the allocation of rights and liabilities between a clearing agency and its participants applicable to clearing agency services generally may be set by the clearing agency and its participants. In the same release, the Commission stated that it should review clearing agency proposed rule changes in this area on a case-by-case basis and balance the need for a high degree of clearing agency care with the effect resulting liabilities may have on clearing agency operations, costs, and safeguarding of securities and funds. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22940 (February 24, 1986), 51 FR 7169. Subsequently, in a release granting temporary registration as a clearing agency to The Intermarket Clearing Corporation, the Commission stated that a gross negligence standard of care may be appropriate for certain noncustodial functions that, consistent with minimizing risk mutualization, a clearing agency, its board of directors, and its members determine to allocate to individual service users. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26154 (October 3, 1988), 53 FR 39556. Finally, in a release granting the approval of temporary registration as a clearing agency to the International Securities Clearing Corporation, the Commission indicated that historically it has left to user-governed clearing agencies the question of how to allocate losses associated with noncustodial, data processing, clearing agency functions and has approved clearing agency services embodying a gross-negligence standard of care. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26812 (May 12, 1989), 54 FR 21691. 6 allocate NSCCs liability among NSCC and its members. Therefore, the Commission has determined that given the noncustodial nature of NSCCs services, a gross negligence standard of care and limitation of liability is allowable for NSCC.12 IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2004-09) be and hereby is approved. 12 The Commission notes that the rule change does not alleviate NSCC from liability for violation of the Federal securities laws where there exists a private right of action and therefore is not designed to adversely affect NSCCs compliance with the Federal securities laws and private rights of action that exist for violations of the Federal securities laws. 7 For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.13 Margaret H. McFarland Deputy Secretary 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). When a company has problems with a particular securities rule, are they given the freedom to rewrite or modify those rules as generously as Self-Regulatory Organizations? No, they are not. There is clearly a double-standard displayed between publicly traded companies and Self-Regulatory Organizations. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is rather obvious that the "revisions" that have been made by the Self-Regulatory Organizations are necessary to enable them to continue to manipulate the market to their own benefit, as the" stock borrow program "has generated countless shares of stocks from companies they have no intentions of ever making legitimate. It is flawed. It is massive....and you are aware of it. Without publicly traded companies, Self-Regulatory Organizations, as well as the SEC would not be necessary. Without investors, companies cannot survive. Without protection, transparency, and reform more investors will choose not to invest....think of it as the "food chain". You must start at the beginning. Without a beginning, there is no need for an ending. It is not helpful or beneficial, in any way, to antagonize me with enclosures explaining short selling and regulation SHO. I find it offensive and frustrating, to say the least. I did not ask you for any "inside" information about an investigation you may or may not be conducting. I simply asked you, "what do you intend to do to fix this problem?" Thus far, I am still awaiting a valid response. At one time, the SEC denied the existence of naked short selling. Now, the Commission justifies it, thinking investors cannot smell the stinch. There is NO excuse for naked short selling. It IS the same as counterfeiting. It IS time to punish the perpetrators instead of the victims. Even though the Supreme Court has never clearly decided if a governmental agency can or cannot be guilty of violating the RICO act, if the Commission knew of misconduct and continued to do nothing to correct the situation, malicious intent could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even though a government agency cannot be named as a defendant person under RICO, a government agency may still serve as the enterprise through which a defendant engages in a pattern of racketeering. Any governmental agent extorting persons "under color of authority" is participating in the conduct of the governmental entity's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Governmental entities may also be an enterprise if they are a passive instrument through which the racketeering acts are committed, advanced or concealed, or a governmental entity may also be a victim enterprise, e.g., if outsiders were operating or managing the affairs of the enterprise through bribery, for example. There are more than enough letters, comments, and complaints on the SEC's website, evident that the Commission has been informed about these crimes for several years, and continues to justify the crimes instead or resolving them. Speaking for investors, like myself, we are still waiting, watching, and hoping that we will not be forced to lose total faith in a favorable conclusionto this dilemma....but our patience is wearing thin. I do apologize if I have offended anyone with my strong comments. However, I cannot apologize for my honesty. I respectfully request that the Commission: 1. Fix that, which is obviously broken, by eliminating the grandfather clause in REG SHO immediately 2. Restore investor confidence and faith in the system by having the same set of rules, and applying them to everyone, regardless of their "political clout" 3. Protect publicly traded companies and their assets 4. Protect investors and their property(certificates in individual name) 5. Keep private organizations out of a public marketing system 6. Require complete transparency for Self-Regulatory Organizations and companies 7. Dispose of the double-standard imposed on publicly traded companies and Self-Regulatory Organizations 8. Accounts held in electronic (street) form, should be held in individual name only 9. Provide assistance and funding(auditors, accountants, etc.) to companies wishing to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley 10. Impose legislation to disassemble Self-Regulatory Organization making them a government entity, or governed and directly supervised by one capable of competence and fairness. We only want a level playing field. We are only asking for a fair trading system. Considering it is our money that we invest in the markets, we do not feel this is too much to ask for.
The Commission approved a proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2004-09) filed by the National Securities Clearing Corporation to establish a comprehensive standard of care and limitation of liability with respect to its members. Publication of the order is expected in the Federal Register during the week of May 9. (Rel. 34-51669)
posted
updated, newbie-info, combo post, via 10 of 13:
"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by metball4: paper trade? Where do you learn of these stocks, any good sources? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not trying to give you a headache...but here's some more info...
Some simple and Basic questions:
What do these letters mean? DD=due diligence (Research) MM=Market Maker (definition http://www.sec.gov/answers/mktmaker.htm ) EOD=End Of Day EOW=End Of Week HOD=High of Day PPS=Price Per Share O/S=Outstanding Shares A/S authorized shares POS=Piece of "Poo Poo" IMHO=In My Humble(Honest) Opinion LMAO=laugh My A** off L2's=Level 2's
#1 RULE...PROTECT YOUR CAPITAL! it is the most needed tool in this game...without your capital(funds)...you can't do anything! #2 RULE...NEVER FALL FOR THE HYPE ON THE BOARDS Lot's of people get overly involved in a stock...and "believe"...don't "follow the hype" blindly...do your own DD #3 RULE...TAKE PROFITS #4 RULE...HAVE FUN!
How is one "flagged" a daytrader? To avoid being flagged a daytrader, you can not sell and trade the same stock more than 3x's in a 5 day period. Buy "XYZ" and sell it the same day=not a day trader. Buy "XYZ" on Monday and sell it on Tuesday=not a daytrader. Buy AND sell "XYZ" more than 3x in a 5 day period= Day trader. You can buy and sell different stocks...just not the same one.
What are "free" shares? Many People will sell a stock once it has "reached" an increase where they can sell to "get back" their original investment and then continue to let the rest of the shares "ride", these are "free shares" (ones that the gain of the pps has "covered") All of these, once sold, would be complete profit.
What are settled funds? You open your account with cash, those are "settled funds", You buy stock XYZ , you sell XYZ to purchase a different stock, It will take 3 business days for those funds to become "settled". Some brokers will let you purchase stocks with unsettled funds but you can not sell that newly purchased stock for the 3 days, The sell of a stock is what needs to "settle" not the purchase of a stock. Think of it as a check clearing your bank after you have deposited it.
Example: I have $200 in a cash account...I buy 200 shares of XYZ on Monday...I can sell those shares ANYTIME after my purchase...in 5 minutes or 5 months...it doesn't matter...I dont have to wait for anything...However, this is where the "settlement time" comes in, although allot of brokers will let you buy with the unsettled funds from the sale of XYZ...I CAN NOT SELL..the new stock that I purchased...(here it is) UNTIL the settlement date...usually 3 business days...
The settlement date applies to the SELL of a stock...NOT the purchase of the stock...
Must have book to read is "a beginners guide to day trading on line" by Toni Turner www.toniturner.com
posted
The Truth Behind Penny Stock Spam http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2007/06/pennystocks.html A deluge of e-mail come-ons puts gullible investors at risk while the government does little to stop it. By Thomas M. Anderson From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, June 2007
Promoters of penny stocks typically pitch these high-risk investments as if they were valuable real estate, like oceanfront property. With little money down, you can make a quick-and-easy profit. But in reality, penny stocks are more like swampland. And now, thanks to spam, the muck is spreading at an alarming rate, and efforts to stop it have so far been as effective as ordering the tide not to come in.
You probably trashed an e-mail message last December touting Goldmark Industries. A spam campaign predicted that investors would earn spectacular returns. One e-mail, which forecast the stock would gain 1,077%, said, "Watch GDKI [Goldmark's symbol] soar on Wednesday, Dec. 20!"
Maybe you didn't bite, but many others did. On December 19, the day before the spam campaign began, Goldmark closed at 17 cents a share. Nine days later, when the spam barrage ended, the stock closed at 35 cents. Those who held the stock before the e-mail campaign doubled their money. Investors who bought at the top lost their shirts. The stock closed at 6 cents in mid April.
If you think we're talking about chump change, think again. The Securities and Exchange Commission says spam campaigns promoting Goldmark and 34 other stocks that the agency recently suspended from trading for ten days robbed investors of tens of millions of dollars. And those 35 are just a few acres of the swamp. The SEC estimates that 100 million stock-spam messages are sent daily. Postini, an e-mail-security company, says the volume of spam that hypes stocks has grown 120% in the past six months, and that about one-fifth of all spam is stock-related. (On April 13, the SEC suspended trading on three more penny stocks that it suspected were being manipulated through spam campaigns.)
Spam attacks Spammers never let facts get in the way. Take an e-mail about Goldmark sent last October, before the campaign cited by the SEC. The note claimed that Goldmark, which says it produces and distributes hip-hop music, films and TV shows, had struck a deal with rap impresario Sean "Diddy" Combs. A Combs representative says the claim was fiction. None of the firms whose stocks were suspended, including Goldmark, acknowledge involvement in the spam campaigns.
People behind those campaigns have a big edge over those who buy on the hype: They know when the spam will end. A well-executed spam attack can produce triple-digit gains in a matter of days. Because of a December spam campaign, for example, the stock of Apparel Manufacturing Associates rose from 6 cents to 45 cents in just five days. It was among the stocks later suspended by the SEC.
Almost all stock spam is illegal. That's because these e-mails violate the Securities Act of 1933, which, among other things, bars paid promoters from touting stocks without disclosing the details of their compensation. Spam that doesn't allow you to opt out of the e-mail list (and most stock spam does not) also violates the 2003 CAN-SPAM Act, as well as state anti-spam laws.
You may have noticed that your spam blocker is letting more stock touts through. That's because spammers have become more sophisticated. The e-mails you open look ordinary, but many messages are in the form of digital images that spam filters can't read. And spammers avoid detection by using computer viruses to infect vast networks of computers, which then disseminate millions of e-mails.
Stock spam would wither without a healthy supply of junk-company shares, of which there is no shortage in the U.S. Most of these low-priced, thinly traded stocks are found on the Pink Sheets and the OTC Bulletin Board. NASD, the self-regulatory body of the brokerage industry, runs the OTCBB, and stocks quoted by this service must register with the SEC. That cuts down -- but doesn't eliminate -- the number of stocks that can be manipulated. The Pink Sheets, a private company, permits stocks that don't file with the SEC to be listed on its service.
NASD won't venture a guess at the number of OTCBB stocks involved in penny-stock spam. Cromwell Coulson, chief executive of the Pink Sheets, estimates that 10% of the more than 4,800 stocks that trade on his service are easy marks for spammers because the companies provide little or no financial information. The Pink Sheets has stopped quoting prices for the 35 stocks the SEC suspended as well as shares of more than 300 companies about which the company has received spam-related complaints from investors.
Draining the swamp Suspending trading may help drain the swamp -- although how effective the tactic is remains to be seen. Other methods of dealing with the surfeit of stock spam are shutting down or prosecuting promoters, educating investors, and flagging stocks that are ripe for manipulation.
Although illegal e-mail touts are generally untraceable, other markets have developed ways of stopping criminals from pumping up share prices. For example, the free-wheeling Vancouver Stock Exchange was long home to many penny stocks that were subject to "pump and dump" schemes. But in the late 1990s, Canadian regulators began requiring executives and promoters of small-company stocks to register their promotional activities and submit to background checks.
As a result, Canada eliminated the most egregious penny-stock scams, says Martin Eady, director of corporate finance at the British Columbia Securities Commission. Regulators crack down hard against those who violate the rules. In November 2005, for example, the commission suspended Ray Dabney, president of Xraymedia, after he admitted to sending out 22 false news releases about the company. Several Xraymedia directors serve on Goldmark's board, and the two companies share the same Vancouver address, according to filings with the Pink Sheets. Xraymedia was the subject of a 2003 spam campaign, according to Spamnation.info, a Web site that tracks penny-stock spam. Shares of Xraymedia are quoted on the Pink Sheets. Although barred from the Pink Sheets, Goldmark shares may still trade if a broker is willing to sell them to investors (few are).
Because markets north of the border are unfriendly to stock scammers, they focus their efforts on Canadian companies that trade in the U.S., where they face fewer restrictions, says the Pink Sheets' Coulson. Eady estimates that more than 660 companies from British Columbia are quoted on the OTCBB and the Pink Sheets but don't trade on a Canadian exchange. Canadian regulators are considering even tougher measures to restrain their home-grown stock scammers, Eady says, even though most investors ripped off by their spam live in the U.S.
Not all spam involves Canadian companies. Coulson believes that groups of scammers based in Florida, Nevada and Texas hype many U.S.-based companies that are the subjects of pump-and-dump campaigns.
As a practical matter, prosecuting spammers isn't easy. For a promoter's claims to run afoul of the SEC, the law states that a "reasonable" person would have to believe a touter's claims are true, says Donald Langevoort, a Georgetown University law professor and a former SEC special counsel. But because most reasonable people would not believe the claims, the law doesn't view many of these assertions as illegal, he says. The SEC says it knows who orchestrated the spam campaigns behind some of the 35 stocks it briefly suspended. But as of mid April, the commission hadn't lodged complaints against any of the perpetrators.
What's needed next The best way to protect investors is to keep reminding them of the dangers of acting on e-mail touts. Over the past three years, NASD has issued six alerts about stock spam on its Web site, but the gullible continue to be taken in. "Only investor education can have a real effect," says Langevoort.
There may be a better solution than education: identifying stocks that are ripe for manipulation. Coulson plans to label Pink Sheets stocks suspected of being involved in pump-and-dump schemes with a skull-and-crossbones on the Pink Sheets Web site. He has also proposed that the SEC require more information about promoters who legally tout stocks. An SEC spokesman says the agency is reviewing Coulson's proposal but adds that the commission doesn't have the power to impose Canadian-style rules without congressional action. Congress hasn't considered any legislation to limit penny-stock spam or restrict stock promoters.
Meanwhile, stock spammers mock efforts to impede them. On March 11, only three days after the SEC announced its crackdown, a flood of spam touted United Environmental Energy (UTEV) as a "HOT NEW SEC APPROVED STOCK FOR YOUR ATTENTION!" The spam asserted that United was not a "Pump&Dump" stock. Over the next four days, the shares rose from 5 cents to 40 cents, then quickly fell to 10 cents. The Fort Lauderdale, Fla., company, which does not file financial statements with the SEC, says it was not involved in the spam campaign.
Calculated risk: A safe approach to penny stocks Penny stocks get the greed glands going -- with good reason. It's a lot easier for a 10-cent stock to double or triple in no time than it is for a $100 stock, even though price, by itself, is not a measure of value. But penny stocks -- defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission as those that don't trade on Nasdaq or on an exchange and sell for less than $5 -- are generally far riskier than higher-priced stocks. If you're still tempted by low-priced stocks, here are some ways you can avoid being ripped off.
Look for the financials. Tiny companies don't have to file audited financial reports with the SEC. If a company you're interested in doesn't file, stay away. Financial data for most penny stocks touted in e-mails is either crummy or nonexistent.
Check the market value. Not all low-priced stocks are small companies. If a company's market value (share price times shares outstanding) is $50 million or more, chances are it's legit. Among the stocks recently recommended by the Turnaround Letter, a newsletter with a superior stock-picking record, five traded in mid April for less than $5 but sported market capitalizations of $218 million and up. The best known: Gateway, the computer maker, with annual sales of $4 billion and a market value of $848 million. It traded at $2.23.
Don't bet the ranch. Use only a small portion of your money to dabble in penny stocks and buy only if you can afford to lose 100% of your investment.
-------------------- The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits Posts: 10204 | From: NYC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Member Rated: posted June 18, 2007 11:35 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes you are talking about FreeRealTime.com. You have to register for free. Then type in the symbol and go to "Time&Sales" quote. It will list every trade. The basic quote page will even list the average trade size. Like GOOGLE for example...their average trade size today was 168 shares which is about $87,000. Heres the link and a few others.
This will show you the direction that the "Big Money" is flowing in and out of IDUSTRY GROUPS". It's owned by INVESTOOLS. It's basicly INVESTOOLS for free.
To know what I mean by the Big Money Chart...go to the investools link and look at the free video at the bottom for "Money Flow. Then go to the prophet.net link for the free "Money Flow Chart"
Learn to trade NASDAQ stocks and swing trade them...And its easier, safer, and more profitable than PENNY STOCKS. There are some great traders at THELION.COM. The traders there usally post breaking news there quick.
Here is another free Big Board / NASDAQ stock Chat Room that is awesome! ! ! !
posted June 13, 2005 07:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- did Gerald Ford's pre-emptive pardon of Nixon bother anyone? This, on DTCC letterhead, is infuriating:
A# P&S# 6029 5599 DATE: MAY 16, 2005 TO: ALL PARTICIPANTS ATTENTION: MANAGING PARTNER/OFFICER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER OPERATIONS PARTNER/OFFICER COMPLIANCE OFFICER SUBJECT: RULE FILING APPROVAL – SR-NSCC-2004-09 On December 8, 2004, National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC" or “the Corporation”) filed and on May 9, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") approved rule filing SRNSCC- 2004-09, which consists of modifications to NSCC’s Rules and Procedures (the “Rules”) to memorialize the Corporation’s current standard of care and limitation of liability. The approved changes create a uniform standard limiting NSCC’s liability to direct losses caused by NSCC’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action. In addition, the changes: (a) memorialize an appropriate commercial standard of care that will protect NSCC from undue liability; (b) permit the resources of NSCC to be appropriately utilized for promoting the accurate clearance and settlement of securities; and (c) are consistent with similar rules adopted by other self-regulatory organizations and approved by the Commission.
Questions regarding SR-NSCC-2004-09 should be directed to Allison Finnegan, Senior Associate Counsel, at (212) 855-3283, or to the undersigned at (212) 855-3203.
Karen L. Saperstein Managing Director and General Counsel
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
posted
OTCQX is a new market tier organized by Pink Sheets, LLC that sets apart a select group of issuers as worthy of consideration by U.S. investors. Qualified issuers use the efficient and robust OTCQX listing process to provide credibility and visibility of disclosure to investors. OTCQX is designed to meet the needs of small to medium sized, publicly-traded U.S. companies and non-U.S. companies listed on qualified international stock exchanges.
posted
TEX, IM JBFREEDOM AND JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS FOR ALL THESE POSTS I'VE BEEN READING HERE.ITS VERY OVERWHELMING TO A NEWBIE LIKE ME BUT VERY ,VERY ,VERY INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE.THANKS FOR THE LION SITE ,AM GOING TO CHECK IT OUT.IM CERTAINLY GOING TO BE PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO YOUR POSTS....LOL THANKS TEX FOR HELPING TO PROTECT US SHAREHOLDERS WHETHER WE ACTUALLY REALIZE IT OR NOT.JUST MY OPINION OF ALL I READ.MOST IS OVER MY HEAD FOR NOW ,BUT SOME OF IT STUCK...THANKS TEX
quote:Originally posted by jbfreedom: TEX, IM JBFREEDOM AND JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS FOR ALL THESE POSTS I'VE BEEN READING HERE.ITS VERY OVERWHELMING TO A NEWBIE LIKE ME BUT VERY ,VERY ,VERY INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE.THANKS FOR THE LION SITE ,AM GOING TO CHECK IT OUT.IM CERTAINLY GOING TO BE PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO YOUR POSTS....LOL THANKS TEX FOR HELPING TO PROTECT US SHAREHOLDERS WHETHER WE ACTUALLY REALIZE IT OR NOT.JUST MY OPINION OF ALL I READ.MOST IS OVER MY HEAD FOR NOW ,BUT SOME OF IT STUCK...THANKS TEX
boy, O! boy...
you're welcome.
Watch that CAPS key, though--if you mis-key here? You might well mix up a buy or sell...
posted
pretty interesting; before the new "tiers" at Pinksheets, but still interesting background from an academic perspective:
quote:Microstructure of the Pink Sheets Market
Abstract
The Pink Sheets market is a highly unregulated trading venue that is virtually free of affirmative obligations or reporting requirements. Using all quotes and trades reported through the Pink Sheets electronic quotation service and Pink Link electronic execution service in the 2004 calendar year, we examine whether regularities that exist in highly regulated markets arise for stocks traded through the Pink Sheets. We find that the market appears quite capable of creating organized rather than chaotic quotation and trading activity in an environment without a tick size, even among penny stocks, and that bid-ask spreads show a consistent relation with market maker costs.
quote:U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 20341 / October 19, 2007 SEC v. Zev Saltsman, et al., Civil Action No. 07-CV- 4370 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.) (filed October 19, 2007) Commission Charges Short Sellers and Corporate Insiders in Massive Scheme to Conceal the Short Sellers' Control Over Ramp Corporation and Xybernaut Corporation On October 19, 2007, the Commission filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against: two short sellers, Zev Saltsman and Menachem Eitan; two former officers and directors of Xybernaut Corporation, Edward G. Newman and Steven A. Newman; a former director of Xybernaut and outside counsel to Xybernaut and Ramp Corporation, Martin E. Weisberg; and Ramp's former CEO, Andrew Brown. The Commission's complaint charges the defendants with engaging in a scheme to conceal Saltsman and Eitan's control over Ramp and Xybernaut.
In particular, the Commission's complaint alleges that between 2001 and 2004, Saltsman and Eitan, through 34 nominees, invested more than $88 million in private investments in public equity ("PIPE") transactions of Xybernaut and Ramp, companies that traded on the NASDAQ Small Cap Market and the American Stock Exchange, respectively. During that period, Xybernaut issued more than 123 million shares of common stock to 21 nominees of Saltsman and Eitan in return for more than $67 million in PIPE financing. Similarly, between December 2002 and November 2004, Ramp issued more than 161 million shares of common stock to 13 nominees of Saltsman and Eitan in return for more than $21 million in PIPE financing. Xybernaut and Ramp filed 18 registration statements registering the resale of those shares, and those registration statements were misleading because, among other things, they created the impression that the investors were independent from one another and controlled by persons other than Saltsman and Eitan. Saltsman and Eitan profited from the scheme by executing short sales and covering those short positions with newly issued PIPE shares in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. Saltsman and Eitan often executed wash sales between their various nominee accounts in order to disguise these violations of the federal securities laws. As a result of their illegal conduct, Saltsman and Eitan received a total of more than $55 million in illicit profits by trading in Ramp and Xybernaut stock.
The complaint also alleges that Saltsman and Eitan paid officers and directors of Ramp and Xybernaut to ensure access to future PIPE deals and maintain control over the companies. In December 2003, Saltsman and Eitan allegedly gave Brown $50,000 in cash. In 2003 and 2004, Saltsman and Eitan paid $4.1 million to Steven Newman and Weisberg. These payments, as well as the relationships that developed between the companies' management and Saltsman and Eitan, were never disclosed in Ramp or Xybernaut's corporate filings or registration statements.
The Commission's complaint further alleges that during the course of the scheme, Brown, Weisberg, Edward Newman and Steven Newman provided valuable assistance to Saltsman and Eitan. In 2001, Weisberg helped Edward Newman and Steven Newman transfer a total of 1.1 million shares of their own Xybernaut stock to Saltsman and Eitan to allow Saltsman and Eitan to cover existing short positions in Xybernaut. In 2003, Weisberg lied to the Commission staff about sales of securities to Saltsman and Eitan that occurred during the pendency of a PIPE registration statement. Brown, Weisberg, Edward Newman and Steve Newman also concealed Saltsman and Eitan's control over the PIPE investments and the nominees.
The complaint alleges that each of the defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that Saltsman and Eitan also violated Sections 5(a), 5(b)(2), and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2, and 16a-3 thereunder. The complaint also alleges that Weisberg aided and abetted Xybernaut's violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and that Steven Newman, Edward Newman, and Brown violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14. The complaint further alleges that Weisberg, Steven Newman, Edward Newman and Brown aided and abetted Xybernaut and Ramp's violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. In its enforcement action, the Commission is seeking an order permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the foregoing provisions of the federal securities laws, and a final judgment ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil penalties. The Commission also seeks officer and director bars against Weisberg, Steven Newman, Edward Newman and Brown.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
quote:As with any subjective form of technical analysis, there are, at times, variable definitions which will be defined according to the users' experience and background. This is true of some candlestick patterns. Depending on my source of information, these were instances in which I came across different, albeit usually minor, definitions of what constitutes a certain pattern. For example, one Japanese author writes that the open has to be above the prior close in order to complete a dark-cloud cover pattern (see Chapter 4). Other written and oral sources say that, for this pattern, the open should be above the prior high. In cases where there were different definitions, I chose the rules that increased the probability that the pattern's forecast would be correct. For example, the pattern referred to in the prior paragraph is a reversal signal that appears at tops. Thus, I chose the definition that the market has to open above the prior day's high. It is more bearish if the market opens above the prior day's high and then fails, then it would be if the market just opens above the prior day's close and then failed.
quote:Candlestick charts provide many useful trading signals. They do not, however, provide price targets. There are other methods to forecast targets (such as prior support or resistance levels, retracements, swing objectives, and so on). Some Japanese candlestick practitioners place a trade based on a candlestick signal. and stay with that trade until another candlestick pattern tells them to offset. Candlestick patterns should always be viewed in the context as to what occurred before and in relation to other technical evidence.
quote:As touched upon in the previous discussion, the technicals contribute to market objectivity. It is human nature, unfortunately, to see the market as we want to see it, not as it really is. How often does the following occur? A trader buys. Immediately the market falls. Does he take a loss. Usually no. Although there is no room for hope in the market, the trader will glean all the fundamentally bullish news he can in order to buoy his hope that the market will turn in his direction. Meanwhile prices continue to descend. Perhaps the market is trying to tell him something. The markets communicate with us. We can monitor these messages by using the technicals. This trader is closing his eyes and ears to the messages being sent by the market. If this trader stepped back and objectively viewed price activity, he might get a better feel of the market. What if a supposedly bullish story is released and prices do not move up or even fall? That type of price action is sending out volumes of information about the psychology of the market and how one should trade in it. I believe it was the famous trader Jesse Livermore who expressed the idea that one can see the whole better when one sees it from a distance. Technicals make us step back and get a different and, perhaps, better perspective on the market.
October 05, 2007 - One of the biggest trading houses is stepping up efforts to bypass exchanges and ECNs when laying off positions from its vast market-making operation.
Knight Equity Markets, the broker-dealer subsidiary of Knight Capital Markets, the big institutional and wholesaling firm, is executing more than 60 million of its 400 million shares per day through Knight Link, an electronic indications-of-interest service. The customers using the service include the electronic trading desks of 10 to 15 bulge bracket brokers.
Volume in Knight Link, which launched in mid-2006, ramped up this summer. In August, when volumes took off everywhere, the system executed 66 million shares per day, said Jamil Nazarali, head of electronic trading at Knight Equity Markets. In July it executed a daily average of 50 million shares, and in June an average of 33 million. Overall, the firm executes 400 million shares per day in listed and Nasdaq stocks.
Knight Link’s flow is generated by Knight’s executions against its retail broker-dealer clients, including E*Trade, Fidelity, Scottrade and Ameritrade. After Knight executes client orders, it typically seeks to lay off its position and manage its risk.
Knight Link sends streaming IOIs from Knight’s electronic trading desk directly to the routing engines of big brokers. If a broker has an order on the other side, it can send the order to Knight, which then executes the trade and reports it to the NASD/Nasdaq trade reporting facility. Knight Link also accepts immediate-or-cancel orders from some clients, instead of sending them IOIs. Nazarali says Knight Link’s fill rate is “over 90 percent” for the streaming IOIs, which represent about 75 percent of Knight Link’s executions.
Knight doesn’t charge brokers for Knight Link executions. According to Nazarali, the system’s main competitors are dark pools, which try to attract broker flow before it’s sent to the market. Knight Link’s IOIs, often for several thousand names—because of Knight’s huge market-making business—include the firm’s side and size for every name.
This IOI product is different from the traditional indications for natural contra-side liquidity that many brokers send to traders. This type of IOI from electronic market makers and dark pools is directed to algorithmic trading or electronic routing engines, not humans. The human traders are never aware of the IOIs until after a trade occurs.
Knight isn’t the only market-making firm providing this type of service. Other large electronic liquidity providers such as Automated Trading Desk, which Citi bought in June for $680 million, stream IOIs directly to the electronic trading engines at many big brokers. Goldman Sachs’ Sigma X pool, for example, gets streaming orders from about half a dozen electronic liquidity providers, including Knight Link, ATD, Liquidnet H2O and NYFIX Millennium.
Several large brokers contacted by Traders Magazine said they use Knight Link as well as similar indications-type products from other firms. These are considered additional sources of liquidity for the brokers after they internalize what they can within their own walls. All said their customers can choose to opt out of executing against this flow.
JPMorgan’s Carl Carrie, global head of algorithmic products in the broker’s electronic client solutions group, said his firm connects to Knight “in a variety of ways” and also connects to “a number of IOI-related products.” He added that there now exists “a virtual book of IOIs for algorithms to trade against.”
For brokers, an execution in Knight Link “reduces market-impact costs and avoids exchange or ECN fees,” Nazarali said. For Knight, avoiding the public markets reduces its fees, facilitates its risk management and enables the firm to take on more trading with clients because it can more easily hedge its activities.
Nazarali said the next stage for Knight Link is working with ECNs, exchanges, mid-tier and regional brokers, and order management systems and execution management systems to provide them with an additional liquidity source that can potentially reduce their execution costs.
(c) 2007 Traders Magazine and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
October 05, 2007 - It’s official. First came the OMS. Then the EMS. Now there’s an AMS. Neovest, the builder of a popular execution management system, is incorporating functionality into its platform that lets traders more efficiently manage their use of the 100-plus algorithms on the system. The vendor, a subsidiary of JPMorgan, calls AlgoGenetics, its new software toolkit, an algorithmic management system, or AMS.
This “new class of software,” as Neovest deems it, lets traders construct their own “meta-algorithms”—automated execution strategies that combine algos from multiple brokers, dark pools and direct-market-access tools. In doing so, it frees them from the time-consuming process of overseeing and adjusting their electronic execution strategies.
In effect, AlgoGenetics lets traders replicate the way they trade manually through self-customized algos, which they can name, share on their desk and update whenever they want. They can also use AlgoGenetics to adapt the behavior of existing broker algos to suit their execution needs.
Free at Last
A trader can, for example, construct a meta-algo to buy a stock via a Credit Suisse implementation shortfall algo in the morning, regularly checking for crosses on NYFIX Millennium. After a predetermined portion of the order is executed, the meta-algo could switch to a JPMorgan volume-based algo, changing its participation level in the market based on the stock’s price. The algo could also be programmed to spray orders into dark pools.
“Traders don’t have to be boxed in anymore,” says Bryce Byers, Neovest’s chief executive officer. “They know which algorithms [from different brokers] they want to use for specific situations, and when to switch algos based on market conditions, price, time or other criteria. They can now leverage the strength of all their algo providers to trade exactly the way they want.” The Neovest EMS gives users a suite of DMA tools and access to 20 dark pools, 130 broker-dealers and algos from 20 brokers.
AlgoGenetics was developed by a half-dozen technologists from Neovest and a team of six from JPMorgan’s algo product development group. The platform grew out of the algorithmic customization work JPMorgan does for clients. More than 50 percent of the firm’s clients ask for some level of customization, notes Carl Carrie, global head of Neovest and algorithmic products in JPMorgan’s electronic client solutions group. He speculates that many buyside traders will eventually become conditioned to “building and harvesting their own algos.”
JPMorgan bought Neovest in 2005, at a time when other broker-dealers were snapping up independent DMA platforms. These include Citi’s acquisition of Lava Trading in 2004 and Lehman’s acquisition of RealTick in 2005. Fifteen broker-dealer “resellers” currently offer the multi-broker Neovest platform to their clients. These include Pershing, Electronic Specialist and Fidelity Capital Markets Services.
Next Step
Neovest doesn’t charge customers for the AlgoGenetics platform. As with all trading through Neovest, customers pay brokers and execution venues for the executions they receive. Neovest gets $0.0008, or 8 mils, per share from brokers, with no minimum fee.
Adam Sussman, an analyst at research firm TABB Group, notes that the functionality in Neovest’s AlgoGenetics represents the “next step” for multi-broker algorithmic aggregation platforms as execution management becomes more complex in a fragmented marketplace. The initial advance, spearheaded by Bloomberg, was enabling traders to access multiple algos from different brokers on one system. Many vendors of order management systems and EMSs, including Neovest, now aggregate algos from dozens of brokers.
Sussman sees two main benefits to this type of algorithmic management platform. First, it enables users to switch between algos without manually overseeing that process, by setting conditions “that will automatically drive an order from one algo to another.” In Sussman’s view, this is particularly important for firms shuttling 20 to 25 percent of their flow through algorithms, since those firms are likely to encounter workflow-management issues. Second, Sussman adds, creating meta-algorithms forces a trader “to automate his thought process, enabling him to map what he wants to see happen with an order onto an algorithm.”
Other technology providers, such as Progress Apama, FlexTrade and Portware, offer tool kits that enable traders to build their own algos, but these typically require some programming or computer skills and are not set up to readily use broker algos as components within a larger execution strategy.
Neovest’s Byers notes that AlgoGenetics was designed for ease of use. “A trader doesn’t have to corner a programmer or ask the sellside to customize an existing algo to meet his specifications,” he says. The trader can use AlgoGenetics’ drag-and-drop interface to create algos on the fly and put them into operation immediately.
The first clients to use Neovest’s AlgoGenetics are three New York-based hedge funds, including Scopus Asset Management. Bill Skutch, the head trader at Scopus, says the platform “allows us to maintain neutrality among brokers and take more control over algos by customizing them for individual stocks or sectors.”
Stronger Platform
Brad Bailey, a senior analyst at research firm Aite Group, points out that buyside traders increasingly want more flexibility around the algos they use. “[AlgoGenetics] is a tool that makes absolute sense if it optimizes a trader’s use of algorithms, leads to cost mitigation and has a rules-based approach to execution,” he says.
In addition to benefiting traders, AlgoGenetics could enhance Neovest’s position in a competitive landscape for multi-broker EMSs. JPMorgan’s Carrie says AlgoGenetics puts Neovest in the catbird seat. “We believe Neovest will be the strongest algo platform in the near term as a result of AlgoGenetics and our other offerings,” he says. “This empowers traders not just to trade better, but to build their own capabilities for trading better. It’s a greenfield opportunity for traders.”
(c) 2007 Traders Magazine and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
October 25, 2007 - Orders sent to the public marketplace are increasingly not being filled there.
A handful of exchanges and ECNs, those entities that make up the public marketplace, have begun initiatives to pair their incoming orders that can’t be executed with those sitting in dark pools. Rather than automatically route these orders to other public market centers, as is standard practice, they are looking to ship them to broker-dealers for a fill. The nascent trend is likely to increase the number of trades done away from the displayed markets.
“We are in the middle of building a dark-pool strategy,” Brian Hyndman, a senior vice president in Nasdaq’s transaction services group, told Traders Magazine. “We plan to introduce an order type that would not only route out to the public markets, but if the customer requested, would also route to certain dark pools.”
Nasdaq is not alone. NYSE Arca, the ISE Stock Exchange, LavaFlow ECN, and Direct Edge ECN are also ramping up efforts to let their customers interact with non-displayed orders resident elsewhere. In most cases, that means the systems of broker-dealers, but it could also include those of the buyside.
Aggregation
What the exchanges and ECNs are doing is not entirely new. Direct Edge has offered an order type that routes incoming orders that can’t be executed to certain “enhanced liquidity partners,” [ELPs] including dark pools, since last year.
But the trend is picking up steam. Nasdaq says it will start development of its order type this quarter. Lava says it is in the early stages of development and is in talks with several dark pools.
The drive to “aggregate” dark pools is also not new. Most of the major broker-dealers have developed algorithms that can simultaneously “ping,” or probe, several dark pools. And some of the dark pools themselves are either entering into order-sharing arrangements with each other or else electronically alerting sellside and buyside systems to orders they hold.
Both groups of broker-dealers are reacting to the explosion in the number of dark pools and the associated volume. By accessing as many of these pools at once, the brokers satisfy their customers’ need to efficiently probe the systems. And by avoiding the public marketplaces, they avoid transaction fees.
For the exchanges and ECNs, the idea of pairing orders with those resting in third-party dark pools is not too far removed from their current practice of pairing incoming orders with orders resting undisplayed in their own systems.
Hidden Orders
Both Nasdaq and NYSE Arca in particular have found great success with hidden order types, or those resting undisplayed inside their systems. Nasdaq, for instance, says about 18 percent of its liquidity is invisible. Incoming orders have the opportunity to match up with these orders at the midpoint of the market.
The ISE, which operates an intraday crossing system called MidPoint Match, offers similar functionality. Traders using discretionary order types can trade against orders residing in the MidPoint Match at the BBO midpoint. Discretionary orders are those that display at one price on the ISE book but are set to trade at a more aggressive, undisclosed price.
Despite interest on both sides of the bright/dark divide for additional exposure, a closer partnership is not a slam dunk. The bright pools are nervous about throwing their orders into dark places. The dark pools are equally nervous about exposing their orders to the light (or to other dark pools, for that matter). Each group is worried about surrendering information to the other side.
Dark pools typically suffer from low match rates. Thus, they are eager to interact with the outside world. But they are reluctant to share their orders with others, lest they leak valuable information. So while they want contact, they want it on their terms.
And while they are not averse to alerting outsiders to the presence of specific orders resting in their systems, dark pools are nervous about letting outsiders in simply to poke around. In the past year, two dark pools—Investment Technology Group’s POSIT and Pipeline Trading—banned access to broker-dealer algorithms.
Others are cautious as well. “Everybody wants us to give them a feed into our dark pool,” says Andy Brenner, head of the ISE Stock Exchange, “but we’re not comfortable with that.”
Soliciting Interest
If the customer permits, the ISE can also send out alerts to its broker-dealer members about the existence of an order inside MidPoint Match. The ISE sends out what it calls a “solicitation of interest” that offers up the name of the stock only. It does not include any price or size information, as would a typical “indication of interest.” The SOI doesn’t indicate whether it’s a buy or sell order.
Agency broker BNY ConvergEx is grappling with the same issue as its new VortEx dark pool gets off the ground. BNY will allow ECNs and exchanges to transmit IOIs to VortEx, but has so far decided not to send VortEx orders out. “We are trying to be very careful about our client information,” says Carey Pack, president of BNY ConvergEx Execution Solutions.
Dark pools’ reluctance to throw down a welcome mat partly explains the approaches of the two ECNs trying to get inside the systems. If a Direct Edge customer opts to seek out liquidity on the books of one of the ECN’s six enhanced liquidity partners, Direct Edge will first send an IOI to the dark book. It will not simply ping the system. (When it first launched the service, it was pinging the pools, sources say.) The dark book can refuse the trade.
“Dark pools want to be dark,” says Bill O’Brien, Direct Edge’s chief executive officer. “They don’t want to put a displayed order on our book. We are not forcing them to trade.”
Despite the uncertainty of a fill with this method, Direct Edge is having some success with its ELP program. On a recent day, the ECN traded about 18 million shares of dark liquidity. That was about 5 percent of the total 320 million shares hitting Direct Edge that day. (Direct Edge’s match rate is about 50 percent.)
The percentage of Direct Edge volume trading against dark flow is up considerably from when the program started, O’Brien says. And it is likely to go higher still, he adds. “We intend to add more partners, as well as raise the profile of the program,” he says.
Recently, Knight Capital Group, the owner of Direct Edge, sold a large stake in the ECN to Goldman Sachs and Citadel Derivatives Group. Some expect the two big trading firms to become enhanced liquidity providers. O’Brien would only say that the ECN has plans to disclose the name of its ELPs in the near future as part of its branding.
Citi’s LavaFlow ECN is in the early stages of developing its dark-pool aggregation, or “hub,” plan. It is taking a different approach. Rather than ping the dark pools or transmit IOIs to them, LavaFlow plans a kind of order-sharing arrangement. An order sitting in a dark pool can simultaneously sit undisplayed in LavaFlow. If a contra-side order comes into LavaFlow and doesn’t match, it has the option of matching with the dark order in the dark pool.
Dark Strategies
LavaFlow will deliver the contra order to the dark pool. If the dark-pool order is still unexecuted, the two will match. If the order has been executed, the pool will reject the LavaFlow order. Lava is, in effect, mimicking the order-delivery functionality some exchanges offer ECNs. It is offering the dark pools the option of having orders delivered to them for possible execution. That eliminates the possibility of a double execution.
John Procopion, director of sellside execution services in Citi’s electronic trading group, describes LavaFlow as a “next-generation ECN” because it performs the traditional ECN role of displaying liquidity and also acts as an aggregator of dark liquidity.
The goal is similar to the one that put Lava Trading on Wall Street’s map nearly 10 years ago. At a time when traders were trying to cope with a growing number of ECNs, it introduced its ECN-aggregator product. Known as ColorBook, the product was a roaring success. Today, ColorBook also connects to dark pools.
More Flow
LavaFlow is being positioned to tap into the tremendous order flow passing through ColorBook. About 1.5 billion to 2 billion shares pass through the system each day. With the launch of LavaFlow earlier this year, ColorBook users have had the option of checking the ECN’s book for fills before traveling on to their destination. The ECN is open to other direct access systems although it does not route those orders out.
All trades occurring in LavaFlow are printed using the FLOW market participant identifier. All orders that route out and trade on other public venues are printed using the GOTO identifier. (A past article in this magazine mischaracterized GOTO as an algorithm that searches dark pools.) If a routed order trades in a dark pool instead, it will print under that pool’s market participant ID.
Procopion maintains LavaFlow’s order-delivery methodology is superior to both pinging and using IOIs, which expose valuable information. “Customers are not inclined to show their hands if they don’t have to,” Procopion explains. “They are willing to participate if there is something to do on the other side. They don’t want to blindly ping some proprietary engine and potentially tip their hands.”
As for IOIs, they are not firm orders. Thus, using them is not as effective as order delivery, Procopion says. “This is an actual order resting in LavaFlow,” he says of his firm’s methodology.
Exchange Strategy
Nasdaq would not discuss its strategy—IOIs, pinging or order delivery—but its plans include using its Nasdaq Execution Services broker-dealer to route to dark pools. Nasdaq is considered the most aggressive of the exchanges in this area. In fact, many sources question if industry regulations even permit exchanges to interact with undisplayed markets. Some exchange execs say it is easier for an ECN to offer these services than an exchange.
Brian Carr, president of NYFIX Millennium, one of the larger dark pools, says he is uncertain as to whether Millennium could interact with an exchange, but says the field “is wide open” for ECNs. Millennium, like ISE MidPoint Match, sends electronic alerts out to buyside and sellside systems if the customer permits.
Carr says Millennium is open to sending the alerts to ECNs. “We don’t treat ECNs any differently from broker internalization or other matching systems,” he says. “We’ll talk to anyone who has a pool of liquidity that we can easily connect to and share liquidity.”
At the ISE, Brenner says his exchange is “thinking about creative ways” to aggregate dark pools, but won’t be more specific. “Wouldn’t everybody love to be the place where all that order flow sits?” he adds. Executives from the Chicago and Philadelphia stock exchanges say they have no immediate plans to offer access to dark liquidity, but they are studying it due to its growing importance.
Princeton, N.J.-based Order Execution Services is a specialty broker-dealer that routes orders from one public marketplace to another on behalf of the outbound routing marketplace. Mike Barth, an executive vice president at OES, sees interest from his firm’s customers, often the broker-dealer units of exchanges, to “find ways to access dark pools.” Barth notes that reducing transaction costs is partly driving interest. “Everyone recognizes the value that the dark model brings,” he says, “so there is an effort to try to integrate it into Reg NMS.”
(c) 2007 Traders Magazine and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This site is about timing financial markets. It does not suggest that timing should become a part of your overall investment strategy, only that if you dismiss it entirely you may be missing something. Specifically, the site demonstrates one version of the Decision Moose framework, INDEX MOOSE, which uses exchange traded index funds in an attempt to time the markets.
The Moose first appeared on the internet in 1997. Between 1997 and 2000, while the S&P 500 was gaining an impressive 79%, Index Moose fared even better, up 179%. It went into cyber-hibernation in April 2000 when the author, William Dirlam, took a position with a new investment advisory firm and had to pull the site from the internet. U.S. stocks then suffered their worst bear market since 1929, while Index Moose returned about 300% through January 2004, at which point the model returned to the internet.
Investing Tips for Winning at Day Trading Making money is easy–it's keeping it that's tough. Here are some suggestions to help you profit over the long term By Ben Levisohn
I was 25, teaching preschool in Colorado, and getting tired of listening to a childhood friend tell me he was making more money each day "day trading" than I made in a month. When he offered me the chance to come to New York and learn how to do it too, I jumped.
At the time, of course, I knew nothing about the stock market or how it worked. But I gradually learned. At a now-defunct day-trading firm, I was taught how to trade, but the system I was taught was useless if I didn't have the mental bent to stick with it. At least there were rules I could follow. Some were ready-made; others I had to figure out myself. Some came easily; others took time to internalize. I'm no longer a day trader, but the rules are still with me. Here are the ones that helped me earn a living as a day trader for nearly eight years.
Investing 1. Have a system and stick to it like Crazy Glue. As a trader, I was a tape reader. But I was a tape reader with a niche: mid-cap stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. I watched the stocks trade, and I watched the quotes change, looking for an entry point. If a large order appeared on the tape, I'd buy myself a few hundred and see what happened. That was my system.
When you're trading, you have to have a system—rules that define which stocks you watch, and when you buy or sell. Whether you're buying undervalued large caps or short-term momentum plays, find a system that works and stick to it. There's a word for trading on tips or because a talking head mentioned it on CNBC: gambling.
2. Cut your losses. As a trader, you have to minimize your losses. When I was wrong (that is, if I knew I was wrong), I would try to exit my position with as little damage as possible. No trader makes money all the time. At my best, one-third of my trades were winners, one-third were losers, and the remaining third were negligible. But I knew I'd traded well if my biggest winner was three times the size of my biggest loser. Of course, I wasn't able to do this every day. I once lost $3,000 on a Friday and, as punishment, I got to chew on it all weekend. But there's always tomorrow. That is, unless you blow through your capital. Then you're finished, kaput.
3. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. I was a preschool teacher before I became a day trader, and believe me, I was more suited to playing with 4-year-olds than I was to watching market machinations. When I started, I sat at my desk for a week without making a trade. My boss finally emerged from his office and informed me that it was time. So I did it. I bought 100 shares. I lost money. And I lived through it.
Still, I had a hard time accepting the notion of risk. I cost myself money every day because I was afraid of losing an eighth or a 16th on a trade. I'd dump my stock for a small profit, only to see it run up a point right after I got out. It took me a year, and cost me thousands of dollars in profits, to learn to control my fear. And you know what? During that whole time, the downside was never worse than my imagination.
4. Don't get greedy. You can't live on paper profits. But when you're holding a position that has done everything you expected—and more—it's very easy to get greedy. You start thinking, "Sure, I'm in the money a couple of grand, but it could go higher." So you hold on, long after the signs have started to indicate momentum is turning. And your gain turns into a loss. There's nothing wrong with selling into strength and taking some of your gains off the table.
5. Worry about what you can control. Ignore what you can't. When I started trading eight years ago, I heard whispers on the desk about a new trader and a trade gone bad. It was our version of the horror story around the campfire. The trader, so the story went, owned 200 shares of a stock and was in the money $200. It was a winning trade. Then the stock was halted because of accounting irregularities. It reopened down 20 points and the trader lost $4,000.
This is an extreme example, but it teaches a great lesson. In the market, events occur all the time that we have no control over. Earnings are preannounced. A takeover attempt becomes public. A CEO dies in a plane crash. Stuff happens. That story, by the way, turned out to be true. That trader could have walked away, but instead kept at it and is still in the business eight years later. The moral? Control what is in your ability to control and let the rest go.
6. The market is always right. You might think you know better than the market. Think again. The market always knows best, and if you try to fight it, you will lose. Guaranteed. I've seen trader after trader lose gobs of cash after buying a stock and watching it plummet. As they count their losses, they all say the same thing, "But the stock had good news." Good news isn't always positive, and bad news isn't always negative. If it were that easy, I'd still be trading.
7. A little bit of technical analysis never hurts. As a tape reader, I didn't care much for technical analysis. Or rather, I didn't understand most of it, and I certainly wasn't going to place an order because a computer told me to. I'll leave that to the quants. But some technical indicators are easier to understand, and more important, they matter. Take support and resistance levels: Resistance occurs on the upside, when a stock reaches a point and can't go any higher. Support is the level a stock won't trade below on the downside. They're usually pretty easy to spot. When a stock price breaks through one of them, watch out, because everyone else is. A move isn't guaranteed (there are no guarantees), but interesting things can happen.
8. Don't try to catch a falling safe. Many traders are gamblers at heart, and nothing appeals to the gambler more than trying to guess when a stock has hit rock bottom and is ready to reverse direction. The upside move is usually quick and violent, and if you're right, you stand to make a lot of money. But picking the bottom isn't easy.
In 1999, I witnessed firsthand what can happen when you're wrong. SunTrust Banks was getting hammered, and rather than doing the smart thing and shorting the stock, one of my colleagues figured he would try to catch the bounce. He bought some shares. The stock dropped. He bought some more. The shares continued to fall. The firm finally ordered him to sell. He lost $20,000.
It's really quite simple. Don't fight momentum.
9. Buy low, sell high. We hear this so often, it's easy to ignore. But forgetting it is one of the biggest mistakes a trader can make. If you're dollar-cost averaging, timing is unimportant, but if you're trading, price matters.
A stock starts to move, but you want confirmation, so you wait to buy. It moves a little more, but you're still unsure, so you let it go. Then it really starts to fly and you place your order. Your order gets filled just as the move ends. You've bought the stock from someone who had held the shares since the move started. He makes a big profit; you take a big loss, cursing your bad luck.
10. Know your exit. When the dot-com bubble popped, it took many a trading profit with it. Why? Because a lot of traders didn't have exit strategies. A stock would fall, traders would "buy the dip" and wait for it to bounce. The stocks always did. But then they didn't.
Regardless of your time frame, have an exit strategy for if a trade doesn't go your way. I liked to use stop-loss orders, which triggered a sale if a stock hit my predetermined loss threshold. But whatever you do, know when you'll get out, so a small loss doesn't turn into a big one you can't recover from.
11. Build a pyramid. If you have 100 shares and a stock moves a point, you make $100. With 1,000 shares, you can make $100 on a 10¢ move. Obviously, you can make more money with a larger position, but with it you also have more risk. So how do you balance the risk and reward? Build a pyramid.
I would typically start my position with anywhere from 500 to 1,000 shares. As the stock went up, I'd add more shares along the way. But I would try to add in smaller increments, keeping the base of my position larger than subsequent purchases. That way, if I ended up buying 100 shares more at the top, I had 1,000 from the bottom. A top-heavy pyramid topples; a bottom-heavy position protects your risk.
12. Making money is easy. Keeping it is hard. Anyone can make money in a trade. It's easy. You buy a stock, it goes up, and you sell it. Every trader can regale you with a story of his big winner. But even a monkey at a keyboard can be right every once in a while. What separates a profitable trader from that monkey is the ability to hold on to hard-won gains. Maybe these tips will help you do just that.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
nice summary of the distinction between investor and trader for IRS purposes--and, no, it's *not* related to the "pattern day trader" definition re: SEC/FINRA and brokerages. Nice info on electing to go "mark-to-market," too.
posted
Type in the ticker and it will list what funds are buying/selling that particular stock...Click on the fund and it will also list the date of the transactions...Nice little quick check for big board players...
A rule that postpones losses if you buy replacement shares around the same time.
When the value of your stock goes down you get that sinking feeling — you've lost money. But the tax law doesn't allow that loss until you sell the stock. In a way that's good, because it means you can control the timing of your deduction, taking it when the benefit is the greatest.
The problem is, you may have a conflict. You want to deduct the loss, but you also want to keep the stock because you think it's going to bounce back. It's tempting to think you can sell the stock and claim the loss, then buy it back right away. And that's where the wash sale rule comes in. If you buy replacement stock shortly after the sale — or shortly before the sale — you can't deduct your loss. General Rule
In general you have a wash sale if you sell stock at a loss, and buy substantially identical securities within 30 days before or after the sale.
Example: On March 31 you sell 100 shares of XYZ at a loss. On April 10 you buy 100 shares of XYZ. The sale on March 31 is a wash sale.
The wash sale period for any sale at a loss consists of 61 days: the day of the sale, the 30 days before the sale and the 30 days after the sale. (These are calendar days, not trading days. Count carefully!) If you want to claim your loss as a deduction, you need to avoid purchasing the same stock during the wash sale period. For a sale on March 31, the wash sale period includes all of March and April. Contracts and Options
The wash sale rule can apply even if you don't acquire stock. If you enter into a contract or option to acquire stock, that's enough to make the wash sale rule apply. Your sale of stock can also be a wash sale if, within the wash sale period, you sell a put option on the same stock that's "deep in the money." And you can have a wash sale from selling options at a loss, too. For more on this subject see Wash Sales and Options. Consequences of a Wash Sale
The wash sale rule actually has three consequences:
* You are not allowed to claim the loss on your sale. * Your disallowed loss is added to the basis of the replacement stock. * Your holding period for the replacement stock includes the holding period of the stock you sold.
The first one is clear enough, but the others may require some explanation. Basis Adjustment
The basis adjustment is important: it preserves the benefit of the disallowed loss. You'll receive that benefit on a future sale of the replacement stock.
Example: Some time ago you bought 80 shares of XYZ at $50. The stock has declined to $30, and you sell it to take the loss deduction. But then you see some good news on XYZ and buy it back for $32, less than 31 days after the sale.
You can't deduct your loss of $20 per share. But you add $20 per share to the basis of your replacement shares. Those shares have a basis of $52 per share: the $32 you paid, plus the $20 wash sale adjustment. In other words, you're treated as if you bought the shares for $52. If you end up selling them for $55, you'll only report $3 per share of gain. And if you sell them for $32 (the same price you paid to buy them), you'll report a loss of $20 per share.
Because of this basis adjustment, a wash sale usually isn't a disaster. In most cases, it simply means you'll get the same tax benefit at a later time. If you receive the benefit later in the same year, the wash sale may have no effect at all on your taxes.
There are times, though, when the wash sale rule can have truly painful consequences.
* If you don't sell the replacement stock in the same year, your loss will be postponed, possibly to a year when the deduction is of far less value. * If you die before selling the replacement stock, neither you nor your heirs will benefit from the basis adjustment. * You can also lose the benefit of the deduction permanently if you sell stock and arrange to have a related person — or your IRA — buy replacement stock. * As explained in my book, Consider Your Options, a wash sale involving shares of stock acquired through an incentive stock option can be a planning disaster.
Holding Period
When you make a wash sale, your holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. This rule prevents you from converting a long-term loss into a short-term loss.
Example: You've held shares of XYZ for years and it's been a dog. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it.
In many situations you get more tax savings from a short-term loss than a long-term loss, so this rule generally works against you. Additional Rules
There's a lot more to the wash sale rule. We get questions on our message board about all of the following issues:
* You don't have a wash sale unless you acquire (or enter into a contract or option to acquire) substantially identical securities. * You don't have a wash sale, even though you bought identical shares within the previous 30 days, if the shares you bought aren't replacement shares. * There are mechanical rules to handle the situation where you don't buy exactly the same number of shares you sold, or where you bought and sold multiple lots of shares. See Wash Sale Mechanics. * If a person who's related to you — or an entity related to you, such as your IRA — buys replacement property, your loss may be disallowed under a different rule: you may be treated as if you made an indirect sale to a related person. * You don't actually have to purchase stock within the wash sale period to have a wash sale. It's enough if you merely enter into a contract or option to acquire replacement stock. * Short sales present a special problem in connection with the wash sale rule. * There are special considerations in applying the wash sale rule to traders.
Losses Only
The wash sale rule only applies to losses. You can't wipe out a gain from a sale by buying the same stock back within 30 days. Planning for Wash Sales
What can you safely do to plan around the wash sale rule? No technique is completely safe. Here are some ideas to consider.
* Most obviously, you can sell the stock and wait 31 days before buying it again. (Check your calendar carefully!) The risk here is that the stock may rise in price before you can repurchase it. * If you're truly convinced the stock is at rock bottom, you might consider buying the replacement stock 31 days before the sale. If the stock happens to go up during that period your gain is doubled, and if it stays even you can sell the older stock and claim your loss deduction. But if you're wrong about the stock, a further decline in value could be painful. * If your stock has a strong tendency to move in tandem with some other stock, you may be able to reduce your risk of missing a big gain by purchasing stock in a different company as "replacement" stock. This is not a wash sale because the stocks are not substantially identical. Thirty-one days later you can switch back to your original stock if that is your wish. But there's no guarantee that any two stocks will move in the same direction, or with the same magnitude.
There's no risk-free way to get around the wash sale rule. But then again, continuing to hold a stock that has lost value isn't risk-free, either. In the end it's up to you to evaluate all the risks, and balance them against the benefit you'll receive if you can claim a deduction for your loss.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: NSCC pre-emptive pardon
quote:
T e x Member
posted June 13, 2005 07:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- did Gerald Ford's pre-emptive pardon of Nixon bother anyone? This, on DTCC letterhead, is infuriating:
A# P&S# 6029 5599 DATE: MAY 16, 2005 TO: ALL PARTICIPANTS ATTENTION: MANAGING PARTNER/OFFICER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER OPERATIONS PARTNER/OFFICER COMPLIANCE OFFICER SUBJECT: RULE FILING APPROVAL – SR-NSCC-2004-09 On December 8, 2004, National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC" or “the Corporation”) filed and on May 9, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") approved rule filing SRNSCC- 2004-09, which consists of modifications to NSCC’s Rules and Procedures (the “Rules”) to memorialize the Corporation’s current standard of care and limitation of liability. The approved changes create a uniform standard limiting NSCC’s liability to direct losses caused by NSCC’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action. In addition, the changes: (a) memorialize an appropriate commercial standard of care that will protect NSCC from undue liability; (b) permit the resources of NSCC to be appropriately utilized for promoting the accurate clearance and settlement of securities; and (c) are consistent with similar rules adopted by other self-regulatory organizations and approved by the Commission.
Questions regarding SR-NSCC-2004-09 should be directed to Allison Finnegan, Senior Associate Counsel, at (212) 855-3283, or to the undersigned at (212) 855-3203.
Karen L. Saperstein Managing Director and General Counsel
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
posted
Oh my! Now that I am done chasing stocks for the day, I will read this...and read... and read...
-------------------- Please buy responsibly. Do not take my word on any stock. Do your own research. Thanks & good luck! Posts: 439 | From: USA | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
Disclosure rules require that companies report all material information about their business and financial affairs to the public in a timely and fair manner. These rules aim to ensure that investors are given equal access to material information.
IIROC monitors the timely disclosure of material information by companies trading on marketplaces that have retained IIROC as their regulation service provider. Media releases issued by listed companies with material information are reviewed by IIROC surveillance staff before being released on the newswires or the company’s website. If a news release is unclear or overly-promotional, IIROC may ask the company to revise it.
When surveillance staff believe that the information is material enough to significantly impact the price of the security they might issue a “trading halt.” A trading halt is a temporary pause in trading to allow the market to properly absorb the information. It is based on the principle that all investors should have the same timely access to important company information.
The reactivation of trading after a halt is called a “trade resumption.”
In a given year, IIROC coordinates more than 1,000 halts and 750 resumptions.
If IIROC staff notice erratic price moves in stocks, they will contact the issuer to see if it has information to explain the movement. Staff may ask the company to issue a news release if they believe that material information is leaking into the market or if they believe rumours are affecting the stock price.
When a company fails to make timely disclosure of material information, the provincial securities regulators can issue a Cease Trade Order (CTO) which stops the trading of the company’s stock. Once issued, a CTO remains in effect until the company meets its disclosure obligations.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
