Search results

execution fee $0.119 per order For US markets: clearing fee $0.065 per 1000 shares capped at $0.28 per fill SEC fee $0.0000153 * share * price (or 0.0000153 x aggregate price of sell order) Activity fee $0.0000307 * share * price (or 0.0000307 x aggregate price of sell...

All the rebate traders I know have now gone rebate sensitive as the good all days of negative gross while positive net are all but gone. They're still trading the same symbols, but now they are looking for a cent or more profits, not the good ole scratch.

Yeah but this guys are doing much more than not delivering securities they short, they're washing trades, given out bribes... the whole tamale!!

I just read the nature of the case... naked shorts are the least of their problems... these guys are getting charged on RICO statutes, wash trading, reporting false information to the street, bribing, counterfeit, money laundry... they're worse than the freakin mob! Question is, why is this a...

What I describe is a multiplier. The place where you usually find multipliers is in monetary systems. Lets asume a mandatory reserve of 10% Central bank gives $100 to bank1, they reserve $10 and lend 90 to person A, he puts his money in bank B, they reserve $9 and lend 81 to person B...

It might be illegal. But... I'm trying to see if there are any technical differences at all between the two practices. If there are no such technical differences, then the law has no reason to be and it's mere government interfering in the proper function of the market. If there are...

let me know when you get it on youtube :D

the difference between naked shorts and regular shorts is nothing more than the short interest, in both cases the stock is being owned by the short seller to a different person, but in the case of naked shorts he owes it to the person that bought the stock. The expansion on the stock supply...

Mandated buy in?? That would be like imposing a maximum time for shorts... in a regular short sale the short seller doesn't buy the stock back right away he owes people the stock as long as he holds on to the position... a mandatory buy in will limit shorts and will lead to an inefficient...

ok, I'll get the popcorn :)

I would say it went like this... you paid at your gas station, they paid saudi arabia/Iraq/Iran/Venezuela, and they gave Hammas the money... same applies with AlQaeda and others... I seriously doubt that investment banks, brokers and dealers are terrorist organizations...

"funding of terrorist cells"... LMAO... would you like some freedom fries with that?

I've been thinking about the argument of overstock against naked shorts... Something doesn't fit in the whole catastrophe scenario... In a regular short, A shorts to B and borrows the stock from C. A owes C some stock, he's got to pay short interest over it and if the company pays...

Well. fiat money is as real as the stock these guys are selling. but you're right. That's a different story

What makes you think the money is real?

wow... it is a big problem, they've invented fiat stock, I've always thought of fiat money as the Aquila's heel of capital markets...but this is even worse... they're setting up a scenario where massive monetary contraction can occur within the fiat money system... I'm going to need popcorn...

of course, in the US you can get away with murder if you have enough money... naked shorts are just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

The company can simply buy back stock issued [with a profit] to take advantage of the short sellers, in the worse case they buy back 100% delist themselves and leave the naked shorts... well... naked.

I wonder why they don't have this problem in London... after all they don't require you to borrow shorts for intraday... and there is no down tick rule.

why Bill Gates doesn't fear Apple he owns it too. :)