Originally posted by cocobop
.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17850859
It seems that some powerful interest are lining up to fight NASD and their incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Steve
With most direct access brokers you do not need to worry about spending an amount greater than your buying power because the software will not allow it. But this is part of the firm or clearing firm POLICY, not part of the regs. Some traders, even retail, are allowed to trade huge size (many many times their buying power) as long as the money to satisfy the trade is in the account by settlement day, T+3. This was quite common a few years ago. It is not nearly as common now, but is still legal and still done regularly for good reliable clients (broker trusts the client to pay because if they didn't the broker would have to cover the trades).
I suspect Datek's potential problem may stem from the "good faith customer agreement" provisions of the rules relating to their purchases and then subsequent sales.
I wouldn't be surprised if in fact in the end the NASD's interpretation of the rules proves to be correct. See rule below.
TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
PART 220--CREDIT BY BROKERS AND DEALERS (REGULATION T)--Table of Contents
Sec. 220.8 Cash account.
(a) Permissible transactions. In a cash account, a creditor, may:
(1) Buy for or sell to any customer any security or other asset if:
(i) There are sufficient funds in the account; or
(ii) The creditor accepts in good faith the customer's agreement that the customer will promptly make full cash payment for the security or asset
before selling it and does not contemplate selling it prior to making such payment;
In the good old days we use to do this all the time for a lot of money. If a good setup appeared, we took the trade. Worried later about coming up with the money by settlement. OOOOOOPPPPS. I mean
before selling it. LOL!!
This case will probably rest on the definition of what constitutes
before selling it. For example, is it OK if it is paid for by the end of that business day, or even by settlement day or does it mean that in fact the money must already be in the account at the time of the sale.
This case may come down to interpreting the spirit of the law and splitting hairs. But splitting hairs is what some auditors like to do.
With Datek it could just be a case of a GREEN auditor wanting to make sure he understood the rules so he read them really really carefully so he wouldn't screw up, then said "Oh My God!!! Look what I found." He would have been just as excited as a young astronomer discovering a new planet. Government regulating auditors really get off on this SHIT you know!
I really don't know anything about the Datek case. But over the years I have had a lot of auditors on my ass, up my ass and every where else!!!! So, I do know a lot about that!!!
It really wasn't that funny at the time!
