These penalties aren't severe enough imo.
SEC charges 14 specialist firms with improper trading
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
A brief walk down memory lane.
http://sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-59505.pdf
This matter involves violations by GSEC and SHD of their basic obligation as specialists to serve public customer orders over their own proprietary interests. As specialist firms on each of the Exchanges,2 GSEC and SHD had a general duty to match executable public customer or âagencyâ buy and sell orders and not to fill customer orders through trades from the firmsâ own accounts when those customer orders could be matched with other customer orders. From 1999 through 2005 (the âRelevant Periodâ), GSEC and SHD violated this obligation by filling orders through proprietary trades rather than through other customer orders, thereby causing customer orders to be disadvantaged by approximately $6
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-49501.htm
This matter involves violations by SLKS of its basic obligation to serve public customer orders over its own proprietary interests. As a specialist firm on the NYSE, SLKS had a general duty to match executable public customer or "agency" buy and sell orders and not to fill customer orders through trades from the firm's own account when those customer orders could be matched with other customer orders. Through various forms of improper conduct, SLKS violated this obligation by filling orders through proprietary trades rather than through other customer orders, thereby causing customer orders to be disadvantaged by approximately $28.7 million from 1999 through 2003.
â¦â¦.
This is the same company. SLKS became Goldman Sachs. In one case the losses to customers were $6 Million and the other $28.7 Million. In both cases the firms were given cease and desist orders against 11(b) violations. They are both administrative proceedings so I have to assume they are different cases. How many cease and desist orders can one firm get for the same violations? What steps exactly does the Commission take when a cease and desist is violated and how well does the Commission check such order? Why have no civil charges been brought against the traders and compliance officers who either engaged in or missed detection for years? If Companies are all that are fined, cease and desists must be against the firm and not individuals so why has Goldman been afforded several cease and desist orders for common trade violations? Where is the claw back on bonuses paid to those involved in the fraud?
http://sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-59505.pdf
This matter involves violations by GSEC and SHD of their basic obligation as specialists to serve public customer orders over their own proprietary interests. As specialist firms on each of the Exchanges,2 GSEC and SHD had a general duty to match executable public customer or âagencyâ buy and sell orders and not to fill customer orders through trades from the firmsâ own accounts when those customer orders could be matched with other customer orders. From 1999 through 2005 (the âRelevant Periodâ), GSEC and SHD violated this obligation by filling orders through proprietary trades rather than through other customer orders, thereby causing customer orders to be disadvantaged by approximately $6
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-49501.htm
This matter involves violations by SLKS of its basic obligation to serve public customer orders over its own proprietary interests. As a specialist firm on the NYSE, SLKS had a general duty to match executable public customer or "agency" buy and sell orders and not to fill customer orders through trades from the firm's own account when those customer orders could be matched with other customer orders. Through various forms of improper conduct, SLKS violated this obligation by filling orders through proprietary trades rather than through other customer orders, thereby causing customer orders to be disadvantaged by approximately $28.7 million from 1999 through 2003.
â¦â¦.
This is the same company. SLKS became Goldman Sachs. In one case the losses to customers were $6 Million and the other $28.7 Million. In both cases the firms were given cease and desist orders against 11(b) violations. They are both administrative proceedings so I have to assume they are different cases. How many cease and desist orders can one firm get for the same violations? What steps exactly does the Commission take when a cease and desist is violated and how well does the Commission check such order? Why have no civil charges been brought against the traders and compliance officers who either engaged in or missed detection for years? If Companies are all that are fined, cease and desists must be against the firm and not individuals so why has Goldman been afforded several cease and desist orders for common trade violations? Where is the claw back on bonuses paid to those involved in the fraud?
That's the SEC settlement.
Judge Bucklo is pondering this issue in the "Last Atlantis v. AGS" court case.
$70 million compared to $600 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing is nothing
If you allow even $10 to be improperly confiscated - upon the issue of "size" - you will not have the principles necessary to stop the confiscation of $600 billion.
why do you trade a stock that is controlled by a "specialist"?
are you stupid or what?
The "specialist" is the dealer that controls both the bidding and asking prices. To walk into his trap is plain stupid, just like walking into a forex trading scam.
to the moderator, I didn't mention any sponsor's name of yours, so don't delete my post.
you newbies are totally clueless: even this website is part of the crooked system. Last time I mentioned Scottrade in front-running scheme, my post got deleted. Scottrade is a sponsor for this website.
are you stupid or what?
The "specialist" is the dealer that controls both the bidding and asking prices. To walk into his trap is plain stupid, just like walking into a forex trading scam.
to the moderator, I didn't mention any sponsor's name of yours, so don't delete my post.
you newbies are totally clueless: even this website is part of the crooked system. Last time I mentioned Scottrade in front-running scheme, my post got deleted. Scottrade is a sponsor for this website.
Clueless? That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Why trade a stock controlled by a specialist?
Pssst, that would involve any listed issue. The ax is the entity most married to the stock. Perpetually. CEO's come and go. The post for the stock remains unchanged (unless the ax is acquired by another ax).
Despite pre-market, post market and trading in Europe and Asia, WHO opens the stock each morning? Where do gaps come from?
Decimalization rather than 1/8's? An old wives tale.
Ax has an inventory posture to adhere to the platitude of keeping a fair and orderly market. IF there's a halt, it's most likely to stall and locate shares (for shorting). When he's out of inventory he both shorts to bring the price down and clean out stops to accumulate inventory. Treated no different than the wholesaling and then retailing of eggs or fish.
An ax may or may not have tax-segregated omnibus account for "investment" purposes stemming from Fed Regulations "T" and "U" established in 1949 (which ushered in a bull market that lasted until 1966).
You can by-pass with ECN's or Regional Exchanges, but in the case of NYSE stocks, it ultimately hinges on the stock's respective specialist.
NASDAQ is another story for another day. I don't trade in options, so the CBOE doesn't concern me. Ditto for foreign exchange with a chronic declining US dollar.
This can't surprise anyone.......specialists go to jail ALL THE TIME....literally all specialists are criminals....just a matter of who gets unlucky.