You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UAUA (and LCC)
- Thread starter m22au
- Start date
Quote from simon1080:
That was some crazy S&*^.
I was actually watching the charts for AMR..
I thought russia might have launched nukes or something.
Jessus.. this market scares the crap out of me.
For every dipshit that says some sucker 'deserved it', I'm getting two pm's. If you've got a comment, if you can help do it. Stand up for yourselves.
Figured I'd throw in my $.02, as I am someone who was in this stock long at the time of the halt and turned a profit on it.
Compelling arguements are being made on both sides for breaking or not breaking the trades. I can understand the arguement that this was a news driven event (even if the news was BS) and they should stand.
If that's the case however, this sets a very dangerous precident. What would stop someone from loading the ship short in a stock and putting out their own BS news? The only thing that would stop them is the threat of prosecution.
Let's say they go ahead anyway and do this after moving to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. They won't bust the trades, so the perp gets to keep the dough.
Obviously that's a pretty far fetched senario but you get the point. It would be much easier for a clever hedge fund to do this.
For those on the side that they should stand answer this question. ....
About two years ago GOOG reported earnings. Someone meant to cross the bid by $30 but messed up and crossed it by $300. The guy's trade did not 'reach around' any bids. He filled everyone on the bid down to about $37. Everyone who got filled on the bid was the 'National Best Bid' at the time of their fill.
There is nothing erroneous about hitting the National Best Bid. Unless I am mistaken, the erroneous policy is for 'reach around' trades. For example, stock ABC is bid $24.12 x $24.13. Someone takes ARCA and and fills every ARCA bid down to $18, but no other ecn. That is clearly erroneous.
However, 95% of these trades were broken. Why?
Compelling arguements are being made on both sides for breaking or not breaking the trades. I can understand the arguement that this was a news driven event (even if the news was BS) and they should stand.
If that's the case however, this sets a very dangerous precident. What would stop someone from loading the ship short in a stock and putting out their own BS news? The only thing that would stop them is the threat of prosecution.
Let's say they go ahead anyway and do this after moving to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. They won't bust the trades, so the perp gets to keep the dough.
Obviously that's a pretty far fetched senario but you get the point. It would be much easier for a clever hedge fund to do this.
For those on the side that they should stand answer this question. ....
About two years ago GOOG reported earnings. Someone meant to cross the bid by $30 but messed up and crossed it by $300. The guy's trade did not 'reach around' any bids. He filled everyone on the bid down to about $37. Everyone who got filled on the bid was the 'National Best Bid' at the time of their fill.
There is nothing erroneous about hitting the National Best Bid. Unless I am mistaken, the erroneous policy is for 'reach around' trades. For example, stock ABC is bid $24.12 x $24.13. Someone takes ARCA and and fills every ARCA bid down to $18, but no other ecn. That is clearly erroneous.
However, 95% of these trades were broken. Why?
Was curious what NASDAQ means by "clearly erroneous". The guidance from NASDAQ is:
"NASDAQ generally considers a transaction to be clearly erroneous when the print is substantially inconsistent with the current and recent historical trading pattern of the security. In making such a determination, NASDAQ takes into account the circumstances at the time of the transaction, the preservation of the integrity of the market and the maintenance of a fair and orderly market place. Simple assertion by a firm that it made a mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that it failed to pay attention or to update a quote, may not be sufficient to establish that a transaction was clearly erroneous."
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=ClearlyErroneous
"NASDAQ generally considers a transaction to be clearly erroneous when the print is substantially inconsistent with the current and recent historical trading pattern of the security. In making such a determination, NASDAQ takes into account the circumstances at the time of the transaction, the preservation of the integrity of the market and the maintenance of a fair and orderly market place. Simple assertion by a firm that it made a mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that it failed to pay attention or to update a quote, may not be sufficient to establish that a transaction was clearly erroneous."
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=ClearlyErroneous
Nothing. And my bet is that is what we are going to find. Because it has happened, over, and over, and over again.Quote from Red_Ink_inc:
If that's the case however, this sets a very dangerous precident. What would stop someone from loading the ship short in a stock and putting out their own BS news? The only thing that would stop them is the threat of prosecution. .
So far, it's just been the usual SRO's, who's members have a high propensity of ignoring us, and landing at well heeled law firms. Those days are over. We just turn the stuff over to Johnnie Law. Oh, we'll be sure the SRO's have it to, and they are welcome to change their ways. If not, they get to answer for their inactions at a later date.
I cannot believe anyone could possibly believe this was coincidence. You could pretend it is coincidence. To those of you that were wronged, I 'll say, it's easy for me to talk about it. DOJ has to prove it. But it is getting easier and easier, because no politician wants to get near these guys. That really lets the process flow.
Airlines were ripped 25% right across the board. Tell me that was coincidence. Hey, you know what? Maybe. Let's let the DOJ figure it out. And I'll be getting a call here tomorrow from a US Attorney. He wants to hear the story.
We know the method of delivery. Now, we'll find out the parties. They'll be offshore I'm sure. But we'll find them.