Joe this information is not TEVE specific but is n
Post# of 5282
Posted On: 10/16/2012 9:13:43 AM
Joe this information is not TEVE specific but is newsworthy and may in fact effect TEVE. In the following post the poster describes changes made this week in Canada regarding shorting. Unfortunatly the changes effect new shorting and do not address existing short positions. That being said if there is not new shorting we should see rises in shareprices which will put increased pressure and costs on the shorts imho:
downsideup
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:08:42 AM
Re: asegal1228 post# 124444
Post # of 124665
I think that opinion conflicts with the facts.
That appears far more obviously true, today, particularly given the timing issues in the recent news. A couple of specific Canadian brokerages are claiming, today, that they've suddenly discovered there is an extant CTO in British Columbia ? And, although that hasn't ever mattered to them before now, just now, in an sudden excess of zeal, today, they have suddenly decided to "voluntarily cooperate" with the outrageous edicts of that brainless regulatory body in BC, by telling their clients outside of the province that they will no longer allow them to enter trades for purchases of SRSR shares, only sales... ?
LOL!!!
I think if your broker is telling you that... you should look for a new broker, and transfer all of your SRSR holdings to that new broker immediately... because the one you have is telling you they don't value or want you as a client... because your SRSR holdings are imposing holding risks on them which they've failed in managing ? Of course, when you do transfer your holdings, they'll be forced to realize those risks. They're betting they can "shake" you out of your shares... and con you into selling them back... instead of having you "shake" them out of their losing trades... which they have open against your interest.
If your broker says they'll only let you sell... you should transfer your holdings to another broker before you ever consider selling a single share.
Others have pointed out, already, that "compliance" with a CTO means no buying and no selling... whether "short" or "long".
It appears to me that brokers communication with SRSR holders re "voluntary compliance" constitutes a deceptive trading practice, and that should probably be reported to the IIROC...
What those brokerages are doing, in fact, is not "voluntarily enhancing compliance with existing regulatory orders" but implementing changes in their internal approach to proprietary trading... while telling their customers they are modifying their willingness to participate in trades in, and/or against, their clients interest in the specific issue... for reasons that appear to having nothing at all to do with the CTO in BC.
They DID cite pending changes in the IIROC's view of CTO's as a reason ?
So, I checked with IIROC... and, what I see on their webpages in a text string search is that they have not addressed making any changes in their rules re CTO's since 2003-2005. The only new IIROC documents addressing CTO's since then are a bit of boilerplate rehashing the current rules, which have not been changed... not even in any modification of an advisory... not even in a proposal floated for comment. Then, the IIROC has only seated the new committee responsible for addressing changes in the rules on October 9. Thus far, it appears the new guys have not bothered to address changing any of their existing suggestions re member recognition of provincial regulatory decisions outside of the particular province issuing them.
If there is a document out there showing that change occurring... perhaps someone else will produce it here ? I searched but was unable to find it... but I didn't look back before July, looking here:
downsideup
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:08:42 AM
Re: asegal1228 post# 124444
Post # of 124665
I think that opinion conflicts with the facts.
That appears far more obviously true, today, particularly given the timing issues in the recent news. A couple of specific Canadian brokerages are claiming, today, that they've suddenly discovered there is an extant CTO in British Columbia ? And, although that hasn't ever mattered to them before now, just now, in an sudden excess of zeal, today, they have suddenly decided to "voluntarily cooperate" with the outrageous edicts of that brainless regulatory body in BC, by telling their clients outside of the province that they will no longer allow them to enter trades for purchases of SRSR shares, only sales... ?
LOL!!!
I think if your broker is telling you that... you should look for a new broker, and transfer all of your SRSR holdings to that new broker immediately... because the one you have is telling you they don't value or want you as a client... because your SRSR holdings are imposing holding risks on them which they've failed in managing ? Of course, when you do transfer your holdings, they'll be forced to realize those risks. They're betting they can "shake" you out of your shares... and con you into selling them back... instead of having you "shake" them out of their losing trades... which they have open against your interest.
If your broker says they'll only let you sell... you should transfer your holdings to another broker before you ever consider selling a single share.
Others have pointed out, already, that "compliance" with a CTO means no buying and no selling... whether "short" or "long".
It appears to me that brokers communication with SRSR holders re "voluntary compliance" constitutes a deceptive trading practice, and that should probably be reported to the IIROC...
What those brokerages are doing, in fact, is not "voluntarily enhancing compliance with existing regulatory orders" but implementing changes in their internal approach to proprietary trading... while telling their customers they are modifying their willingness to participate in trades in, and/or against, their clients interest in the specific issue... for reasons that appear to having nothing at all to do with the CTO in BC.
They DID cite pending changes in the IIROC's view of CTO's as a reason ?
So, I checked with IIROC... and, what I see on their webpages in a text string search is that they have not addressed making any changes in their rules re CTO's since 2003-2005. The only new IIROC documents addressing CTO's since then are a bit of boilerplate rehashing the current rules, which have not been changed... not even in any modification of an advisory... not even in a proposal floated for comment. Then, the IIROC has only seated the new committee responsible for addressing changes in the rules on October 9. Thus far, it appears the new guys have not bothered to address changing any of their existing suggestions re member recognition of provincial regulatory decisions outside of the particular province issuing them.
If there is a document out there showing that change occurring... perhaps someone else will produce it here ? I searched but was unable to find it... but I didn't look back before July, looking here:
(0)
(0)