Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (264400)	10/23/2003 9:18:49 AM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

now that's just too bad eh?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (264400)	10/23/2003 9:49:09 AM
From: ild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

SEC Proposes Fund Subadviser and Short Sale Rules; Adopts Changes to Rule 10b-18 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2003-140 Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2003 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to propose a new rule and rule amendments concerning shareholder approval of subadvisory arrangements at investment companies; to amend Rule 10b-18 and related disclosure regulations; to propose new rules and rule amendments and issue an interpretive release dealing with regulation of short sales. ... Finally, the Commission voted to propose new short sale regulation under Regulation SHO, which would modernize and replace Rules 3b-3, 10a-1, and 10a-2 under the Exchange Act. Regulation SHO would include the following. A uniform short sale price test, Rule 201, applicable to exchange-listed and Nasdaq NMS securities, wherever traded, that would restrict all short sales to a price above the consolidated best bid Proposed Rule 201 would incorporate some exceptions in current Rule 10a-1, and include additional exceptions to address situations involving locked and crossed markets, short sales executed at a volume weighted average price, broker-dealer executions of customer "long" sales on a riskless principal basis, and short sales by broker-dealers to fill customer limit buy orders as required by the federal securities laws or rules of the self-regulatory organizations. A temporary Rule 202(T) that would suspend, on a two-year pilot basis, the operation of the proposed bid test of Rule 201 for a select group of liquid securities New "locate" and delivery requirements under proposed Rule 203 to address abusive so-called naked short selling Rule 203 would incorporate provisions of the existing SRO "locate" rules into a uniform Commission rule applicable to all equity securities, wherever they are traded. Rule 203 would also impose additional requirements on securities that have a substantial amount of failures to deliver. Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, which would define the term "short sale" to allow multi-service broker-dealers to aggregate their positions by separate trading units; and modify the definition of ownership of a security to address security futures products and unconditional contracts to purchase securities. The Commission also voted to propose amendments to Rule 105 of Regulation M (short selling prior to a public offering) to eliminate the shelf offering exception; and issue an interpretive release providing all market participants with guidance regarding the use of "married put" transactions when aggregating positions under current Rule 3b-3 for determining compliance with current Rule 10a-1 and Rule 105 of Regulation M. A "married put" is the purchase of an option to sell (i.e., a put option) a certain number of securities at a particular price by a specified time, bought contemporaneously with the same number of underlying securities. The Commission will solicit comment on the proposals for a period of 60 days following their publication in the Federal Register. The full text of detailed releases concerning each of these items will be posted to the SEC Web site as soon as possible. sec.gov

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (264400)	10/23/2003 12:44:43 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

the firm took away my personal fee-based account. you have a big enough portfolio to qualify? <g>