SEC-List of Rules to be Reviewed Pursuant to the R

[soonerlew]

Thanks to jersey .....from the millionaires board.....


33-9000 Jan. 14, 2009 List of Rules to be Reviewed Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility ActOther Release Nos.: 34-59248, 39-2460, IC-28600, IA-2830
File No.: S7-03-09
Comments Due: February 25, 2009
* Submit comments on S7-03-09

Settlement Cycle
OTC Derivatives Dealers
Lost Securityholders
Anti-Manipulation Rules Concerning Securities Offerings
Rules of Practice
more...
www.sec.gov/rules/other/2009/33-9000.pdf

www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml


millionaires.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=24699

[soonerlew]

National Investor Protection Coalition
“Advocates for the Protection of Equity Securities Investors and
Issuers”
www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2008/petn4-557.pdf

www.sec.gov/rules/petitions.shtml

National Investor Protection Coalition
investorprotectioncoalition.org/


Comments on Rulemaking Petition:
Request for rulemaking to adopt new Rule 15c3-4 to address the practice of market participants redefining securities in customer accounts past T+3
[File No. 4-557]
www.sec.gov/comments/4-557/4-557.shtml

[soonerlew]

Enforcement of Commission rule 15c3-3 and Obtaining FTR Data

The Commission needs to start obtaining and reviewing “Fails to Receive” data from all market
participants, as in a Freedom of Information Act request, the Commission stated to us that it does
not have, obtain nor maintain this data. Yet the market participants themselves indicate in their
financials that FTRs alone total many billions in mark to market obligations.
Not only does a large number of FTRs indicate a violation of 15c3-3, but it can also indicate a
Ponzi scheme in that it could exceed the financial ability of certain market participants to clear
those FTR liabilities. This could lead to a cascading event where companies fail, ultimately ending at settlement firms, who also would not have enough financial power to handle the
liabilities, bring the entire financial system crashing down. We urge the Commission to start
focusing on Fails to Receive and using them as a tool to enforce 15c3-3.
Enforcement of REG T
It is immediately obvious to anyone who has access to fail data in Pink Sheet and other non NMS
securities, that market participants must be violating REG T on a massive scale. REG T requires
market participants to treat all Pink Sheet and other OTC securities as fully paid for securities in
every respect. This makes holding “Fails to Receive” securities in lieu of the fully paid for OTC
securities illegal. It also makes hypothecating these fully paid for securities from investors
without specific written advanced consent illegal. However, the data suggests that both are
routinely done in OTC securities. The Commission must enforce this provision to ensure the
integrity of the markets. This is another reason for the Commission to obtain “fails to receive”
data, review it, use it as an enforcement tool and make it public

tinyurl.com/aaqxjb

[soonerlew]

ShowMeTheMoney
Mod Squad


Re: SEC-List of Rules to be Reviewed Pursuant to t
« Reply #3 Today at 2:45am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey...Awesome find. Thank you!

Folks, you have to love this term... "Securities Entitlement"


In addition, the redefinition of “security” misleads equity investors by crediting “securities entitlements” in an undisclosed manner to customer accounts past T+3, because the redefined “securities” or “securities entitlements”, are misidentified in customer accounts as being the contracted-for securities, when they are merely “securities entitlements” -and not the securities customer have contracted and paid for. Because of this, customers have an ever lower confidence level as to the assets held by market participants on their behalf, and of the fair functioning of the equity securities markets. Securities and assets held for customer past T+3, are questionable in quality and can be inferior to those customer have paid for. All this despite that redefining “security” per the UCC past T+3 is not defined in any federal securities laws, and is actually prohibited by federal and other state laws, for any reason.


AIMO,

- Show
« Last Edit: Today at 2:50am by ShowMeTheMoney »

millionaires.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=24699

[hundredtoone]

Nice just another way of describing COUNTERFEIT securities IMO...you can rename a HOG but it is still a HOG...

Nancy M. Morris, Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-0609 Re: file 4-557 NIPC Rule Petition - Customer Account Rule
This submitted rule petition raises several important and serious questions and issues. It appears that the SEC has overstepped its authority. Please note that Section 6 (b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits unfairly discriminating against investors and playing favorites.
I object to the fact that the SEC authorizes market participants to credit mere "securities entitlements" defined by the UCC to your securities accounts, when I have paid for real securities issued by corporations. I do not want UCC defined securities in your account; I want the security I paid for, defined by federal laws.
The petition demands prompt response and proper & immediate rectification to ensure that all enacted laws on the books are adhered to stringently and not circumvented for wayward, illegal purposes as outlined in the petition. Furthermore, I also request a prompt response to this petition.
Why has the SEC allowed market participants to sell unregistered securities and fail to deliver legitimate securities? Does the SEC condone shares that fail to be delivered past T+3 or will the Commission take this petition seriously and finally clean up our system?
Failing to deliver is not defined in any federal securities laws. If no such federal law exists, why has the Commission allowed it? In essence, you are complicit in the destruction of the regular investor by allowing market participants to defraud investors with inferior "entitlements". I would hope the Commission will respond with a definitive answer as whether or not it allows failures to deliver and if so, what federal law supports it?
The SEC is actively authorizing market participants to redefine "security" in customer accounts past the settlement cycle (T+3) from the definition in federal securities laws. It is not just that the SEC is failing to enforce the law. It is much worse than that. It is that the SEC is actively authorizing this activity and also authorizing fails to deliver to be effected. Again, the SEC is actively authorizing this.
Immediate action is necessary. I want you to adopt this new rule 15c3-4, your file #4-557, and to do so today!
Robert Almy

www.sec.gov/comments/4-557/4557-55.pdf

...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)