vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities   Investor Protection Act (""SIPA""), are only available in the context of   a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to   the ""custody"" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member   broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a   time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the   SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's   obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer,   within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the   customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her   purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the   value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation   commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any   security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance   up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the   account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you   entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker   dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that   any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S.   broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the   LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC   member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per   customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases)."
I appreciate having an attorney’s thoughts.  Clearly, we have different optics.  Mine is as a consumer, who has never actively sought out being a member of a class in a class action suit, but have had it foisted on me. In each case, the settlement was either a very nominal amount (e.g. $1.29) or a coupon or credit for future services from the company that allegedly had wronged me.  In virtually each settlement, the attorneys got handsome fees and the firms were protected from future similar suits from anyone who had not gone through the process of opting out.   In one case, however, I and all other members of the class (except the lead plaintiffs, I presume) were to get nothing, while the attorneys were to get literally a half a billon dollars.  The notion was that members of the class had “eaten the evidence,” the same evidence that somehow justified $500,000,000 compensation to the lawyers.  Of course you recognize that as the Subway/Foot Long Sub case, where Subway was guilty of the monumental crime of selling foot long subs that were not necessarily 12 inches long (oh, the horror). So let me ask you: From your optic, how do we protect consumers’ rights while eliminating the incentives for frivolous suits, or suits in which the consumer gets nothing of value?  (And I include the “coupon setttlements” as consumers getting nothing of value, as they require the consumer to further patronize the perpetrator of the alleged wrong doing.).
Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business   of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is   considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory   and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in   securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in   determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a   business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions.
Having all your funds in an illiquid format instead of any liquid investment (shares, bonds, TD) is highly unusual as it makes these events occur.  I'm an investment banker having your investments appropriately staged to deal with liquidity events is a major aspect of this.  For someone apparently worth a billion dollars being unable to pay a $7m tax liability from 2010 is weird.  If I had a tax event equal to 0.07% of my networth I'd either have the cash or shares to sell to meet that liability.  Yet he posts pictures of uncashed cheques while the IRS hasn't been paid since 2010.  50 Cent did this...   Edit. Downvoting without even a comment is the reddit way of saying I'm right...
SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Better Business Bureau 20/20 Investigation Description | Does Better Business Bureau Sell Its Grades? 20/20 Investigation Length | 0:08:43           ****   ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&amp;subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk.  If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid  equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker.
&gt; foreign company  I mean, I agree with the rest of the post but this dude is from the US and works in NY. The equity research division has nothing to do with foreign entities, especially when the foreign country of origin is Germany......Being a foreign company really doesnt have anything to do with this.
"It is illegal because laws are written by people, and laws of stock trade are written, in part, to make it appear ""fair"" and thus contribute to the willingness of the people to invest their money in that particular venue. Profiting from information on the stock market that some people have and some can't have is considered ""unfair"", since it presumably excludes the latter from profit-making opportunities and thus makes their trades less profitable than otherwise. Since it is universally felt so, people made laws that prohibit such behavior.  I am not aware of any research that shows beyond doubt that allowing insider trading would really ruin stock markets, but such thing would be very hard to prove. There are arguments to both sides, and the side that supports prohibiting such trade has a clear majority, so it is prohibited."
Go to http://www.isincodes.net/, and enter your data. For example entering Alphabet gives you the ISIN US02079K1079 (for standard US shares). If you want to understand the number format (and build them yourself), check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Securities_Identification_Number
He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.
"No, I'm sorry, but the fact that exchanges allow ""pay to play"" privelege to scalp orders is fairly well established at this time. It's skirts law simply because the exchanges don't profit *directly* from it. I understand that folks are upset that SEC is looking into turning off this free money faucet, but harranguing Katsayuma for opening a fair exchange that shuns the practice is a point of contention for me."
Companies theoretically have an infinite number of equity units at their disposal.  Issuance must be approved according to its founding contracts. If an equity is trading on an open market then the price of each unit issued in lieu of cash compensation is known.  Even if an equity doesn't trade openly, bidders can be solicited for a possible price or an appraisal.  This can be a risky route for the potentially compensated. Market capitalizations are frequently generally approximately equal to the sales of a company.  Salaries and wages are frequently generally two thirds of sales. It is indeed expensive for the average company to compensate with equity, thus so few do, usually restricting equity compensation to executives and exceptional laborers.  Besides, they frequently have enough cash to pay for compensation, avoiding transaction costs. For companies in growth industries such as technology or medicine, their situations are usually reversed: cash constrained yet equity abundant because of large investment and dearly priced equities.  For a company trading at a market capitalization multiplied by forty times the revenue, compensating with equity is inexpensive.
Stock dilution is legal because, in theory, the issuance of new shares shouldn't affect actual shareholder value. The other answers have explained fairly well why this is so. In practice, however, the issuance of new shares can destroy shareholder value. This normally happens when the issuing company:  In these cases, the issuance of more shares merely reduces each shareholder's stake in the company without building proportional shareholder value.
Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. The price of equity only marginally impacts the balance sheet (via positions in their own stock), not nearly strong enough to be significant. The French banks mainly had trouble with liquidity (this year we witnessed another collapse of the interbank lending market just as in 2007. watch the Libor-O/N-spread.) and solvency through deterioration of the asset side of the balance sheet.   Naturally your ability to raise additional equity is influenced by the historic return of your stock, but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper. See UBS/Singapore GIC and GS/Warren Buffet
If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin.  What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance.  The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.
A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives.
How and why is this considered fair (and/or legal)? Let's use an analogy.  The issue is not fairness, it is just the rules. The assets you own and the cash you receive are reported differently. If the rules don't make sense, I suggest you hire an adviser that can teach you and help you get the most out of your investments.
I am not sure what a Brazilian equivalent is but you could just do an  ADR. Keep in mind that when you are investing in a foreign company there are certain currency risks that you may need to consider.
Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%.
Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?
According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers.  Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.
Assuming that blocks, dark liquidity, and auctions aren't available, one of the biggest things that equity traders also have going for them is the availability of different execution venues, as well as the aforementioned ability to strategically time execution/child order placement based on the state of the order book at any given time.  A security with a NYSE primary listing (BAC or IBM for example) will be traded on several exchanges/ECNs - Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, the various Bats exchanges - and that in itself opens up a lot of opportunity to spread out an order.  As an alternative to simply going through several price levels on a single exchange, you can also route out multiple orders simultaneously to different exchanges to scoop up liquidity.  All of that being said, I think it should be noted that you really can't exclude the execution methods that you mentioned in your original question.  Any large institutional investor looking to trade in size will only get so far with trading on lit venues especially in the US equity marketplace.  Taking advantage of block liquidity/IOIs or floating part or all of an order in a dark pool is a good way to mask intentions and minimize market impact.  If you're part of a beta/index tracking strategy, you actually need to leverage auctions (index rebalances, like the MSCI, Russell, S&amp;P all have a ton of participants executing market on close orders to account for adds/deletes/reweights).    Overall, the buy side is becoming increasingly sophisticated when it comes to advanced execution, and it has been interesting to see how fintech companies, brokers, and exchanges have been feeding into the innovation.
Yes, Regulation T is specified as the equity percentage of assets. So, yes, one can buy double the amount of equity in initial buying power but no more.  A broker shouldn't even permit purchases that would violate margin regulation. Maintenance margin is at 25%, so equity must remain above 25% of the total or the brokerage will force liquidations.
"First off, IANAL.  Secondly, most laws are different for humans and corporations.  But, insider trading is ""trading on knowledge that isn't publicly available."" If the trade was made after the order was made public knowledge, that would probably provide the fig leaf of legality."
Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans. Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982. Also, the citation I mentioned above: DeMarzo, P. (2005) ""The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation"" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005"
What I'm going to write is far too long for a comment, so I'll put it here even though its not an answer. That's the closest thing to an answer you'll get here, I'm afraid. I'm not a tax professional, and you cannot rely on anything I say, as you undoubtedly know. But I'll give you some pointers. Things you should be researching when you have international clients: Check if Sec. 402 can apply to the pension funds, if so your life may become much easier. If not, and you have no idea what you're doing - consider referring the client elsewhere. You can end up with quite a liability suit if you make a mistake here, because the penalties on not filing the right piece of paper are enormous.
Most inversion and tax sheltering deals like this are structured whereby their US division sends any profits to their offshore division as intellectual property licensing payments, or some form of financial instrument like inter-company loans, and the interest payments just so happen to be about as large as the US profits in that particular year.  Every time rules have been proposed to try and limit these sorts of arrangements, either they get killed in congress or additional loopholes are discovered and the same behavior continues.
Two choices:  1.  Sell everything you have and move to North Korea.  2.  Questions regarding loans, refinancing, mortgages, credit cards, investing and anything else that may be related to personal finance should be directed towards the subreddit /r/personalfinance. You will receive a probation (temporary ban) for disregarding this rule.
There is no reason that HFT in itself should be illegal. It provides a significant advantage to companies with access to those automated systems but then, we might as well eschew NASDAQ and go back to the manually traded days of NYSE or ban day trading in favor of long-term investing.  What is problematic is that they place and immediately cancel large number of orders for two reasons - to test the market and to slow down the competition.  A proposed ~~tax~~fee to charge for cancellation of non-executed trades seems like an interesting solution.
"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in ""26 USC § 1091 - Loss from   wash sales of stock or securities."" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades   stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the   sale:"
The key word you forgot to include from Slide 29 is: Free-Riding Investopedia defines free-riding as: In the context of a brokerage firm, a free rider problem refers to a situation where a client has been allowed to purchase shares without actually paying for them, and then subsequently sells the shares (ideally for profit). The problem with this scenario is that the client, if allowed to free ride, can profit from a stock trade without actually using any of his or her own capital. This is illegal. I have not heard of any issues with this type of action being a problem with trading accounts in Australia, nor have I been able to find any such rules on the ASX website or any of by brokers websites. So I think this may be an issue in the USA but not Australia. You should check the rules in any other countries you wish to trade in.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there was a sharp rise in the volume of share repurchases in the US: [US$](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)5 [billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_(number\)) in 1980 rose to US$349 billion in 2005. &gt;It is relatively easy for insiders to capture insider-trading like gains through the use of ""open market repurchases"". Such transactions are legal and generally encouraged by regulators through safe-harbours against [insider trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading) liability. &gt; --- ^Interesting: [^Accelerated ^share ^repurchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_share_repurchase) ^| [^Dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend) ^| [^Equity ^\(finance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_\(finance\)) ^| [^Treasury ^stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjwf4oy) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjwf4oy)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less.