Registered Members Login:
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome to ShareScene - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Australia's Sharemarket Community - New Here? Click To Register >

2 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 >   
Reply to this topic

Market manipulation
post Posted: Jul 29 2014, 03:25 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 1,335
Thanks: 456

it would seem the ASX is a bit slow in clamping down on Listed Companies that are suspected of what is known as Revaluation Fraud
there are a few Comp. suspected of doing this but very little is done about it

the most notable recent case was. FIFTH ELEMENT RESOURCES LIMITED... [FTH] Google them and see how it happens
they were finally suspended after their share price went from .20c to $7+

next time you see a company , that appears worthless, being ramped almost daily and the sp increasing rapidly think twice before you
throw money at it....... that is unless you get in early for a quick trade.

Attached File  re_fr.JPG ( 37.55K ) Number of downloads: 0

post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 03:18 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 12,989
Thanks: 1103

In Reply To: hoaky's post @ Mar 1 2011, 02:56 PM

Would it have anything to do with the transfer of regulatory responsiblities from ASX to ASIC ?

Hi hoaky--think youre spot on especially after talking to a broker friend who said that as far as he knew all major full charge brokers operate an "in house" regulatory/compliance system that prevents (or won't accept) bids too far away from the market, thus it would seem that ASIC is now becoming more diligent in enforcing those rules of governence with regard to online brokers.

Perhaps ASIC aren't toothless tigers after all, be nice to have a level playing field, or is that hoping for Utopia?

(very interesting asxgroup article)

Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 02:56 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 411
Thanks: 83

In Reply To: flower's post @ Mar 1 2011, 01:34 PM

Would it have anything to do with the transfer of regulatory responsiblities from ASX to ASIC ?


Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  
post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 02:15 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 5,049
Thanks: 1115

In Reply To: anka's post @ Mar 1 2011, 01:52 PM


here we go you can check it all out. V1

post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 01:52 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 174
Thanks: 5

In Reply To: flower's post @ Mar 1 2011, 01:34 PM

Flower- what is the mds website!!!

post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 01:45 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 113
Thanks: 15

In Reply To: flower's post @ Mar 1 2011, 01:34 PM

Maybe it has something to do with a similar action happening in the states
This from jsmineset website
The following is information from Dr. Jim Decosta:

Here is the URL:


Quote: There’s 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the “short sale exempt” (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or “locates” before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to “inject liquidity” then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public’s eyes goes out the window. You can’t have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a “proprietary trading strategy”.

Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.

The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.

Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:

Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  veeone  

post Posted: Mar 1 2011, 01:34 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 12,989
Thanks: 1103

Dont know if this is the correct thread for the following but here goes:

Recieved an email today from my online broker MDS telling me that under the guidance of ASX Market Control, new guidelines have been put in place by this broker concerning contingent orders and market orders, the gist of the communication is that the regulation has been issued to ensure that the market acts in an orderly manner, both buy and sell orders are similiarly affected.

My questions are these: Are all online brokers similiarly affected--and does anybody know if this is a new ruling by the ASX or an enforcement of an existing regulation?

I presume (though I have no idea if I am on the right track) this guidance is an attempt to stop "dummy bidding" and sheer incompetence in pressing the correct key when placing orders.

Can anybody confirm I have interpreted it correctly or incorrectly?

Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
post Posted: Jul 12 2009, 06:10 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 12,989
Thanks: 1103

In Reply To: onefineday's post @ Jul 12 2009, 05:39 PM

difference between individuals and company

Arty--for once we are in agreement.

However when you have any single BODY being the Organiser, Beneficiery, Judge and Jury
you then have very major problems.

Make one comment about FSB's, which is: "There are Brokers--and Brokers"

In reality though"bending the rules" exists in every organisation so I suppose its a
a matter of--- If you cant stand the heat--get out of the Kitchen

Bound to say though the the ASX is simplicity itself compared with the London market.

In general--IMHO--OZ is far too lenient in all matters of justice. repeat IMHO.

Also if they were in different chatrooms and decided the same thing then that's just randomness -there is no market manipulation
In Unison--???????????

Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
post Posted: Jul 12 2009, 05:39 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 617
Thanks: 85

In Reply To: flower's post @ Jul 12 2009, 04:34 PM

Hi Flower
I see your point , but I think there's a difference between individuals and companies.

If you have a group of traders acting on an illiquid stock , I don't think they have the same degree of organization to all act in concert to move a stock price. Why ? Because they couldn't trust each other to all do the same thing.And they couldn't trust each other not to get out of a position until a target price had been met.
Also if they were in different chatrooms and decided the same thing then that's just randomness -there is no market manipulation.

If a company has been found guilty of MM then I think that's worse for 2 reasons;
A company has much more money - so it has far more ability to mm
and secondly organisation. If a company decides to do something it acts on the market with one mind - one decision making process.
A group of small traders can't do that to the same extent.
I don't doubt what you say but I just think it's several orders of magnitude worse if a company does it and a company has far more ability to do it.

And I think the penalties are therefore much to low.


The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: arty  
post Posted: Jul 12 2009, 04:37 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 13,073
Thanks: 3377

In Reply To: onefineday's post @ Jul 12 2009, 02:48 PM

Agree completely, OFD.
One can't help but become very cynical about the entire industry. Everybody knows it's going on; but guess who benefits from it?
The higher the turnover, the better for the ASX; the better for the brokers; the better for the institutions.
Only the small fries - or one or two blantant abusers, who can be paraded as scape-goats - get stopped by silly rules.

Case in point: Not so long ago, I placed a buy order for a round 400,000 shares of a penny stock at 1c. Eventually, that was filled to an odd number with some 23,000 outstanding. The lowest offer at that point sat on 1.4c. But when I amended my online order for the last few shares, the amendment was rejected because it would move the market 40%. I rang to complain, but the operative insisted it was an ASX rule and he'd get fined if he let it go through.
A few days later, my position had been filled at 1c - cost me another brokerage grrr.gif - and that same stock was sold DOWN 80 shares at 0.8c. Riddle me the logic of that: buying $400 worth is forbidden, but selling 64c from off-screen can get through.

That also shows how unfounded and ill-informed those recurring accusations are that "it's all the bluddy daytraders' fault." Wrong!!!
It's the bluddy FSBs, looking after their high-value, commission-paying accounts and fleecing their gullible retail clients. angry.gif

I trade daily, but I am not a licensed adviser. Whether you find my ideas reasonable or not: The only person responsible for your actions is YOU.
I follow two rules: (1) There are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. (2) Whatever is inconsistent with observed facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Market as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. (inspired by Carl Sagan)

Said 'Thanks' for this post: smee  

2 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 >

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic

You agree through the use of ShareScene.com, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.