"NASDAQ has reviewed the transactions under rule 11890 (b) on its own motion filing involving the security UAL Corp executed between 10:55:00 and 11:08:00 ET today and has determined that all trades will stand. This decision cannot be appealed. NASDAQ MarketWatch has coordinated this decision with other UTP Exchanges." http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketSystemStatus
CBO printed 100 at 0.01 then 100 at 999.99. Seem like whenever there are trades at a penny or 1k+, it's from the CBO. I've been in quite a few trades that have been broken. This decision is the worst, most inconsistent ruling I have seen from NASDAQ.
they usually are consistent. with the blanket rulings. but not when it comes to breaking indivual trades. ive gotten the same trade stand by arca and broken by nasdaq.
Wow. This qualifies as a rumor that really wiped out a lot of equity. I wonder how many stops got blown out today. Wow.
With QM heading lower in the face of a hurricane and an OPEC meeting, and UAUA - $1.00, I say that UAUA has a good chance of being mispriced in the short term. nitro
Gentlemen, you've just been whipped, fucked, and driven from the land, as Patrick Byrne has said. This, I hear, is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. It is SOP, standard operating procedure, and law is on it. It is outrageous, indicates a tremendous lack of talent, and a ruthlessness that has to stop, and quickly. Wall St. is begging for mercy, and they pull shit like this. And then, they don't break the trades. It's just a ploy to make money, and some folks got hurt. You lost 300?? You got screwed out of 300. With your expertise, you acted on a situation that you beieved offered profit potential. It was all manipulated, and you got trapped. You could have been totally screwed. Now, UAL has to spend time and money getting to the bottom of someting that never should have happened. The naked shorts knocked the company out in 2002, per Gene Marcial in BW They are trying it again. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2002/nf2002108_4601.htm
You know that I agree with you on this. And I held no UAL at all. There is bullshit behind this on a massive scale.
How does the NASDAQ determine whether to cancel trades in such a situation. Are there any objective criteria for making that decision? It does seem consistent with a similar ruling NASDAQ made in 2000 when a bogus press release sent Emulex stock crashing and the NASDAQ decided that all trades prior to the halt in that case would stand http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-244975.html