prsmike

Won't stop

This? (Emphasis mine)

Rule 203(b)(1) and (2) – Locate Requirement. Regulation SHO requires a broker-dealer to have *reasonable grounds to believe** that the security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the date delivery is due before effecting a short sale order in any equity security. This “locate” must be made and documented prior to effecting the short sale.*

This is where I have issues. This shit is insanely wishy washy specifically for Market Makers. I get that the rational is that markets require 'liquidity' but this liquidity seems to be whatever the hell they want.

We also have hundreds of documented fines for different Market Makers ranging in a ton of topics but many around not marking or documenting things correctly for years in some cases.

Here's a good place to start:

https://brokercheck.finra.org/search/genericsearch/firmgrid

https://brokercheck.finra.org/search/genericsearch/firmgrid

Whoops, broken links. I was pointing out the number of disclosures and violations from the likes of Citadel and Virtu just to show a couple examples (https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/116797). Just one of Citadels LLCs has 74 total disclosures and you should read through them. They aren't pretty (some directly related to RegSHO with miniscule fines).

I agree that over time there have been lots of people/firms coloring outside the box but overtime through enforcement action a lot of this has been cleaned up. An entity that gets caught once is monitored pretty thoroughly after that. Regulators are also quite good at finding that kind of stuff. Finra audits are incredibly comprehensive.

I think this is where we disagree to be honest. I don't think it has been cleaned up and I am VERY unimpressed with FINRA or the SEC. These rules don't work if A) compliance with these rules on the back end are not adequately automated and B) enforcement is not followed through.

Just look at those disclosures!

Paying a fine and "consenting to pay sanctions without admitting or denying the findings" doesn't seem incredibly comprehensive to me... I don't see how violations from the regulators are anything short of 'cost of doing business'.

You seem quite confident. Do you have a source by chance? I tried to look into this prior to the break but wasn't able to find anything definitive. Edit* just to add that I also can't really find a clear definition for which actions count as 'bona fide' market making and which don't. It's grey as fuck.

How bad where the Archegos swaps truly? Was this the straw that broke the camel's back and will UBS be able to unwind?