Особенности аббревиации в английском языке

In order to trade with an ECN, one must be a subscriber or have an account with a broker that provides direct access trading. ECN subscribers can enter orders into the ECN via a custom computer terminal or network protocols. Generally, the buyer and seller are anonymous, with the trade execution reports listing the ECN as the party.

Some ECNs may offer additional features to subscribers such as negotiation, reserve size, and pegging, and may have access to the entire ECN book that contains important real-time market data regarding depth of trading interest.

For stock, ECNs exist as a class of Alternative Trading Systems (ATS). As an ATS, ECNs exclude broker-dealers' internal crossing networks – i.e., systems that match orders using prices from an exchange, without actually sending the order to a public venue.

ECN's fee structure can be grouped in two basic structures: a classic structure and a credit (or rebate) structure. Both fee structures offer advantages of their own. The classic structure tends to attract liquidity removers while the credit structure appeals to liquidity providers. However since both removers and providers of liquidity are necessary to create a market ECNs have to choose their fee structure carefully.

In a credit structure ECNs make a profit from paying liquidity providers a credit while charging a debit to liquidity removers. Their fees range from $0.002 to $0.0027 per share for liquidity providers, and $0.003 to $0.0025 per share for liquidity removers. The fee can be determined by monthly volume provided and removed, or by a fixed structure, depending on the ECN, and it's known as a liquidity rebate, or credit. This structure is common on the NASDAQ market. In a classic structure, the ECN will charge a small fee to all market participants using their network, both liquidity providers and removers. They can also give lower price to large liquidity providers in order to attract volume to their networks. Fees for ECNs that operate under a classic structure range from $0 to $0.0015, or even higher depending on each ECN. This fee structure is more common in the NYSE, The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) however recently some ECNs have moved their NYSE operations into a credit structure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Mark Bloom and his firm North Hills Management LLC with securities fraud, and obtained an emergency court order to freeze their assets and halt an alleged investment scheme involving the marketing of a "fund of funds" investment vehicle.

SEC Complaint

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the SEC alleges that Bloom, through North Hills, raised approximately $30 million from 40 to 50 investors between 2001 and 2007 by representing that the assets would be invested in a diverse group of hedge funds. Instead, Bloom misappropriated more than $13.2 million of investor funds to furnish a lavish lifestyle that included the purchase of luxury homes, cars and boats for himself and his wife, who is named as a relief defendant. The remaining funds were invested in a single fund which itself turned out to be fraudulent.

Scott Friestad, Deputy Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said, "We allege a blatant investment scheme, and today's action shows that the Commission will act decisively to preserve assets for investors."

James Clarkson, Acting Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, added, "As today's emergency action demonstrates, the SEC will bring aggressive enforcement action against individuals who defraud innocent investors."

The SEC alleges that the defendants solicited investments by making misleading representations. Bloom and North Hills represented that the Fund's assets would be allocated across multiple funds and fund managers to ensure diversification and moderate risk. They sent investors false monthly account statements that portrayed their investments as profitable when, in reality, Bloom was systematically looting the Fund's trading account by making "loans" to himself and by investing in contravention of the Fund's stated investment strategy in an investment known as the Philadelphia Alternative Asset Fund (PAAF). Bloom received undisclosed commissions from PAAF in excess of $355,000 over a 16-month period. PAAF itself was uncovered as a fraudulent scheme in June 2005.

According to the SEC's complaint, beginning in November 2007, one of the Fund's largest investors, a charitable trust (the "Trust") that funds children's schools began to serve Bloom with redemption requests, which Bloom repeatedly evaded. To date, Bloom has failed to honor the Trust's redemption requests in full and claims that he does not have the means to do so. The Trust is owed more than $9.5. The SEC complaint charges violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered an order temporarily restraining the defendants, freezing their assets  and approving the appointment of a receiver.

The U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Southern District of New York announced parallel criminal charges against Bloom and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed related charges against Bloom and North Hills.

The SEC's investigation is ongoing. The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the USAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the CFTC and the National Futures Association.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C., Feb. 19, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today made the following statement regarding its enforcement action against Robert Allen Stanford:

"At the request of the SEC, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Richmond Division today located and identified Stanford Financial Group chairman Allen Stanford in the Fredericksburg, Va., area. The agents served Mr. Stanford with court orders and documents related to the SEC's civil filing against him and three of his companies. The SEC very much appreciates the outstanding assistance of the FBI in this matter."

The SEC on February 17 charged Robert Allen Stanford and three of his companies, alleging a fraudulent, multi-billion dollar investment scheme. Stanford's companies include Antiguan-based Stanford International Bank (SIB), Houston-based broker-dealer and investment adviser Stanford Group Company (SGC). The SEC also charged SIB chief financial officer James Davis and Stanford Financial Group chief investment officer Laura Holt in the enforcement action.

The orders and documents that the FBI served on Stanford were the SEC's complaint, the memorandum of law filed with the complaint, the court order freezing assets, and the court order appointing a receiver.

The Honorable Reed O'Connor, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, granted the SEC's request for emergency relief for investors, and issued the orders freezing assets and appointing a receiver over R. Allen Stanford and other defendants.

                                              

 

 

 

 

 

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is an international organization created by Canada, Mexico and the United States under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The CEC was established to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement complements the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The CEC was designed in part to investigate the environmental impact of this first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries. A notable concern was that North American industry would be drawn to jurisdictions with lax environmental laws or weak enforcement, leading to a “race to the bottom” in standards or enforcement. The CEC’s mandate therefore includes an ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA. The CEC has held four symposia concerning the environmental impacts of NAFTA and has commissioned 47 papers on this subject. In keeping with the CEC’s overall strategy of transparency and public involvement, the CEC commissioned these papers from leading independent experts

CEC created a framework for conducting environmental analysis of NAFTA, one of the first ex post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization. The framework was designed to produce a focused and systematic body of evidence concerning initial hypotheses about the environmental effects of NAFTA, hypotheses such as: NAFTA will create a “race to the bottom” in environmental regulation among the three countries or NAFTA will pressure governments to increase their environmental protection mechanisms

Overall, none of these hypotheses were confirmed. NAFTA did not present a systemic threat to the North American environment, as was originally feared. NAFTA-related environmental threats instead occurred in specific areas where government environmental policy was unprepared for the increasing scale of production under trade liberalization. In some cases, government policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA’s measures for investment protection and measures against non-tariff trade barriers, threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy. The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico.