Tesla Inc.’s sceptics are undeterred by Elon Musk poking fun at them
over the carmaker’s stock surge, with the amount
of shares being sold short heading for an unprecedented milestone. … Tesla’s stock is poised to
be the first to hit a short-interest level of $20 billion, according to research firm S3 Partners. The value of
shares that have been sold short has climbed recently to $19.95 billion.
S3 said in a report Thursday that both Tesla and Nikola Corp. shares
look like candidates for a short squeeze
… Tesla’s squeeze is the more obvious — its 233% gain this year likely is
forcing out short sellers who’ve hit their limit for losses. The potential for
a squeeze in Nikola, which is developing fuel-cell and battery-electric semi
trucks, likely has more to do with high borrowing fees,
Wall Street’s most controversial stock may be about to go mainstream. Tesla appears on
the verge of joining the S&P 500,
a major accomplishment for Elon Musk that would unleash a flood of new
demand for the electric car maker’s shares, which have already surged 500% over
the past year.
Higher-than-expected second-quarter vehicle deliveries, announced last week, have analysts increasingly confident the company will show a profit in its quarterly report on July 22. That would mark Tesla’s first cumulative four-quarter profit, a key hurdle to be added to the S&P 500.
Consider a scenario where an Investment Firm A executes a
reportable transaction through an execution
algorithm provided by another Investment Firm B .
- a) How should field 59 (Execution within firm) of RTS 22 be reported when Investment Firm A uses the execution algorithm provided by Investment Firm B?
obligations are the same as where Investment Firm A decides to send an
order for execution to Investment Firm B. Investment
Firm A should populate field 59 with the person or algorithm identifier within
their firm that is primarily responsible for using Investment Firm B’s
algorithm. Investment Firm A shall not
populate a code for Investment Firm B’s algo, only its own information.
- b) Would Investment Firm A’s reporting differ if Firm B was not a MiFID II Investment Firm and therefore did not have the obligation to report this transaction under Art. 26 MiFIR?
No. Investment Firm A’s reporting is the same as specified in a)
Also reprimanded for correspondent relationships with Danske Estonia and FBME bank
Deutsche Bank has been hit with a $150m fine for
failing to properly monitor its relationship with convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein. Per NY state regulators the bank had suffered “significant
compliance failures“, processing hundreds of transactions for the late
included payments to Russian models
and $800,000 in “suspicious”
Deutsche said it “deeply” regretted its relationship
said it had spent almost $1bn to improve
its training and controls and expand its anti-financial crime team to more
than 1,500 people.
acknowledge our error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the weaknesses in our
processes, and have learnt from our mistakes and shortcomings,” the bank
said in a statement. “Our reputation is our most valuable asset and we deeply regret our association with Epstein.”
New York’s Department of Financial Services said the bank, which worked with Epstein from 2013 to 2018, helped him transfer millions of dollars, including more than $7m to resolve legal issues and more than $2.6m in payments to women, covering tuition, rent and other payments, among other transactions.
ESMA has updated today the list of trading venues which have a temporary exemption from the open access provisions under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR). The updated list includes an extension of the exemption for five venues until 4 January 2023.
Stock Exchange S.A. – Greece
Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie S.A. – Poland
Sociedad Rectora del Mercado de Productos Derivados S.A.U. – Spain
Oslo ASA – Norway
Stockholm AB – Sweden
– Pólo Português SGMR SA – Portugal
MiFIR allows firms to freely choose where to trade and clear their products, however trading venues and Central Counterparties (CCPs) may notify ESMA and their national competent authority of their intention to temporarily opt-out from the access provisions for exchange-traded derivatives (ETDs) provided that certain conditions are met. For trading venues where the annual notional amount of ETDs traded on the venue falls below a threshold of EUR 1,000,000 million, the exemption must be approved by ESMA.
Britain and the European Union need to make progress on EU financial market access given
that the coronavirus crisis will make it even harder to cope with potential
disruption if there is no agreement, banking lobby AFME said on Monday.
Britain left the
EU in January but has full access to the
bloc under a transition period that runs until the end of December.
London and Brussels blamed each other last week for missing a June 30 deadline for
assessments on financial market access from January.
Future direct EU access will depend on whether
Brussels deems UK regulation to be “equivalent” to standards in
Although it is far
more limited than current access, without
equivalence EU investors would not be able to use financial services in London.