Tesla to be first to hit $20 billion short interest?

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.

https://twitter.com/S3Partners

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MiFIR data reporting for algorithms – Latest update 08 July 2020

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?

The reporting 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)

https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70-1861941480-56_qas_mifir_data_reporting.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NY State Department of Financial Services imposes $150M fine on Deutsche Bank – Jeffery Epstein

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 financier.

Those included payments to Russian models and $800,000 in “suspicious” cash withdrawals.

Deutsche said it “deeply” regretted its relationship with Epstein.

It 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.

“We 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.

https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202007071

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MiFIR – Trading venues – transitional exemption from access provisions

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.

  • Athens Stock Exchange S.A. – Greece
  • Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie S.A. – Poland
  • MEFF Sociedad Rectora del Mercado de Productos Derivados S.A.U. – Spain
  • Nasdaq Oslo ASA – Norway
  • Nasdaq Stockholm AB – Sweden
  • OMIP – 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.

https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/list_of_trading_venues_benefiting_from_a_transitional_exemption_from_the_access_provisions_under_article_365_of_mifir.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Banks Urge Britain and EU to Sort Out Financial Market Access – Reuters

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 the bloc. Although it is far more limited than current access, without equivalence EU investors would not be able to use financial services in London.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment