An institutional proprietary trader enters a series of large limit sell orders for a thinly traded equity security at price levels slightly above the current national best offer. The trader has no intention of executing these sell orders and rapidly cancels them as soon as lower-priced sell orders from other market participants are triggered, allowing the firm to purchase shares at an artificially depressed price for its inventory. Which of the following statements correctly identifies this prohibited market manipulation tactic and the regulatory oversight involved?
- The activity constitutes spoofing because non-bona fide orders were submitted to create a deceptive impression of order book depth; both the SEC and FINRA have civil enforcement jurisdiction over such market manipulation.Cevap
- BThe activity constitutes wash trading because the trader is entering cancelling orders to generate artificial trading volume without incurring genuine market risk.
- CThe activity constitutes spoofing, a violation that falls exclusively under the criminal prosecution authority of FINRA as a self-regulatory organization.
- DThe activity is deemed lawful price discovery as long as the firm executes the ultimate purchasing trade in an agency broker capacity rather than a dealer principal capacity.
Cevap
The activity constitutes spoofing because non-bona fide orders were submitted to create a deceptive impression of order book depth; both the SEC and FINRA have civil enforcement jurisdiction over such market manipulation.
Entering quote interest without the intent to execute in order to trick other investors into moving market prices is spoofing. Fraudulent order tactics violate federal securities acts and FINRA rules, subjecting violators to regulatory actions by both FINRA and the SEC.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Spoofing and Regulatory Jurisdiction in Market Manipulation
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s