Q205.13: Accept the same facts as FAQ 205.9. If the parties agree to transfer the notification obligation to BD1, can the commercial comparison and acceptance feature of FINRA/NASDAQ TRF, ADF or ORF meet the requirement that BD2 document the parties` agreement at the same time? In other words, if BD1 (the member representing the buy-side) declares the trade and BD2 (the member representing the sales site) accepts the commercial information introduced by BD1, would this be sufficient proof of the simultaneous agreement of the parties to transfer the reporting obligation to BD1? Q303.12: A registered investment advisor (RIA) at the discretion of several accounts receivable held by member BD1 orders BD1 to buy 10,000 shares. BD1 acquires as an agent the shares in 10 separate trades of 1,000 shares each on an average price allocation account. Each trade is reported to the band. BD1 then assigns the 10,000 shares to the RIA on an average price basis. At the end of the day, RIA BD1 gives instructions to assign the 10,000 shares to different sub-accounts of its customers at the price BD1 gave to RIA. Is the allocation of shares on the various sub-accounts of the RIA-Client subject to declaration – for band or non-band purposes?? Acceptance of abandonment is sometimes referred to as give-in. Once a trade is actually executed, it can be called „give-in.“ However, the use of the term „give“ is much rarer. Although Floor Broker has placed trading, it must abandon the transaction and register it as if Broker B had done the trading. The transaction is recorded as if Broker B had traded, although Floor Broker A conducted the trading.
FSF and JP Morgan have proposed the alternative approach: in which the Commission imposes any SEF order book proposing the attribution of a surname in order to devise a method for their participants to opt out of the order of sizzlers after trading, this could be done through a parallel, entirely anonymous order book, or by the ability for participants to choose the post-trade name on the start-print page 44706.  According to the FSF, this approach would give market participants the freedom to act in the way they wish and, at the same time, offer customers dealing with unwanted information the opportunity to trade anonymously.  The Commission has decided not to accept this alternative. The Commission is of the view that „give-up“ surnames will be maintained where they are permitted and that this alternative would bring little or no benefit, while ESFs would continue to generate costs at least as high as those of a total ban (since EFS would have to modify their systems to allow opt-out). The Commission agrees with Citadel`s statement that „it would be expected that the existing trading banks would not agree not to give a name, which means that the [interdaldalists brokers] of SEF would change very little.“  THE FINRA/NYSE TRF does not offer commercial and transaction functionality, so trades must be blocked before they can be subject to this facility. See rules 7230B (a) and 7240B. This means that the parties must have an abandonment agreement (i.e. of it) which, according to the reports, allows both parties to present trade and „block“ trade without the explicit agreement of the party against.
See FAQ 200.1. A408.5: When notifying trades based on an earlier reference price, companies should use the MODIficator PRP if the reference price occurred on the day of execution (for example. B a trade is made at the opening price earlier on the day of execution (see FAQ 408.1) or a trade to give the customer a better price on the day of execution (see FAQ 309.1).) Transactions with the PRP modifier is reported to update high and low prices for security, but not the latest selling price, unless trading is the first or only trading of the day.