cashah19
06-15 12:31 AM
Thanks guys for all the posts. I guess I have a little ignorant question. If I am married does my wife need to be here for me to file her 485. I am getting court marriage done in July 2007, and hope to file my 485 as soon as I have my marriage certificate, I am sure will be filing in July, but my wife won't be coming to the US till Jan 2008, which is when we have will have the ritualistic wedding. Does she need to be here for any paperwork. She could come on H4, but her parents won't let her stay for long. Does she need medical tests as well from civil surgeon when I file for her? I am hoping she can come in Jan on H4, and then get her EAD along with mine.
wallpaper girls without makeup.
PHANI_TAVVALA
05-07 03:43 PM
First of all Congratulations desi#### and thanks for continuing to support IV.
Interesting discussion going on. Yes, I agree that most of us here are waiting for our GC and some of them go on to become US Citizens.
I believe that becoming a citizen of any country is a person's choice, so let us not give desi### a hard time here.:o
But I certainly do not think it is an 'achievement' to get a US citizenship, just because it implies indirectly it is an 'achievement' to let go off Indian citizenship. Nothing meant to offend you desi#### but it hurts when one reads such a statement somewhere deep inside the mind. But hey, as I said earlier, to each his own and noone should be judging others in their decisions.
And it is not only Indians becoming US citizens every year. There are others too.
Personally, even with all the advantages as stated above of being a US citizen, I will never let go of my Indian passport. Even if the authorities give it to me tomorrow in a lottery;) Never.
Why? Because my identity, my rich heritage, my family roots, my parents, my culture everything is Indian and am proud of it. There are lot of sentimental and emotional attachments. I was going through the OCI articles today after reading this discussion.
It is not exactly a dual citizenship. Some clauses are no voting rights! No Indian Passport!
Getting a GC is another thing, but when I decide to go back after a couple of years, I would definitely want to retain my voting rights. ! I rest my case.
I totally understand the emotional point of someone being want to be a Indian Citizen but I have to stress there is no other country in the world like U.S.A. This is the country where every human being is treated with utmost respect (don't try to show me exceptions - U.S. is a country where most of things are close to being perfect imaginatively), have freedom to say anything they want without getting intimidated and U.S is a country I believe will be the last bastion for humanity when terrosists/fundamentalists spread their tentancles and take over the world by force or other means (if not now probabbly in the next 100-150 years). Hypocrisy is relatively less. We Indians live in a dream world nurtured by the Indian politicians, who try to inject doses of patriotic non-sense into the masses while they themselves stove away million of dollars in Swiss banks. 70% of Indian population lives below poverty line and the educated masses of India think that their country will become a super power by 2020. Politicians like Mayawati play caste politics and dream of taking the top most post while our liberal media, without a wee-bit of shame, extends its highest support for them. Corruption is part of our daily life and we are part of the everyday corruption but we still find no fault in our society. Our population growth is beyond control while not a single politician is concerned about the stress it is going to create on our natural resources in the future. Our education system is in shambles but our great politicians fight for increasing the reservation system to different castes just for the sake of garnering more votes. And the list goes on. Alas���God help India.
FYI: I am a Indian and haven't even started my greencard process, for the same emotional reasons you mentioned, intending to R2I soon. Given a choice and circumstances, I would have opted for U.S.C as "I have no hope for this world neither do I wish for it" - quoting Bhagawan Krishna from Bhagavad Gita.
Interesting discussion going on. Yes, I agree that most of us here are waiting for our GC and some of them go on to become US Citizens.
I believe that becoming a citizen of any country is a person's choice, so let us not give desi### a hard time here.:o
But I certainly do not think it is an 'achievement' to get a US citizenship, just because it implies indirectly it is an 'achievement' to let go off Indian citizenship. Nothing meant to offend you desi#### but it hurts when one reads such a statement somewhere deep inside the mind. But hey, as I said earlier, to each his own and noone should be judging others in their decisions.
And it is not only Indians becoming US citizens every year. There are others too.
Personally, even with all the advantages as stated above of being a US citizen, I will never let go of my Indian passport. Even if the authorities give it to me tomorrow in a lottery;) Never.
Why? Because my identity, my rich heritage, my family roots, my parents, my culture everything is Indian and am proud of it. There are lot of sentimental and emotional attachments. I was going through the OCI articles today after reading this discussion.
It is not exactly a dual citizenship. Some clauses are no voting rights! No Indian Passport!
Getting a GC is another thing, but when I decide to go back after a couple of years, I would definitely want to retain my voting rights. ! I rest my case.
I totally understand the emotional point of someone being want to be a Indian Citizen but I have to stress there is no other country in the world like U.S.A. This is the country where every human being is treated with utmost respect (don't try to show me exceptions - U.S. is a country where most of things are close to being perfect imaginatively), have freedom to say anything they want without getting intimidated and U.S is a country I believe will be the last bastion for humanity when terrosists/fundamentalists spread their tentancles and take over the world by force or other means (if not now probabbly in the next 100-150 years). Hypocrisy is relatively less. We Indians live in a dream world nurtured by the Indian politicians, who try to inject doses of patriotic non-sense into the masses while they themselves stove away million of dollars in Swiss banks. 70% of Indian population lives below poverty line and the educated masses of India think that their country will become a super power by 2020. Politicians like Mayawati play caste politics and dream of taking the top most post while our liberal media, without a wee-bit of shame, extends its highest support for them. Corruption is part of our daily life and we are part of the everyday corruption but we still find no fault in our society. Our population growth is beyond control while not a single politician is concerned about the stress it is going to create on our natural resources in the future. Our education system is in shambles but our great politicians fight for increasing the reservation system to different castes just for the sake of garnering more votes. And the list goes on. Alas���God help India.
FYI: I am a Indian and haven't even started my greencard process, for the same emotional reasons you mentioned, intending to R2I soon. Given a choice and circumstances, I would have opted for U.S.C as "I have no hope for this world neither do I wish for it" - quoting Bhagawan Krishna from Bhagavad Gita.
snathan
03-29 01:53 PM
@Snathan how did you know he didn't call me here , are you one of the consultants yourself who does this filthy work of cheating people.
I guess it was my employers discretion to make me sit home with him just not responding to my mails, i couldn't barge in to his office and say hey give me desk to work on? can i ?
Anyways looking at the LCA agreement i think you don't seem to know what you are talking about, I am here holding his company's name on my H1B form , His agreement on LCA and his employment letter, i dunno if there is any other way i could make inroads into barging into his office?
Now if he puts a security guard against me entering his office, shouldn't i report this to DOL too?
Mind your words you low life scum bag. You don’t know what you were doing and paid for H1B and landed here and informed your employer through email which states he did not invite you to the US though he applied for the H1B. By the way when did he informed about the project situation.
Yea...you go ahead and report DOL or even white house. I am sure you won’t get anything out of it as there are so many loop holes in your case. No one is going to pay you the green buck because you want it.
Getting emotional is not going to help you. Your case is not going to impact your employer until he is doing this as a pattern. The only other option is, if you can get another job apply for a transfer and the approval without I-94. Then you will have to go out of the country and come back.
Your first priority should be to get the job and fix your visa issues. Then find other employees working for this employer and if they are in similar situation like you. If so, you have a very strong case and complaint to DOL. May be you should use this as a leverage to get the pay stub and do transfer. Really speaking pay stub is not an issue as long as you are able to get a job.
You need to relax and think what do you want to do and whats your goal...do you want to put your life back on track or go after this guy. You can teach him a lesson but how it’s going to help improving your situation. Because of the current environment, no one needs to file any complaint and every application from any company is thoroughly scrutinized by the USCIS. Worst case he will shut the shop and open another one. All he needs is a $300 to register a company. USCIS is not going to deport him as he might be already on GC or USC. But there is every possibility for ICE to knock on your door. You are just shooting yourself in the foot. Good luck.
I guess it was my employers discretion to make me sit home with him just not responding to my mails, i couldn't barge in to his office and say hey give me desk to work on? can i ?
Anyways looking at the LCA agreement i think you don't seem to know what you are talking about, I am here holding his company's name on my H1B form , His agreement on LCA and his employment letter, i dunno if there is any other way i could make inroads into barging into his office?
Now if he puts a security guard against me entering his office, shouldn't i report this to DOL too?
Mind your words you low life scum bag. You don’t know what you were doing and paid for H1B and landed here and informed your employer through email which states he did not invite you to the US though he applied for the H1B. By the way when did he informed about the project situation.
Yea...you go ahead and report DOL or even white house. I am sure you won’t get anything out of it as there are so many loop holes in your case. No one is going to pay you the green buck because you want it.
Getting emotional is not going to help you. Your case is not going to impact your employer until he is doing this as a pattern. The only other option is, if you can get another job apply for a transfer and the approval without I-94. Then you will have to go out of the country and come back.
Your first priority should be to get the job and fix your visa issues. Then find other employees working for this employer and if they are in similar situation like you. If so, you have a very strong case and complaint to DOL. May be you should use this as a leverage to get the pay stub and do transfer. Really speaking pay stub is not an issue as long as you are able to get a job.
You need to relax and think what do you want to do and whats your goal...do you want to put your life back on track or go after this guy. You can teach him a lesson but how it’s going to help improving your situation. Because of the current environment, no one needs to file any complaint and every application from any company is thoroughly scrutinized by the USCIS. Worst case he will shut the shop and open another one. All he needs is a $300 to register a company. USCIS is not going to deport him as he might be already on GC or USC. But there is every possibility for ICE to knock on your door. You are just shooting yourself in the foot. Good luck.
2011 woman without makeup
sanju
09-24 02:04 AM
Glad you liked it, here is another one while I write the reply. Honestly, you did not give me enough time to finish my video.
kAMIlPudalQ
kAMIlPudalQ
more...
hebbar77
08-19 02:10 PM
Congratulations.
You have the right to feel what you want. But here are my 2 cents:
You on paper are now an american. It gives you good easy travel without visas etc.
However people WILL treat you by your appearance/color/etc...
I request you to help your birthcountry by donating to schools etc like you donate to charities here(goodwill store etc).
Let me know if you dont agree!
You have the right to feel what you want. But here are my 2 cents:
You on paper are now an american. It gives you good easy travel without visas etc.
However people WILL treat you by your appearance/color/etc...
I request you to help your birthcountry by donating to schools etc like you donate to charities here(goodwill store etc).
Let me know if you dont agree!
vinoddas
07-11 08:08 PM
BTW, if you guys use Facebook, I created an event on Facebook as well:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2411444328
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2411444328
more...
malaGCPahije
06-13 09:24 AM
Some of us are in Eb3 because of our experience, some of us are in EB3 because of circumstances (I had 7 years exp when my GC was files, but 3 years out of it was spent as consultant in my current employer place. Hence we could use only 4 years as exp and hence EB3), some of us are in EB3 because of lazy lawyers.
We cannot blame EB2 or any other category for thinking for themselves. That is just human nature. I have done everything to support IV and will continue to do so, be it letters, faxes, calls or money. But I also know that no one is going to fight for Eb3-I. Once my EB2 friends get their GC, there may be no IV remaining. That is OK with me. I will still contribute.
All I want from EB2 people is to stop making fun of EB3 cracking jokes about losers, etc. You never know when destiny takes a U-turn. It may as well happen that all EB3-I get their GC and the joke crackers never get it. So please, EB2 should enjoy their forward movement of dates. But please do not make fun of EB3-I.
Thanks.
We cannot blame EB2 or any other category for thinking for themselves. That is just human nature. I have done everything to support IV and will continue to do so, be it letters, faxes, calls or money. But I also know that no one is going to fight for Eb3-I. Once my EB2 friends get their GC, there may be no IV remaining. That is OK with me. I will still contribute.
All I want from EB2 people is to stop making fun of EB3 cracking jokes about losers, etc. You never know when destiny takes a U-turn. It may as well happen that all EB3-I get their GC and the joke crackers never get it. So please, EB2 should enjoy their forward movement of dates. But please do not make fun of EB3-I.
Thanks.
2010 lady gaga without makeup and
senthil1
03-10 08:09 PM
Eb2 will be always better positoned as the spill over from Eb1 and other countries happen towards the end of the year. If there is some spillover for Eb3 then waiting time will decrease based on the numbers given.
QUOTE=ashatara78;325297]The next step should be to reply to the senator mentioning that the data is ambiguous and asking for a more clear response. Is it I-140 or I-485, does it include families etc. etc.
Also explain to them that based on these numbers, it will take X years for a person to get a GC and that the system needs reform.
I have worked with a senator's office for a completely different matter and they are very responsive - since you have caught their attention and already have a file open, it will be helpful to respond with a concise letter so that you can get more accurate information.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=ashatara78;325297]The next step should be to reply to the senator mentioning that the data is ambiguous and asking for a more clear response. Is it I-140 or I-485, does it include families etc. etc.
Also explain to them that based on these numbers, it will take X years for a person to get a GC and that the system needs reform.
I have worked with a senator's office for a completely different matter and they are very responsive - since you have caught their attention and already have a file open, it will be helpful to respond with a concise letter so that you can get more accurate information.[/QUOTE]
more...
raju123
02-13 05:59 PM
I support IV
Go IV and have solution for Retrogression
Go IV and have solution for Retrogression
hair The 90210 Girls Go Without
shana04
04-20 10:28 PM
I'm sure its a routine check as ur prev employer wudn't have notified USCIS that u have left them. Check with a popular attorney like Murthy or Khanna who may have come across such cases.
thank you
thank you
more...
gc_lover
07-18 01:47 PM
PD: Sept 2003/EB2
Reached USCIS: July 2nd 2007, 9:01 AM
Rejection: Unknown
Check Cashed: Don't know, company's check
Reached USCIS: July 2nd 2007, 9:01 AM
Rejection: Unknown
Check Cashed: Don't know, company's check
hot Caught without makeup
vasa
07-15 10:45 PM
Just Did...
more...
house Celebrities without Makeup
Leo07
01-18 03:54 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo See Your Girl Without Make Up
sc3
08-11 05:41 PM
IV tracker shows 3000+ EB3-I applicants, however, it is not a good tool to make analysis off of. The sorting function does not consider month-year combo. Anybody knows how to download the data to run your own post processing??
more...
pictures good without make up on.
sathyaraj
11-01 09:54 PM
I feel like it is playing into hands of anti-immigrants. I think we need to stay and fight rather than being desperate and leave home.
dresses stepped out without makeup
swamy
12-01 08:39 PM
Anyone wh0 has doubts on where big corporations stood on issues like VB fiasco need only look at this:
http://fdbl.com/resources/priorityfaqs.shtml
under Q11 pn chances of reversal, this is what they say "However, the probability of relief is remote and the form of relief is uncertain.
FRAGOMEN and the American Council on International Personnel (ACIP) will continue to work with the government at all levels for some kind of relief, but again the form of any potential relief is uncertain."
Why is the above important? Because it's a window into their mindset. Like any responsible corporate firm they wanted to sound a little empathetic but didn't want to give false hopes by saying a reversal was possible though they probably knew the outrage among potential filers who had been dealt a nasty blow below their belt. But VB disaster was one issue where there was not even the slightest doubt that what had happened was horribly wrong and cruel that even some cold-hearted anti-immigrants were confused for a day or two and didn't know what to say because they didn't want to pile on our heartache. The way CIS works had, like any bureacracy over time become a cold and heartless beast but since they deal mostly with non-citizens who have little rights and feel so unsecure and unwelcome in the first place to ever speak out, they were never going to know how their actions are wreaking havoc on their customers lives. So unless affected people come together and act they are never going to know how bad it sucks to be on this end of the divide. And ofcourse it's not all CIS - they are just an arm of the government carrying out the law. it's going to be next to impossible to do anything without congress stepping in. And while Fragomen is definitely not lying when they say they will work for some relief and probably are given that their partners often show up on congressional hearings, they won't lose sleep over it nor will their passion levels be anywhere near that of those who are directly at the receiving end of this current ugly messi.e iv and it's browsers. That's why it's critical that iv be heard - & not just through flower campaigns. ofcourse bringing together immigrants was always going to be like herding cats but it shouldn't be this hard. give money people!
http://fdbl.com/resources/priorityfaqs.shtml
under Q11 pn chances of reversal, this is what they say "However, the probability of relief is remote and the form of relief is uncertain.
FRAGOMEN and the American Council on International Personnel (ACIP) will continue to work with the government at all levels for some kind of relief, but again the form of any potential relief is uncertain."
Why is the above important? Because it's a window into their mindset. Like any responsible corporate firm they wanted to sound a little empathetic but didn't want to give false hopes by saying a reversal was possible though they probably knew the outrage among potential filers who had been dealt a nasty blow below their belt. But VB disaster was one issue where there was not even the slightest doubt that what had happened was horribly wrong and cruel that even some cold-hearted anti-immigrants were confused for a day or two and didn't know what to say because they didn't want to pile on our heartache. The way CIS works had, like any bureacracy over time become a cold and heartless beast but since they deal mostly with non-citizens who have little rights and feel so unsecure and unwelcome in the first place to ever speak out, they were never going to know how their actions are wreaking havoc on their customers lives. So unless affected people come together and act they are never going to know how bad it sucks to be on this end of the divide. And ofcourse it's not all CIS - they are just an arm of the government carrying out the law. it's going to be next to impossible to do anything without congress stepping in. And while Fragomen is definitely not lying when they say they will work for some relief and probably are given that their partners often show up on congressional hearings, they won't lose sleep over it nor will their passion levels be anywhere near that of those who are directly at the receiving end of this current ugly messi.e iv and it's browsers. That's why it's critical that iv be heard - & not just through flower campaigns. ofcourse bringing together immigrants was always going to be like herding cats but it shouldn't be this hard. give money people!
more...
makeup Twilight star Kristen Stewart
smisachu
08-01 05:34 PM
Hi smisachu,
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
girlfriend tattoo Without Makeup
dpp
11-06 04:13 PM
I don't think it is correct. There is no requirement in H1B to look for American first, if nobody found then sponsor for H1B. It is there in GC process for labor market check. H1B law is not having tougher provisions to not to misuse it. So, thats that reason, some are misusing. Its like Labor substitution. Previously, there is no law that says you shouldn't substitute labor, but now we have it. It is about changing H1B law to reduce fraud.
But as someone said, increasing H1B fees is not the way of controlling fraud. They should decrease the fees back to $360, just application fee, but correct the H1B law so that only people really need it will get the visas.
The intent of the H1B program is not to bring people in the country in "Anticipatory mode" as you put it. The intent of the H1B program had always been for US employers to hire foreign skilled workers "On-Demand" when no american is willing, qualified or able to do the said job. Prior to 1999, the visa cap was 65000/yr WITHOUT the extra master's degree cap we have now, and still visas were never totally used up for any year, certainly not on the first day. It is only after the advent of the IT consulting companies hoarding visas in "anticipation" of future jobs that the problems started. Without any restrictions on this kind of abuse, no amount of H1 visa increase would be sufficient. They are talking of raising visas to 130,000 right? Based on the FY 2008 applications, those visas would be used up in TWO DAYS!
IMHO, the intent of the H1B program is equally important than just loopholes (or not) in the letter of the law.
But as someone said, increasing H1B fees is not the way of controlling fraud. They should decrease the fees back to $360, just application fee, but correct the H1B law so that only people really need it will get the visas.
The intent of the H1B program is not to bring people in the country in "Anticipatory mode" as you put it. The intent of the H1B program had always been for US employers to hire foreign skilled workers "On-Demand" when no american is willing, qualified or able to do the said job. Prior to 1999, the visa cap was 65000/yr WITHOUT the extra master's degree cap we have now, and still visas were never totally used up for any year, certainly not on the first day. It is only after the advent of the IT consulting companies hoarding visas in "anticipation" of future jobs that the problems started. Without any restrictions on this kind of abuse, no amount of H1 visa increase would be sufficient. They are talking of raising visas to 130,000 right? Based on the FY 2008 applications, those visas would be used up in TWO DAYS!
IMHO, the intent of the H1B program is equally important than just loopholes (or not) in the letter of the law.
hairstyles girls without makeup.
willwin
06-13 09:17 AM
you are asking for EB2 guys in 2004,2005,2006,2007 to wait for EB-3 guys in 2001,2002,2003,2004. Point is well taken. Its a humane way of handling things.
Perhaps they should not make EB1 current, let them wait a year or two while 2004 EB2 and 2001 EB3 get their green cards.
Ask this question to yourself. If you were an EB2 person with 2004 priority with a spouse and kid, Would you be willing to wait few more years to get your green cards so that a 2001 EB-3 shall get his faster and may not care /appreciate your sacrifice?
Your position helps yourself and nobody else. I dont have any problems 2001 EB3s getting approved before 2004 EB2's. Thats the way it should be, but not at the expense of EB2's. Feeling of entitlement is not adequate justification. USCIS has established a way to convert to EB2 status, if you have sufficient experience. You can certainly try that option.
I just spoke my mind, dont care if i get red dots or not. Apperantly people here are way too sensitive to an opposite point of view.
Texanguy,
I am in EB3 (I) with a PD of 2005.
I agree that EB3 or for that matter any category should not benefit at the cost of another. But, when it comes to spill over, I personally feel that the numbers should be equally distributed among all retrogrossed countries and categories.
If there are 20,000 numbers that DOS thinks will not be used in the current FY; then let it distribute equally to all categories. Say if EB2 and EB3 (I) or China gets 5000 each, then obviosuly, because of a shorter queue EB2 dates would move forward beyond EB3 does. I think this is fair.
Whether a humane approach or a logic approach, it does not make sense for a EB3 (or any category) to wait for 7 years!!!
BTW, I turned you green. Be happy :-)
Perhaps they should not make EB1 current, let them wait a year or two while 2004 EB2 and 2001 EB3 get their green cards.
Ask this question to yourself. If you were an EB2 person with 2004 priority with a spouse and kid, Would you be willing to wait few more years to get your green cards so that a 2001 EB-3 shall get his faster and may not care /appreciate your sacrifice?
Your position helps yourself and nobody else. I dont have any problems 2001 EB3s getting approved before 2004 EB2's. Thats the way it should be, but not at the expense of EB2's. Feeling of entitlement is not adequate justification. USCIS has established a way to convert to EB2 status, if you have sufficient experience. You can certainly try that option.
I just spoke my mind, dont care if i get red dots or not. Apperantly people here are way too sensitive to an opposite point of view.
Texanguy,
I am in EB3 (I) with a PD of 2005.
I agree that EB3 or for that matter any category should not benefit at the cost of another. But, when it comes to spill over, I personally feel that the numbers should be equally distributed among all retrogrossed countries and categories.
If there are 20,000 numbers that DOS thinks will not be used in the current FY; then let it distribute equally to all categories. Say if EB2 and EB3 (I) or China gets 5000 each, then obviosuly, because of a shorter queue EB2 dates would move forward beyond EB3 does. I think this is fair.
Whether a humane approach or a logic approach, it does not make sense for a EB3 (or any category) to wait for 7 years!!!
BTW, I turned you green. Be happy :-)
Canadian_Dream
09-13 04:02 PM
I hope my previous post is not taken in any negative sense. I was only expressing my opinion. I believe in what IV is trying to accomplish and I have contributed to the cause. I was only implying my reservations to the fact that SKIL bill will be on some sort of fast track just because we are all waiting for 5 years. I was only saying requesting a small measure will go a long way to help us all, instead of looking for a big pay day from Skill Bill.
There is a talk of border security bill that could be vehicle for our cause, provided we ask for reasonable measures.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Congress_Border_Security.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060912-111217-9472r.htm
There is a talk of border security bill that could be vehicle for our cause, provided we ask for reasonable measures.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Congress_Border_Security.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060912-111217-9472r.htm
dpp
11-07 02:14 PM
There is nothing to enforce. If there is any, they would have enforced long back. It is too broad. But increasing fees won't make any sense. They have to correct the law, not imposing higher fees to everyone.
1.Audit the companies that are suspected to abuse the H1B program i.e. enforce the laws that are already in existence.
2.Impose heavy fines on these companies.
3.Use this money to cover the costs of auditing and enforcing the laws.
How will raising the H1B fees for everyone in a blanket fashion address the current "abuses"?
1.Audit the companies that are suspected to abuse the H1B program i.e. enforce the laws that are already in existence.
2.Impose heavy fines on these companies.
3.Use this money to cover the costs of auditing and enforcing the laws.
How will raising the H1B fees for everyone in a blanket fashion address the current "abuses"?
No comments:
Post a Comment