Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swiss Bank Threatens to Sue NASDAQ Over Facebook IPO

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-took-you-so-long dept.

Businesses 147

jfruh writes "On the day of the Facebook IPO, the NASDAQ's trading systems suffered multiple failures and couldn't confirm buy orders for several hours. Big banks buying shares for their funds and customers placed multiple orders as a result, and bought more Facebook stock than they intended to as a result. NASDAQ has agreed to set up a fund to compensate them for their losses, but apparently this isn't enough for Swiss bank UBS, which is threatening legal action."

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what if they did it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40849979)

on purpose ?

Re:what if they did it... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850035)

Well, judging by UBS's saber-rattling, we know who got left holding a big bag of Zuckerberg-fueled hype, now don't we?

Re:what if they did it... (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852183)

Let them trade the shares for credit default swaps.

Re:what if they did it... (-1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851941)

ROFL...

"Im going to sue you on botching my investment into a company that is making sooo much $$ ... no wait .. losing soo much $$$"

At least fuckin sue for a purpose idiots, looks like the NASDAQ did you favor.

Re:what if they did it... (4, Informative)

CodeReign (2426810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852199)

Read the fucking summary, they purchased multiples when the confirm was not received. Therefor they now have more dead IPO than they had wanted because a system failed to produce the appropriate response.

Re:what if they did it... (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852603)

Yeah, in that case NASDAQ cannot be held accountable for the money they lost. If suing which is the issue id see them going after the extra cost the shares incurred.

Having said that, I'm certain NASDAQ's systems has a defined set of terms of use for traders, i.e if the system screws up we (NASDAQ) are not liable sort of thing, just like a terms of service agreement with an ISP, the net goes down people cant really sue over it.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40849983)

Well that's what you get buying the stock of a shit company.

Re:LOL (4, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850023)

Basically it sounds like someone clicked the buy button like they were pushing an elevator button to make it arrive faster. That works, you know.

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850189)

So you're saying if you pushed the elevator button and got no response (no light, nothing) you wouldn't push it again? You would just stand there with your dick in your hand hoping that the press registered?

Re:LOL (5, Funny)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850267)

Probably wouldn't last too long. I am sure some people would start to question why your dick was out in the first place.

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850289)

If it was charged per press I would seriously consider some dick holding time.

Re:LOL (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850997)

So you're saying if you pushed the elevator button and got no response (no light, nothing) you wouldn't push it again? You would just stand there with your dick in your hand hoping that the press registered?

My dick was in my hand before I got on the elevator.

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851521)

So you're saying if you pushed the elevator button and got no response (no light, nothing) you wouldn't push it again? You would just stand there with your dick in your hand hoping that the press registered?

If I ran the risk of possibly buying a thousand shares of facebook stock every time I pressed the button, I'd start to give the 'dick in hand' strategy some serious consideration...

Re:LOL (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850297)

True, but it depends how the system works. If you're supposed to click to buy button until you see 'transaction accepted' and they double processed the buy button that's messy. If the system said 'request timed out try again' then NASDAQ is in real trouble.

Re:LOL (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850639)

No, I want $1000 dollars of FB. If that's 40 shares at the time I place the order and 20 shares at the time the order is processed 4 hours later because Nasdaq screws up, I get 40 shares and a bill for $2000. It's not about trying the order 10 times because it doesn't confirm, but that you buy shares, not $$$, so if the price changes in 4 hours on IPO day, you will get screwed. And price will *always* change on IPO day.

Re:LOL (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851109)

No yourself! Maybe that's also an issue, but it's not what TFA mentions.

To ensure that orders were filled they were entered multiple times before the necessary confirmations from Nasdaq were received and UBS' systems were able to process them, it said.

However, Nasdaq ultimately filled all of the orders, giving UBS far more shares than clients had ordered, according to UBS.

Re:LOL (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851641)

Except the price went down, not up, so in your scenario, investors either got more shares, or spent less money.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851741)

UBS' customers were hammering the "buy" button, UBS forwarded that along to NASDAQ, NASDAQ responded with "BRB," UBS' customers canceled all of the button mashing trades, NASDAQ delivered all of the trades, without regard to those that were canceled. UBS is right that they shouldn't be on the hook for the losses, since it was NASDAQ that caused the problem. Or at least they would have been right, if they hadn't signed a contract limiting NASDAQ's liability to a pittance. Regardless, clients were made whole, and the only ones who will be harmed by this should have known their protection from this type of loss was limited.

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852551)

No, I want $1000 dollars of FB. If that's 40 shares at the time I place the order and 20 shares at the time the order is processed 4 hours later because Nasdaq screws up, I get 40 shares and a bill for $2000.

Allow me to introduce you to the limit order [sec.gov] . You want to buy $1000 of FB and your screen/broker/google-finance says that it's $25/share? Send your limit order for 40 shares @ $25. If the price jumps up (regardless of the reason) you won't get filled and you'll have to try again later, but at least you're not stuck with a mystery bill for your purchase. If you sent a market order [sec.gov] for 40 shares... well... I hope it was a good learning experience.

Boo hoo! (2)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40849999)

Who submitted the orders, NASDAQ or the Swiss bank?

If the system is down, don't keep submitting orders. Or keep track of them yourself? Gee, you're a big bank, you can count!

The trading systems have disclaimers which cover this kind of eventuality (order execution times not being guaranteed).

Re:Boo hoo! (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850045)

You'd think they would have some kind of resolution plan for this that the exchange and participants both agreed to. It's not like any business, anywhere, doesn't have problems turn up.

If the compensation fund is exactly (or better than) what's in those terms, you'd think the bank would get told to "go screw".

Re:Boo hoo! (2)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850205)

frankly, I'm not sure why NASDAQ didn't bust clearly erroneous trades made on day 1. That would've made investment banks unhappy, but then nasdaq wouldn't be in such a big mess itself... Most out of whack trades from ``Frash Crash'' got busted, why not trades-during-trading-system-crapping-out periods?

Re:Boo hoo! (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850211)

I think the problem is that the compensation fund is no where near adequate to cover the scale of the problem.

The compensation fund is only in the 100 million dollar range. That sounds like a lot of money, but when you're talking about 5 or 6 billion dollars in trading,(or more) 100 million dollars doesn't go very far, especially if it's spread out over multiple parties, i.e. that's for more than just UBS.

In that situation UBS is (probably correctly) taking the position that NASDAQ as a trading entity isn't able to meet it's contractual obligations in repayment for messed up trades, because the fund isn't big enough, and UBS wants all of their money back. Which, if this was a much smaller event they probably would have been entitled to.

Whether or not there's some bigger insurance system here I have no idea. But it seems like the fund NASDAQ has is for as you say problems that turn up routinely. I'm just not sure it's adequate for the scale of the problem of hundreds of millions of dollars in duplicate transactions that can't just be 'reversed' easily, especially since NASDAQ can't take the shares back, sell them and then have enough for compensation.

Re:Boo hoo! (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850175)

Pretty much. Exclusion times are not guaranteed, and you can end up paying more, or less, or not getting anything at all. They can whine, and thrash about all they want but they're sure not going to get anywhere. To me it seems like they tried to make a big bet on the IPO being worth more, and it's now tanking hard(and will tank harder) and are trying to recoup losses by doing this instead. Yeah...not gonna work there guys.

Re:Boo hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850539)

Oh, it will work. They'll just get a nice bailout courtesy of the US taxpayers. That's how its done in business.

Re:Boo hoo! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850813)

Oh, it will work. They'll just get a nice bailout courtesy of the US taxpayers. That's how its done in business.

Awesome. Can I get some bailout money courtesy of the US taxpayers? I'm America's Hat after all.

Re:Boo hoo! (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850255)

If the system is down, don't keep submitting orders.

Exactly. Absence of a confirmation is not confirmation that there is no order.

In that case, the transactionally correct action would be to cancel the original order, and receive confirmation of the cancel, before attempting to place another order.

Of course... if Facebook stock had gone up instead, then they would complain that more orders were cancelled and not resubmitted than they intended.

Re:Boo hoo! (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850521)

If the system is down, don't keep submitting orders.

Exactly. Absence of a confirmation is not confirmation that there is no order.

In that case, the transactionally correct action would be to cancel the original order,
and receive confirmation of the cancel, before attempting to place another order.

That depends on what the protocol spec says. If NASDAQ acknowledged receiving the order but didn't confirm that the order was placed, it's entirely possible that the right thing to do was send the order again under the assumption that it didn't get filled.

Of course any system that doesn't use unique transaction ID's to prevent dupes is braindead, but I've been appalled at some of the brain dead protocols I've seen that are used to transfer large volumes of transactions amongst businesses (sometimes involving someone manually keying them in on both ends with no check digits or other verification.)

Of course... if Facebook stock had gone up instead, then they would complain that more orders were cancelled and not resubmitted than they intended.

That's why you better make sure your systems work correctly before you accept billions of dollars of orders since your liability can be measured in billions of dollars.

Re:Boo hoo! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40852147)

I work in the trading industry with experience tracking down order problems between client and exchange, and if you do not receive information on your original order status you had better contact the exchange to find out what happened. FIRING ADDITIONAL ORDERS INTO THE ETHER IS A STUPID DECISION AND YOU ARE 100% LIABLE FOR BEING AN IDIOT.

Pretty much all of the exchanges use a unique order ID function for tracking orders (both client-unique and exchange unique generated on either side and provided to the other). Once you submit the order a few different things need to happen for almost all exchanges.

You will receive an order confirmation (Ack message) which will typically contain all of the same information your order had in it along with the Exchange Order ID (you have your own client order ID attached to the trade which is echoed back to you too) or you will receive a Reject message if your order has something wrong with it (price is not valid for the security you are trading, order ID is a duplicate of one you sent already, order type is not allowed for your account, you are submitting a day order during an invalid session, trading is suspended on that security, etc).

Once your order is acknowledged IT IS LIVE ON THE MARKET. There isn't a valid order state where the exchange has accepted the order, but it won't match in the matching engine against suitable orders (bugs not withstanding, but are extremely rare). Some order types like IOC orders may not be acknowledged but must come back as a trade or a cancel message (IOC is "immediate or cancel", as-in match my order now or cancel it back to me).

If you submit an order and it does not either come back as acknowledged, filled, cancelled, or rejected then you DO NOT KNOW THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ORDER AND MUST CONTACT THE EXCHANGE FOR ASSISTANCE. At this time your order is considered live (to you at least) and may come back filled at any time! If you have not received an order acknowledgement or reject message you can TRY to cancel your pending order using your own client order ID on some exchanges (others mandate you cancel your order based on their exchange ID), but until you get a FULL cancel confirmation your order is considered LIVE on the market and may be filled at any time.

Let me repeat one more time: while your order is in any other state than fully canceled, filled, or rejected you MAY BE FILLED at any time!

Poster before you is correct, anyone who continues trading without knowing exactly the state of their order is a FOOL. You cannot assume anything about the state of your order if you are missing information from the exchange.

Re:Boo hoo! (5, Informative)

nri (149893) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852547)

"If NASDAQ acknowledged receiving the order but didn't confirm that the order was placed, it's entirely possible that the right thing to do was send the order again under the assumption that it didn't get filled."

Exactly, you resend with a poss resend flag on the fix message

http://fixprotocol.org/FIXimate3.0/en/FIX.4.2/tag97.html [fixprotocol.org]

my guess is an algo went out of control at the swiss bank.

(disclaimer, I work with FIX messaging as a day job and I used to worked for a company that is now part of OMX-NASDAQ)

Re:Boo hoo! (2)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852511)

That depends on what the protocol spec says. If NASDAQ acknowledged receiving the order but didn't confirm that the order was placed, it's entirely possible that the right thing to do was send the order again under the assumption that it didn't get filled.

The OUCH specification [nasdaqtrader.com] says, "All Inbound Messages may be repeated benignly." If UBS sent multiple (identical) orders with the same Order Token, then they would (should?) have been fine due to filtering of duplicates. However, perhaps their client software didn't actually re-send identical messages (due to the rarity of this type of system outage, and laziness) but may have generated unique Order Tokens. Whoops, that's multiple orders, sent in a panic without thinking about the associated obligation.

Re:Boo hoo! (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850661)

Exactly. Absence of a confirmation is not confirmation that there is no order.

Why not? If I send a TCP packet over the wire and don't get an ACK, within the window, then the protocol is to retransmit. If you don't get an ACK, you assume the packet was lost.

In that case, the transactionally correct action would be to cancel the original order, and receive confirmation of the cancel, before attempting to place another order.

So... what happens if Nasdaq has received the order, sent the confirmation back and then filled the order?

Meahwhile, although nasdaq sent the confirmation, an error of some sort prevents it from being received. That looks the same to the sender as not having received it. So now you argue the swiss bank's proper course of action is to cancel the order it actually wanted to make and which has already been filled.

I'm not sure that's even possible, never mind correct.

Re:Boo hoo! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851059)

The correct measure is to use a unique ID as suggested above. In the case of TCP, the sequence number in the header counts for that.

Re:Boo hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40852201)

This is a matching engine problem, not a TCP problem. Your TCP session with the exchange may be fully up and working without packet loss but your orders are in an invalid or "limbo" state within the matching engine. In this case the TCP stream will offer you 0 useful information about the state of your order. See my post a few above about valid order states.

In this situation you must get the exchange to confirm your order is fully accepted or cancelled in the matching engine in order to know for sure what is going on.

Additionally, if you get a cancel confirmation of the entire quantity on your order ID, but then get filled (or partially filled) you can have the exchange invalidate or "bust" that trade. It is not your liability in that situation.

Re:Boo hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850685)

"I only hit print once, I dont know why there are so many copies"

coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850015)

I headed to the bank today to deposit my check and grab some lunch, the usual Wednesday ritual. The drive through ATM was closed so I went inside and the line was out the door, I walked back outside to the walk up ATM and in front of me was a skinny mammy in a muu muu, she must have been a crack head because she was under 200 lbs. She kept leaning WAY forward to punch the numbers and I was wondering what was going on. This is where it gets disturbing. These was some evil ju ju shit, she had toddler arms. Thats right, grown 200 lb body and tiny shrunken toddler arms with deformed fingers fused together into a hideous mockery of hands. While she punched it in she would grunt and after she was done she stood back and waited for her Gov't money she flailed her nubs around. I was so shocked, her mammy must have smoked something while she was pregnant, this is like a two headed snake or the deformed frog. I stopped a good 5 feet from her to just watch like a car wreck it was too hideous to look away. Now we have zombie niggers on bath salts, deformed niggers, and nodding niggers. Maybe natural selection is starting to rear its head? I waited for her to walk away and used my pocket purell to wipe down the machine, when she saw me she chimped out "you tink this b contagious?" Now I can never shut up, so I said, " I sure as hell hope not, I just threw up in my mouth." And then I started laughing so hard I had tears running down my eyes because she started flailing her toddler arms and in a last act of defiance she used to mutated fingers to flip me off.

Now to everyone out there this is a disclaimer, I do not mock disabled humans, we all know niggers arent human so before I get pitch forked I would never treat a HUMAN this disrespectfully.

ROFL @ captcha.. Complain!!! hahahahahaha fucking niggers

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850041)

Flippers for banana peelers, huh? Mammy did something to fuck that ape up before it was shit out, dat's fo' sho'!

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850055)

Scary and hilarious post. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that but I'm glad you posted it because I enjoyed reading it!

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850057)

You didn't get any sail foam pics to submit for mockery? That might have been a bit provocative, given the unintentional chimpout about sanitizer. I can just picture it - a massive nigger penguin-type thing waving its flippers at you while squawking about some stupid crap. Too bad you didn't have any sardines to throw at it.

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850101)

I will refrain from going anywhere without my cell phone, here in a large metropolitan area I have many, many coontacts. Some disturbing like this one, some hilarious, some both. I left my phone in my car while I ran to the ATM, I erroneously thought that it would just be 5 seconds to deposit my check, when I saw there was a nigger in front of me I should have known that there would be a wrench in the cogs.

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850069)

How old was this woman? If she was over 50 she may have been a Thalidomide baby.

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850079)

Thalidomide FLIPPER NIGGER

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850105)

She was in her early 20's, late 30's, so I am sure it was drug induced birth defects. It was pretty well preserved or a sheboon, maybe cause it couldn't smoke crack with its flappers. I had to google what a "Thalidomide baby" was

I am hoping to run into it again to get pics, it would be good for a shit ton of laughs!

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850141)

I wouldn't be surprised if all dat fried chickun done gibs her diebeetus arredy. We know how niggers are: don't put it past that filthy beast that she wanted diabetes so she could have her fingers amputated, allowing her to get SS disability on top of EBT.

Just because niggers get diabetes doesn't mean they're anything close to humans. Any animal with pancreas, including dogs and cats, can get diabetes.

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850153)

ALL NIGGERs are deformed, in some way, and it could be mother nature gently putting her hand to slowly ridding the earth of these black mutants. Dont feel sorry for her that her hands do not work , thats not the part of her body that her man is interested in.So long as she can do a booty call she will live a while!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850167)

That's disgusting on so many different levels. Then again, a nigger will muh dik ANYTHING, so why not a circus seal?

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850181)

Poor nigger has stunted vine grabblers.
Wonder how she lights her crack pipe?

Re:coontact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850125)

daddy probably fucked a.. well who knows, let's just go with a catfish...

Dear Swisstards (0, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850073)

Please stop harboring tax evaders and money launderers. You're supporting fraud, poverty, drug abuse, gun crimes, gang violence, etc. etc.

You clicked "BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY" during your greedgasm and Facebook flopped.

F
U
C
K

O
F
F

Re:Dear Swisstards (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850253)

As a swiss i'm a bit offended by this post. You're right about it beeing UBS' fault.
But the rest is PURE BS.

We have some privacy laws. Like forbiding any government (including ours!) to snoop around our finances. That's it. There will always people who abuse this. But if you want to live in a police state with no privacy fine. I'm a regular citizen, pay my taxes and i still think it's a good thing the gov can't snoop around my bank accounts.

Re:Dear Swisstards (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850487)

Cry more. Swiss banks knowingly and willingly aid and profit from serious crimes.

Re:Dear Swisstards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850877)

Completely missing the point. Then it's swiss banks who should be investigated, to which i kinda tend to agree. This has absolutely nothing to do with the privacy laws.
Insulting all swiss people also isn't really helpfull here.
Troll harder.

Re:Dear Swisstards (1)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851309)

To be fair, he said "Please stop harboring tax evaders and money launderers." You (assuming same AC both posts) assumed he was talking to the Swiss Govt. He could just as easily be addressing banks as the Swiss government or people.

FWIW I agree with your principle. Privacy is good. Laws protecting your privacy are good. People can do bad and good things with their privacy. Doing bad things, privacy or not, is bad.

Stupid Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851737)

You see this is why Americans seem to think they are better than anyone else. They get pissed on by everyone for just about any flaw the rest of the world can drag up and all they have to say about is "I don't give a fuck" or some other inane response.

As soon as somebody else's country has a taste of the criticism pie, they whine and complain and say it isn't fair.

Re:Dear Swisstards (2)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851423)

so get your country to make it illegal to trade with swiss banks????

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851775)

They aren't committing Swiss crimes.

Oh, that's right. We get to tell other nations how to act. Might makes right and all.

Re:Dear Swisstards (0, Offtopic)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850589)

Your privacy laws also helped the Nazi party hide money they stole from the Jews, if I recall.

So yeah, 6 of one, half of another I guess.

Re:Dear Swisstards (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851019)

Privacy laws are for everyone, good or bad - but we cant let the bad ones cause us to accept a police state

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851267)

And the USA got itself lots of Nazi scientists after WW2. What can you say about that?

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851395)

The Tor Network can be used by a political dissident to evade an oppressive government's censorship or to trade child porn. Should we ban it?

Re:Dear Swisstards (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851465)

They were also used by Jews to hide money from the Nazis.

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851871)

bad people do bad things. That is not a good reason to remove protections from people just because it is possible they will abuse that freedom.

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851789)

"But if you want to live in a police state with no privacy fine. I'm a regular citizen, pay my taxes and i still think it's a good thing the gov can't snoop around my bank accounts."

He and I do live in a police state with no privacy. We are jealous of your privacy and our government fears it and is willing to violate any sovereignty or property rights to invade it. As you have seen in Switzerland.

Neither do ozur governement "snoop" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40852017)

But when you are obviously moving money out of one country, and into anotehr and it is quite an obvious tax evasion, and the swiss bank and governement put a steel wall for you to iovnestigate FULLY knowing what wqas done was illegal, then you gotta understand why some people say "fuck off" tos wiss banks.

Re:Dear Swisstards (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852167)

You'd have thought that those living in the land of the free would object more to government intrusion upon civil liberties.

I'm not Swiss, but to OP : you're a fucking idiot. You do not know what you are saying, literally. If you want Swiss banks to stop trading in the US, I'm sure they can.

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850507)

As a non-swiss I'd like to ask more people to avoid/evade taxes so you fuckers stop invading everyone.

Thanks
The rest of the world.

Re:Dear Swisstards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850623)

Dear Ameritard

Please stop marching into countries and shooting civilians

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850645)

- this post brought to you by the resident IRS employee

Re:Dear Swisstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850675)

This being the opinion of a person who has stated that if you own a laptop then you're a tool.

Go away please.

legal action because it is falling? (5, Interesting)

HaaPoo (696098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850157)

if the price was going up, would they be returning the stock for a refund?

Re:legal action because it is falling? (4, Funny)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850637)

If your phone company undercharged you one month would you complain? What if they overcharged you several thousand dollars?

Amazing that you would invest different amount of efforts into resolving those situations. Amazing I say!

Don't hit refresh! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850193)

Did they ignore the bit where it says don't hit refresh in your browser?

I thought this was already happening (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850195)

But then, when you buy stock in a company with no real product and it tanks to about 50% it's IPO value, you can only blame yourself and your silly Bay of Pigs attitude towards business.

Re:I thought this was already happening (1)

macromorgan (2020426) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851671)

But then, when you buy stock in a company with no real product and it tanks to about 50% it's IPO value, you can only blame yourself and your silly Bay of Pigs attitude towards business.

Facebook has a product. It's you.

Re:I thought this was already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851995)

Y'all seriously overvalued me.

Re:I thought this was already happening (2)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851961)

It doesn't really make sense to entirely blame traders here .. what about all the traders that tried to sell early to minimize their losses when they realized early into the IPO that it had been overvalued, put sell orders through at price $X, had their orders mysterious "fail", then get blocked from selling for hours while all they could do was watch the price (and thus their savings) keep falling? If that was (say) your own mother who could just watch some of her savings evaporate (and your inheritance) purely and only because of so-called "technical errors" that favored some traders while ripping off other traders, preventing her from selling early, and forcing her to be left holding dud shares priced much lower? Zuckerberg himself, on the other hand, had no such apparent problem cashing in over a billion worth of his shares really early. Face it, Zuckerberg pulled a fast one here, ripping off mom-and-pop investors to the tune of billions.

And at least the institutional investors, like UBS, at least have a team of lawyers where they can get some form of "justice". Mom-and-pop investors don't.

And this is by far not the only problem with the IPO that makes it all look rather like a whole pattern of dodginess - there have been multiple dodgy things from start ... e.g.: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hagens-berman-files-securities-class-action-against-facebook-zuckerberg-and-underwriters-continues-insider-trading-investigation-against-selling-shareholders-2012-05-25

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, an investor-rights law firm, today announced that it has filed a securities class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. FB -3.82% , officers, directors and underwriters of the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of investors relating to allegations of whisper estimates withheld from all but a few select investors.

Also, it wasn't just delayed orders. Prices were also mysteriously delayed. This means that people were placing buy and sell orders based on incorrect prices for some people.

http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/07/facebook-ipo-fiasco-to-cost-nasdaq-40-million/ [moneymorning.com]
But there were problems from the first trades went off around 11:30 a.m. EDT. Executions were late, allotments askew, and prices delayed. Investors who did manage to get shares were disappointed when Facebook stock barely finished above the IPO price on its first day of trading, closing at $38.27 ... "The retail investor, the true victim, gets lost in the shuffle,"

(Note, in shares, the word "orders" can mean either "buy orders" or "sell orders" - I think some of the confusion on this thread stems from people thinking "order" always means "buy".)

Re:I thought this was already happening (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851975)

To be absolutely clear, I am not saying investors aren't at fault merely for making a 'bad investment'. (It was reasonably obvious in advance to anyone with a few brain cells that Facebook was a bubble stock.) However, we aren't talking about losses from just making a bad investment - we are talking about multiple different forms of either outright criminal trading fraud, and/or what is being called "technical problems" that resulted in "effectively negligently fraudulent" trading platform (that e.g. gave wrong prices, didn't allow people to sell who wanted to sell, etc.). So retail investors should maybe have lost some small amount of money from making a bad investment - but, they lost much more, due to fraud and a broken trading platform.

Re:I thought this was already happening (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852627)

If that was (say) your own mother who could just watch some of her savings evaporate (and your inheritance) purely and only because of so-called "technical errors"

I don't mean to defend NASDAQ at all (and IANA Financial Advisor), but my personal opinion is that (1) mom and pop should be treating IPO day like a day at the casino, not a rational investment; and (2) mom and pop shouldn't expect to open and close a position in a single day. They aren't day traders or scalpers, and they are sure to get burned by "overtrading" an IPO.

what if it wen up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850277)

They for sure wouldn't be returning profits to NASDAQ if FaceBook price went up rather than down.

What I don't understand is... (3, Interesting)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850305)

Why did anyone think this was going to be a good stock?
I assume none of the share buyers or anyone that was involved ever had or seen a FB account.

Re:What I don't understand is... (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850781)

It's a good stock, because everyone uses facebook and think's it's a good stock.

Buy in early, sell to the suckers.

Re:What I don't understand is... (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851725)

It's a good stock, because everyone uses facebook and think's it's a good stock.

Buy in early, sell to the suckers.

I know Barnum disagrees, what if there aren't enough suckers for liquidity =)

-AI

exactly the opposite (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851057)

I assume none of the share buyers or anyone that was involved ever had or seen a FB account.

I would wager it was exactly the opposite. Likely the vast majority of the buyers had accounts and thought "hey, if everyone is using this, then it must be on the road to insane profitability!". The problem is none of these people realized that there was no business plan behind it - at least, none beyond selling members' personal information.

On top of that, a lot of people thought it would be the next Google. What they would have realized if they were paying attention before spending money is that in reality it is the next AOL.

Re:exactly the opposite (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852091)

Ah, explains the new "You have FaceMail..." So now we'll have AOLusers and folks who got FACED... add them to the YAHOOs and there you are, the shallow end of the technological gene pool.

Re:What I don't understand is... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851315)

Simple, you assume there will more suckers down the lane. It might even have a simple buy and sell in the next minute trade (which works works moderately well on the day of the IPO, depending on the hype and the pulse)

Re:What I don't understand is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851457)

Everyone who did any analysis said it was wildly overvalued before the IPO.

It was hyped by the various low content talking heads. The only thing that supported the IPO's valuation was that it was being traded privately at obscene values. In hindsight that was just rich idiots trading white elephants amongst themselves.

Re:What I don't understand is... (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851985)

That's not what any of this is really ultimately about, e.g. cf comment above http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3020415&cid=40851961

You would understand more clearly if you RTA (and some of the other articles about the various other lawsuits being filed).

UBS is nothing but a bunch of whiners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850307)

UBS is nothing but a bunch of whiners. They should hire Phil Gramm. Oh wait, they did.

Market Glitches (4, Interesting)

DukeWeber (1806878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850309)

These are getting to be fairly frequent events. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidleinweber/2012/08/01/another-tech-glitch-roils-markets-how-simulation-could-help/ [forbes.com] for comments on the problems this morning, and how traders might be able to build their own early warning systems

Re:Market Glitches (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851685)

What I find disconcerting is not so much that peoples' systems break from time to time, that's to be expected; but that a single party's breakage can occasionally trigger such notable oscillations. That suggests that either the market is loaded with actors programmatically chasing one another off cliffs like lemmings on amphetamines(which actually don't do that; but they've somehow become symbolic of it), or that there is sufficiently substantial consolidation, relative to trading volume, that there are actors involved with enough money to single-handedly perturb substantial chunks of market by mistake...

In a situation without hair-trigger herd behavior, and with a large number of (comparatively) small actors, individual system errors simply wouldn't have the magnitude needed to cause more than a ripple(and possibly bankruptcy for whoever made them; but so it goes).

Dodged that bullet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40850347)

What the F are they complaining about... "Hey! We weren't able to buy your stupid stock and we didn't lose 44% of our money! We're going to sue!"

Re:Dodged that bullet... (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850407)

It was the other way around. They waned to buy X shares, but the system didn't let them. So they tried again and again. Then, when system came back up, ALL of those orders went through. So they are stuck with way more stocks that lost 44% then they were planning on.

A risk mitigation scheme? (1)

yourpal (2698683) | more than 2 years ago | (#40850673)

Was the lack of transparency on orders a result of a risk mitigation scheme in case there weren't enough retail investors to get suckered in? Now the banks can back out at taxpayer expense.

So when.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851433)

When can we start executing bankers?

Is it time yet?
No? Gonna let them fuck some more people over... Okay..

Well the idea is still here. its a good one too. i guarantee any banker we apply it to wont rip another cent off from anyone.
We're gonna have to do it sooner or later too. They bought the regulators so they're free and clear unless someone grows some common sense.

Re:So when.... (1)

Kernel Krumpit (1912708) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852149)

I think Iran just sentenced 5 or 6 corrupt Bankers to hang. I'm kinda wishing that were done here if you know what I mean.

Of Mark Zuckerberg and FB Ponzi Scheme (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40851623)

The Jig is up FB script kiddies!

UBS is not going to let this slide.

Already calls for Zucky Zucky to Stepy Stepy aside as CEO.

Not to worry. He can still sponge-off of Daddy-Dearist and Mommy-Dearist and even have a Night-Time job at Dominos, if he uses a different name on the application form.

Haaaaaa

Hardie Har Har

Snicker Snicker

Koph Koph

Just putting in some 'puts' to the search bots and trolls at /.

Cheers

USB has it's own legal problems (5, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40851661)

USB has legal problems that are far more serious them NASDAQ's inability to make timely trades. I can't help but wonder if this suit is partly an attempt to distract people from how much trouble USB is facing.

USB, along with Barkley's and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) are all under investigation for rigging LIBOR. This is potentially the largest currency fraud in the history of the world. Literally 100 of TRILLIONS of US dollars may have been influenced by rigging interest rates.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-28/news/32906786_1_libor-global-benchmark-interest-rates-credit-card-rates [indiatimes.com]

Soon, the trading had crossed to the euro rate markets, according to the settlement documents filed in the Barclays investigation. And by 2007, traders at RBS and UBS were seeking to influence the yen rate market, according to documents filed in 2011 in Singapore's High Court and in Canada's Ontario Superior Court.

Traders at Barclays are believed to have participated in manipulating the rate for the dollar and the rate for the euro known as Euribor, according to documents filed in the Barclays settlement last month.

RBS and UBS traders are a focus of the global investigation because of their alleged involvement in seeking to influence yen-denominated rates.

Two RBS traders in London, Brent Davies and Will Hall, are alleged to have agreed to help a trader at UBS, Thomas Hayes, to manipulate yen Libor, according to court documents filed by the Canadian Competition Bureau.

So USB getting press about how unfair NASDAQ is acting could be an attempt at a smokescreen while they deal with their own problems. It's been reported that these banks are willing to do almost anything to settle with regulators because they are terrified of the potential liability if any more information comes out. Bankruptcy is not out of the question, and neither is jail time.

One can only hope that this time these evil bastards finally get some small measure of what they deserve.

Re:USB has it's own legal problems (2)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852003)

Your Tech meter exploded: You typed USB every time instead of UBS. Notably excepted from what you copied from that article and quoted.

Re:USB has it's own legal problems (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852009)

Didn't know 'USB' was having so much trouble, but what are the alternatives really? Firewire doesn't seem to be taking off and USB3 will obviate any speed complaints etc.

Re:USB has it's own legal problems (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40852219)

Douglas Adams had it all right. Put the Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians, Insurance Executives, CEOs, etc... but not the phone sanitizers... in a space ship, launch it to a habitable but uninhabited planet, and get them all as far from the rest of the human race as is conceivably possible. Oh, and if the planet is uninhabitable, eh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>