Talk:Securities Exchange Act of 1934

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

[edit] Untitled

According to a proxy statement dated Jan 25, 2010 from State Street Global Advisors, most or all SPDR funds will, if the proxy is approved by shareholders, be exempted from many or most of the provisions of this Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Even the shareholder right to vote on changes in managers would be removed by having a "manager of managers" appointed who could replace sub-advisers without shareholder consent. The shareholder meeting is set for March 19, 2010 at the "SSgA FM" (presumably State Street Global Advisors Fund Management) office in Boston, MA. SavantIdiot (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2/25/06: On the section dealing with NASD and NASDAQ, the reference goes: "the 34 Act requires the registration of 'virtually all' broker dealers, placing them under the direct oversight of the SEC and the oversight of the NASD." I thought, tho, that the 34 Act required the registration of 'all broker dealers,' or all people who in the language of the exchange act 'effect securities.' So while there is a narrow exception for a finder, they wouldn't, as a definitional matter, be a broker. So it's more appropriate to say that the 34 act requires the registration of all broker dealers, rather than 'virtually all.' Jahenderson 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, NASD (I believe) has direct oversight of B/Ds. So that sentence should read: "NASD has direct oversight of B/Ds, with the SEC retaining appellate jurisdiction" or some language like that. Comments?Jahenderson 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHO Form

I heard mention of a Regulation SHO form (apprx. 2 pages) some type of options forms which entitle those who have signed it to monies quarterly. I don't know anything more about it, but wondered if anyone could enlighten me on this. I believe it was part of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Thanks.

Kathy Kirlin kskmv3@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.69.201 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


FINRA is not the only SRO in operation. While it regulates 80% of aggregate trading, it is not the only SRO in the United States. The following is a list of SROs that operate/ have operated in the US. Note that of course NASD and the NYSE regulation arm are now defunct, but there are exchanges which dont fall under Finra http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.40.22 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we have someone add some history to the creation of the act. Who created it? FDR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export