[peejaybee]

If I understand correctly, these are planned orders that are un-planned days if not hours before they go out to the exchange, not orders that are sent to the exchange but cancelled before they can be filled. The latter is what the market makers are doing.

So it is more effectively the same as deciding not to do what you have been doing every month. It would be impossible to enforce a prohibition against that, as that would effectively be a requirement to sell.

[dpark]

> It would be impossible to enforce a prohibition against that, as that would effectively be a requirement to sell.

So? That hardly seems impossible to enforce. You just don't allow cancellations unless they are also planned. If you're allowed to schedule recurring sells, say, 30 days in advance (I don't know what the specific rules are), you should only be able to cancel them with 30 days advance notice.

The whole point of the planned trade exemption is to allow trades to happen independent of insider knowledge. If you allow cancellations, you're allowing insider knowledge to impact the trading.

[aianus]

> It would be impossible to enforce a prohibition against that, as that would effectively be a requirement to sell.

Why would that be impossible to enforce? If you register a planned trade with the SEC you have to follow through with it or pay a fine equal to the amount of money you saved by not going through with it.

[RyJones]

that puts SEC employees in the catbird's seat - selling access to those pending trades would pay for a lot of trips to Milan