The notes do trade according to whatever a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. The indicative and/or intrinsic value is the estimated value of the underlying note which originally started with a value of $25 and has been subsequently adjusted for price changes in the high yield index and the subtraction of UBS management and financing fees. The use of the indicative value is to aid in determining what you may want to buy or sell it for. Sort of like a CEF may not trade at it's net asset value; although I think notes do typically trade closer to their indicative value than CEFs trade to their NAV.
Incidentally, mgerner seems to be correct in that a buy order for 300 CEFL shares executed at 16:00:00 ET and that buy order was apparently a market order and lower priced sell orders had already been pulled.
I tried to post the link, but it is not showing up probably due to Yahoo's posting restrictions. So, just google "UBS CEFL" and the first thing that shows up should be "ETRACS ETN - ubs etracs", click on that and then the "Distributions" tab.
From IRS 2014 Publication 17 (i.e, trade dates determine holding period for stocks (& ETNs), rather than settlement dates:
"Do not confuse the trade date with the settlement date, which is the date by which the stock must be delivered and payment must be made.
You are a cash method, calendar year taxpayer. You sold stock on December 30, 2014. According to the rules of the stock exchange, the sale was closed by delivery of the stock and payment of the sale price in January 2015. Report your gain or loss on your 2014 return, even though you received the payment in 2015. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on whether you held the stock more than 1 year. Your holding period ended on December 30."
During the past year, the ex dividend dates have all been between the 8th and the 11th of the month. The UBS news releases announcing the dividends for the month have been on the 5th of the month (or very near to it).
I posted the following comment on one of the Yahoo news articles (really an attorney advertisement news release, I guess). Just wondering if I'm seeing things correctly or missing something.
"I don't see how any investor who sold CASY shares prior to the accounting/tax error announcement could claim damages due to the error, if anything it would seem that they would have benefited from the error.
For those who owned shares at the time of the announcement (like me) how can suing ourselves give us any relief because current (and future) shareholders are the ones who will pay any damages awarded (in part, to ourselves) plus litigation costs for both sides. The possibility of impending litigation will only serve to drive the share price down and result in more financial damage. At this point, it seems to me that it is the class action law firms eroding share price and causing investor financial damage, rather than the original CASY error.
I'd prefer to sue these ambulance chasing blood suckers. "