Opra real time data

The latest appliance is purpose-built to reliably handle rising market data volumes and volatility, including the upcoming OPRA feed upgradeSt. Louis, MO— August 23rd, 2023 – Exegy, a leading provider of end-to-end, front-office trading solutions for capital markets, is announcing its next generation ticker plant, purpose-built for processing options market data. This cutting-edge platform can process the OPRA feed on a single 2U server and provides an immediate 2x latency reduction compared to the previous generation.This 6th generation ticker plant is the foundation for future latency improvements and feature updates, continuing its 15+ year history as the ideal, managed market data solution for the industry’s top brokers, trading venues, and global hedge funds.With ever-increasing options trading volumes and the new OPRA feed going live on October 9th, the ability to reliably process growing quantities of market data with consistent, low latency is critically important for the trading community. Exegy’s unique, FPGA-based, managed appliance has scalability that cannot be matched by fully software-based solutions.David Taylor, CEO of Exegy, says: “The sustained volatility in capital markets continues to drive market data volumes to new historic peaks, especially in the US equity options markets. The OPRA consolidated tape doubling its data streams and new options markets coming online imminently further increases the pressure on existing market data infrastructures.”By the end of 2022, US stock options surpassed 10 billion contracts, with single-stock and index options volumes more than doubling since 2019. Now, OPRA’s guidance states that participants should prepare for capacity of 120+ million messages per second following the expansion.Arnaud Derasse, CPO at Exegy, adds: “Trading institutions need to boost capacity regularly with scalable and resilient infrastructure to keep pace with data volumes. This is particularly true for US options trading today. Exegy’s latest generation ticker plant offers the most compact and efficient solution,

Ticker-mobile-nav#onScroll" data-controller="ticker-mobile-nav">Ratings - OPRADividend Safety?Years of consecutive dividend increase.Returns Potential?Price target upside according to sell-side analysts.Quant Recommendation - OPRARatings analysis incomplete due to data availability. Recommendations not provided.OPRA Payout History (Paid, Declared and Estimated)YearCalendar Year Payout (USD)Calendar Year Payout Growth (USD)Pay DateDeclared DateEx-dividend DatePayout Amount (USD)Qualified Dividend?Payout TypeFrequencyDays Taken For Stock Price To RecoverYield on Cost2025e--2025-01-132024-12-122025-01-06$0.4000Non-QualifiedRegularSemi Annually-2.07%2024$0.81001.250%2024-07-152024-06-112024-07-02$0.4100Non-QualifiedRegularSemi Annually-3.22%2024-01-092023-12-122024-01-02$0.4000Non-QualifiedRegularSemi Annually-3.15%2023$0.8000-2023-07-122023-06-142023-06-29$0.4000Non-QualifiedRegularSemi Annually-2.06%2023-02-092023-01-122023-01-27$0.8000Non-QualifiedUnknown--11.90%OPRA Dividend Growth CAGRYearAmount (USD)1Y (USD)3Y (USD)5Y (USD)10Y (USD)20Y (USD)2024$0.811.25%N/AN/AN/AN/A2025$0.40N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A2026N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ADividend capture strategy is based on OPRA’s historical data. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.Step 1: Buy OPRA shares 1 day before the ex-dividend datePurchase Date (Estimate)N/AUpcoming Ex-Dividend DateN/AStep 2: SEll OPRA shares when price recoversAvg Price Recovery25.5 DaysSee Full HistoryNews & ResearchNewsSorry, there are no articles available for this stock.ResearchSorry, there are no articles available for this stock.Company ProfileCompany OverviewNo company description available.© 2020 Market data provided is at least 15-minutes delayed and hosted by Barchart Solutions.Information is provided ‘as is’ and solely for informational purposes, not for trading purposes or advice, and is delayed. To see all exchange delays and terms of use, please see disclaimer

This survey. The consolidation arms of these trials demonstrated significantly higher rates of pCR (AIO-12) or cCR (OPRA) when compared to induction chemotherapy. In addition, 53% of patients in the consolidation arm of the OPRA trial avoided surgery at 3-year follow-up making this regimen attractive for those aiming for non-operative management (NOM), an approach that can improve quality of life by reducing low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). However, it must be noted that neither of these phase 2 trials significantly improved DFS or OS, and most centres do not recommend NOM unless as part of a clinical trial. Notably, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2023 conference, the 5-year OPRA update showed persistent differences in organ preservation using the consolidation approach (54% vs 39% with induction TNT) and lower rates of local regrowth (29% vs 44% with induction TNT). Furthermore, there was no oncologic detriment in either arm when integrating a watch-and-wait approach with salvage surgery for regrowth [18].More than 60% of colorectal surgeons in this survey preferred a consolidation TNT approach, despite historical concerns about the potential risk of pelvic fibrosis as the time interval between radiation and surgery is extended. The French GRECCAR-6 trial showed greater surgical complications and morbidity when waiting for 11 weeks, as opposed to 7, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, which may partly explain the preference for the induction PRODIGE regimen in France. However, several trials have not demonstrated increased surgical difficulty or compromised R0 resection rates with a consolidation TNT approach [19,20,21].Specialists in this survey demonstrated a low preference for the PRODIGE regimen, especially for advanced-risk disease for which it was chosen by less than 10%, surprising considering the robust data supporting this approach. PRODIGE-23, a phase 3, randomized controlled trial of induction FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by LCCRT, demonstrated superior pCR rates (28% vs 12%, p p = 0·034) and metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio 0·64, p = 0·017) compared to LCCRT alone. Furthermore, since conducting our survey, additional follow-up data presented at ASCO 2023 demonstrated a significant increase in 5-year overall survival (6.9%), the only TNT trial to do so [22].In the setting

=G$141J146 & J147 = the number of days to the proposed expiration date:J146 & J147: =IF(NOW()>=I146+”15:00:00″,”Expired”,DATEDIF(TODAY(),I146,”d”))D145 = one Standard Deviation below the current value of the underlying asset. My Short-Strike must be this value or less.D145 =L145-(L145*T147*SQRT(J146/365)) (assuming a put spread). (see post “Entry Rules for a Vertical Bull Put Credit Spread” for details on how to calculate SD.)D149 = Strike’s delta difference as shown on the Option Chain (the difference from one Strike to the next). For DIA there is a 5-point difference between Strikes.D149: 5D146 = the suggested Short Strike based upon my Entry Rules for a Vertical Bull Put Credit Spread. This is a calculated value using the “FLOOR” function of Excel:D146: =FLOOR(D145,D149)+E148D147 = the suggested Long Strike.D147: =D146+D142Create OPRA Code NameE146 = the OPRA code for the calculated Short Strike Put Option:E146: =IF(D146=””,””,”.”&E145&TEXT(I146,”YYMMDD”)&LEFT(B146,1)&D146)E147 = the OPRA code for the calculated Long Strike Put OptionE147: =IF(D147=””,””,”.”&E145&TEXT(I147,”YYMMDD”)&LEFT(B147,1)&D147)I can now use these OPRA IDs with ToS to pull options-specific data for the rest of my subsections. Performance Data For My Prospective SpreadThis subsection will show how to:Calculate the Mark Premium Price for the Vertical Spread.Display the Probability the Short Strike will expire Out-of-The-Money (OTM).Display the Probability the asset value will “touch” the Short Strike.Display the percentage the underlying asset have to fall before going ITM with the Short StrikeDisplay the Implied Volatility (IV) of the underlying asset.Retrieve the Current Asset PriceL145 = The current price of the Spreads’ underlying assetL145: =IF(E145=””,””,RTD(“tos.rtd”,,”LAST”,E145))Get the Spread’s Premium price:M146 = the Bid price of the Short-Strike leg. This will be a positive value =IF($E146=””,””,RTD(“tos.rtd”,,”BID”,$E146)*IF(C146>0,-1,1))M147 = the Bid price of the Long-Strike leg. This will be a negative value.M147: =IF($E147=””,””,RTD(“tos.rtd”,,”BID”,$E147)*IF(C147>0,-1,1))O146 = the Ask price of the Short-Strike leg. This will be a positive valueO146: =IF($E146=””,””,RTD(“tos.rtd”,,”ASK”,$E146)*IF(C146>0,-1,1))O147 = the Ask price of the Long-Strike leg. This

ADVANCED (UGLY) risk category rectal cancer (cT3 with any MRF involved, any cT4a/b, lateral node +). a. Upfront surgery b. Short course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by surgery c. Long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by surgery d. Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT) If choosing a TNT approach, which protocol would you prefer in this case? a. PRODIGE 23 (FOLFIRINOX – LCCRT – Surgery – FOLFOX) b. RAPIDO or STELLAR (SCRT – FOLFOX or CAPOX – Surgery) c. Induction OPRA or CAO/ARO/AIO-12 (FOLFOX – LCCRT – Surgery) d. Consolidation OPRA or CAO/ARO/AIO-12 (LCCRT – FOLFOX – Surgery) ResultsOne hundred and seventy delegates attended the AICCC including 17 colorectal surgeons (CRS), 7 radiation oncologists (RO) and 21 medical oncologists (MO). Forty-five participants answered at least one question in the survey. Thirteen were excluded from subsequent analysis as they did not specify their specialty. The response rate was therefore 71%. Data was 95% complete for this group.Early riskSeventy-seven percent (24/31) of all specialists preferred an upfront surgery approach whilst neoadjuvant LCCRT and SCRT were preferred by 10% each (Fig. 3A). CRS and RO almost unanimously chose upfront surgery whereas MO were split between upfront surgery (50%) and a form of neoadjuvant radiation (40%) (p = 0.41) (Fig. 3B). Just one participant selected TNT for early-risk rectal cancer.Fig. 3Preferred treatment approaches to ESMO rectal cancer risk categories, A all participants, B–E by specialistFull size imageIntermediate riskThe greatest heterogeneity of responses was observed in this category. Just over half of respondents (16/30) indicated a preference for TNT whilst a third chose LCCRT as the preferred neoadjuvant strategy. Seven percent of specialists opted for SCRT with another 7% preferring upfront surgery. TNT was selected most prominently by MO (71%) whilst LCCRT was most popular amongst RO (57%) and CRS (44%) (p = 0.30) (Fig. 3C).If utilizing a TNT approach, 55% (17/31) selected a consolidation-type (OPRA or CAO/ARO/AIO-12) regimen, 23% a RAPIDO or STELLAR regimen, 16% PRODIGE-23 and 6% an induction-type (OPRA or CAO/ARO/AIO-12) regimen (Fig. 4A). The majority of CRS and RO preferred a consolidation regimen whilst MO were divided between consolidation (40%) and a RAPIDO or STELLAR regimen