I've been robbed

[Free Thinker]

Quote from neutrino:

Well, if it is a misprint - clearly not But as I said - there must be rules before the fact, not after. Because next time Dell gets scared that a competitor is going to offer ultra cheap laptops in the next few months, and Dell wants to offer their merchandise for 60% off - nobody will dare buy anything causing huge inventory problems for Dell.

BTW I am not against a 60% bust rule if it is clearly defined - but not for past trades!

it is clearly defined. every exchange has rules in writing on their website. its up to the trader to know what the rules are. 60% threshold was very generous.

here is an example:
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/CEE_Policies_Email_Submission_Guidelines.pdf


Numerical Guidelines
Under the new Numerical Guidelines, an execution may be found to be clearly erroneous only if the price of the transaction to buy is greater, or less in the case of a sale, then the reference price by an amount that equals or exceeds the numerical guidelines for a particular transaction category. (A mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that the firm failed to pay attention to or update a quote, may not be sufficient to determine that a transaction was clearly erroneous.)
The Exchanges will generally use the consolidated last sale as the Reference Price to determine whether an execution is clearly erroneous. The execution time of the transaction under review determines which Numerical Guideline is applied. The chart below outlines the details.
The Numerical Guidelines are as follows:
Reference Price: Consolidated Last Sale
Regular Trading Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines (Subject transaction’s % difference from the Consolidated Last Sale):
After Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines (Subject transaction’s % difference from the Consolidated Last Sale):
Greater than $0.00 up to and including $25.00
10%
20%
Greater than $25.00 up to and including $50.00
5%
10%
Greater than $50.00
3%
6%
Multi-Stock Event – Filings involving five or more securities by the same ETP Holder will be aggregated into a single filing
10%
10%
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities
Regular Trading Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the leverage multiplier (e.g. 2x)
After Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the leverage multiplier (e.g. 2x)

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from neutrino:

Well, if it is a misprint - clearly not But as I said - there must be rules before the fact, not after. Because next time Dell gets scared that a competitor is going to offer ultra cheap laptops in the next few months, and Dell wants to offer their merchandise for 60% off - nobody will dare buy anything causing huge inventory problems for Dell.

BTW I am not against a 60% bust rule if it is clearly defined - but not for past trades!

for fucks sake, it's been defined for YEARS! read the damn exchange rules and policies.

 

[Dustin]

Quote from neutrino:

Well, was there a legitimate reason to bust all trades below the 60% level ?

In my opinion yes, the market had ceased to function as it was designed. 60% was a gift.

 

[neutrino]

Quote from Softgiant:

cant do a 1 minute that far back with what i have, but on a 3 min chart it went straight down in one bar, then straight back up on the next. no "incremental or staggering" pattern of selloff.

I found a 1-min chart, but trades below 60% are not shown. It does look like a mistake, too bad for OP...

 

[a5519]

Quote from ko_:

On May, 6 I've bought 1000 shares of PWV for $0.20 and sold them for $12. My profit was almost $12k. As you know next day such positions was canceled. So instead of profit I had short position for $12. I had to cover it for $17. My balance is__ $ -5K._
Is there anybody who lost money by this way?
What do you think about suing?

There is one interesting point in this story.
The broker/exchange has manipulated customer's account. They have created a short position despite that the owner of the account had no intention to make a short trade. And this is already legal problem.
Even if the exchange decides to bust a trade according to their very questionable rules, they should take shares back and refund client's account with a price payed for a stock. In this case it woud be a fair deal and nobdy will be punished.

 

[neutrino]

Quote from Dustin:

In my opinion yes, the market had ceased to function as it was designed. 60% was a gift.

We don't know that for sure and we certainly didn't know it at the time, may be it did function very well.

 

[Dustin]

Quote from a5519:

There is one interesting point in this story.
The broker/exchange has manipulated customer's account. They have created a short position despite that the owner of the account had no intention to make a short trade. And this is already legal problem.
Even if the exchange decides to bust a trade according to their very questionable rules, they should take shares back and refund client's account with a price payed for a stock. In this case it woud be a fair deal and nobdy will be punished.

This happens all the time. It is the traders responsibility to determine whether the trade will stand prior to closing the position.

 

[Dustin]

Quote from neutrino:

We don't know that for sure and we certainly didn't know it at the time, may be it did function very well.

Based on experience trading through Asia in 97, LTCM in 98, dotcom in 01, mini crash 07, real crash 08...I can state in my opinion the market was definitely not functioning as it was designed, and any regulator is also going to see it that way.

 

[oraclewizard77]

hedge the trade with futures next time

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from oraclewizard77:

hedge the trade with futures next time

Huh?

So when you get filled long on PWV at $0.20, then short an equivalent amount of futures? Once PWV gets busted, you just got screwed on your "hedge" because you got a crap futures fill on that downdraft.