I've been robbed
- Thread starter ko_
- Start date
Yep, in a perfect world it would be both equitable and logical to bust both sides. But it's not a perfect world.
Once again, a fill at 20 cents should have come has no surprise to the OP.
Robbed? Who's trying to be the robber?
Call it a price for greed, or, as another poster suggested, should have held them 'til the dust settled.
No sympathy from me.
You got screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would be unbelievably pissed off as well, you have my sympathy. The 60% cutoff was BS, unless this is a specific rule NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX stocks have. Which it is not, from my knowledge.
I believe both sides should have been canceled as well. Here is what should happen in all fareness. The guy who got his short position trade of 1000 shares busted at $.20 should take financial responsibility for your 1000 share $12 position or better yet the guy should get a price of .4*[the before price used for the 60% cutoff] and thus you should be awarded the profit of 1000*[$12 - the low end cutoff price]. This last method seems fare, since if you sold your shares for less than the low end cutoff that trade would have also been busted. Of course certain circumstances may call for other redistributions.
Please update us as new information arises, and whether or not you are at least refunded your losses.
I believe both sides should have been canceled as well. Here is what should happen in all fareness. The guy who got his short position trade of 1000 shares busted at $.20 should take financial responsibility for your 1000 share $12 position or better yet the guy should get a price of .4*[the before price used for the 60% cutoff] and thus you should be awarded the profit of 1000*[$12 - the low end cutoff price]. This last method seems fare, since if you sold your shares for less than the low end cutoff that trade would have also been busted. Of course certain circumstances may call for other redistributions.
Please update us as new information arises, and whether or not you are at least refunded your losses.
There is a solution, it is to not bust trades, but rather to re-price them to the low of the day that is considered "normal" and not a mistrade, erroneous trade, or massively out of whack. That way people do not get penalized for providing liquidity, people get punished - but not excessively - for placing erroneous trades or stupid market orders with no limit during crashes or volatile conditions, and noobs don't end up with debit balances because of capricious decision-making at exchanges.
The existence of unilateral trade busts means that in a true market crash, less liquidity is provided. Liquidity providers will shy away from providing bids & offers because if they get filled and it turns out to be a loser, the trade won't get busted; and if they get filled and it's a winner, the trade will get busted. Heads you lose tails they win. Also, if you get filled at a low price during a crash, you then have that margin tied up because you don't know if you will keep the position or not - you cannot use that money to buy other stuff, and you cannot exit the trade for fear of it being busted and ending up naked short. Trade busts paralyze market liquidity during crashes, when it is most needed.
Efficiency's position is silly and illogical - down 59.9% was not ridiculous but down 60.1% was?
Trade busts, rather than re-pricing, are morally indefensible, damaging to market liquidity and efficiency, and have no upsides whatsoever. They should be outlawed.
The existence of unilateral trade busts means that in a true market crash, less liquidity is provided. Liquidity providers will shy away from providing bids & offers because if they get filled and it turns out to be a loser, the trade won't get busted; and if they get filled and it's a winner, the trade will get busted. Heads you lose tails they win. Also, if you get filled at a low price during a crash, you then have that margin tied up because you don't know if you will keep the position or not - you cannot use that money to buy other stuff, and you cannot exit the trade for fear of it being busted and ending up naked short. Trade busts paralyze market liquidity during crashes, when it is most needed.
Efficiency's position is silly and illogical - down 59.9% was not ridiculous but down 60.1% was?
Trade busts, rather than re-pricing, are morally indefensible, damaging to market liquidity and efficiency, and have no upsides whatsoever. They should be outlawed.
Damn right. If I f*ck up and hit "sell" instead of "buy", or 10000 instead of 100, or what ever else I do to screw up, I'll take the hit. I fess up to my mistakes.
When you are in the market, it's a jungle. But when big players mess up, the little guy usually gets f*cked. The big guys get a "do over'. And we get eaten. Law of the jungle...
Silly and illogical??? Number one, I have no position. Just an outside observer. Number two. What's silly is some clown thinking he's acquired something for 20 cents apiece, and, like thief, is going to flip it for the prevailing price and run to the bank with NO repurcussions. Number three, "supporting" the stock at near zero? Twenty cents is near zero, and whopping 1000 shares is a minscule fraction of shares traded (yet alone outstanding). Hardly support. But the word nusiance comes to mind.
Proper to bust it and busts work ways. Lambs making errors. Selling rather than selling short, double sales, selling before splits are adjusted by the backroom, and yessss, "hitting the wrong key" etc.
