I've been robbed

[Jerkstore]

Quote from dtrader98:

In all fairness, they should bust both sides of the trade. I.e. anyone who bought long and had the trade busted should have the corresponding sell busted as well. Assuming OP scenario is true, there is a very valid complaint here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why it would be so difficult to match up any round trip positions during the bust action (FIFO) and invalidate them.

That would be a logistical nightmare, since every trade has a counterparty.

The clearly erroneous guidlines are posted in every exchanges bylaws, but in practice are not formulaic. They are judgment calls. The 60% up/down that the exchanges collectively agreed to was by far the widest spread I have seen deemed to be standing trades. Though, I can not remember another time when the entire market went clearly erroneous. Usually it is just one stock.

 

[neutrino]

Could someone post a 1-min chart of PWV for May 6th ? If there was legitimate selling in the stock that drove the price to $0.20, then I think the OP made a fair trade and has all the right to be pissed, and the decision to bust trades is nothing short of communism!!! On the other hand, if it looked like a misprint or a mistake at the time, then he should have thought twice before initiating the trade.

I fully support what Ghost of Cutten explained a couple of times. There should be busts when there are clearly defined rules about them BEFORE THE FACT - such as a misprint etc. However if there was actually legitimate trading activity - i.e activity that is not defined in the rules for busting trades - then the decision to bust trades after the fact goes against the very nature of markets and is completely illegal.

The most disturbing thing is that they made a decision to bust trades without an official reason why they should be busted - was there a mistake or not ?!? Also we are not talking about a single stock - the whole market went down, everybody was selling...

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from neutrino:

Could someone post a 1-min chart of PWV for May 6th ? If there was legitimate selling in the stock that drove the price to $0.20, then I think the OP made a fair trade and has all the right to pissed, and the decision to bust trades is nothing short of communism!!! On the other hand, if it looked like a misprint or a mistake at the time, then he should have thought twice before initiating the trade.

I fully support what Ghost of Cutten explained a couple of times. There should be busts when there are clearly defined rules about them BEFORE THE FACT - such as a misprint etc. However if there was actually legitimate trading activity - the decision to bust trades after the fact goes against the very nature of markets and is completely illegal.

The most disturbing thing is that they made a decision to bust trades without an official reason why they should be busted - was there a mistake or not ?!?

communism no less. lol. if you get a $17 stock at 20 cents and you dont expect to be busted you are not too bright about the market rules.

 

[neutrino]

Quote from Free Thinker:

communism no less. lol. if you get a $17 stock at 20 cents and you dont expect to be busted you are not too bright about the market rules.

Really - how about if it went from $16 to $14 then $10... $9... $7.50... $4.50... $1.50... $0.50... $0.20 ?!?

You didn't check the time and sales for the stock did you ? Was it a misprint or someone gave the wrong order ?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from neutrino:

Really - how about if it went from $16 to $14 then $10... $9... $7.50... $4.50... $1.50... $0.50... $0.20 ?!?

if dell makes a mistake and advertises a $1000 computer for $300
on its webpage and 1000s of people order that computer before they figure out the mistake and correct it does dell have to fill those orders? this actually happend a few years ago.

 

[neutrino]

Quote from Free Thinker:

if dell makes a mistake and advertises a $1000 computer for $300
on its webpage and 1000s of people order that computer before they figure out the mistake and correct it does dell have to fill those orders? this actually happened a few years ago.

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!

 

[Dustin]

Anytime you are lucky enough to get a fill way outside normal parameters when there is no legitimate reason for the stock to trade there you have to assume it's going to get broken...period.

Trade breaks exist to protect all of us from possible ruin which I for one support.

 

[Softgiant]

Quote from neutrino:

Could someone post a 1-min chart of PWV for May 6th ? If there was legitimate selling in the stock that drove the price to $0.20, then I think the OP made a fair trade and has all the right to be pissed, and the decision to bust trades is nothing short of communism!!! On the other hand, if it looked like a misprint or a mistake at the time, then he should have thought twice before initiating the trade.

I fully support what Ghost of Cutten explained a couple of times. There should be busts when there are clearly defined rules about them BEFORE THE FACT - such as a misprint etc. However if there was actually legitimate trading activity - i.e activity that is not defined in the rules for busting trades - then the decision to bust trades after the fact goes against the very nature of markets and is completely illegal.

The most disturbing thing is that they made a decision to bust trades without an official reason why they should be busted - was there a mistake or not ?!? Also we are not talking about a single stock - the whole market went down, everybody was selling...

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.

 

[neutrino]

Quote from Dustin:

Anytime you are lucky enough to get a fill way outside normal parameters when there is no legitimate reason for the stock to trade there you have to assume it's going to get broken...period.

Trade breaks exist to protect all of us from possible ruin which I for one support.

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

 

[krazykarl]

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?

You should have known the exchange's rules before you put money in. It's no one's fault except your own.