Lime Brokerage fined $625k by FINRA

GRULSTMRNN said:
So to achieve fair, equitable, markets we should set the benchmark as low as auctions on used car sales lots? And what is defined as spoofing? It's very clear, look it up. It's the frequent and repetitive nature of the action that defines the crime. Are you an idiot?

Nothing here is open to interpretation. Every child recognizes it is deceptive, deceitful behavior. It misleads and is designed to disadvantage others though dishonest means. Your justification of that behavior is that cheating is prevalent in other areas of life? Your type is the real filth and enemy of human kind. I am just glad that cheats like you generally can't fly under the radar for too long. I pride myself in being 100% ethical and moral in ALL my professional life, not one single copied homework in school, no cheating on exams, no trickery in entrance exams, no white lies ever at work, not even once. Guess what, I got as far as I wanted and had drive. Where do you stand? And how proud are you of your past achievements given you most likely cheated throughout your entire life?
More...

EVERYTHING about spoofing is open to interpretation.

You ever put on a position on size on a pro-rata hybrid execution market? You and your *$* one lots?

Ever?

Please ... oh wise one.

Tell me how you get a fill on 5,500 contracts ... on a FIFO hybrid pro-rata fill execution market, and you want 5,500, ... and you know with that execution fill protocol, that to get that fill, you need to bid 8,000 to the market just to be filled to your mandate ... and you get filled 4,387 ... PER THE RULES OF THE GOD *$&% EXCHANGE and have to cancel the rest PER THE RULES OF THE GOD $*&%^ EXCHANGE, because you're near enough your mandate; and will have to make up the rest via your risk model. So you have to cancel the remaining portion of your order.

Oops ... you just spoofed! Though you operated per the exchange rules, to your mandate, with no mea culpa.

Oh? What's that? You've never had scaleability FIFO hybrid pro-rate execution problems or issues? Because you're trading a freaking one lot?

Then why the *#$( don't you crall under the retail rock you came from ya fracking piker?

You don't know *$(@ all about what you're talking about ... or the problems of trading at size; because you're trading a one lot and the only *$*% you know about is what you read in headlines? So how about you shyut your fracking hole, if you don't know what you're talking about?
 
It's very simple, if I want to buy I put a buy limit order on. If I want to get filled quickly I use an algorithm that is more aggressive. At other times vwap, sometimes other algorithms. But I never put a sell order on when I want to buy. It's deceptive and misleading and repeated doing so is illegal and may get my trail audited.

Wrong is wrong no matter how fancy words you use. And I have been in this industry and traded sizes most likely a multiple of the largest sizes you ever traded. I have been in this industry way long enough to smell when a wannabe comes along and tries to shake down others with buzzwords. Twist words as much as you like, someone who intends to buy but puts a sell order on is deceptive and should get banned for repeatedly doing so.

raVar said:
EVERYTHING about spoofing is open to interpretation.

You ever put on a position on size on a pro-rata hybrid execution market? You and your *$* one lots?

Ever?

Please ... oh wise one.

Tell me how you get a fill on 5,500 contracts ... on a FIFO hybrid pro-rata fill execution market, and you want 5,500, ... and you know with that execution fill protocol, that to get that fill, you need to bid 8,000 to the market just to be filled to your mandate ... and you get filled 4,387 ... PER THE RULES OF THE GOD *$&% EXCHANGE and have to cancel the rest PER THE RULES OF THE GOD $*&%^ EXCHANGE, because you're near enough your mandate; and will have to make up the rest via your risk model. So you have to cancel the remaining portion of your order.

Oops ... you just spoofed! Though you operated per the exchange rules, to your mandate, with no mea culpa.

Oh? What's that? You've never had scaleability FIFO hybrid pro-rate execution problems or issues? Because you're trading a freaking one lot?

Then why the *#$( don't you crall under the retail rock you came from ya fracking piker?

You don't know *$(@ all about what you're talking about ... or the problems of trading at size; because you're trading a one lot and the only *$*% you know about is what you read in headlines? So how about you shyut your fracking hole, if you don't know what you're talking about?
More...
 
bone said:
Lime Brokerage originated as an offshoot of the Lime proprietary trading firm.

It would appear that trading exchanges other than the CME are starting to clamp down on abusive Algos.
More...
Truth be told, I kinda miss the old "Gordon Gekko" days. Trading had a human element. At the very least, we knew what "greed" meant. Nobody gives a fuck about those thing anymore.
 
GRULSTMRNN said:
It's very simple, if I want to buy I put a buy limit order on. If I want to get filled quickly I use an algorithm that is more aggressive. At other times vwap, sometimes other algorithms. But I never put a sell order on when I want to buy.
More...

Nothing, speaks one lot trader, more than that statement.

He didn't answer one statement I made.

BY DEFINITION OF THE EXCHANGE RULES ... on a Pro-Rata Hybrid execution protocol, if you want 5,000 contracts, you HAVE to put an order out for 10,000, and you will get filled on 4,259, and then you cancel the rest.

He has NO CONCEPT of what it is, to trade at size in a market, with Pro-Rata execution protocols.

Then, you cancel the 741 remaining, because within your Quant rules, you are within your widow for your position size.

Oops! You just spoofed!?

How do you prove intent, and mea culpa.

Pikers are the worst, to give opinions on matters far above their experience
 
  • Like
Reactions: ETJ
There is no THE exchange rules, each and every exchange has different rules. Fact remains (and that is not exchange rule but regulatory rules) that if you put in an order for which you have no intention to get filled then you violate regulatory rules. You get away with it a few times, you do it couple more times and your ass lands on the radar of SEC or other respective regulator.

That those FIFO/pro-rata hybrids even exist is an abomination and clear violation of the rule of fair and equitable markets. Anything that takes precedence over a first in limit order in terms of equal price level is a violation of the principle of fair and equitable markets.

Here is the short version: sending more than intended size knowing that 60% gets allocated as pro rata and the rest as fifo and then canceling the 40% that was never intended to get filled is clearly disadvantaging all those traders who put in fifo orders and may not be able to use those hybrid algorithms. Clear and simple. I never said the exchanges are not in on this game of abuse. They clearly are. But it does not change the fact that it disadvantages everyone else in the market, especially orders that arrived prior to the hybrid order at the same price level. Also, you picked one single example. Layering has nothing to do with this one algorithm order type. Layering with the intent to not get filled but to deceptively signal the market is illegal. Does not matter what you think or feel.

You work at MoonCap or some other shitty outlet in Knoxville?

raVar said:
Nothing, speaks one lot trader, more than that statement.

He didn't answer one statement I made.

BY DEFINITION OF THE EXCHANGE RULES ... on a Pro-Rata Hybrid execution protocol, if you want 5,000 contracts, you HAVE to put an order out for 10,000, and you will get filled on 4,259, and then you cancel the rest.

He has NO CONCEPT of what it is, to trade at size in a market, with Pro-Rata execution protocols.

Then, you cancel the 741 remaining, because within your Quant rules, you are within your widow for your position size.

Oops! You just spoofed!?

How do you prove intent, and mea culpa.

Pikers are the worst, to give opinions on matters far above their experience
More...
 
Last edited:
In first year Econometrics, I wrote part of a proof with pencil on a clear ruler. Only visible when placed on white paper.
 
GRULSTMRNN said:
That those FIFO/pro-rata hybrids even exist is an abomination and clear violation of the rule of fair and equitable markets. Anything that takes precedence over a first in limit order in terms of equal price level is a violation of the principle of fair and equitable markets.
More...
Sounds like they do “encourage quoted liquidity” though if they get these guys to post huge orders. One day someone will take them up on them. But in this case, these were all stock exchanges using price/time AFAICT.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, even worse. SEC is way too soft on shady characters and market participants.

MoreLeverage said:
Sounds like they do “encourage quoted liquidity” though if they get these guys to post huge orders. One day someone will take them up on them. But in this case, these were all stock exchanges using price/time AFAICT.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top