NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:


You made a conscious decision to become dependent upon a corrupt system. You accepted the rewards for that decision, so that when the changes come, you must also accept that those rewards will not be permanent. You must learn anew how to trade once the specialist is gone, and you cannot expect society to hold back progress because of progress is counter to your particular interests.

I can think I can safely speak for those (the majority of PROFITABLE traders) who voted for the Specialist to "stay", that the reason they would rather keep him is not because they are dependant on a corrupt system. The fact that many are happy to trade stocks with one dealer has nothing to do with the system being corrupt, real or imagined. I don't mind you making these statements though since they highlight your naivety on this issue. Like the Republicans say about Howard Dean: "Let him keep talking".

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

No, this is not correct. The tidal wave of corporate crime has been growing and engulfing our nation and our economy for decades. It is only in the last few years that the problem has grown so obvious that it remains impossible for the media and for the executive and legislative brances to continue ignoring it. Hamlet simply doesn't know anything about the subject. This is why he incorrectly assumes that since he never heard about the corporate crime wave until the Enron scandal, it never existed prior to that time. His suggestion that the government has done anything more than make a dent in the problem of white-collar crime is equally misinformed.

Completely False.

You made a statement that the government almost never pursues white collar crime and that the pursuit of it is an "extraordinary exception", so you conclude from your own premise that since there was a NYSE investigation, gee it must be a serious issue! I gave examples (yes they were in the media) which highlight that you are completely wrong. There are countless other examples I can cite (both before and after Enron) which were not in the mainstream media. The facts speak for themselves and so the basis of your premise is false.

You continue to attack me rather than the argument when the facts are against you.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

Completely False.

You made a statement that the government almost never pursues white collar crime, so you conclude from this that since there was a NYSE investigation, gee it must be a serious issue! I gave examples (yes they were in the media) which highlight that you are completely wrong. There are countless other examples I can cite which were not in the mainstream media. The facts speak for themselves and so the basis of your premise is false.

You continue to attack me rather than the argument when the facts are against you.

No, you misunderstand.

The government only pursues a tiny fraction of the total amount of white-collar crime. Specific scams are often widely publicized, without the government ever doing anything about it. The government does pursue many white collar cases, but these represent only a tiny fraction of the total volume of white collar crime. All a trader need do, for proof, is watch the late-nite TV infomercials for Wizetrade, 4X Made Easy, Teach me to Trade, Rule the Freakin' Markets, etc., etc, etc. These scams have been operating in full view for years, without any meaningful government response. Refco is another proof. Refco engaged in an enourmous amount of white-collar crime, and was never shut down or effectively restrained by the government. The Refco white-collar crime gravy train only came to a screeching halt when it finally collapsed under its own weight and destroyed itself, rather than when the government put a stop to it.

 

[reg]

Quote from jimrockford:

No, this is not correct. The tidal wave of corporate crime has been growing and engulfing our nation and our economy for decades. It is only in the last few years that the problem has grown so obvious that it remains impossible for the media and for the executive and legislative brances to continue ignoring it. Hamlet simply doesn't know anything about the subject. This is why he incorrectly assumes that since he never heard about the corporate crime wave until the Enron scandal, it never existed prior to that time. His suggestion that the government has done anything more than make a dent in the problem of white-collar crime is equally misinformed.

Could you please present evidence to support this argument?
Please let the readers of ET know of any and all instances of corporate crime that you are/were aware of that did not get investigated and prosecuted and where the crooks got off the hook. I am talking about crimes that authorities were not aware of but that you personally knew about.
Please be specific by naming the companies and individuals involved and the dates these supposed violations occurred so that we can report this to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

I can think I can safely speak for those (the majority of PROFITABLE traders) who voted for the Specialist to "stay", that the reason they would rather keep him is not because they are dependant on a corrupt system. The fact that some are happy to trade stocks with one dealer has nothing to do with the system being corrupt, real or imagined. I don't mind you making these statements though since they highlight your naivety on this issue. Like the Republicans say about Howard Dean: "Let him keep talking".

I do not think that you can safely speak for other traders. I think that in this thread, as well as the previous one entitled "Observations on the NYSE Specialist", you demonstrated an inability to give an accurate summary of what somebody else wrote.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from jimrockford:

I think you are incorrect on several counts.

A number of people, are, in fact, arguing in this thread, that the NYSE is not corrupt and handling orders unfairly.

doesn't take away da fact that it is besides da point cuz da spec is rarely on da opposite side of u trades and he certainly ain't responsible for u not being profitable. by da way, ever heard of lmt orders?

The argument as to whether NYSE is corrupt is not beside the point. It is of critical importance, because when we send an order to the specialist, we are entrusting the specialist to act upon our behalf, as our agent, and if he chooses to victimize us, then he will be able to abuse the trust we place in him. Electronic markets avoid this problem by not requiring us to trust counterparties, and by eliminating this opportunity for theft, fraud, and crime.

^re-read my first reply.

and how often that happens to u? on every trade?
i might not get filled sometimes and have to wait for me order to be cancelled but majority of me orders go trough and occasionally i get also price improvement. for the last time, electronic mkts might be fairer on execution but da gains exposure is much more limited because of that--hint hint--speed of execution--bolts easy accomodation. if u are after a penny per trade i might understand u point.

You are also incorrect to say that I have claimed that the specialist victimizes each customer on every single trade. You are exaggerating my argument in order to make it easier to defeat.

u don't need to make da claim; all da posts u made so far clearly imply that.

It is true that to some limited extent, people can manipulate electronic markets in order to trick highly overleveraged or less sophisticated traders to exit their positions, but this is nowhere near as big as the problem at NYSE. The difference is that at NYSE, the theft occurs as a fundamental, inherent part of the basic mechanism of execution. This is not the case in electronic markets. Electronic market participants might trick you into making an unwise trade, but they can't delay, obstruct, or misprice your executions and order cancellations, or otherwise deprive you of a fair execution.

again it doesn't happen anywhere near often enough to upset me trades and me winners. again, if u use lmt your orders they won't be mispriced and with mkt orders fills are terrible on naz as well.

Traders, on balance, will be much better off without NYSE, because electronic markets will offer fair executions. Traders who know only how to suck at the specialist's icy cold tit will need to learn how to trade in real markets, which will include massive spikes and fake price moves, but which will offer fair executions. I understand your desire to remain with the devil you know, and your fear of change, and it may very well mean disaster for your particular trading career. Society, however, cannot afford to keep NYSE in place, in order to protect the careers of people who suck at the specialist tit. Society must smash NYSE, because society must be concerned with the general welfare, not just the welfare of people sucking the specialist tit.

that's your opinion and u still can't discern the difference between openin' a trade, let it run 'till session end, achieve full percentages returns and takin' advantage of da spec manipulation: too bad for u.

You made a conscious decision to become dependent upon a corrupt system. You accepted the rewards for that decision, so that when the changes come, you must also accept that those rewards will not be permanent. You must learn anew how to trade once the specialist is gone, and you cannot expect society to hold back progress because progress is counter to your particular interests.

the more u talk da more it is clear that it might be u who have to learn how to trade and stop this vendetta agenda u are cultivatin'. also, it is rather pathetic that u keep accusin' others to suck to da spec when he's got nothin' to do with da profitability of our trades...we order, get filled, trade goes our way, we win.
secondly i trade multiple mkts on multiple timeframes and squeeze money out of them all but still i prefer nyse 'cause of better, fluid, long lastin' trends.
i know it is tough for u to grasp da concept but i just cannot keep repetin' meself ad infinitum...

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from reg:

Could you please present evidence to support this argument?
Please let the readers of ET know of any and all instances of corporate crime that you are/were aware of that did not get investigated and prosecuted and where the crooks got off the hook. I am talking about crimes that authorities were not aware of but that you personally knew about.
Please be specific by naming the companies and individuals involved and the dates these supposed violations occurred so that we can report this to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

If you want to learn more about the current and historical prevalence of white-collar crime, and the scope and effectiveness of the government's response to it, then it is your job to do some research, or at least to read a newspaper once in a while. If you choose to be an ignoramous, then this is your prerogative, but you can't expect me to conduct a remedial course in current affairs in order compensate for your failure to read and know about the world around you. It is your duty, as a citizen, to know about these things, and I think you should be ashamed by your ignorance. I think it is pathetic that you would expect me to spoon-feed you. Does your mommy still cut up your meat for you at dinner time?

I think it would not be a worthwhile use of my time even to attempt the slightest response to your questions. I will, since I am a nice guy, just make the following suggestions. Try googling for websites of Ralph Nader's organizations. Please don't ask me to explain how to use google. Also, something that you might find very helpful is called a "library". You should try going to one. Don't be scared, we learn from new experiences.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

If you want to learn more about the current and historical prevalence of white-collar crime, and the scope and effectiveness of the government's response to it, then it is your job to do some research, or at least to read a newspaper once in a while. If you choose to be an ignoramous, then this is your prerogative, but you can't expect me to conduct a remedial course in current affairs in order compensate for your failure to read and know about the world around you. It is your duty, as a citizen, to know about these things, and I think you should be ashamed by your ignorance. I think it is pathetic that you would expect me to spoon-feed you. Does your mommy still cut up your meat for you at dinner time?

I think it would not be a worthwhile use of my time even to attempt the slightest response to your questions. I will, since I am a nice guy, just make the following suggestions. Try googling for websites of Ralph Nader's organizations. Please don't ask me to explain how to use google. Also, something that you might find very helpful is called a "library". You should try going to one. Don't be scared, we learn from new experiences.

Here is a typical response made by this poster when he is backed into a corner.

A classic offensive personal attack strategy when an argument or defense is weak or faltering, demonstrated in it's most artful form during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.

I may start calling you Johnny instead of Ralph from now on.

 

[jimrockford]

Bitstream,

I don't know how to quote the quoted portion of a post, so I am responding without quoting your post, which was entirely in quotation. BTW, how do you automatically quote the quoted portions of another post?


Anyway, NYSE corruption matters, and is not beside the point. It matters both when the specialist is on the other side of one's trade, and also when the specialist is not on the other side. NYSE corruption financially damages traders and investors by depriving them of an execution when they should have got one. The corruption also causes trades to be mispriced, even when the specialist is not a party. NYSE rules and practices also allow floor traders many opportunities to trade ahead of public customer orders that were placed at the same price and first in time. The specialist limit order book is time-price priority, but floor traders can step in front of older booked orders by trading "on parity" with the book. Specialists also have opportunities to victimize customers, without participating in the transaction. The specialist can arrange trades between a public customer and a buddy of the specialist, so that the buddy profits at the customer's expense, and then later, the specialist's buddy can split profits with the specialist.

Your comments seem to suggest that I am blaming the specialist for problems with my trading. This is impossible since I do not trade with specialists. My trading has nothing to do with the specialist system. I avoid it. So this part of your argument is completely invalid.

You ask if I have ever heard of limit orders. Yes, I have, and I can tell you many ways by which specialists can victimize those who place limit orders. See my previous discussion as to floor traders allowed to front-run public customer limit orders. The specialist can also deprive your limit order of an execution when you should be given one because there are willing counterparties and you should have been given priority. The specialist can also give your marketable limit order an unfairly poor price, one which does not reflect the market price at the time of execution. The specialist can also unfairly delay both your limit order's execution, and its cancellation. The specialist can display bogus quotes and then refuse to execute against them. So your proposal to use limit orders does not solve the problem.

The fact that you are able to trade NYSE profitably is simply irrelevant. NYSE, on balance, rapes the public. People like you benefit from it, but this doesn't justify the system's continued existence.

You claim that all of my posts imply that the specialist victimizes every customer on every trade. This is absolutely false. My posts do not make any such implication. My posts, in fact, state the opposite, that the specialist only victimizes some customers on some trades. I think it is unfair for you to claim that I said something I never said, and which actually contradicts what I really did say.

I don't understand how you can argue that the specialist has nothing to do with your NYSE trading profits. The way you describe your trading, the specialist has everything to do with it. Change the system, and your NYSE methods won't work anymore. If the specialist has nothing to do with your profits, why are you defending him and asking that he stay in place? I thought your entire argument was that we should keep the specialist because you want to continue making money based on how the specialist runs the market and executes orders. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here?

 

[RedManPlus]

Going back a few months...
I can see no evidence that "Hamlet" is a trader...
Let alone "successful trader"...
Let alone someone in a position to speak on behalf of "successful traders".

It's quite easy for "successful traders" to spot other "successful traders"...
Because they talk as insiders from long experience about their work... though usually in a veiled way.
** "Hamlet" has not mentioned making a trade in 2006 in 100s of posts **.

He seems to know a lot of general stuff about the NYSE, etc...
And 90% of his posts last 2 months have been in defense of the NYSE Specialist...
Just pure, unadulterated NYSE propaganda.

Welcome to my ignore list, "Hamlet"... The Great Pretender.

See how easy it is to fool the crowd here?
A place where 15% claim to be making $300,000... and no one even comments.

rm+