NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[1000]

Quote from jimrockford:

Some traders have strategies which they have profitably learned to adapt to the NYSE system of parasitic corruption, but this does not justify the harm done to other traders,

It took a long time to find out how and for the wounds to heal. Now my thought process is permanently up side down. Thankyou specialistman.



http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

If Congress passed a law saying that every speculator in securities must pay the specialists a $100 fee on every stock trade, this would create an inefficiency. Would this inefficiency be good for traders?

I'm not sure why a static fee is being compared to an inefficiency. The fees and costs a trader pays is not an inefficiency.

 

[Donkell]

I say stay, but speed it up. If they are supposed to be buyers when a stock is dropping and no one else is there then do it it.

What I don't understand is if that is part of their purpose why do they need 30 seconds to make up their minds. If no speed up then I change my vote to go.

 

[libertad]

Excellent Commentary All

........................................................................

Specialists are irrelevant in the future of trading...

........................................................................

What is relevant is the fact that all exchanges will be capitalized because of the money on the table for current ownership...and thus efficiency allowance....

The new game is going public... thus dramatically increasing the wealth of current exchanges ownership...
.......................................................................

The NYX deal has changed the exchange landscape....
What will happen is joint ownership of shares...
...........................................................................

The battle is on...this is a case of classic economic efficiency whose end is inevitable .....
...........................................................................

This is what you call GLOBALIZATION at its finest hour...

This is the pure epitamy of its purpose...to capitalize the income streams at their highest worth...
...............................................................................

All financial tradable items will be consolidated and traded on the single line...
.............................................................................
´
Look ...if your US ...English...Chinese...white..yellow...black...tan..

All love the color of money.....
...........................................................................

And it happens in less than 10 years...

 

[RedManPlus]

Quote from Hamlet:

I'm not sure why a static fee is being compared to an inefficiency. The fees and costs a trader pays is not an inefficiency.

It took you only 4 hours to cook up this stupendously nonsensical statement...
And prove Hydroblunt's contention...
That we are dealing with "a fool who thinks he's a genius".

Luckily for you... God loves all his creatures.

rm+

 

[Tunes]

Go!!!

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from RedManPlus:

It took you only 4 hours to cook up this stupendously nonsensical statement...
And prove Hydroblunt's contention...
That we are dealing with "a fool who thinks he's a genius".

Luckily for you... God loves all his creatures.

rm+

I suppose this means that you see a fixed cost of doing business as an inefficiency, something that can be compared to a market inefficiency which can provide a trading opportunity, is that what you mean to say?

Oh, I'm sorry; you said nothing... just innuendo-speak.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

The fees and costs a trader pays is not an inefficiency.

I considered explaining why this absurd proposition is incorrect. I then decided to leave it unanswered, because an answer would benefit some people, but would mislead an even greater number of casual readers into thinking that perhaps this absurd proposition was worthy of consideration.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

I considered explaining why this absurd proposition is incorrect. I then decided to leave it unanswered, because an answer would benefit some people, but would mislead an even greater number of casual readers into thinking that perhaps this absurd proposition was worthy of consideration.

What is actually absurd is that one would compare a fixed fee to a market inefficiency which can create tradeable opportunities. Anyway, the bias of the poster is plain and clear, which would explain the clouded argument.

 

[Bitstream]

u'll prolly have to kiss goodbye to trends, since boxes will be able to work perfectly fine in a new environment that is no more structured against 'em workin' efficiently....cues at nyse pits will disappear.

u'll regret it.