NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

More of the same. Here it is in your words, not mine. That is your viewpoint. I asked you where is the bias and how is it affecting results making them invalid. You claim to not know the results but just claim that they are invalid. You you cannot support your claims and so go on the attack again.

More classic pitiful losing side tactics.

I don't need to look at the results. I know they are invalid because of the procedure by which they were obtained. I think I have already explained myself on this point, and that if you still have questions for me, it is not worth my time to answer them. I don't think anybody reading this thread cares to read more about the validity of your poll.

It also seems like a Catch-22 situation with you. If I answer your questions, you say I am attacking you. If I don't answer them, you say I am a pitiful loser who can't support his claims. I think I have done a good job of supporting them, but you just don't have the ability to recognize this. So forgive me if I do not attempt to satisfy you.

My suggestion would be to allow the thread to move forward, instead of repeating the same arguments over and over again. If you keep repeating yourself, people will stop reading and contributing. You've already been put on Redmanplus's ignore list. I suggest you to try to learn something from what he said to you.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

I don't need to look at the results. I know they are invalid because of the procedure by which they were obtained. I think I have already explained myself on this point, and that if you still have questions for me, it is not worth my time to answer them. I don't think anybody reading this thread cares to read more about the validity of your poll.

It also seems like a Catch-22 situation with you. If I answer your questions, you say I am attacking you. If I don't answer them, you say I am a pitiful loser who can't support his claims. I think I have done a good job of supporting them, but you just don't have the ability to recognize this. So forgive me if I do not attempt to satisfy you.

My suggestion would be to allow the thread to move forward, instead of repeating the same arguments over and over again. If you keep repeating yourself, people will stop reading and contributing. You've already been put on Redmanplus's ignore list. I suggest you to try to learn something from what he said to you.

It is you, not I, who raised the question of the validity of the poll. I responded to you on this issue not vica versa. It is you who are repeating the same. I believe I have laid out why your allegations on this are false, and I did so by attacking the argument, not the arguer, as you can only do. If the truth hurts so much, feel free to ignore me as well.

 

[Steelhead]

Quote from Hamlet:

It is you, not I, who raised the question of the validity of the poll. I responded to you on this issue not vica versa. It is you who are repeating the same. I believe I have laid out why your allegations on this are false, and I did so by attacking the argument, not the arguer, as you can only do. If the truth hurts so much, feel free to ignore me as well.

well said, jim cockford is a paid basher---just ignore

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Steelhead:

well said, jim cockford is a paid basher---just ignore

This is a lie.

 

[zdreg]

what can one say that is not obvious about the lack of response by the posters on this thread?

"Quote from jimrockford:

Those who try to compete with the NYSE do not have a level playing field, because of unfair government rules and laws which protect the NYSE monopoly against fair competition. Competitors have risen, despite the unfairness and governmental unfairness. Witness Island, ARCA, Nasdaq's SuperIntermarket facility for trading NYSE-listed stocks, BRUT, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zdreg


perhaps you and others could be specific and ta;k about
new trade through regulations which are likely to give advantge to the NYSE specialists . "

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from zdreg:

what can one say that is not obvious about the lack of response by the posters on this thread?

"Quote from jimrockford:

Those who try to compete with the NYSE do not have a level playing field, because of unfair government rules and laws which protect the NYSE monopoly against fair competition. Competitors have risen, despite the unfairness and governmental unfairness. Witness Island, ARCA, Nasdaq's SuperIntermarket facility for trading NYSE-listed stocks, BRUT, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zdreg


perhaps you and others could be specific and ta;k about
new trade through regulations which are likely to give advantge to the NYSE specialists . "

Forgive me for stating what was obvious to you. Much of what should be obvious, to us all, is not obvious to certain people on this thread. One of them challenged me to create a trading system to compete with NYSE. It was impossible to respond, to such a silly challenge, without stating what should have been obvious.

I think the new trade-thru rule will take away from the advantage enjoyed by NYSE specialists. The new rule, unlike the old, will allow electronic trading markets to trade thru specialist quotes for which auto-ex is not guaranteed. I think is forcing NYSE to make some changes, so that it might have some hope of competing in the absence of the old trade-thru rule, which artificially helped protect NYSE from competitive market forces. Why do you think the opposite? Why do you think that the new rule will be advantageous for specialists?

 

[zdreg]

the rule is controversional because orders will be directed to the the specialist because he is exhibiting the best price and will not completely fill the order. he will be able to hold onto the order which could have been executed immediately at a price away from the best price and would have been acceptable to the person who initiated the trade. by that time the slightly less favorable price may have disappeared.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from zdreg:

the rule is controversional because orders will be directed to the the specialist because he is exhibiting the best price and will not completely fill the order. he will be able to hold onto the order which could have been executed immediately at a price away from the best price and would have been acceptable to the person who initiated the trade. by that time the slightly less favorable price may have disappeared.

zdreq,

It sounds to me like you are talking about the OLD trade-thru rule, not the new one which will take effect soon! Could it be that you have the new rule confused with the old rule?

 

[zdreg]

the new trade through rule will apply to nasdaq.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from zdreg:

the new trade through rule will apply to nasdaq.

Are you saying the new trade through rule will not apply to NYSE?

(BTW, it will apply to NYSE.)