NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[zdreg]

In general, Jim Rockford, it is best not to personalize a situation. zdreg..."it sounds to me like you are a bit confused.

i hope these posts will clarify the picture and show that the new trade thru rule were created to benefit and at the behest of the nyse. it shows the ppower of the old boy's club.

 

[jimrockford]

zdreq,

Sorry if I offended you, but I really thought that offering my suggestion that you were confused would help facilitate understanding. If you can demonstrate that I am confused, I would thank you for doing so. I was just trying to reach understanding with you, not antagonize you.

We are talking about two different parts of the trade-thru rule, and that is where the confusion arises.

The criticisms of the new trade-through rule, which you have mentioned, refer to that part of the rule which extends it to Nasdaq. But that's not the part of the rule relevant to this discussion.

The part of the new rule, relevant to this discussion, creates a new exception to the rule, allowing electronic markets to participate in the national market system, while at the same time, trading through specialist quotes. The old trade thru rule does not permit trade thrus at a market center displaying its quotes as part of the national best bid or offer. Island's website, for example, explained that it represented its quotes for certain stocks in the Consolidated Quote System establishing the NBBO, so that Island was required to enforce the trade-thru rule for those stocks; but for other stocks, for which Island did not display its quotes in the NBBO, Island did not need to enforce the trade thru rule.

The new rule allows all electronically executing market centers to trade through non-electronically executable specialist quotes freely, while at the same time, fully participating in the National Market System. This is a blow to the specialist system. This is the part of the rule which hurts NYSE and helps its competitors. This is the part of the new rule which I am praising.

The issue as to whether the rule should have been extended to Nasdaq is a separate issue, and doesn't have much connection to this thread.

 

[zdreg]

you gave a useful explanation of the new rules .

the history of trade thru regulation shows that the nyse is trying to use its power and influence to limit competiton

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from 1000:

I would like to respectfully disagree.

There is no suppression, as there are other systems in play and running successfully (Nasdaq, AMEX, etc).

Specialist does not reduce choice for everybody, because of the other successful systems available for trading.

Companies can seek to list at any other exchange, not just NYSE.

What other types of competitors are you suggesting (examples please)?

Market never rewards. It would create a strangle, causing undercutting, and so mergers, eventually reducing competition and creating a new monopoly.

Define "do a better job" please.

What rules are you talking about that favor specialists?

What choice is reduced for everybody (and who are the everybody)?

What gradual reduction of support, please define?

What advantages is it losing?

Accelerate what?

Please be objective.

I think, after seeing your previous posts in this thread, that it's ludicrous for you to describe your disagreement with me as "respectful". Primitive and demented would be more accurate. I will now respond to some of your questions.

Your statement that laws and government rules do not interfere with NYSE competitors is similarly demented.

Yes, there are competitors to NYSE, but there would be more competition if anti-competitive government rules and laws were abolished. It is just demented to argue that the existence of competition implies the absence of anti-competitive rules and laws. It is also demented to argue that anti-competitive rules and laws and a monopoly do not reduce choice.

Your theory that free market competition cannot be tolerated, because it will inevitably result in mergers and concentration and a new monopoly contrary to the public interest, comes to us from Karl Marx. You are spouting Marxist economic theory, without even knowing it is Marxist, and yet your previous postings falsely accuse me of communism. Government policy should break monopolies, not protect them. If monopoly is bad, which you seem to be saying here, then this contradicts your belief that government should support the specialist monopoly.

Doing a better job means executing orders at lower cost, and more immediately when they are marketable and of small enough size to be suitable for electronic trading; and also processing cancellations more quickly. It means displaying executable quotes instead of bogus quotes.

One of the rules that favors specialists is the old trade-thru rule. How could you not know about the trade-thru rule? Do you even trade?

Government support of the specialist system reduces choices for companies seeking capital, and for traders and investors and speculators seeking to trade.

An example of the government's gradual reduction in support for the specialist system is its change to the trade-thru rule, soon to be effective, which will free electronic markets to trade thru non-electronic specialist quotes. This change deprives the specialist of the ability he previously enjoyed, by which he could temporarily block other market centers from trading, simply by posting a bogus and effectively unexecutable specialist quote.

We should demand that the Government accelerate its withdrawal of support from the specialist system. We should demand laws which help, rather than hinder, competition against the specialists.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:
It seems you are having difficulty understanding me because you don't know the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism. Please don't ask me to explain the differences. Go get a high school diploma first, and then maybe you will be in a position to contribute something to this discussion. [/B]

More of the same from Rockford.

Classic and pitiful personal attacks, as demonstrated so artfully during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, when backed into a corner on the losing side of an argument with no way out.

Your were treated with and spoken to with respect, but responded with juvenile and instigatory remarks.

You avoided and continue to avoid responding to the questions that you could not answer due to the fact that your arguments have not a leg to stand on.

Since you demonstrate yourself incapable of using a substantive response to debate intelligently and maturely, it's best not to say anything lest you desire to diminish your credibility further. More importantly, you degrade the quality of this site, which is supposed to consist of intelligent discussion by mature adults.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

More of the same from Rockford.

Classic and pitiful personal attacks, as demonstrated so artfully during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, when backed into a corner on the losing side of an argument with no way out.

Your were treated with and spoken to with respect, but responded with juvenile and instigatory remarks.

You avoided and continue to avoid responding to the questions that you could not answer due to the fact that your arguments have not a leg to stand on.

Since you demonstrate yourself incapable of using a substantive response to debate intelligently and maturely, it's best not to say anything lest you desire to diminish your credibility further. More importantly, you degrade the quality of this site, which is supposed to consist of intelligent discussion by mature adults.

Your comments are false. Anyone can verify you were highly disrespectful to me in this thread, and even more so in the thread entitled "Observations on the NYSE Specialist." It is true that I have not responded to some of your questions. My reason is that those questions were not worthy of any response. I often ignore your questions and comments, because they are not worthy of any consideration. So you shouldn't express such surprise, or draw the conclusions you draw, when I ignore some of your comments, or even if I ignore you entirely.

Your complaints about me are also quite obviously hypocritical.

I also think you have ruined your thread. Nobody is contributing anything. People with something to say have left in disgust.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

It is true that I have not responded to some of your questions. My reason is that those questions were not worthy of any response. I often ignore your questions and comments, because they are not worthy of any consideration.

More of the same.

Classic and pitiful obfuscation and distraction tactics used when on the losing side of an argument; the inability to answer questions which kick the legs from under a weak and faltering argument; attack those questions as being "unworthy" and "beneath being addressed". All very laughable.

You are correct about one thing, this is a surprise to very few, especially since you have insulted and/or personally attacked every poster here who disagreed with and presented counter arguments to your statements(with the only exception being Nitro I think). That is the reason why people get disgusted with trying to have discussions with you.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

Nobody is contributing anything.

The silent majority has been voting.

Those results speak louder than words.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

you have insulted and/or personally attacked every poster here who disagreed with and presented counter arguments to your statements(with the only exception being Nitro I think).

Anybody can read this thread to verify that this is not true.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

You still do not understand.

The government laws and rules artificially suppress the creation and development of competitors to the specialist system. This reduces choice for everybody. This reduces choices for companies seeking to list their shares. This reduces choice for traders and investors seeking to trade. If the government abolishes laws and rules giving specialists an unfair advantage, then this would increase opportunities for competitors to take the place of the specialists. If competitors do a better job than the specialists, then market forces will reward those competitors who do a better job. This would cause the specialist system to wither and die, so that it can be replaced by competitors who will do a better job for everybody.

I am arguing for more choice, which will require that the government abolish laws and rules favoring the specialists. Laws and rules favoring specialists reduce choice for everybody. The government has been gradually reducing its support for the specialist system, which is losing its advantages, and giving strength to the competitors. This is a good process and we should demand that the government accelerate it.

In the last four years, about 70 companies decided to switch their listing from Nasdaq to the NYSE. You claim that companies have no choice, when in fact they do. Many choose the NYSE. Many others choose the NASDAQ or AMEX (mostly because they are not capitalized enough to list on the NYSE). Still others choose foreign exchanges. How many exchanges do you propose we need?