NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[1000]

Quote from jimrockford:

I'm not going to respond to the questions for which you have repeatedly requested a response. This is because I don't think your questions are worthwhile, because I am being harassed by Hamlet in this thread, and because I think some of your other postings were insulting.

If I upset you I sincerely apologize. It must be my jovial nature.

However, Hamlet has nothing to do with something I may wish to be less ignorant about. I genuinely would like to know what your thoughts/views may be, as we are essentially looking at the same truth from two different angles.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from 1000:

If I upset you I sincerely apologize. It must be my jovial nature.

However, Hamlet has nothing to do with something I may wish to be less ignorant about. I genuinely would like to know what your thoughts/views may be, as we are essentially looking at the same truth from two different angles.

1000, I do not think that my good friend Rockford is willing to respond to the questions that you or I posed. I tried also to stimulate the discussion by trying to encourage him to expand on what he meant when he said that we need more choice and competition, and that companies need more and better choices for their listing (I think I got the semantics right but if not I will stand corrected), but got no response. I have concluded that by his refusal to respond to inquiries and his use of obfuscation and dismissal of your questions as "not worthwhile" that he seems to prefer to keep the debate one-sided. These tactics in themselves should serve to answer the questions and ponderances that you have about his arguments and their basis. I myself am now satisfied with the "response". The rest has become schoolyard fighting and I hope that it will stop.

 

[1000]

Therefore the voters have spoken.

STAY: 85. (54.8%)

GO: 70. (45.2%)

That is a clear majority in favor of STAY. So the specialist stays.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from Hamlet:

Well put. That certainly would be capitalism operating at it's finest. It's nice to actually get a mature response on this thread, or any response at all.

Are you saying then that there is a demand (or need) for more exchanges than we currently have, as Rockford was implying? If so, what do you think is keeping this demand from leading to the creation of more exchanges?

there are a number of factors limiting the creation of new exchanges

1. regulatory hurdles
2. capital requirements
3. new exchange must have a product or way of doing business that is not easily duplicable for whatever reason by existing exchanges

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from 1000:

Therefore the voters have spoken.

STAY: 85. (54.8%)

GO: 70. (45.2%)

That is a clear majority in favor of STAY. So the specialist stays.

What is even more poignant is the fact that the only category of traders where the majority votes the specialist to go continues to be that of the unprofitable traders.

 

[nitro]

Isn't that tautologous? Why would a trader that is profitable want something to change, potentially having to relearn a new skill set for no added benefit to himself?

The only reason a profitable trader would want something to change is if the change would give him a chance to exploit it through a new skill or old. Alternatively he would welcome the change if it makes his current skill carry even greater force than it did before the change.

If there is nothing to exploit through skill, then the only ones left "trading" are the gamblers.

nitro

Quote from Hamlet:

What is even more poignant is the fact that the only category of traders where the majority votes the specialist to go continues to be that of the unprofitable traders.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from nitro:

Isn't that tautologous? Why would a trader that is profitable want something to change, potentially having to relearn a new skill set for no added benefit to himself?

The only reason a profitable trader would want something to change is if the change would give him a chance to exploit it through a new skill or old. Alternatively he would welcome the change if it makes his current skill carry even greater force than it did before the change.

If there is nothing to exploit through skill, then the only ones left "trading" are the gamblers.

nitro

Good points. You make a good case that if one wanted to draw a 100% concrete conclusion from this (if that would even be possible) as to whether having stocks with one dealer available for trading is a pro or con to traders and their profitability, it would be necessary to not only poll, but also get profiles from those voting in order to do a more in-depth analysis as to why they are voting as they do.

I like to think that having a group of stocks with one dealer provides for more "choice" (if you can call it that), of trading styles. If your priority is instant execution and that suits your trading style, obviously you will prefer to trade on ecns. If your style is more micro and you like to get a "feel" in a stock, looking for elephant tracks and following the institutional flow, than lightning fast execution takes a back seat to being able to watch the tape and getting "feedback" from how the dealer deals.

 

[1000]

Quote from Hamlet:

Good points. You make a good case that if one wanted to draw a 100% concrete conclusion from this (if that would even be possible) as to whether having stocks with one dealer available for trading is a pro or con to traders and their profitability, it would be necessary to not only poll, but also get profiles from those voting in order to do a more in-depth analysis as to why they are voting as they do.

Assume that over time gamblers do not get rewarded by the market, but it is trading skill + a little luck that counts.

Assume those who voted in the 0 to $100k, are there because of lower capitalization or are at the beginning of their trading journey.

Assume those who voted > $100k, have both time and capitalization on their side.

If the poll is grouped as follows

A. Lose i.e. <$0k...................Stay 14 (8.75%).......Go 17 (10.6%)

B. upto $100k.......................Stay 41 (21.6%).......Go 34 (21.3%)

C. greater than $100K...........Stay 33 (20.6%).......Go 21 (13.1%)


This would suggest that

1. The people in category A are still learning, and with time, the Go 17 (10.6%) get swayed to the category B Stay 41 (21.6%) side.

2. The more money traders/gamblers alike make i.e. category C, suggests that they tend to care less about the specialists intervention, as the equation favors and is skewed to the Stay 33 (20.6%) side even more.

3. The fact that there are less voters in category A (14 + 17 = 31), as opposed to category C (33 + 21 = 54), suggests that the specialist vote to Go, is more emotional than fundamental.

Conclusion. With time, traders/voters imply that the specialist has a place in the system, and whatever sort fall has been highlighted, is an over exaggeration (could be something to do with media frenzy effect).

 

[zdreg]

Quote from Hamlet:

There is a lot of heated debate on the specialist threads. It seems as polarizing as Roe v. Wade. I think the specialist haters are more vocal, while the more experienced astute traders quietly understand the former's foolhardy thinking. Here is the chance to vote.

The poll is broken out according to successfulness of voters.

as a trader you are interested in breakouts but the correct phrase in this case is broken down.

 

[RedManPlus]

Quote from 1000:

Assume that over time gamblers do not get rewarded by the market, but it is trading skill + a little luck that counts.

Assume those who voted in the 0 to $100k, are there because of lower capitalization or are at the beginning of their trading journey.

Assume those who voted > $100k, have both time and capitalization on their side.

If the poll is grouped as follows

A. Lose i.e. <$0k...................Stay 14 (8.75%).......Go 17 (10.6%)

B. upto $100k.......................Stay 41 (21.6%).......Go 34 (21.3%)

C. greater than $100K...........Stay 33 (20.6%).......Go 21 (13.1%)


This would suggest that

1. The people in category A are still learning, and with time, the Go 17 (10.6%) get swayed to the category B Stay 41 (21.6%) side.

2. The more money traders/gamblers alike make i.e. category C, suggests that they tend to care less about the specialists intervention, as the equation favors and is skewed to the Stay 33 (20.6%) side even more.

3. The fact that there are less voters in category A (14 + 17 = 31), as opposed to category C (33 + 21 = 54), suggests that the specialist vote to Go, is more emotional than fundamental.

Conclusion. With time, traders/voters imply that the specialist has a place in the system, and whatever sort fall has been highlighted, is an over exaggeration (could be something to do with media frenzy effect).

Just based on the numbers... that is a pretty good analysis.

The problem is:

(A) The numbers are suspect.

(B) > income does not necessarily corelate with a > understanding of the Specialist

Since max 5-10% of the posters here make a "subsistence living" off trading ...
The value 16% of voters > 300K is wildly off...
And there is not much to stop multiple voting.

Probably 90% of traders have little or no interaction with the Specialist...
So their opinions are irrelevant.

You want to read the posts of the traders that trade low volume NYSE listed...
And interact with Specialists directly 50 times/day... and get cheated every day.
Those posts are ** almost universally ** very angry.

Just go to "nyse.com" and read the "Regulatory Actions"... by the NYSE against rogue Specialists.
If you have not done so... you cannot understand how things really work.
The Specialist firms get nothing more than a "slap on the wrist" for gross, continuing violations.

rm+