Observations on the NYSE specialist.

Jim you are seeing the worst of NYSE trading with SPY. I set up a program to arb NY trade-throughs with ECN's a couple years ago. I figured if NY is constantly printing outside the inside ECN market there must be some money there. The problem was that the program needed to adjust the envelope constantly, and NY wouldn't let you cancel when he wanted to fill you (the market was moving against you), and he would skip over your order when there was a good fill. If there was ever a crooked specialist imo it's the SPY guy.
 
Quote from Don Bright:/Fred Bloggs

Darn those bulls, LOL. Same wankers that ran my short EP up this morning....

Don:cool:
=============
It wasnt me;
dont like to go long weakest stocks lik EP in that gapped sector.:D

And speaking of LOL, thats funny some dont seem to care about the slippage in a nice liquid stock like GOOG.

Actually the slippage in GOOG is pretty reasonable for NasdaQQQQ.:cool:
 
Quote from Dustin:

Jim you are seeing the worst of NYSE trading with SPY. I set up a program to arb NY trade-throughs with ECN's a couple years ago. I figured if NY is constantly printing outside the inside ECN market there must be some money there. The problem was that the program needed to adjust the envelope constantly, and NY wouldn't let you cancel when he wanted to fill you (the market was moving against you), and he would skip over your order when there was a good fill. If there was ever a crooked specialist imo it's the SPY guy.

This is done now by several programs, you can usually see a 50x50 market 3-5 cents away from NBBO that is constantly enveloping
 
Quote from Don Bright:

I just made a few trades on the SPY, and while watching the NYOB and L2, I notice very tight markets (obviously, for any ETF), and see INET and ARCA both either matching or beating the AMEX and the NYSE at times. With a 1 or 2 penny spread, I can't see how anything outrageous could or would happen.....I put 2 120.96 buy orders in at the same time on ARCA and NYSE, and got filled on both (sold back at .98 (I don't normally trade ETF's, I'm not a directional trader), LOL.

I tell my traders to keep 2 montages up at all times, one with NYOB and one with L2....95% of all the stocks we trade will have better pricing on the NYSE, but when they see an ECN with a better price, go for it (no-brainer).

Another note about routing that may be of interest....by using the "smart limit" routing, our orders go to the Goldman Sachs "hidden" liquidity pool (which is huge, but not shown), and then we can "rest" anywhere we like (NYSE or ECN)...this opens a whole new source of better pricing, and we cannot ever get a worse fill than any price out there (according to GS anyway). I know this is a bit "off topic" but pertinent in that new sources and routing are very important, of course.

ETF's are a bit different than stocks of course, and I honestly feel that they are one instrument that makes good use of multiple markets.

All the best,

Don

Don,

your test is not valid. The problem I am talking about occurs when the market is trending away form your order. If you submitted your orders at those times, when the market is trending, when traders most urgently want to trade, and if you submitted more than just a couple of orders, then you would see that routing SPY orders to NYSE is a huge ripoff compared to the prices available on ECNs.

NYSE deceptively baits traders and smart-router software to route SPY orders to NYSE. NYSE does this by falsely displaying the best price in a trending market. But then NYSE, on average, gives a much worse price than the one it displayed. The average difference is so great, that one would be far better off simply excluding NYSE from routing decisions for SPY orders. I speak from experience and careful study and analysis.

The thing that makes SPY different from other securities is that SPY has so much liquidity on ECNs and on Nasdaq's SuperIntermarket. These fully electronic liquidity pools serve as a benchmark proving that NYSE is robbing customers blind on their SPY orders. You, Don, are the foremost expert and defender of NYSE trading on Elitetrader, and yet, you seem unable to provide any alternative explanation to my own that NYSE is simply engaging in thievery on SPY orders.

Is there any reason to believe that NYSE is any more honest for securities other than SPY? I don't see any reason. I think it is just the opposite. Most securities do not have the same amount of alternative electronic liquidity sources enjoyed by SPY. This makes it even easier for NYSE to steal from customers, on securities other than SPY, because there is no benchmark making the theft as obvious as it is in the case of SPY. I think that the case of SPY demonstrates that NYSE does systematically steal from customers, and that the only thing special about SPY is that the tight markets available elsewhere make the thievery extremely obvious; whereas the thievery is much better camouflaged for most other securities, where we don't have a benchmark to make it obvious we are being fleeced.
 
Quote from jimrockford:

Don,

your test is not valid. The problem I am talking about occurs when the market is trending away form your order. If you submitted your orders at those times, when the market is trending, when traders most urgently want to trade, and if you submitted more than just a couple of orders, then you would see that routing SPY orders to NYSE is a huge ripoff compared to the prices available on ECNs.

NYSE deceptively baits traders and smart-router software to route SPY orders to NYSE. NYSE does this by falsely displaying the best price in a trending market. But then NYSE, on average, gives a much worse price than the one it displayed. The average difference is so great, that one would be far better off simply excluding NYSE from routing decisions for SPY orders. I speak from experience and careful study and analysis.

The thing that makes SPY different from other securities is that SPY has so much liquidity on ECNs and on Nasdaq's SuperIntermarket. These fully electronic liquidity pools serve as a benchmark proving that NYSE is robbing customers blind on their SPY orders. You, Don, are the foremost expert and defender of NYSE trading on Elitetrader, and yet, you seem unable to provide any alternative explanation to my own that NYSE is simply engaging in thievery on SPY orders.

Is there any reason to believe that NYSE is any more honest for securities other than SPY? I don't see any reason. I think it is just the opposite. Most securities do not have the same amount of alternative electronic liquidity sources enjoyed by SPY. This makes it even easier for NYSE to steal from customers, on securities other than SPY, because there is no benchmark making the theft as obvious as it is in the case of SPY. I think that the case of SPY demonstrates that NYSE does systematically steal from customers, and that the only thing special about SPY is that the tight markets available elsewhere make the thievery extremely obvious; whereas the thievery is much better camouflaged for most other securities, where we don't have a benchmark to make it obvious we are being fleeced.

Please do me a favor, and give me TOS from your message (order and fill) window, and a screenshot of the NYOB/L2...I will discuss this with the floor governor/GS executive....I've been watching all day, and have never seen more than 1 penny difference between the NYSE and any other liquidity pool.

Specialist simply have no reason to "steal" or "cheat" anyone... I admit that some are better than others, but remember, these guys are simply middle management for their firms...and get paid good salaries to execute orders...they prefer not to trade whenever possible. Back in the 1980's they traded quite a bit more.

In addition, I sent out 48 emails to my traders who trade more than 50,000 shares of SPY (on average) daily, and asked fro their opinion of how well they have their orders executed...10 responses only so far...all say it's not even a concern, because of the liquidity.....I'll let you know of any of my guys express the same concerns.

Back when there was an edge trading the QQQ, I would always resort to "wave" trading with the AMEX Specialists because of the time lapse involved...(no momentum trading so to speak)....simply because it took a few seconds for the orders to be taken off screens by the clerks....and this seemed to work well. When they dually listed the QQQ(and QQQQ), of course that edge went away.

Anyway, if you prefer simply trading on the ECN's, then please do so....every trader needs a "comfort level" at times.

(Let me know about those screen shots...we have until next Thursday)...

Thanks,

Don

(PS: I realize that our orders are routed differently, without the broker being involved, but there shouldn't be all that much difference)
 
Don said:

Retail orders are routed to the brokerage firm (IB in your case) by regulation, and therefore may not even make it directly to the NYSE (although it may show on your sheets that it traded there, it may have been simply "put on the tape" there)...your T&S will show NYSE, but it also may show "as of" - many variables involved in retail trading.

and

sure, I understand...and, no, IB may not be on the other side, but they can also "sell" order flow (check your contract, I've read IB's), and any delay could cause a price difference). If the trade is reported back to you in a few seconds, then you have to be filled within the NBBO price quotes, no matter what. Sometimes you are "matched" with another IB customer.


Don, all due respect, but every so often you bring up this FUD about retail orders being delayed, not routed where you think, internalized, etc., and it's simply false with respect to most direct-access brokers. I don't really understand why you keep doing it, because it's (even admittedly) not your particular area of expertise. It IS, however, the area of expertise for Jim, myself, and a number of other very active, professional, retail traders.

Like most direct-access platforms, when you enter an order in IB's TWS or via its API, you specify a value in the "Destination" field. The choices available generally include every destination at which a particular security can be traded, as well as "SMART", which goes to a "smart-routing" algorithm to make the decision. If you tell it to send the order to NYSE, it sends it to NYSE, period. No "ifs", "ands", "buts", or delays about it. Same applies to INET, ARCA, BRUT, or any other exchange to which they are connected.

I have first-hand knowledge that the same is true of Assent and MB Trading.

If you send the order to SMART at IB, you're allowing them to decide the routing automatically, and this includes matching against TMBR at the NBBO or better, which is all well-disclosed. The point is that it's your choice to do this or not. I've personally been in situations where I got a fill from TMBR in a market that was ripping badly against me, when there was no ECN liquidity, and the NYSE quote was non-firm (and subsequently gapped hard).

Also, I can guarantee you that there is zero difference between the way my retail orders are routed at Assent and those issued by their prop traders. They go to an order management server, are checked against risk-management params, and are routed to the appropriate destination, just like everyone else's.

I've been told that TMBR's proprietary trading orders are routed through the same type of systems (perhaps not the same physical boxes) as IB's retail orders.

I'd be happy to do a controlled speed test with you any time you like, involving sending/cancelling orders to INET and watching the timestamps of the resulting quotes. I'll do Assent and IB and you can do your platform and we'll publish the results.
 
Quote from Don Bright:

Please do me a favor, and give me TOS from your message (order and fill) window, and a screenshot of the NYOB/L2...I will discuss this with the floor governor/GS executive....I've been watching all day, and have never seen more than 1 penny difference between the NYSE and any other liquidity pool.

***

In addition, I sent out 48 emails to my traders who trade more than 50,000 shares of SPY (on average) daily, and asked fro their opinion of how well they have their orders executed...10 responses only so far...all say it's not even a concern, because of the liquidity.....I'll let you know of any of my guys express the same concerns.

***
(Let me know about those screen shots...we have until next Thursday)...

Thanks,

Don

(PS: I realize that our orders are routed differently, without the broker being involved, but there shouldn't be all that much difference)

Don,

I don't have the data and screenshots you requested, because my NYSE SPY trades occurred well over a year ago. I also never bothered with NYSE open book. The S&P futures and ECNs are more important than NYSE open book, for somebody trading SPY.

Your comment about your watching SPY, and not seeing more than a penny difference between it and other liquidity pools, shows that you are not comprehending the problem. You cannot see what is happening by what you are watching. You must actually trade in order to see it.

If the market is moving against your SPY order, of course you will be filled promptly. If the market is moving favorably to your SPY order, then your order execution will frequently be delayed for a very long time, while the market runs away from your order, and then you will finally be executed at the much worse market price existing after this lengthy delay. If you simply exclude NYSE and AMEX from your SPY trading, then you will, on average, get much better prices, and will always get immediate execution.

You made the wrong comparison. You compared the NYSE price to the other prices quoted at a particular point in time. This is not valid. You need to compare the ECN prices instantly available at the time your order arrives at NYSE, to the execution price actually received at the much later when time NYSE finally gets around to executing your order. This is the crucial difference you are overlooking.

Another problem, in addition to the delay, is that NYSE will often take full advantage of the SEC's de minimis SPY exception to the trade-thru rule, with the result that you will suffer an additional 3 cent hose job, because you will trade-thru the NBBO - after the NBBO has already run away from you. And then yet another hose job is that sometimes, NYSE will go beyond the legal 3-cent limit, even though that does violate the trade-thru rule.

Thank you for soliciting opinions from your traders, but I'm not sure you did this in a way relevant to the problem. The problem I am describing involves orders which take liquidity. I suspect that your traders are offering liquidity, not taking it, so that their experience has little or no relevance. Can you clarify this question? If you do have traders taking liquidity, do they simply assume they are getting good executions, or do they carefully check the difference between the prices they could get immediately on ECNs, versus the delayed execution prices they actually get when executed on NYSE?
 
Quote from alanm:
Don, all due respect, but every so often you bring up this FUD about retail orders being delayed, not routed where you think, internalized, etc., and it's simply false with respect to most direct-access brokers. I don't really understand why you keep doing it, because it's (even admittedly) not your particular area of expertise.

Alanm,

I think your posting raises an interesting point. It seems that Don is trying shift the blame for NYSE thievery away from NYSE, and onto the honest men and women at IB. I think that my responses, in this thread, have demonstrated that his efforts to blame IB have absolutely no merit, substance, or supporting evidence whatsoever.
 
Quote from Don Bright:

Specialist simply have no reason to "steal" or "cheat" anyone... I admit that some are better than others, but remember, these guys are simply middle management for their firms...and get paid good salaries to execute orders...they prefer not to trade whenever possible. Back in the 1980's they traded quite a bit more.

Don,

it really amazes me that you would make such a statement. Please read the following newspaper article, and then tell me if you agree that it demolishes your argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46486-2005Apr12.html

Fifteen NYSE Traders Indicted
Investors Were Cheated, U.S. Says

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 13, 2005; Page A01

Fifteen current and former traders at the New York Stock Exchange were criminally charged yesterday with cheating investors out of the best prices for their stock trades in what could be unparalleled abuse of their position at the world's largest and most prestigious stock market.

The exchange also faces disciplinary action for failing to adequately police its sprawling floor, where 1,366 traders handle an average of 1.6 billion shares a day. The traders are accused of getting in between orders to buy and sell, taking for themselves the best prices and depriving investors who ordered the trades of at least $32.5 million.


"These defendants broke the rules repeatedly, they cheated the markets, and they cheated the investors who relied upon them," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney David N. Kelley.

The indictments are the result of a two-year investigation into one of the widest-ranging manipulations ever of trading at the exchange, known as the Big Board, and they follow a series of ethical breaches in recent years that have tarnished the exchange's image as the most transparent and fair market in the world.

The stocks at issue in the improper trading include some of the nation's biggest companies, including Bank One Corp., Eli Lilly and Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Pfizer Inc., Time Warner Inc. and the Walt Disney Co., according to court papers.

The charges come at a time when investor confidence already has been eroded by years of accounting scandals and revelations of illegal mutual fund trading. The abuses operated within the heart of a system that was designed to protect the interests of investors and to ensure they receive the best price for their trades.

At the same time the indictments were announced, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed separate civil charges against the 15 traders and five others. The traders "showed a disregard for their legal duty that was both profound and at times, profane," said Mark K. Schonfeld, director of the SEC's Northeast regional office.

In some cases, these traders, known as specialists, made statements explicitly denigrating investor orders placed through the exchange's electronic trading system, known as the designated order turnaround system, or DOT. Unnamed specialists said, "Screw the DOTs," according to an SEC news release.

Most purchases and sales of securities on the NYSE go through a system in which specialists are assigned to monitor particular stocks. They are obliged to match customer orders with each other whenever possible and ensure that the trading system works smoothly to find the best prices for buyers and sellers, experts said. Trades in the stocks may be made only through the specialists, which is why their role is so critical.

Traders were accused yesterday of buying or selling stock for their own accounts at prices that were better than those they gave to existing public orders. That practice is known as "trading ahead," regulators said.

Fifteen NYSE Traders Indicted

The specialists also were accused of using a trick in which they bought a customer "sell" order and then sold at a higher price into an opposite "buy" order from another customer, pocketing the difference. Such moves helped the traders lock in guaranteed profit at the expense of their customers.

The fraudulent practices enriched the specialist firms and resulted in higher salaries and bonuses for people who took part in the manipulation, U.S. Attorney Kelley said.

The SEC settled civil charges against the NYSE for failing to police and discipline the errant specialists. The exchange, which did not admit or deny wrongdoing, agreed to spend $20 million to beef up regulatory audits by hiring an independent reviewer. The exchange also said it would start an 18-month pilot program to provide video and audio surveillance of activity related to at least 20 stocks on the trading floor.

The SEC criticized the exchange's monitoring system, saying it was set up to uncover "only the most egregious instances of trading violations."

Richard G. Ketchum, the exchange's chief regulatory officer, said the NYSE has strengthened its enforcement unit and installed new technology to prevent improper trading since the investigation began in 2003. The regulatory unit now reports directly to the board of directors, rather than the NYSE chief executive, to help insulate it from pressure from traders and member firms.

"Specialist firms have changed, as have we," Ketchum said in a news release.

"It's highly unusual and somewhat shocking to see criminal activity on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange," said Jacob H. Zamansky, a securities lawyer who represents individuals suing Wall Street firms. "It also highlights that the NYSE seems incapable of supervising [traders]. It's a big setback for investor confidence."

U.S. Attorney Kelley pointed out that 14 of the people indicted yesterday at some point served as supervisors or managers at their respective firms -- Fleet Specialist Inc., now Banc of America Specialist Inc.; Bear Wagner Specialists LLC; LaBranche & Co.; Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC; and Van der Moolen Specialists USA. Most of the defendants, except for one authorities say is at large in the Netherlands, surrendered yesterday morning and were scheduled to appear in court for arraignments.

These firms and two others, SIG Specialists Inc. and Performance Specialist Group LLC , agreed to pay $247 million to settle related civil charges last year.

Indicted were David A. Finnerty, Donald R. Foley II, Scott G. Hunt and Thomas J. Murphy Jr. of Fleet; Frank A. Delaney IV and Kevin M. Fee of Bear Wagner; Freddy DeBoer of LaBranche; Robert A. Johnson Jr. at Spear, Leeds; and Patrick J. McGagh Jr., Joseph Bongiorno, Michael J. Hayward, Richard P. Volpe, Michael F. Stern, Gerard T. Hayes and Robert A. Scavone of Van der Moolen.

A defense lawyer for Finnerty, Frederick P. Hafetz, said that his client pleaded not guilty and that Finnerty "did nothing wrong." Other defense lawyers did not return calls or could not be reached for comment.

Columbia University law professor John C. Coffee Jr. said the criminal charges against specialists based on fundamental trading practices are unprecedented -- and a direct result of increased scrutiny by law enforcement authorities across the financial services industry.

"What prosecutors are recognizing is that across the financial field, the one weapon that seems to work, frightening as it is, is the criminal sanction," Coffee said.

The NYSE previously settled civil charges related to inadequate policing of independent floor brokers in 1999. Eight brokers connected to Oakford Corp. faced criminal charges for setting up secret accounts using phony documentation and illegally profiting from them in the late 1990s.

The investigation by federal prosecutors continues, according to spokeswoman Megan L. Gaffney.

Securities regulators also continue to probe the actions of individuals "who may have fallen down on the job and contributed to the failure that resulted in the case we bring today," SEC enforcement chief Stephen M. Cutler said.
 
great article Jim,
this thread was started as observations made over the last few months, however I wasn't aware there were arrests made early last year.

It's amazing that the specialist would still be up to the same shenanigans, you would think they would have learned or are we just that dumb to continue to do business with them when we have better markets such as the Nasdaq and ECN's.

Sure some specialists are better than others. But how we traders make this decision and why should we have to decide what day they play by the rules and what days they decide not to, I'd rather stick to the fairer markets (Nasdaq and ECN's).

So long NYSE.
 
Back
Top