Observations on the NYSE specialist.

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

re-word his own explanation so that it would be so clear, obvious, and emphatic, that even the kindergarteners in this thread (I'm not referring to you rubberbird) would be convinced.

The only kindergartener on this thread is you. I explained the rules to you countless pages ago, especially after you said one had to be a lawyer or securities expert to understand and trade on the NYSE.

For pages and pages you said that size can have priority over time on the book, and each time I corrected you, you cited some irrelevant rules and said that I was wrong.

All of your postings sound like that of a pompous ass, who cares only about strutting some falsely-conceived notion of knowledge and intellect, rather than adding any value to the thread, when in fact you offer nothing but verbose sewage.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from rubberbird:


this BS will be coming to an end soon as the pilot program showed the NYSE that the stocks that are exempt from the uptick rule fared far better this past year than those that had an uptick rule. This would make sense as the more shorts in a stock, the better the chance of it rising. Check out the stocks that are exempt. stocks like ahc, agn, brl, bsc, mil, mon, pd, vlo, usg, bni to name a few. All had banner years, and all were exempt from the uptick rule.

Rubberbird, I do not agree that with several of these points.

First, while I of course acknowledge short squeezes can cause short-term spikes and rallys, I do not think that a stock's appreciation over the long term can be attributed to more shorts in the stock. Second, I do not think that the absence of an up-tick rule allows more shorts into a stock in the long term in any case. Even with an up-tick rule, I am pretty confident that anyone who wants to get short for more than a day can and does.

 

[jimrockford]

Hamlet, a.k.a. size, you are still lying about what I said, and I absolutely think you and your multiple aliases should be banned from this website. You have told so many lies about me, you have been so abusive toward me and others, you have already stated that you make personal attacks because you don't have time to formulate rational arguments supported by evidence, and you are driving good people away from this thread.

I never said it was necessary to be a lawyer or a securities expert to trade on NYSE. I said "I agree 100% that traders should not have to be lawyers or regulatory experts." You once again distorted my words.

I have repeatedly acknowledged, in this thread, that many people trade NYSE successfully and profitably, and they are obviously not lawyers or security experts.

I never claimed that size can take priority over time within the specialist's order book. I said something different, which I think has been confirmed by cstu, the former specialist.

I believe cstu was trying to warn us that orders represented by floor brokers, but not represented in the specialist's book, can sometimes jump in front, via floor broker bids or offers not in the specialist's book, and thereby take size priority over older orders in the specialist's book. I think he said that simple price-time priority operates between orders inside the specialist's book, but that different and more complicated rules govern competition between the specialist's book and the floor brokers.

If I am wrong about NYSE rules, which is always a possibility, especially since I stopped trading NYSE a long time ago, this is no excuse for totally outrageous and unacceptable behaviour.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:


NYSE rules sometimes give priority to a larger size order, over a smaller size order at the same price, even though the smaller size order arrived first. I suspect this is what happened to Dan (dwl603).

That is what you said in response to Dan who wondered why his short sell order on the book was not filled although another larger subsequent seller at same price was.

You did not claim this? Those are your words...what did I lie about?

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

Good points, Avid Consumer. The issues you mention are part of the reason I stopped trading with specialists. I agree 100% that traders should not have to be lawyers or regulatory experts.

More of your words.

You said you stopped trading with specs... next sentence.....traders shouldn't have to be lawyers or reg experts.

Logical and very reasonable conclusion there is that you think in order to trade on NYSE one has to be a lawyer or regulatory expert.

Again..... where did I lie?

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

That is what you said in response to Dan who wondered why his short sell order on the book was not filled although another larger subsequent seller at same price was.

You did not claim this? Those are your words...what did I lie about?

You said I was talking about competition between orders on the book. Your accurate quotation of me makes no mention of the specialist's book. Your inaccurate paraphrase of me inaccurately includes verbiage regarding the specialist's book. Perhaps you made a mistake this time, rather than a deliberate lie. But you have definitely lied about me many other times.

I saw many other things I to which I wanted to respond in this thread. Many things and asked by Don Bright, for example. But I am too busy denying and disproving your lies, so that I don't have time to talk to the grownups.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

You said I was talking about competition between orders on the book. Your accurate quotation of me makes no mention of the book. Your inaccurate paraphrase of me inaccurately includes verbiage regarding the book. Perhaps you made a mistake this time, rather than a deliberate lie. But you have definitely lied about me many other times.

I saw many other things I to which I wanted to respond in this thread. Many things and asked by Don Bright, for example. But I am too busy denying and disproving your lies, so that I don't have time to talk to the grownups.

My quotation of you was actually your response to Dan, who was talking about his order on the book. If you'd like I can quote that too.

I have no reason to intentionally lie, anyway it would be absurd since everything said here is documented. There are no lies from me that you need to respond to, that in itself is a lie.

 

[jimrockford]

Dan's order was on the book, but I am suggesting that a floor broker, not on the book, might have jumped in front of him. I didn't say that another order on the book jumped in front of him.

Perhaps you were not aware that floor brokers can bid or offer without placing their interest on the specialist's book?

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

Dan's order was on the book, but I am suggesting that a floor broker not on the book, not another order on the book, might have jumped in front of him.

Perhaps you were not aware that floor brokers can bid or offer without placing their interest on the specialist's book?

What is the relevance of that? In this case the other order was on the book, as Dan pointed out, since he saw it.

 

[jimrockford]

I am certain that people do not want to read these types of charges and countercharges between me and Hamlet and size and any of his other aliases.

If he has any consideration for the others reading this thread, he will stop right now, and stick to just talking about the topic of the thread, instead of talking about the people in the thread.