Quote from YngvaiMalmsteve:
Nice blanket statement, but if you're going to make such a claim, you should show why they are speculative.
For example, it is a distinct possibility that a position trader could get stopped out of 4 positions the same day he enters them on an unexpected market turn. If you don't think that is possible, then please explain.
There it is right there my friend, you're speculating on an possibility. One in which can be avoided.
It's not a blanket statement, it's a fact. You can't substantiate one iota of your six claims because they defy objectivity if for only the language used.
Well, of course they can all be avoided, but not without serious alterations in approaches and strategies that hamper the small account trader.
Hamper? No. We all trade within the context of rules and we strategize accordingly. The gripes against hold no water. Nor do they engender sympathy given that there are other alternatives and that one doesn't HAVE to day trade, swing, or position trade stocks.
Then please offer up your counter-claims.
That's what I'm trying to avoid - avoid more subjective assessments about the rule. But it's obvious that subjective counter-claims can be made and have been. Facts is, all arguments brought to date against the rule are not only subjective and self-serving, but weak. That's why the rule persists.
Certainly, the rule fosters a certain perception, but I'm pointing out the perception is flawed in and of itself.
Flawed according to you, myself and others with no incontrovertible proof that it actually is. It just doesn't "seem" sensible and appears arbitrary and political to us.
I have fully explored other alternatives, which is why I'm moving to trade with a prop firm. But that doesn't mean I won't stop speaking out against the rule, whether my complaints are heard or not. I will always speak out against things that I find completely absurd, which this rule always will be....there are better ways to protect small account traders if that is the purpose of the rule.
Sumbit to the SEC, you local congress persons, and the NASD a proposal that outlines the better way, all the while appreciating their desire to protect the perception of the stock markets. You're invariably going to disenfranchise some group who likely will find your proposal to be subjective, arbitrary, and lacking "logic."
That's the nature of these things. Mostly, except for precedence, the rule is irrelevant. It hurts no one except the inflexible and uninformed.
So really, what's the point of crusading against it? It'll never hurt anyone destined to succeed in trading. Think about that for a moment. You've already taken a step in the right direction by exploring an alternative. Trading success takes dedication. The fact that you've taken the initiative shows dedication.
But INVESTORS have been losing their shirts this past year. There are people in mutual funds and 401K's who have lost half or more of their money. I don't see the SEC stepping in to stop these people from investing.
Keyword: investing. Has a different connotation than the word "trading." The public has built up in their mind (thanks to the media, academics, and lousy traders) that "trading" is bad and "investing" is good. If you lost money "investing' there's a laundry list of people to blame... and sue. You're a victim. As there are a dizzying array of persons responsible for exercising due diligence on your behalf. Lose money in trading and you're the fool, the social pariah, and gambler. And the media will paint you as one of those types responsible for other people being affected by your exploits.
Those would all be subjective arguments against the rule. Note that I made none of these arguments.
Of course they are. It's impossible to come up with an objective argument for or against. But many who keep railing against the rule using such similar terms may or may not understand that fact.
That's why I'd rather see stock traders explore their alternatives. Most have no idea that viable and lucrative alternatives exist.
