the PDT rule needs to go
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
Wow, are we ever an insignificant number arent we...then why was it worth changing in the first, eh? Why do they feel they need to protect and save such an insignificant number then? Shouldnt they be making policies that affect the needs of the many? Why are they wasting their time with us in the first place then? You wanna know...you can read my earlier posts. They are afraid of us growing and we wont need anymore "expert analysis" from them that we all got rich off of! LMAO!
LP
it has been said by others in this thread that, at the very least, the rules should be changed. if there are going to be protective measures put in place to help idiots, at least make the deciding factor not your amount of money. would experience not be a better deciding factor than having $25k? i'm not saying that's the way to go, but i'm sure a middle ground could be reached..hence, the reason for NOT killing this thread.
Ya , but how do you prove that? I know nothing of fundamental analysis. All I know is that a balance sheet is apparently supposed to balance....
But one can prove that they've lost money for 6 years out of their account...or on their capital losses...but what is that? More ammo for them? So ive had losses for X years....its still experience! ...and it should count. I should be able to give my broker lots commissions for years if thats what it takes. Why dont they put a cap on credit card rates? I could say i never knew they were 19% and it ran me into the ground...can they help protect us there?? Its my choice to get a credit card at 23% and I can rack it up if i want to. I am dead against casinos because Ive seen people ruined first hand...but no , bring more in! Put'em in the water, put'em on the borders, put'em in racetracks....put'em everywhere! Why target daytraders....its the stigma...and i think they think that daytraders make things volitile and they can short and thats whats stalling the economy!! LOL
LP
Tell NASD and SEC your opposition to these restrictions.
www.pubcom@nasd.com
www.ombuds@nasd.com
www.marketreg@sec.gov
Each e-mail they get is one more voice of opposition they have to reckon with
I assure you they aren't reading these boards or caring the least what points anyone is making on here.
Make your points to the people who are upholding these biased restrictions
www.pubcom@nasd.com
www.ombuds@nasd.com
www.marketreg@sec.gov
Each e-mail they get is one more voice of opposition they have to reckon with
I assure you they aren't reading these boards or caring the least what points anyone is making on here.
Make your points to the people who are upholding these biased restrictions
Yeah, it's rather more like saying if you're under 5'8" the only meat you're allowed to have is gizzards and pig's feet, three times a week and no more, but if you're over 5'8" you get quadruple portions of steak and ribs every day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Gordon Gekko:
i actually agree with what you said 100%. your argument makes complete sense to me. but it still pisses me off that i have to suffer because of the idiocy of the majority. IT ISN'T RIGHT, and that's what we're complaining about. if people are going to play in the stock market, they should understand they can lose everything. get rid of all these protective pussy rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's like saying lets abolish the FDA. If people are going to eat beef let them be smart enough to inspect it themselves or take the risk of getting disease.
Please try not to take my quote out of context. It was in response to Gekko's quote above.
My stance on the PDT rule is actually that its great. When I used to trade retail I only got 2 to 1 intraday, 4 to 1 is an awesome advantage for the retail guy.
I do understand and agree with most of your clique's gripe with the rule though. My FDA analogy had only to do with the fact that people will sue and complain when they lose money if they are not protected by rules SIMILAR to that of the PDT rule. If you abolished the USDA's role in inspecting beef because some citizens thought that we should save the tax dollars spent on inspecting cattle, you would end up with people getting sick and becoming litigious.
As far as me having a vested interest in it's existence, that really isn't true at all. Of all the reasons that I personally believe Pro is advantageous over retail that one is extremely low on the list and only applies to a few traders, since most Pro's are reasonably well capitalized anyway.
Let me just reiterate for clarity: in order to trade options as a retail investor you need to answer certain questions about your level of knowledge about and tenure trading in options. Then the broker makes a decision about what level of option trading you can do. I agree that it would not make sense if that method were more like: if you have a quarter million in your account you are automatically approved for all types of option trading but if you have 50K you can only open long positions and bull call spreads. That wouldn't make much sense. The PDT rule is similar and sort of arbitrary in some respects, but it serves the purpose of protecting unsophisticated investors from themselves. It also prohibits a certain few sophisticated traders from being able to make a living. It is my contention however, that if those few traders truly are able to make a living from trading, then why would they not go Pro anyway? Especially if they are in a limited capital situation.