Hey, how about this, if y'all convince some broker to provide me with account level data for a <b>representative</b> sample of small size traders who are affected by PDT (before and after the regulation), I'll be more than happy to do a full blown academic study on what its effects have been on the traders' performance. I obviously don't need any sensitive information like the identity of traders etc. I will also gladly sign whereever I need to guarantee that the data will only be used for this academic study etc etc. If I do find that the effects are clearly detrimental, think of how powerful this evidence will be for your cause! A clear case of quid pro quo - I'll get a nice publication out of it and you will have an extra weapon in your arsenal Eagerly awaiting your thoughts on this one.
Not a single reply? So I thought. It's one thing to whine and complain about how the rule supposedly sucks, it's completely another to do something real about it...
when i was in the process of moving my account from one brokerage to another, i had <25K at my 'main' account. my trading noticably suffered during that period, because i was afraid to take trades in the fear that i'd go under 25K. my profits were much less than normal, and my % wasn't very good. it was *directly* attributal to my mental state caused by being less than 25k, and knowing i couldn't trade if i broke that point. after i got the account stuff straightened out, my p&l went right back on normal track.
Your second post makes the insincerity of your first post quite clear. You have been all along advocating that the protectionist perception of these rules (which exists in your own mind and not in the NASD's own statement of the rules) is a valid restriction in capitalist free-market America. You have supported these claims with a bunch of nonsensical analogies. Then you come out with this challenge. First of all, we can't get our broker (IB) to even notify us about these changes, let alone explain to us why they were made. And you expect that somehow we are going to be able to "convince them to hand over customer statistics" to you? And after all your previous posts making ridiculous statements to support the PDT rules, you expect us to believe that you would be able to singlehandedly create some kind of impartial study? If you want to do some independent study of the effects of PDT, go right ahead and do it. If you think you can convince brokers to hand over this kind of information, then you ask them. It was, after all, your own idea. But don't put forth this bogus challenge just so you can say "aha! you're all talk and no action!" We have been trying to "do something real" about these rules: by writing to the NASD, the SEC, and representatives in government. That's all we can do, and we have been doing it and trying to encourage others to do it as well. You keep insisting that all we are doing is wasting people's time and forum space by uselessly "whining" about these rules. Well what are you doing? What kind of constructive use of your time and of forum space are you making by constantly coming into these discussions just to accuse us of being whiners? If you don't care about these rules, you can avoid the threads that are concerned with them. If you think these rules are valid, don't try to bait us with your suggestion that you're going to conduct some kind of impartial study; if and only if we are able to first provide you with some kind information that we could not possibly hope to obtain even if we wanted to. If you think all the people complaining about PDT are just wasting everyone's time by filling up the boards with pointless threads about it, why did you go and create yet another? You created this pointless thread, not anyone else.
His original offer sounded sincere to me.... Granted, I have not looked at any of his previous posts for or against PDT.
Look and you will see for yourself. Had the first one been genuine, he would not have written the second one as he did.
What the f### is wrong with you dude? Why are you so bitter? I WAS being sincere, I would be very interested in looking at the effects myself. And it WOULD be impartial. Numbers don't lie, first of all. Secondly, I don't have any agenda as an academic in this case, my previous posts on this topic are irrelevant. I do have an opinion on this issue and I stated it, I believe, rather persuasively. The idea behind PDT IS protectionist, whether you like/believe it or not. I was intersted in looking at whether the objectives it was after were accomplished or if it had an opposite result. Thirdly, even if I the researcher in this case was NOT being unbiased, he or she would most likely prefer to see the numbers show that you ARE right and the effects of PDT ARE negative. That result would be a very catching one and would warrant an almost guaranteed top journal publication with lots of attention (a study that shows the PDT just eliminated the dumb morons who shouldn't have been trading in the first place will not nearly be as important and/or intersting) If someone gets account level data (and believe me, someone will very pretty soon, someone like Odean or Barber at UC Berkeley, they've got good brokerage connections), and shows that you are right, having that evidence will thwart you whining letters to SEC/congressmen. I was suggesting a win-win situation and WAS being sincere. I don't have time to waste by giving some bogus baits as you suggest and play some stupid mind games. And lastly, if you turned at least an iota of the collective time you spend contacting SEC to bug a broker about getting this data for this purpose, they would most likely provide it. Why don't I do it myself? I will probably try. But if I just do it alone the outcome will most likely be a no. I was thinking that some of the traders here who are upset with PDT might have the requisite connections to ask about data. And, most importantly, I think you need it more than I do. For me it's just another quick thing to look at, hopefully get published somewhere good and move on. Judging by your complaints, it seems to be an almost life or death of a trader situation for you and trust me, I do have the tools and skills to do a full blown unbiased study relatively quicky and I have the dignity and reputation on the line to make sure it's unbiased.
Thanks for understanding, richtrader. I was in fact being sincere. I personally happen to believe the PDT rule probably did more good than bad and I made a number of statements that show why I believe what I believe. Then I came up with this idea yesterday and got a bit excited about it. I guess I was expecting more positive and enthusiastic feedback. Maybe y'all are right and the PDT rule does impair your ability to make money more than it impairs your chances to lose money. I'd be very happy to see that result, even though that's not what I think happened. I generally have an open mind. It's one thing when some high skilled trading outlier thinks he is negatively affected and really is. It's totally another when for 99% of the people (who by the way would not be complaining here) it actually is for the better. I'd be glad to change my opinion based on the real statistics and econometrics as opposed to what someone says here. And for your cause it would seriously be a much more convincing argument.
What you have been doing is not nearly as effective as what a study of this nature would do. don't you get it? even if you ARE right, even if YOUR performance suffered, they dont' give a f@#@ about what happened in YOUR case. They care about the mean/mode/median/majority of the small trader population. They might be getting lots of complaints from people like you but they'll most likely be treated as an expected outburst from some outliers and thrown the the trash. If, on the other hand, a study show that the majority suffered, that's a totally different matter.