ANNOUNCEMENT- seeking traders interested in overturning the PDT rule

Discussion in 'Professional Trading' started by iceman1, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Daxtrader

    Daxtrader

    This rule doesn't make sense. Isn't it better for a new trader to risk less money when starting out rather than have him get more money by borrowing and other means etc. and end up losing 25k+ when he could've gotten his feet wet for a measly 5k?
     
    #31     Feb 12, 2006
  2. lakka

    lakka

    Summarizing some points against the PDT rule here:

    Not adjusting to volatily.
    The average daily range is 1/3 of what it was when the rule was enforced, yet the limit is still 25K.

    The rule applies even if you are not daytrading
    Example using a strategy with holding time from 1-15 days,
    sample 10 trading days:
    Day1 : Long 3 stocks , stopped out on 2 the same day.
    Day2: New entry Long 1 and short 1. Stopped out on short.
    Day3: Get 2 new signals, but ooops, PDT rule kicks in now if stopped, so no entry
    Day4: No entries due to PDT
    Day5: No entries due to PDT
    Day6: Get signals on 3 stocks , but can only enter in 2 due to PDT, Not stopped out.
    Day7: Enter 2 stock , stopped out 2.
    Day8: Get signal on 3 stock but can only enter 1 due to PDT.
    Day8: Get signal on 2 but make an error so selling instead of buying , correct this immediatly with minimum loss , cannot execute the next one due to PDT.
    Day 9 : No entries due to PDT
    Day10: No entries due to PDT.

    10 trading days, 7 of them affected by the PDT rule , no daytrading, 5 stops and 1 error. Nothing unusual with the example.
    So the the PDT rule will punish position traders using stops and correcting errors.

    Not possible to start small
    A trader that is learning cannot start small using 100 share sizes and building as he/she learns. But are forced to start with high leverage futures or forex.


    Probably a good idea to create some kind of list with as much facts and clear examples as possible and ...ahem...stay out of the general political issues.
     
    #32     Feb 12, 2006


  3. Excellent- thanks for the input
     
    #33     Feb 12, 2006
  4. I agree

    thanks

    PDT is a classsic example of (potentially) good intent in enacting a law/rule that in practice does not achieve its purpose - and in fact can "do more harm than good"!
     
    #34     Feb 12, 2006
  5. weld1

    weld1

    someone needs to make software that combines our accounts and separates the p&l, the margin,and just basically breaks it down into how many ever different accounts???? what do ya THINK?????????????:confused:
     
    #35     Feb 12, 2006
  6. uh????
    what has all of this got to do with pdt rule overthrowing efforts...
    what do ya THINK??????????????:confused:
     
    #36     Feb 12, 2006
  7. weld1

    weld1

    if there are 5 traders with less than 25 k in their accounts, when combined they have 50,000 then the rule would not bother them. just in case u want to trade before this campaign comes to fruition....lol
     
    #37     Feb 12, 2006

  8. Sorry, that's not the way it works. You can not combine accounts; not even personal accounts. If it is being done at a brokerage, it is not keeping within the existing PDT rule.
     
    #38     Feb 12, 2006
  9. weld1

    weld1

    just a thought,although not a good one.so what are we gonna do about it???
     
    #39     Feb 12, 2006

  10. This thread is a good thought, but it is beating a dead horse.

    I took to arms back when this whole thing got started. They pulled it over everyone without making it public-- although they said it was. Nobody really knew about it until it was passed. Anyway, I took to arms, started calling, e-mailing, and voicing my opinion. After being talked to very rudely by a rep. at the SEC, they finally hung the phone up on me. Believe me, the powers that put the PDT rule in place is far bigger than anyone would think. I finally just walked away added more cash to my account and forgot about it. End of story.
     
    #40     Feb 12, 2006