Well who knows, it is over four years ago. People come and go, committies change and the market has changed . The likelyhood of changing a law is IMO greater when 4 years is passed. I guess chances of changing any law just after it is passed is pretty slim.
Glad to hear "you took to arms" . Be sure to PM or email me your name and contact info so this time your protest will have some results. We need you on board regardless of whether your account is now larger. This horse isn't dead (i.e. repealing the PDT rule) rather like Seabiscuit it still has a lot of race left in it. It's just that no one bothered to really champion the cause, and be willing to do whatever it took to deal with the stingy staunch opposition I expect to encounter in agencies like SEC where often they are not in touch with the real world, and are mouthpieces for the large exchanges and wealthy market and insitutional participants. Further there was no organized group or interest opposing the rule because most don't know how to organize in this country. We always need some passionate citizen-leaders to muster the troops and heighten public awareness of these abuses of personal rights. People like Ralph Nader, Julie Butterfly Hill, the Chicago 7 et.al. don't come around every day! Thus they (the government suits) continue to make dangerous products, send other people's children overseas and allow them to continue dying for unstated reasons and causes and cut down all our children's trees. They made it "public" by publishing it in the Federal Register. That is the way our system works. Then all citizens who have an interest in the law or enactment/rule are presumed to be interested enough to seek out the details in the Federal Register. It's like all those "notices" you see in the back of a paper. They all are there in order to comply with due process by providing notice commensurate with the jurisdictional requirements of the statute. My view since my late 20s has been most people complain, bitch and moan about the Country or its laws and policies- but most don't have the motivation and often not the guts to spend their time actually making a difference. Also our legal system is so onerous and expensive with respect to actually attacking an existing law. In my case all I need to do is renew my law license and slap a complaint on the various parities who will be named as defendants. The bigger "problem" we might have is who should be named as plaintiffs if I am going to actually present the case and/or appeal it. But it is still my view (and hope) we will be able to negotiate a modfication or repeal of this PDT rule. iceman1
Isn't it obvious yet? Understand who benefits and who loses by it, shouldn't the answer be easy? If new people become better in eating the food in the feeding ground, you don't outcompete them, you exclude them from entering.......... free access to the mkts? lipservice only?
Thanks WHY was it enacted? Can you spell: HYPOCRISY !? soon as I get time to begin drafting my paperwork this long weekend- I will also post the pertinent information from the Fed. Reg so we all can laugh at how the guys at NASD, SEC NYSE feel they allegedly have a paternal relationship/interest with traders in the USA markets who decide to only risk $24999 in their USA trading accounts, but still want to make a few day trades every week. Not hundreds mind you-- but maybe more than 4-5. It ought to be good for a laugh! What is most objectionable is that they have no provisions for training or experience or background as any factor whatsoever in determining which trader and account is subject to said PDT rule. You'd think if an options MM comes upstairs (for example) but only wants to trade 24999 in 5 different accounts - one might think he or she would have the experience to trade as many times as they deem prudent free of this regulatory fiasco - but he would be treated the same as a younger (or less experienced) trader who makes his very first day trade. iCE
Unequal rights to the marketplace A little story: A study released reporting that persons below 6ft sitting in front of the bus had 40% higher chances of injury than persons over 6ft. A group of senators ( all over 6 ft and likes to sit in front) got the report. They cared deeply about their fellow short people and a law was proposed and passed: People under 6ft must sit on row 25 or higher on the bus. Also in a period of 5 rolling days a person below 6ft are only allowed to enter the bus three times. Thank God the small people are now safe.
Come on. The rule may not be perfect as it excludes other factors to "qualify" a trader (such as training, education, etc.). People who don't have proper capitalization have little chance of succeeding. But to suggest that they don't want a level playing field by setting the $25K limit is nonsense . If you're implying that some novice aspiring trader with $5000 to start with has much of a chance competing against market makers, institutions and other professional traders, who are much better capitalized, you're living in fantasyland. Take a look at some of the naive questions posted here on ET by people who want to start trading. I'm not knocking them as everyone has to start somewhere. But many wanna be traders fall into the typical trap of being like a deer frozen in headlights when a trade goes against them. They average down. They stubbornly want to "break even". It doesn't take long to blow out a $5K or $10K account. If someone is truly serious about trading, has done their homework and understands the markets they want to trade then I don't see why they wouldn't want to have adequate trading capital. Those with less than $25K would be better off swing trading, minimizing transactions costs, trying to maximize their profitable trades, gaining confidence and building up their capital over time while they continue to learn.
I hate to be rude since you took the time to reply... and I am also very interested in different points of view. So taking what you say and extrapolating it please tell us why 25000 creates a greater opportunity of success for that same hypothetical trader you mention, then say 5-10 or 15K. I mean if capital is correlated to probability of greater success trading actively in the markets, then why not make the PDT rule require 100,000 or 50,000. Seriously... why not? Maybe it should be 250,000. The truth is IF someone is a great trader they can make money with any account size. IF the account is larger then size will typically go higher also. Thus money managment is key whether trading 7500 or 75000 etc. But what is most disturbing about this hypocritical rule is the b.s. 3 days out of 5! Does anyone whose been around the markets really believe that to make THREE trades in a rolling day period creates a 'day trader"!? It's nonsense.
While I agree that not being capitilized adequately is a huge factor in traders failing, does the PDT rule really prevent this from happening? Traders are going to try to trade anyway, and further restrictions being placed on them are just yet another handicap they have to deal with. Another interesting point is that it doesn't only affect traders, but also investors (If I understand the rule correctly). Think about an investor who purchases two stocks on the same day then hears some broad market bad news. He/she has to chose which one of the two stocks to sell or face a 90 day account freeze? I've always felt it wasn't a rule that was very well thought out. Iceman, I'll be sending a PM shortly. Thanks, - The New Guy