The other annoying thing is when thousands of shares trade at .001 above my bid. Makes me think the day of specialists and fractions wasn't too bad for the small timers.
This is probably due to either B/D internalization and/or the sale of order flow to wholesalers. Then the broker gets to trumpet "price improvement" of fractions of a cent per share while using executing a policy that easily costs end investors billions: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3519.html The SEC's proposed "trade at" rule would be helpful in this area, although I think an outright ban on retail brokers sending orders to non-exchange venues (unless explicitly directed) would be even better.
Part of the incentive for doing this stems from the fact that such trades are not reported on the consolidated tape, giving "private information" to the sender of the 1-share order. You might be able to see why this is useful under certain circumstances. Really, the SEC should require that all trades be reported on the consolidated tape (as has been suggested by at least one significant academic study). http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/odd-lots-paper-109456-1.html
rules, rules more rules.. i propose simple rule-ban that shit and roll back to where we use to be. NO fucking subpennies trades. everyone-back in same line, two digits after decimal point...very simple rule, that would actually CUT amount of rules and exemptions from all this crap. one order from SEC and it's done overnight. SEC should try to simplify, not over complicate things..but hey...who would listen..
There are now many legal exchanges for any stock, not to mention off-exchange venues. What you propose would of necessity be a radical change, probably requiriing significant legislation. Maybe it would be good to go back to a one-exchange model (stocks only trade on the exchange on which they're listed), but this would be a pretty major departure from the current model, and it may lead to dramatically increased trading costs, as there would be a lot of friction, not to mention the fact that exchanges would revert their internal rules to ones that favor their "best customers". This is a complex problem with complex solutions, barring a complete nationalzation and SEC takeover of all US trading venues, something I have yet to see suggested anywhere. And I really have doubt that this would be a good idea for the long term, as it could become a political football, not to mention potential inefficiency. An alternative policy they could impose would be to have a national book, comprised of bids/offers from all the venues. But that would imply some sort of ECN fee/rebate uniformity, in order to make sense. At that point, would there be a point in having different venues? In the mean time, I think that "trade at" is something that should significantly disincentivize subpennying and that can be put in place now.
i'm not proposing going back to one exchange. i'm proposing one simple order from SEC that would ban any subpenny. there is absolutely no requirements for it. it would cost nothing for SEC and it would cost close to nothing for all brokers,ECN's to comply with. but it would be important step to pursue more fainess and transparency. not opposite(which is current trend). is anyone in his right mind does believe that this subpenny is fair practice?where one participant is can do it and another one-can't. imo-if there is a subpenny-the rules should be exact opposite-retail should be allowed to place subpenny and 'pros' are not. why? to give the retail trades advantage,so more retail could back to trading. as for current environment-SEC themselves did admitted not so long ago that because there in US so many market centers-they are unable to control and regulate them all. as for possible rise in commissions,if we back to single exchange(or less market places) model-the commissions are fine back in a day,where there is only AMEX,NYSE,NASDAQ, ISLAND and ARCA. now we have 80+ market centers in US..and they all trading same 7000 stocks,that are listed on AMEX,NASDAQ and NYSE. i wouln't complain,if there is 7000 * 80 market centers stocks to choose from, but nope..they all shoveling same shit,nothing new..
here is another fine example of why we have those 1 shares executions(just my opinion,you know,i'm not a pro) just witnessed it few minutes ago. one fine example.. stock MDCI. some shitty low volume junk..it's doesn't matter. that matter is 'mechanics' and rationale behind this execution..it's just more visible on this stock..i placed an order to buy 100 shares at 3.65(order is probably still in query,everyone can see it) i was only one bidder at that time(sorry, you can't see it in T&S. screen shot,it's down there,below). what happened next- i got 1 share execution,now my order became an odd order and i lost any priority,you can't see it in NBBO and as you can see- it's been made for one and only purpose-they drop the bid and got all the shares @ 3.62, while my order is still out there. that's how this shit works today..'they' don't want you there, in their game..like i said many times here- you can be fucking genius at picking tops or bottoms or price direction, but if you can't get a fucking 100 shares of 3$ stock filled -this is fucked up lawless market...enjoy. bravo SEC! awesome work!
it might be a solution in some cases(like in example above) however-i was unable to create limit all or nothing order in IB's TWS in one click(same way regular limit order was created). is it possible? Thank you!
Looks like the only stock exchange that support All or None native order is the PSX http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/orderTypeExchanges.php?ot=aon IB simulates for the rest, I'm not sure their simulation is worth anything