NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

Discussion in 'Trading' started by Hamlet, Mar 28, 2006.

Should the specialist Stay or Go?

  1. STAY - I earn $0-$100k (annually)

    46 vote(s)
  2. GO - I earn $0-$100k

    39 vote(s)
  3. STAY - I earn $100k-$300k

    21 vote(s)
  4. Go - I earn $100k-$300k

    12 vote(s)
  5. STAY - I earn > $300k

    16 vote(s)
  6. GO - I earn > $300k

    12 vote(s)
  7. STAY - I lose money trading and need someone to blame

    15 vote(s)
  8. Go - I lose money trading but will be profitable when he goes

    18 vote(s)
  1. Hamlet


    There is a lot of heated debate on the specialist threads. It seems as polarizing as Roe v. Wade. I think the specialist haters are more vocal, while the more experienced astute traders quietly understand the former's foolhardy thinking. Here is the chance to vote.

    The poll is broken out according to successfulness of voters.
  2. "Go".
  3. amtrak



    An extra middleman is always a bad thing.

  4. HamletSpeak:

    Someone that disagrees with you is guilty of "foolhardy thinking".


    :cool: :cool: :cool:
  5. I have to admit that specialists do have some purpose, but ever expanding levels of technoligical automation and connectivity are making them more of an artifact. I believe that the NYSE will and is slowly moving them out the door, and wouldn't be surprised to see them gone within the next 3-5 years.

    If the NYSE buys a major foreign exchange like the LSE, it will be sooner than later.

  6. bitrend


    The inevitable.

  7. The NMS "no trade-through" rule coming this spring...
    Will fragment the market place... and render the Specialist system obsolete.

    It's a complex issue, though.
    Maybe the NYSE will weasel some "exemptions"... that allow it to keep skimming billions off the top.


    :cool: :cool: :cool:
  8. Exactly,

    Hamlet's proposed mentality is a sign of the fool who thinks he is a genius.

    Think of it from the perspective of a major player like Goldman. Ask yourself why no other newly established exchange in the world (like emerging markets) even considered emulating the NYSE system. Think of it in terms of human vs computer.

    These are modern times, an exclusive racket to some old scumbag families will simply not hold in this scenario. Gotta step it up if you want to milk the intraday order flow. Why should a big player i-bank need to buy out a specialist firm and then pay them their cut if they want in on the racket when they can simply set up black boxes to do the same with much better perceived legibility and without the problems, quirks and needs of the human element.

    The move for an electronic NYSE is not being done for the sake of the little guy and it certainly has zero concern of the trader & daytrader. It's a switch of power, the banks now call the shots and they want to break the thieves' den and split up the spoils.

    I want them gone for the simple reason that they are undeserving low life scum. At least the Goldman guys are smart mofos who can pull off some amazing feats. Yeah they are criminals as well but I at least have respect for them instead of some piece of sh*t vindictive trash who barely graduated high school. If you think my description of a specialist is a big overexaggeration, it's not, I recently had the honor of meeting of some 21 year old degenerate who is part of a specialist family and is being worked into the family racket as of a year ago.
  9. Hamlet


    On this issue, yes.

    I should have included in the poll a seperate choice for automated traders, since they can legitimately benefit from an all electronic market.

    As for discretionary types... inefficiency=opportunity=potential profit.
    Also, discernable patterns of human behavior create predictability.
  10. If Congress passed a law saying that every speculator in securities must pay the specialists a $100 fee on every stock trade, this would create an inefficiency. Would this inefficiency be good for traders? One answers the question simply by asking it.

    This example shows the hopeless confusion of arguments that specialists are good because they create inefficiency and that inefficiency is good for traders.

    Traders benefit from efficient execution of their orders. They are harmed by inefficient, criminal, secretive, technologically backward execution of their orders. Some traders have strategies which they have profitably learned to adapt to the NYSE system of parasitic corruption, but this does not justify the harm done to other traders, to securities markets, to investors and widows and orphans, and to society generally. People who suck at the NYSE tit should learn how to trade without depending upon a system of parasitic corruption. They should not encourage everybody to let this NYSE crime-fest continue, just because they personally profit from it.
    #10     Mar 30, 2006