Yes, customer service will be necessary for the continued success of any brokerage service. Companies that respond to any complaints of their operation by merely boasting of their finanical stability while taking a condescending attitude toward their customers will ultimately find that this is not a good business policy.
Agree. I think Big Brother is a special interest group whose representatives took over SEC/NASD and made the rules. I am not sure if they are still in power. Either some of these guys are kicked out or they kicked out good guys recently.
Thanks for participating this poll. If you have not voted yet, please do it ASAP. I will send a status to NASD/SEC tomorrow. Thank you.
No, it's not ludicrous. The idea that someone with $3000 can daytrade is, on the other hand. You can bitch as much as you want, but the truth is although very very few small traders didn't make as much as they could have b/c of this rule, a LOT more didn't lose as much as they would have. Welcome to the free country you live in. The interests of the majority RULE. It's like not letting people under certain age drive. Certainly, there are some 10 year olds that drive much better than an average 30 year old, but allowing everyone who thinks he or she can drive to drive (which is an equivalent of what you are plugging in trading) wouldn't be such a good idea would it? In other words, some decisions are best left centrally imposed, as much as those 10 year olds who think they can drive may dislike it...
vladiator said, Sorry vladiator, but your 10 year old driver analogy just doesn't hold up at all. Not even close. No we don't want 10 year old drivers on the road mostly, although maybe they should just have a test and if they can pass it they can drive too. The difference here is that if I trade with MY MONEY and lose it all what business is that of yours?!!! It's MY MONEY!!! NOT YOURS!!! How does this hurt YOU in the least? Why are you so consumed with meddling in someone else's affairs or thinking that the government should? Perhaps the government should decide who we marry or what we can name our kids. Maybe we could have the "majority RULE" as you call it decide what you can name your kids. You may like Joseph or Sara but we like Ziggy and Zembot so you'll have to name them accordingly. And as to your comment, "Welcome to the free country you live in.", that's my whole point that the more the government interferes in our affairs in matters such as these the LESS FREE we will be.
qdz said I know your intentions are good, but Please DON'T!!! They may come here and read this thread and say to themselves, "Oh, we forgot about Single Stock Futures. We better include those too." The fact that 100 or so traders are complaining about the PDT rules means nothing to them. And your pointing this out to them really won't help much. It will take a much bigger more organized outcry to have any effect.
Good luck trading on Monday and this week everyone! And thanks for participating in this thread and the others. It's nice to be able to bounce ideas off one another.
I was being sarcastic about the "free country". Secondly, the analogy with drivers does hold if you consider that the reason they don't let ten year olds drive is not only to protect the public from them but only to protect them from their own actions. If you ignore the former, the analogy is straightforward. It IS your money, but if you wanna do something that you have been misled to believe you can do (by the stupid commercials with helicopter-flying teenagers who made fortunes dabbling in daytrading), the government has a choice of either restricting such misleading influences (they aren't gonna mess with what brokers put in their commercials and how realistic it is for obvious reasons, although there were some talks of proceeding along this venue as well), or they can restrict you from doing it - much easier to accomplish. My point is, just because it's YOUR money, doesn't mean you can spend it any way you want. The examples of the ways you can't are plentiful and the restrictions are socially acceptable. In this particular case, the interference seems warranted b/c the public HAS been misled to believe that it can make fortunes daytrading. Think abou this, if there were hundreds of TV ads plugging some very low probability lottery that made it look like you are virtually guarantteed to win if you make the decisions yourself (pick your own numbers) and that resulted in millions of people trying to win and, naturally, getting ripped off, wouldn't the goverment step in and say: "hey, wait a minute, you poor people shouldn't be doing it, the rich folks will lose too, but for them it ain't that big a deal, we don't care as much, but you don't seem to realize you are being ripped off, hence we make the decision on your behalf, for your own good." It's unethical to tell a 100 year old grandpa that he should take up scubadiving or dirtbiking. I'm sure with enough "vicarios learning" via unrealistic TV commercials, some will try and get their backbones broken. Thus, someone needs to step in and say" Pa, this just ain't for ya, I'm sorry...We aren't gonna let you do it for your own health's sake"
ALL lotteries are very low probability. Millions of people, MOST of them low-income, are trying to win and, naturally, getting ripped off. They shouldn't be doing it. Does the government step in? Yes indeed! The government is the one creating and running lotteries. They're constantly stepping in to create more lotteries to suck in the "poor people" who can't afford to lose their money. I guess the government is making the decision on behalf of the "poor people", for their own good. They care so much.
If it's your money, you can spend it any way you want. The "socially accepted restrictions" on ways you can spend your money are all restrictions on the activities themselves, not the spending of the money.