I keep seeing these 'reports' and yet, there's no proof of it offered. Seems to me it should be impossible for this to be happening on the scale claimed, or there would be hell to pay. 12,000 showing and you can only get 1000. Prove it. I don't usually trade that size at once, so I can't verify it one way or the other, but I do watch the tape, and I don't see any evidence of this on a wide scale. Size either prints or moves away with the market. It does not disappear leaving you on the 'offer' hanging. Again, these claims are suspect.
This will mainly hit smaller firms that are bing sponsored in. For anyone with an exchange membership it's business as usual so unlikely to see any real change as a result of this new rule. The exchanges also check orders and will reject stuff that would cause market disruption.
I am sure that they will get this incorrect the first few times. You will see random stuff that you are bidding/offering through not being filled. So many moving parts and to add a pit stop cannot help. The exchange's theory is that if you don't do anything, you cannot have a problem. They never look at the opportunity cost of a reject/nothing done.
there is will be no proof.it's just my personal observations.i prefer to keep it private..the stocks that i trade,when i enter\exit etc. but it is what it is..i have my own home made software(not sophisticated at all) that allow me to buy\sell large basket of stocks. typically-i prefer to open and close all positions at once. in my soft i have 3 options-close at last,close at current bid(worse case scenario) and place an order current ask(in case of closing long position). like i said-my positions are very small,no large orders. 100-200-300 shares.my PnL in this soft displayed at last,and worst case scenario. 2-3 years ago-if i press "close all at last" button-mean that my buy and sell orders prices will be based on last price-i got 75% filled immediately and rest-i adjust and exit manually. at the end i typically ended up somewhere in the middle between PnL at last and worse case scenario PnL. so-if PnL based on Last was 1000$ and PnL based on worst case scenario(where you buy at ask and sell at bid) is 800$. my total PnL after comm and spread would be around 900..this is how it was for many years..now..in this year almost every single time i send my orders to close the positions at last price-i got filled instantly for about 30% and rest of my orders just stays unfilled. i have to unload them manually. after i've done that-my PnL would be typically BELOW worst case scenario level at the time,when i press my "close all positions" button. even if i press close at worse case-i will be filled on around 50% of positions. the rest will be unfilled. because "they" are able to pull off their offers BEFORE my order reach the exchange. or "they" will step in and buy those shares displayed(once again)-BEFORE my order reach the exchange. in any situation-most of of the time i ended up with unfilled order(which i placed at the best price at that time and i'm pretty sure i'm only a buyer) and higher spread. end of story. there is nothing illegal going on, it's just many little technical advantages somebody has and we(retail guys) for whatever reason are not eligible for it. how is this fair, if somebody can place 5 decimal points order and we are not? how is this fair,if we can't even see those orders,because the data displayed by our brokers is rounded to 2 decimal points? what kind of BS is that? why it's so fucking hard for SEC to stop this? it's can be done overnight. 2 decimal point for everyone. pretty fucking plain and simple.
i agree my take on this is that internalizaton has gotten way out of control. if you try to add liquidity on a illiquid stock it just isnt gonna happen. i have no problem with internalization or dark pools as long as everybody had access to the same tools and info. and even then if i get beat for prints well thats my fault. but to be sitting on the bid showing and a ton of prints going off and i dont get any of them i just have to sit back and laugh. the only way i get filled is when the order is real then i know the price will still go against me.
Its much harder to move size now than it used to be. I have to scale in and out and often settle for less size than I want.
Not disputing the internalization issues, but on a 'liquid' name, you should still be able to transact with displayed size by direct routing.
liquid name yes but illiquid forget about it and im not paying up with those spreads so i have changed my style. trading liquid 100-300 at a time keeps you under the radar and you can get filled on bigger orders just have to brake em into little pieces like an alog. in the old days taking 5 to 10k was one key stroke nowadays its like 20 different orders spaced out.
"The rule effectively bans naked access because it requires brokers to funnel their customers' orders through these risk controls and conduct pretrade checks. Brokers will still be allowed to grant "sponsored" market access to their customers as long as the orders are filtered through the enhanced controls." what a joke. So now the game will be the fastest risk control check.