Are you talking about being aggravated because you agree that it is ridiculous that some broker dealers can subpenny and not retail traders? or are you aggravated because the information the person you are quoting is totally wrong? basically, are you aggravated because you agree, or disagree with the person you are quoting? g
It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. If you're only looking for 3000 shares you don't deserve to be allowed to trade sub-penny blocks. The people that do sub-pennies are doing ridiculous volume and are the new version of market makers. TBH HFTs should be regulated like MMs are - what they are doing isn't bad. You are literally feeling slighted for 29$ on the spread for a 3000 share block. If you're moving thousand lots and are mad about losing 29$ you're doing it wrong and don't deserve to profit from that arbitrage. Throw 10 million shares/day then you can complain. Don't forget, the HFTs are losing some of the time too when the tape moves against that flash.
I think for the market to work correctly. It must be fair for all participants. Meaning no one gets any advantage, once their order arrives at the exchange. Market makers shouldn't be given special considerations imo. Id love to see a company like Google who has a name for being trustworthy/fair, start up their own 24 hour 365 day a year exchange which would allow every player the same advantages / disadvantages.
no no no!!!! You're wrong. For duck's sake: the definition of a free market is that seller's decide the price. If a seller doesn't need to sell at a particular price then it's up to whether they _want_ to sell at a price. If the seller doesn't want/need to part with an issue at a price they won't sell, there is NOTHING a buyer can do to change that. What you are describing is communism, where there is no such thing as economies of scale and everyone has access to the same resources. I am not a billionaire, I shouldn't have the same influence Warren Buffet has. Would that make sense to you? There should never be a time where a retail trader can get the same price that a billion-dollar HF can. That is retarded. Also if you trust google god help you.
And there should be economies of scale in an electronic market place? Uhhh why? If it is just as easy to trade 100 shares as 100k shares. I think the cost should be 1/1000 for the smaller amount. All 'special' considerations given to market makers do is creates a barriers to entry for smaller liquidity providers to come in and offer their services at possibly better prices. An exchange that was 100% fair would work wonderfully imo and would be immune to people taking advantage of others in unethical ways (outside of straight buying and selling at agreed prices). As your communism statement, I don't know what you are smoking What i advocate is the exact opposite, it is a fully unregulated, buyer beware, fair means to exchange products for prices people wish to exchange at. And you should hit the books again, your definition of 'free market' is quite lacking. First of all. Both buyers and sellers can quote prices. Free markets just means they are uninhibited by needless regulation which is often put into place to protect specific special interest groups.
Because an electronic marketplace is still a marketplace: the medium doesn't matter, the participants do. I apologize - you said "fair" and I totally agree: a fair market however doesn't mean everyone prospers, it means that the winners win and the losers lose. The sellers always have the inherent advantage - if they don't want to sell and do not need to sell for some other reason they dictate the transaction and thus control pricing. The buyers are always at a disadvantage because the price ceiling is unlimited, while the floor is pegged at 0.
Agreed. The risk between holding long and holding short are different due to their theoretical max risk. But in terms of intraday trading within a range, going long/short at market or posting a bid/ask are very similar in terms of being a buyer vs being a seller. Holding investments long term makes it tricker for shorts.
What was "behind" the crash is: a lot of weak longs. Over the past few days, the stock market traded below the lows of 5/6, which shows the "crash" wasn't a mistake -- it was price discoverty. There were "long & wrong" players who were willing to exit the market in a price-insensitive fashion to lower their risk. The 5/6 price action wouldn't have happened if there were more buyers than sellers in the market.
You don't swing enough capital to sub-penny, just like you don't have enough money to have a private jet on standby when you have a 2000 mile trip. You're not losing anything by not sub-pennying unless you are doing insane volume, in which case you should look into a better arrangement with your broker that will allow sub-pennying. But again, if you were doing that much volume you would already know all of this and not feel slighted in the least.