Yes, I am thinking about that for sure. But I still need a chart service anyway and they are good. So I will just keep two accounts.
Hey, I actually got a reply back from the SEC. Here is the reply: So it seems like the SEC is saying that they don't have power over anything but then they say that they allowed all of these things to happen. How am I supposed to respond to this? Carl
I think it's pretty good that your senator forwarded your message along. I hope you voted for him/her last Tuesday!
What about the cases sufficient equity is available for the trades engaged even when the account balance is lower than $25K? How about the cases insufficient equity for the trades engaged even when the account balance is greater than $25K? Why only use number of day trades as standard for the purpose of sufficient equity? These rules must go away like Pitt did.
It's great that the SEC apparently really did read your letter and gave you a very thorough response to it. These organizations do take notice of volume of public objections. We need to let the NASD and NYSE and SEC know that we don't like the daytrading rules, and point out illogic of these rules to support our objections. restricting trading by the number of trades, regardless of how small those trades are, doesn't make sense these restrictions make trading riskier, by depriving traders of the freedom to limit their losses by closing a position if the trade goes against them applying these restrictions to non-marginable stock options, which are paid out of cash (and have one day settlement), doesn't make sense Mostly I think they need to get a volume of negative feedback. Logic can be useful as a tool to protest with, but mostly what they will respond to is public pressure. They need to hear as much objection as possible, with or without the use of arguments based on logic. It's great that you wrote to your senator. It's great that you're making the effort to keep writing.
exactly.. "...the rules requiring you to have at least $25,000 in your account to day trade are not SEC rules..." "...the Commission approved these rules..." p.s. good work.
LOL. what rubbish. what a complete bullshit response. "daytrading is putting firms and their customers at risk. hmm, i think we'd better give them 4:1 margin then..."
That's another logical argument to make in our letters: if the intention of these restrictions is to limit financial risk, why did they accompany these restrictions with increased margin allowances? These rules simply don't make any sense, except in viewing them as a deliberate attempt to increase risk while making the pretense of wanting to do the opposite. If you have $25,000, they'll lend you $75,000 to lose, but if you have under $25,000 and you make three options trades total value (paid from cash) $60, you're prevented from making any more trades for the next 4 days, "because your trading patterns are too risky".
i'm not sure if i'd be too quick to include that obvious illogic in my protests. you might end up gettting the worst of both worlds - pdt and 2:1 margin.