Trading with yourself?

Discussion in 'Order Execution' started by kubilai, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. den999

    den999

    Oh hell kubiali. Instead of trading with yourself, why not just play with yourself? I do. It's a lot more fun... and you don't have to worry about all of those silly wash sale rules. (Only wash hand rules, which are much easier to comply with.)
     
    #21     Jul 21, 2008
  2. To be safe, I would not have buy and sell orders for approximately the same price active at the same time. What would work better is that you close out your position in one account and THEN place an order to buy in another account.
     
    #22     Aug 3, 2008
  3. Rockfish...
    Quoting something like the 1934 Act is pointless...
    Because it's been amended and "clarified" countless times by SEC rulings over 75 years.

    In the real world of the Securities Industry...
    One achieves "regulatory compliance" by following the NASD Manual or the NYSE Constitition...
    By consulting with your firm's NASD Examiner...
    And the countless regulatory gray areas...
    Are resolved by looking at years of SEC/NASD decisions in disciplinary cases...
    Just like any body of case law.

    Gray areas are very common.

    To someone like me that was a US broker-dealer for 7 years...
    The idea that the SEC would go after a retail trader...
    For simply moving securities between accounts with purely administrative intent...
    Is ridiculous.

    Because Customers have written no NASD exams...
    They cannot be expected to know the fine points of what is legal or not...
    So it's the broker or Clearing Firm that would be held responsible for a Customer's unusual trading patterns.

    That's why I got a letter from IB...
    And IB chose to do absolutely nothing.
     
    #23     Aug 5, 2008
  4. kubilai

    kubilai

    Thanks guys for chiming in.

    I can believe intent is the main criteria: for evading taxes it's highly illegal, for admin purposes they probably won't bother to enforce it. Anyway DDT has first-hand experience...
     
    #24     Aug 6, 2008
  5. JackR

    JackR

    Seems pretty clear.

    Jack
     
    #25     Aug 6, 2008
  6. Not legal. Regardless of intent it is market manipulation. The reason being your "wash" is a false print which may strigger stops and impact the market.

    In slow overnight session myself and others used to buy or sell one lots into a stack where we were working a much larger order. We were quickly slapped on the wrist and told to stop.
     
    #26     Aug 7, 2008
  7. The only legal way to get that transfer done intraday is by "crossing" on the floor..or virtual floor if OTC.

    Normally there MUST be a beneficial change in ownership. But a cross allows you to bypass this by creating a "print" to the tape.

    Go to your broker...tell him you want to cross stock or options at the mid point of the inside mkt with your other broker. A cross is just simultaneous buying/selling.

    Often when you see large prints outside the normal range of activity it is cross occurring. i.e.. avg daily vol 200k....you see a 3.5mm print go off without budging the mkt...

    Voila....instant "ACAT"



    Good trading to you!
     
    #27     Aug 7, 2008
  8. No. I quoted the 1934 Act, including any amendments since 1934, so that the quotation is up to date.

    The SEC, furthermore, lacks authority to "amend" any act of Congress, including the 1934 act I quoted. An act of Congress is required to amend an act of Congress, except for rare exceptions when such an act might be amended or struck down by the judiciary because of constitutionality problems.

    Market participants, including retail customers, are legally bound to obey the 1934 Act, in addition to any other requirements imposed by the SEC or by industry SRO's like the NYSE or NASD.

    It is not a good idea to try to get away with violating securities laws, and then try to shift the blame to your broker. Remember how Martha Stewart went to prison?

    It is also a good idea to keep in mind that the SEC loves to go after small fry, because they are too weak to fight back, and that the SEC tends to ignore the really big violations by the really big violators.

    I realize that the 1934 Act seems to require an intent to deceive, in order to make the conduct illegal, but I still think it is a really, really bad idea to use wash trades in order to move securities between the same person's accounts.
     
    #28     Aug 9, 2008
  9. Bankster

    Bankster

    I'm a member of the puretick emini futures trading room. When a call is made I'm always getting 1-2 ticks of slippage. Is this because there are over 100 guys going in market at the same time? Is there a faster way I can get my trades executed?

    BK
     
    #29     Aug 11, 2008