that is the current situation or not? if not explain what you see. i want my order executed and let the broker direct it to the exchange that has the size to fill it. if not i get 100 shares and the mkt. moves away.
in the 90s and early 2000s the sec made a push to get all these markets to interact to create one national best bid best offer. I thought it made for great trading... the market was thicker the levels were more orderly and people were not afraid to rest decent size at different levels.
would it be simpler,if all orders have to come and execute at ONE exchange\marketplace?(read-less room to cheat) .then your broker don't have to use all those "creative" routing,cause there is only one route to one exchange(or 2-3 as it was before-AMEX,NYSE,NASDAQ).the result-faster execution,more transparency.
my point is not that you can't trade around the situation or even make an edge out of it. my point is that when everyone knows the market is going to be fair to their orders... they may start putting their orders back in the market like they used to. which might increase volume and retail participation.
yep. make it more clear,simplify things.all the rules and regulations and procedures about how your order will be handled and executed should be right on front page of exchange. just one classic example from 1 minute ago.-i was only seller with pathetic 100 shares left over(which was initially 125 shares,but those 25 shares are executed,when i tried to sell whole position at the bid(where displayed size was 100-i was only one seller,but got only 25 shares out of it). anyway-now i'm at ask with this leftover. all alone. 16:00 hit-700 shares at my price was executed-i got no fill. so-I've ended up with partial execution(full commission charged) and open position question-where i can read,why my order wasn't executed? where are priorities? rules? are they exists? when people hit wall like this over and over and over again-majority of them will eventually give up. cause for them(and me)it doesn't look "fair". and it's just one example.when you cant' sell 100 shares AT displayed BID on stock with avg. volume >100K share a day-this market is f**d.
I like this idea. That computer could be the recording computer of the regulatory body so that the fines could be automated as well. All primary brokers should have an id number to show precisely who traded. If someone is found to have been quote stuffing or any kind of illegal trading, the broker should pay the fine or charge it back to the customer they were responsible for bringing to the market. Their choice. Along with the NBBO is the minimum time of (say) 10 microseconds to cancel an order. Show NBBO 10 microseconds, pause and freeze incoming orders, execute orders, recalculate NBBO, etc etc etc. As I have explained before, in the physical world a quantum time is needed to prevent the potential for "event shower" disasters. Network designers know this.
the answer is no. competition is good for the usual reasons e.g. innovation , costs. your statement smacks of the one health care insurance provider argument. Canadians cross the border to eliminate long waits for health treatment.
Interesting. Until your post, I didn't know there was competition in NBBO. Perhaps the regulatory bodies should look into that. I think that NBBO is meaningless without a finite time period association and a finite place.
competition is good,but not in this particular place(where regulation and strict rules are required the most(and consolidation would simplify things)).see how this combo worked in mortgage industry. loose regulation+plenty of competition..nice prescription for disaster. i agree with StarDust9182-you want to compete? compete at NBBO, in same place like everybody else,not in some private dark pools. was it fair,when one can place subpenny order and other is not allowed? is this what you call a competition? how we can compete,if one will be always on front of you with price 0.000000001 cent better than yours? common man..