|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Although I am a Omega Solution Provider, I really need to come to the
defense of Omega on all this data bashing.
There are errors in everyone's data. IT IS ALL BAD! I am the Managing
Partner of a stock brokerage firm. We have S&P data feeds, BMI data feeds,
North American Quotation data feeds, and use data feeds from other providers
for clients too. The exchanges distribute the data to these providers. The
data providers only broadcast what the exchanges send them.
The data is bad and I have seen some crazy stuff over the years. For
example, a Market marker enters 7 1/2, instead of 77 1/2 and a trade takes
place.
I was a market maker on the Phila Options Exchange, the clerks would mistype
prices into their machines. This happens all the time. It happens on all
exchanges.
The most critical issue which traders do not realize is that under exchange
rules, a firm has 90 seconds to report trades. Many trades that take place
on a principal basis are delayed and are out of order. Big blocks get held
or stopped and reported many, many seconds later. You see this all the time
on Level 2 quote screen when the market is 1/8 X 3/16, and a 5/16 block of
25,000 shares prints. The trade actually took place a minute or so before.
That is tape reading and you can not blame Omeag or data vendors.
Exchanges, ECN's, specialists, market makers all have data reporting
problems that contribute to unreliable data.
I always laugh at the mental exercises that some of you play on tick data.
It is a joke.
Omega is a great product. Every product has limitations and the data
bashing is not an excuse for poor trading techniques.
Mark
Mark A. Seleznov
Managing Partner
Trend Trader, LLC
Member NASD, SIPC
15030 N. Hayden Road
Suite 120
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
602-948-1146
602-948-1195 fax
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.trendtrader.com
-----Original Message-----
From: greene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <greene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Allan L. Kaminsky <allank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IUhrik <IUhrik@xxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>;
officeofthepresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<officeofthepresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Letter to B. Cruz on bad tick editing
>The normal rule of thumb is a product is defective if it's not reasonably
>suitable for its intended use. I'm not a day trader - but any program that
>would wipe out large chunks of my database without asking me first sounds
>pretty defective to me <g>. OTOH - since you know about the problem - it
>probably wouldn't be a great lawsuit if you tried to claim a trading loss
>(depending on what state you live in - I assume you live in the US -
there'd
>be issues of comparative negligence). On the third hand - I think you'd
have
>a much better case if all you were seeking was a refund for the price you
paid
>for the program.
>
>BTW - I have no particular ax to grind when it comes to Omega. I just
resent
>spending a lot of money for any software that doesn't work properly (and
most
>software manufacturers don't seem to have any compunctions about bringing
>products which are basically beta versions to market). Robyn
>
>Allan L. Kaminsky wrote:
>
>> Well written letter. Hope you get a rational response.
>>
>> Kind of makes you wonder about product liability. A product sold for the
>> express purpose of trading is unable to protect the user from common
>> occurrences (not unforeseen acts of nature). Is there product liability
>> if the user then suffers losses as a result of the poor engineering of
>> the product? In many other areas, the manufacturer would be at great
>> risk (aircraft manufacturers, etc.).>>
>
>
>
>
|