|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I'm glad you offered this comparison because I know what you said to be
true as well. A lot of discussion is taking place today about the role of
the NY specialist and the need for him to be there anymore. The MM
complaints imho come without merit. Daytraders complaining MM's don't play
fair go figure :). All I can say about that is I wouldn't want their job.
All things being equal ET trading is the fastest fairest way to trade any
market. So yes hopefully someday all ET all the time would be great. This
whole global ET trading thing is starting to take shape and thats very
exciting to me. Heard the CBOT is going to offer a futures contract on
individual stocks. A new path around the Feds 50 % margin rule hahaha.
Robert
At 12:13 AM 5/29/00 -0400, Kent Rollins wrote:
>Regarding fills/slippage on the NASDAQ vs Emini, some NASDAQ stocks are more
>liquid than the Emini, some less. Many traders won't trade stocks that
>don't trade atleast 100K or 500K shares a day to avoid those problems. It
>could be that there are just more people on this list who trade Spooz than
>equities. You can trade equities for as low as $4.95 with Etrade or $5 with
>Brown or $7 with Ameritrade. And they get their share of complaints. If
>you want to see complaints about equity fills or commissions or
>MMs/specialists, go hang out in the Motley Fools Devil's Den or Position
>Trading forums. No futures traders there but the complaints are the same.
>
>Kent
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James F. Mazzulla <tagteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, May 28, 2000 6:57 PM
>Subject: All Electronic All the Time
>
>
>2) Obviously, NASDAQ is an 100% electronic. Until recently,
>Level II fees were $50/mo. Similarly, until recently,
>exchange fees for RT CME and CBOT data, were $50/mo and
>$55/mo, respectively. Yet, over the last couple of years,
>there have been dozens of complaints about the latter yet
>virtually none concerning Level II fees. Why? Along the same
>line, traders are paying under $10 (some as low as $4.95) to
>trade the E-Mini while the lowest ticket charge I've seen
>for NASDAQ trades is $14.95. Again, why does there seem to
>be a disproportionate number of complaints? Further, after
>having seen some fills in certain NASDAQ stocks (e.g. QCOM),
>I'm left wondering why there are so few complaints about
>NASDAQ fills.
>
>4) There seems to be quite a bit of animosity directed
>toward locals. Ostensibly, some traders believe that they're
>being "cheated" and/or the locals shouldn't have the
>"advantage" that they purportedly enjoy. Thus, the "level
>the playing field" mantra. Considering locals endure the
>rigors of trading in the pit on a daily basis and have a
>rather high overhead compared to screen-based traders, how
>is the playing field "un-level"? Considering almost everyone
>who trades, but is =not= a local, has the option to become a
>local (i.e. there are few barriers to entry), why is there
>so much resentment? Conversely, why is there so little
>resentment directed toward NASDAQ MMs (or, for that matter,
>NYSE specialists)? Lastly, considering how difficult it is
>to scalp in the pits as a result of the fierce competition
>between locals, why would anyone attempt to scalp from
>off-the-floor?
>
>Although I can understand the desire to eliminate the
>"middle-man", I can't quite figure out how to eliminate his
>function =nor= how an electronic exchange, merely by virtue
>of being electronic, would be able to do so. If anyone has
>any thoughts on these issues, I'd love to hear them.
>
>Jim
>
|