|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Don,
I don't know eactly what you mean when you say, "nothing rivals the 'direct
to pit' order entry of system of LEO brokers. Orders entered by
Timberhill's Interactive Brokerage workstation actually go to a broker IN
the S&P pit. There is a big difference between "to" the pit and actually
having an order electronically transmitted into the pit and back out the
same way.
While trading electronically is much more desirable than calling the floor,
it is imperative to have the ability to call in an order to cover an
existing position.
Regards,
Tom Alexander
----------
From: Don Roos <roos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Timberhill based systems..
Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:49 AM
Eliot:
Did you miss the posts a few weeks back about how you need another
account to hedge your timberhill position when the TH system goes down?
The story was that you are unable to call in an order in a time of
system outage, so you are in big trouble without a hedge acct with
another firm.
In terms of "slow fills" in reference to LEO systems, not sure what the
comparisons were made from. If you trade the spoos, there is no system
that rivals the "direct to pit" order entry system of LEO brokers.
I agree, the LEO outages are annoying, but I just quit trading if it
goes down (the outages are almost universally related to the CME CUBS
sustem, which has been improved). Otherwise the floor has too great of
an edge.
I would not consider it adequate to not even be able to call in an order
during a technical glitch to cover a position. (Timberhill users will
correct me if I am wrong, but check it out).
No assoc with LEO brokers, just a client.
Don
|