| |
Suntzu,
I have to agree with Morgan. I think his concerns are not unreasonable, and I feel he has the right to post them here without ridicule and comments like "you seem to have all kinds of difficulty with your emotions..........might want to work on them..." You sound a bit like Robin Dayne. Not good. :-}
I have used CyBerTrader for a long time, and I have seen it grow and grow. There have been times when I had frequent and significant difficulty keeping it running all day. Lately, it seems better. But the point is, imho, that no online broker can provide what is needed or expected. It is discussed very little and mostly avoided, but the technology is just not perfect yet, has quite a ways to go. I have used many brokers and had major problems with all of them. The direct access brokers promise more, but it just cannot be delivered. There are too many things that can and do go wrong. Everyone should know that. Why else would such accounts be termed "speculative?"
For that reason, anyone (including myself) who is concerned about high risk should strongly consider limiting their exposure to the unique problems symptomatic of direct access trading. I suggest opening smaller positions, trading less volatile stocks, and being very careful about which days and which times of the day I traded. Sure, the potential to win big is there. But, I feel the potential to lose big is there also. And that risk is more important to me and should be considered before entering into any trade. If things don't "look and feel" right, the technology ain't up to speed that day, I would simply avoid the trade or limit my exposure by taking a smaller position. And, even though there is strong temptation to play the most volatile stocks for a really big score, I don't think that is the best approach to take.
If you're trading a stock with 4,000 shares and what you can lose in a few minutes is unacceptable to you, then it's either the wrong stock, too many shares, or even the wrong day to be trading. As long as this "technology" risk is there, one simply cannot afford to go for the "big score," notwithstanding all the claims to riches constantly thrown at us by the brokers' television commercials (Ameritrade and E*Trade are the worst, Schwab not much better). There is a gold mine out there, but the path to it is too risky for even Indiana Jones, much less the likes of me and most traders I know. And, imho, anyone who claims to "play" a stock rather than "trade" a stock deserves what he (or she) will surely get. Only the foolish think it is a game.
Suntzu, I think some of your remarks to Morgan are a bit too strong. The gentleman has a point. Things aren't perfect and risk is very high. None of us should forget it. If it takes a direct access broker ten minutes to answer a phone and get a trader out of a trade, that is unacceptable to me also and should be corrected. I doubt anyone would open an account if they were told that type problem would occur.
I also believe it is unfortunate that CyBerTrader does not accept stop orders and GTC orders that would help protect a trader when things go wrong. If you get caught in a bad position, get dumped offline or whatever, and cannot get a broker on the phone quickly, you're screwed. No doubt about it. Stop orders would help a lot. And GTC orders could help position traders who keep positions overnight. Frankly, until and unless that occurs I will never hold a position overnight with CyBerTrader. More than risky, that's just plain stupid.
Maybe you don't understand Morgan's feelings. And, maybe you've just never been in his position ....... yet. Let's hope you never are. Yes, the trader/client must assume the risk of his own errors and stupidity and also for any problems on the broker's end, technology, etc. Unfortunate, yes. But let none of us discount or forget it.
Having said all that, I'm still with CyBerTrader because I have seen worse...... much worse. Anyone heard of Datek, E*Trade, SureTrade, A.B. Watley, Wall Street Access, etc, etc, etc?
Bill |
|
