| |
Thanks, Bill. You make many valid points - I just feel that there is a fine line between expecting perfection from a broker (which only a fool would do), and acquiescing in a broker's unacceptable performance.
Sure, it would be *safer*, to use smaller shares, take into account the possibility of the software freezing, the tech support getting drunk that day, the head of the brokerage going AWOL with client's money, etc., etc, etc. But where do you stop? It is always possible to act "safer" yet. What one has to do, is try to distinguish between reasonable and excessive safety measures. And deciding what is reasonable? Block Trading (who used Cyber software, incidentally), went broke, and left their traders hanging. "Should've counted with that" - sure, that and a thousand other things.
Precisely because Cyber improved recently, did I feel brave enough to trade substantial $$$. I wouldn't do it with some of my other brokers - because I know the risk of system failure is too high.
And frankly, when a broker charges bigger commissions, and holds themselves out as a solution to trader frustrations with the likes of Etrade, I expect them to put the utmost priority on *delivering*.
Otherwise, indeed - I'll have to trade with "fewer shares", avoid "volatile" days, and other measures you mention. But isn't there something wrong with this picture?
Why am I compelled to walk on eggs, because a broker is presumed so unreliable that I cannot trade on the best trading days ("volatile" days), cannot use my capital to maximum advantage, and generally act as if trading is akin to playing the lottery... hey, maybe they'll crash, and maybe not, so I'd better use tiny money, so the loss will not be so bad, and I should only trade around 1:30 PM, on a slow day in a sleepy stock. Safest that way.
Frankly, if I have to "use small shares", and I cannot trade on the most advantageous days/times - then what the hell am I even in this game for? May as well go back to buy and hold investing through Datek.
We pay substantially more than at most web-based brokers. We pay for the *presumed* expectation, that we can generally rely on the broker to trade during all days, and with any number of shares - our limitations should be market driven, not broker based. Otherwise, why not stick to Datek? Why the extra cost? This broker is supposed to be dedicated to the needs of *daytraders* specifically. That implies the ability to serve those needs adequately - and the standards are rather more exacting. BTW, funny that the issue of volume was mentioned today - it *was* a volatile day, but not a big volume day in the market... all the *LESS* of an excuse for Cyber to crash. I don't expect perfection - in fact if it was one of those extreme volume days, of which there are maybe 3 a year, I could sort of understand the strain on the system - I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it. But today?
Finally, if we are not allowed to even voice complaints about this, then what is the remedy to any bad performance of a broker? It's all fine and dandy to say - go somewhere else. That is always an option - but that in no way should be a shield from a broker getting *fairly* criticized. I pay for a service - and as a consumer, I can certainly at least complain when the service falls disastrously short.
Regards,
Morgan |
|
