Dan,
I do not agree, and I say so pleased to know that the rule states, and stands - despite our message board musings - as "trade or move."
First, as I repeat over and over: remember that trading, whether on a dealer or order-entry basis is a business, and not a service. Therein, I believe your use of the term "merchant" is misguided and points to expectations that are generally unfounded. The market maker is not there to serve you, unless your order fits a parameter which places the onus of fiduciary obligation upon him. SOES, an accepted limit order, etc., would do so: other than that, you're on your own, kid.
If a retail individual wants to express "interest," they can float a SelectNet order or, as I far prefer to do, post a bid or offer via an ECN. And, for those market makers who do not fill orders which are, in fact, liability inducing - shame on them, and longer term, on the NASD for not catching them. I think recent news points to the mishandling of limit orders facing its' own reckoning shortly.
But overall, your complaint about dealers' ability to ignore certain orders has long since been nullified by the recognition and acceptance of regulators that, yes, there are some orders which impose execution liability upon a dealer participant, and others which do not.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
LPS5 |
