Yes, I never accepted his insistence that what he claimed was so because he isisted [sic] that it was.
Nor should you have. I, too, afford a premium to information that comes with references.
But, it's not going to come from me, as I - such as you have said in messages, and are therefore aware of the sentiment - have neither the time, nor the interest, in leading you again through the nuances of margin accounts, marginable securities, hypothecation, cash accounts, and short selling.
But, I do think that your dismissal of anyone who you disagree with as "repeating," "insisting," "shouting," and otherwise suggesting that they are somehow less worthy of expressing their opinions more than once than you are, loses its' impact and becomes little more than a platitude when used as frequently as you do:
Message 15323543
Message 15763861
Message 14720573
Message 15726039
Message 15654045
Which is not to suggest, I'd add, that the people in these examples were necessarily correct, either...nor their logic sound.
I recall someone insisting that Nasdaq Small Cap stocks were subject to the bid test rule. It isn't so.
True, as I found out. I was wrong. But the reason for which I asserted such is, I believe, worthy of mentioning.
As you may be aware, securities firms are permitted to - and do, in areas pertaining to trading compliance, margin policies, suitability and the like - form in-house policies which are the same, or stricter, than the SROs and SEC mandate.
In one of my previous positions as an equity trader, the firm did not distinguish between short sale, bid test requirements between NASDAQ NM and SC issues; both were subject to such. And, to be honest - though it was some time ago - I'm positive that such was not included in either the Series 7 or 55 testing requirement.
But, I appreciate having had that pointed out to me. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again :)
I recall someone saying that the very possibility that a brokerage could be considered a daytrading outfit to be 'laughable', yet recently I found this quote from what seems to be an MB Trading rep: "the SEC has us code all of our account as pattern day trading accounts".
This is absolutely misrepresentative of both what you said, and what I countered with.
Daytrading "accounts" were never the issue. In fact, accounts are coded as daytrading with many clearing firms.
What you said, Barb, had to do with classifying broker-dealers:
Message 15081434
And my response dealt with that assertion:
Message 15097694
At any rate, I hope that you find the evidence you seek; one that that will satisfy what I can only call an admirable desire for evidence over conjecture.
I indicated recently that I had no hard feelings over our past disputes, and that remains the case.
My regards,
LPS5 |
