Hush. Re-read the following part of my previous message until you understand; repeat as necessary:
What I'm saying is that your assertion that certain broker-dealers will have all of their accounts, with utter disregard for the specific activity going on therein classified as "pattern daytrading account(s)" is nothing short of ludicrous.
It is ludicrous from the point of view that options accounts and certain penny stock transactions are qualified on an account-by-account basis; why would this be any different?
It is ludicrous from a logistical point of view: how do you propose the regulators would find out exactly what was going on in each and every account in order to classify said firms?
If, Barb, any of the top five online brokers, with millions of online accounts, had customers that fell under the pattern daytrading guidelines, would every other of the millions of accounts at the firm be - as you suggest - classified as and subject to the pattern daytrading account specifications?
If not, then how would the differentiation be accomplished? Size of the firm? Percentage of pattern vs. nonpattern daytrading accounts?
Would the regulators put in place a plan that would set tens of thousands of accounts in motion, as non-pattern daytrading accounts at firms branded, as you suggest, as your hypothetical "all pattern daytrading account" firms, hustled to transfer their account to other firms without breaks in their investment activity?
And, it is - and should be - a ludicrous assertion from point of view of anyone who knows how to read. Note that the proposal speaks of individual customers and pattern daytrading account(s). Not pattern daytrading firms.
Or, Mama Barb, is it - as I assert - more likely that all broker-dealers, informed of the new rules and under the penalty (and watchful eye via examination) of their respective SRO(s), will be required to monitor the activity in all of their accounts and apply the pattern daytrading account rules only to those accounts whose activity incurs those requirements?
Is it more likely that instead of, as you suggest, certain firms being branded in such a way that makes all of their customers subject to the pattern daytrading rules...that some firms will have many - perhaps all, for some very small daytrading shops - pattern daytrading accounts, some will have few, and some will have none?
***
Does the above statement in any way preempt firms from making their standards the same as, or stricter, than the pattern daytrading account rules? As you said, mentioning my example w/regard to NASDAQ Small Cap short selling enforcement, we both acknowledge ["Well, I got it from personal experience (just like shorting Nasdaq Small Cap stocks on a down bid)], that the rules set by individual firms may be the same as, or stricter, than those which the SROs require.
It was your hilariously simplistic grope that the regulators (specifically, according to you, the SEC) would classify all accounts at specific firms as pattern daytrading accounts...that has been revealed for its' erroneousness and, in retrospect, looks more than a little silly.
Same person, same trade, same trading patterns...but different brokers.
That's right. As I said with regard to the SC downtick issue - and you mentioned as well - in some situations you see the same people making the same trade at a different different BD...receiving different treatment.
What you need to learn is that it's not the regulators which make the treatment different from firm to firm: the margin rules, as the option rules, pattern daytrading rules, etc. - are set by the applicable authority, whether it be the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the NASD, NYSE, etc.
The firms have the option of enforcing them verbatim or in a manner stricter than the rulemaker provides for.
Do you get it now? Yes, no? Any other questions?
LPS5 |
