"I think we're annoying the peanut gallery..."
"[P]eanut gallery." Ah, the condescension.
Barb, why is it that you never cease to be disruptive by way of arrogance, absurd statements, or (as in this case) both...on nearly ever thread you appear upon?
You “think” we’re annoying people? I’m sure of it, and regret it; anticipating that such would develop, I apologized in advance last weekend to Eric P.
My fault is that I’m just unable to permit you to spew your nonsense in the presence of innocent people.
But you’ll find no “peanuts” here. The people on this thread are knowledgeable, giving, and genuine;
I apologize to them on behalf of the two of us.
"...so you go ahead and believe that rain is planetary perspiration despite the meteorlogical [sic] evidence I've presented..."
LOL. Again comes the reading issue; have you done a comparison of what we've respectively brought to the table, in terms of links and references supporting both my facts and your assertions?
LPS5’s links and evidence:
Message 15799944
Message 15799961
Mother Bear’s “evidence:”
Message 15796245
Message 15796249
I’m sure you did your best, though! :)
"...I'm sure Mr. Levitt meant the Trilateral, and not the SEC when he said "The typical broker-dealer the Commission identifies..."
LOL!
With this sentence alone, your attempt to salvage a scrap of credibility by shimmying about bereft of any concrete evidence or references, has been exposed as - in its' final throes - a shark attack-like, panicked thrashing of illogic; replete with desperate, groping suggestions, the figurative eyes wild with the fear...the fear of being exposed as entirely vacant of any knowledge whatsoever.
Ahem.
So by "the Trilateral," you're suggesting that the SEC, NASD, and NYSE are part of some unit - a unit which, due to your capitalization of the word, is some official unit?
Can you find somewhere that the SEC, NYSE, and NASD are referred to as "a/the Trilateral"?
A link - such as I took the time to educate you with?
Well...should you be thinking that the aforementioned three bodies comprise the entire regulatory in the securities industry, well, what about the NASAA and its' constituent State Securities Bureaus?
What about those parts of the securities industry that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, and other bodies cover?
But...enough logic and instruction: lets just go to the very same link that you cited to see what, by "Commission" - since it isn't obvious to you - the good Mr. Levitt actually meant:
sec.gov
September 16, 1999
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Levin, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss the recent developments in day trading and the concerns raised by day trading, and the current initiatives to address these concerns. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") has been actively monitoring this novel trading strategy and I commend the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for holding these timely hearings.
Now. Does that clear things up for you?
But if you are still sure, Bear, that Mr. Levitt was, in this speech about daytrading, referring to the “Trilateral Commission,” well...jeez.
trilateral.org
You must be joking - right?
"...and I'm sure MBT doesn't know what they're talking about when they say they code all accounts as pattern daytrading accounts..."
If you’re sure of that, why did you use them as an example? Seems kind of silly, doesn’t it, Barb?
Actually, Barb, I’d bet that the firm in question does, in fact code all its' accounts as pattern daytrading accounts. It is certainly their right to. But that was never, ever, the focus of the dispute...though you’d like to make it such, wouldn’t ya? ;-) A little easier to change the focus midstream, I guess.
No: the dispute was whether the SEC “automatically” codes “all accounts” of “certain brokerages” as “pattern daytrading accounts,” and the answer is, as the links I have provided show – and, as I initially mentioned, as other types of accounts are treated: absolutely not.
As discussed, the broker-dealer has the option of enforcing the rules as strictly, or in a manner stricter, than the regulators dictate and provide for. If a firm decides that they will only accept accounts that meet the pattern daytrading requirement – just as, if a firm decided that their minimum account balance was $1MM, that would be - as we discussed with different firms' policies pertaining to short selling of NASDAQ SC securities - permitted.
But that the "SEC" "automatically" coded "all accounts" at this "certain" firm as pattern daytrading accounts?
Well...that's unadulterated Mama Barb :)
My regards,
LPS5 |
