When someone buys a 400K share block, and only 5,000 are presented for sale but the ask size never changes even though the trade goes through, I would say that's an unfair representation.
Why would you expect the offer to change; especially with an offer that large (relatively speaking, of course) coming in? And how does the offer not changing when a bid is coming in constitute "unfair representation"?
5,000 is not the true size available.
If there are 400K to buy, and 5K is the offer, how is - or why do you think, more appropriately - the 5K offer not (the) "true size available"?
Further, on the "more reputable" NASD...
Who are you quoting when you say, "more reputable," and compared to what venue?
Moreover, do you really mean the "NASD," or do you mean NASDAQ? Or, perhaps, the OTC Bulletin Board, or the National Quotation Bureau?
...if you trade enough...
:^)
...you'll find that orders over 10,000 shares do not need to be represented as such.
And that's a revelation for you? In fact, for the types of issues that you're talking about minimum sizes quoted are determined by the bid price. The highest being 5,000 shares.
Specialists on the NYSE, AME, PHX, etc. are also notorious...
"Notorious" among whom?
...for misrepresenting sizes in order to motivate trading one way or the other.
On what basis do you purport to know what the actual sizes are as opposed to how they're being "misrepresent[ed]"?
It's dangerous to say it's common knowledge...
I'm more likely to say that it's dangerous to call it "knowledge" of any variety. Conspiratorial pop culture of the message boards, more aptly.
...since it's not fair...
What specifically are you saying isn't "fair"?
However, if you speak to the right people...
Defined as...?
...or you trade enough...
:^)
...you'll find it to be very common.
Equity culture conspiracy theories? I find them uncommonly common in these parts.
Bottom line is it sucks, because to substantially fogs the transparency being sold to the public.
Transparency is being "sold to the public"?
LPS5 |
