SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : eSchwab
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rick Ryan who wrote (60)11/4/1996 10:50:00 PM
From: Jeff Gibbons   of 76
 
Rick, I agree many naive investors complain about things they do not understand. I've seen it time and again myself. I was just curious about the partial fill idea and your claim about illegality which seemed too strong and wrong to me. Even on market orders you can get partial fills of your order at different prices. It happened to me once. So the idea that Rodger might have gotten 300 rather than 398 seems permissible though perhaps not necessary. And I bet he would have been more or less satisfied in that case.

And the argument that he might be upset if he HAD gotten 300 and then the merger story proved false is not relevant. Granted he might have complained under that scenario but that too is not relevant. If the partial fill was a valid action, then he would not win a complaint.

But I can also understand brokerages taking cautious approaches since the defense by a client that "I didn't understand what I was doing" is sometimes accepted.

Anyhow, I find the uncommon cases like this interesting. And I don't mind challenging claims that I find dubious.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News