Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : CYBERTRADER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William W. Dwyer, Jr. who wrote (2620)	6/8/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: David L. Carter	Respond to of 3216

I just switched from ABWatley and I had issues with the software there too. I think they had some bad resource allocation leaks that caused me to reboot a few times a day. I always find it funny when others say, "everything is working fine for us" I read an article by Dvorak where he expressed his disdain.

To: William W. Dwyer, Jr. who wrote (2620)	6/8/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: Mad Bomber	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3216

[RE: online brokers] I'll second that!! On "Power ETrade" I am happy if the program comes up at all. Otherwise, have to look at Yahoo. I am ecstatic if it even holds up long enough to execute ANY orders! Otherwise, resort to standard web screens or to the phone. I am surprised Cyber does not have automated phone system as backup. Usually that almost always works for ETrade. Except of occurs in unusually strong days when the phone is busy until your load has been lightened. Of course I can see frustration though. I wonder how often market maker systems go down??? MB

To: William W. Dwyer, Jr. who wrote (2620)	6/8/1999 8:50:00 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3216

Thanks, Bill. You make many valid points - I just feel that there is a fine line between expecting perfection from a broker (which only a fool would do), and acquiescing in a broker's unacceptable performance. Sure, it would be safer, to use smaller shares, take into account the possibility of the software freezing, the tech support getting drunk that day, the head of the brokerage going AWOL with client's money, etc., etc, etc. But where do you stop? It is always possible to act "safer" yet. What one has to do, is try to distinguish between reasonable and excessive safety measures. And deciding what is reasonable? Block Trading (who used Cyber software, incidentally), went broke, and left their traders hanging. "Should've counted with that" - sure, that and a thousand other things. Precisely because Cyber improved recently, did I feel brave enough to trade substantial $$$. I wouldn't do it with some of my other brokers - because I know the risk of system failure is too high. And frankly, when a broker charges bigger commissions, and holds themselves out as a solution to trader frustrations with the likes of Etrade, I expect them to put the utmost priority on delivering. Otherwise, indeed - I'll have to trade with "fewer shares", avoid "volatile" days, and other measures you mention. But isn't there something wrong with this picture? Why am I compelled to walk on eggs, because a broker is presumed so unreliable that I cannot trade on the best trading days ("volatile" days), cannot use my capital to maximum advantage, and generally act as if trading is akin to playing the lottery... hey, maybe they'll crash, and maybe not, so I'd better use tiny money, so the loss will not be so bad, and I should only trade around 1:30 PM, on a slow day in a sleepy stock. Safest that way. Frankly, if I have to "use small shares", and I cannot trade on the most advantageous days/times - then what the hell am I even in this game for? May as well go back to buy and hold investing through Datek. We pay substantially more than at most web-based brokers. We pay for the presumed expectation, that we can generally rely on the broker to trade during all days, and with any number of shares - our limitations should be market driven, not broker based. Otherwise, why not stick to Datek? Why the extra cost? This broker is supposed to be dedicated to the needs of daytraders specifically. That implies the ability to serve those needs adequately - and the standards are rather more exacting. BTW, funny that the issue of volume was mentioned today - it was a volatile day, but not a big volume day in the market... all the LESS of an excuse for Cyber to crash. I don't expect perfection - in fact if it was one of those extreme volume days, of which there are maybe 3 a year, I could sort of understand the strain on the system - I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it. But today? Finally, if we are not allowed to even voice complaints about this, then what is the remedy to any bad performance of a broker? It's all fine and dandy to say - go somewhere else. That is always an option - but that in no way should be a shield from a broker getting fairly criticized. I pay for a service - and as a consumer, I can certainly at least complain when the service falls disastrously short. Regards, Morgan

To: William W. Dwyer, Jr. who wrote (2620)	6/8/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: jebj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3216

>and you get on MY GODDAMN case because I complain! Well - F* O! - Sir F. >Suntzu, I think some of your remarks to Morgan are a bit too strong. - Bill Question, please? Have you been reading the same posts as the rest of us? I don't know about the rest but Sir F's continuing attitude of a teenager that doesn't get his way gets old. OF course there are problems and one can certainly get POed when they happen but running to this - or any other thread - everytime and repeatedly blasting Cyber or whomever happens to be his target at the time is a bit much, IMO. Sometimes it almost appears he is more interested in getting his post up than in saving his position! How many times has he done this now - 5-6? Why is he still with a company that he obviously has such poor service from and such a dislike for? I just had my last problem with a broker due to their mistake - guess what, I am leaving and taking my business elsewhere. Bill, the rest of your post certainly hits the nail on the head - anyone that trades without reguard for the possibility of a system failure is not very smart. They do happen - more often than we would like, I am sure, but slowly becomeing less and less. And in that reguard, any broker worth their salt would stand good for any losses incurred, IMO. In this country, Sir F certainly has his right to say whatever and ever now much he desires - and I am sure we will hear a lot more from him, wheather it serves a purpose or not. jb

To: William W. Dwyer, Jr. who wrote (2620)	6/9/1999 12:27:00 AM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3216

Bill, I always find it useful to explore issues with you, and your posts are enlightening. I have had somewhat less positive experiences with some individuals such as jebj - I remember him well from a few months ago. Here he is again, in his usual role - having a problem with anyone who says a critical word about Cyber... with the same "if you don't like it, leave" line. Again, he accuses me of complaining too much... exactly what he did a few months ago, when Cyber was having serious problems. Several other posters joined me, and all of a sudden he fell silent. See, even though the problems were serious, he didn't like to see them written about. Well, guess what - the problems were serious, as Cyber themselves acknowleged, and they went about correcting most of them. I complimented them for their efforts, and even defended Cyber on the MBT board, for which I got a nice PM from Cyber. At the time I said that rather than look at my criticisms as problems, perhaps one can see them as positive, because they help identify issues of great importance to traders, and that is helpful to the broker (better than "quietly" leaving). Well, I see this in the same light. Of course, just as before, jebj doesn't get it. But that's his problem - I'll post whenever I think I should. Cheers, Morgan