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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TFF who wrote (7481)	6/11/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Dan Clark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

Regarding, "These data sets indicate that ECNs have not exactly set the world on fire...", if this were true, why are there so many articles about the issue? Any why are highly-paid, "professionals"(?) spending their valuable time dissing the ECNs? And finally, ECNs had 28% of the market in 1998. Two months after the end of 1998, the figure was up to 29.6%. Hmmmm, let's see. 1.6% per 2 months = .8% per month. Times 12 months that comes to about 10%. So, about 38% market share by the end of '99. 48% by end of 2000. So by end of 2005, Nasdaq and NYSE cease to exist! Not much of a career for the stock traders on Wall Street is it? Regards, Dan.

To: TFF who wrote (7481)	6/12/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Morpher	Respond to of 12617

The way these digital markets are hyped these days, you would think that ECNs are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Many are forgetting a simple fact: Stock markets like Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange are extremely efficient because they have most of the liquidity (or the trading volume), and all the trading activity is centralized. Because of this, investors get the best possible price for the stocks they want to either buy or sell. The trading activity on Nasdaq is centralized? That's news to me. And since ECNs are rather insignificant on NYSE, their whole point is moot.