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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (68377)	9/29/1999 3:34:00 PM
From: Merritt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Don: <<Does the last sentence make any sense?>> Are you criticizing my syntax?<g> The e-mail also asked that customers with orders from the previous day contact the order desk. My interpretation was that limit orders were often being bypassed, and sometimes unfilled, because of volatility. Since I haven't heard that all futures brokers have issued similar instructions, I'm not sure if that speaks to the erratic nature of the contracts, or of the order desk.<g>

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (68377)	9/29/1999 5:09:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Don, If Merritt says it, I believe it's true. But I don't think that is what you were asking. Does it make sense for the brokers and the exchanges? No, way. Market orders means crooks on the floor set the prices and they are likely to make the market more volatile, not less. And for the brokerage firm, what do they care? If the price is out of the real range, it doesn't get executed. If volatility occurs, everyone knows that limits get hit at your level or better no matter how far down the contract goes. It sounds to me like the broker is understaffed and is trying to make up for the fact that their floor operation is likely to be asleep at the switch.