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 : DAYTRADING Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave O. who wrote (7366)	3/12/2000 8:30:00 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 18137

Dave - Oh yeah, it's getting investigated - justifiably - and will be eliminated - justifiably. The new Nasdaq OATS initiative(Order Audit Trail System) will be instrumental in that crackdown. My reason for mentioning that, though, was because it was one of the items that MM's were accused of doing in the SEC/DoJ 21(a) report...when in fact everyone was doing it, and even now lots of traders do it - order entry firms as well as market making ones. LPS5

To: Dave O. who wrote (7366)	3/12/2000 9:26:00 PM
From: WaveSeeker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

Re flashing: I wonder why flashing is considered to be bad. First, I assume the risk when displaying a certain number of shares that my order may be filled. It's a tactic that can easily backfire. It's a great feeling when someone opens their raincoat a second time and you nail them with your shares. And at which point do you draw the line between a "flash" and a valid order? Maybe it's a mistaken order that has to be immediately cancelled. How is flashing any different than using an ECN to hide the true number of shares in an order? It just seems like another example of misdirection, which is the whole point of the Level II game anyway. WS