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: Dan Clark who wrote (7634)	4/3/2000 1:35:00 AM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 18137

Dan, Wow. Did you even read my first message? My position and arguments are in direct opposition to anyone supporting a CLOB/SuperMontage. Which is to say, against the NASDAQ proposals, and in agreement with the ECN's and other anti-CLOB parties. I believe the ECN's do not support this ridiculous, anticompetitive proposal because it forces them to subordinate their competitive advantages to the framework of some other power. "...for your scenario to work, ALL participants would have to be bound by the same rules - instant execution and price improvement." And your point is? Of course the rules would have to be the same across the board. By the way, Dan, except for SOES, what market participants and by what systems are investors now promised "instant" execution? Price improvement, though, is the whole purpose for an intermarket link such as the one I've described and support. With a CLOB, NASDAQ - or whatever organization hosts it - becomes the new gatekeeper and controls the participants. With (and I hate to use this expression, as it risks confusing something else with a similar name) a true "intramarket trading link" - ECN's and ATS' keep their books, market makers stay on NASDAQ, and trades get done at the best price, while permitting small, nimble competitors to keep the bigger companies and exchanges on their toes. "It is currently treated as though the Market Makers and big broker/dealers provide added value to the retail investor. The don't really provide added value. If want to buy 100 shares of Microsoft and the current ask is $90, then the purchase price should be $90 per share." OK, my first question is: who are the "big broker/dealers" (who apparently aren't market makers) that you get executions from? But seriously - if you really think that, Dan, you should get yourself an ITG terminal and cross all your orders instead of trading against the inside. In doing so, you'll buy for what the other people are selling in the match. The spread is there because making markets is a business. It's compensation for taking stock into inventory and putting capital in the way of your order. It's not UNICEF. No market maker owes you anything more than an execution within and in accordance with the specified rules. If you think you aren't getting value, take the market makers out of the mix and trade against other retail folks in an issue suffering from a release of bad news - first no bids, all offers...then no bids, no offers. "But liquidity is spread all over the place." Right! And, under the system I support, liquidity would be tied together in the exact same manner as it would be with your CLOB. What makes the non-CLOB plan so much better, though, is that it would do so without subverting an ECN/ATS/upstart market's growth potential, value-added features, etc. to whatever the displaying entity's rulemaking authority might demand. Here's the bottom line, Dan. If liquidity and best execution can be served - as they can and will: happily, the CLOB proposal will never make it out of the starting gate - without making market participants fall into line and stack themselves up in an ill-conceived, competition dampening "quote supermarket," then it should be done that way. And, I'm very sure it will be. LPS5