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: Jon Tara who wrote (8300)	5/6/2000 12:42:00 AM
From: Dan Duchardt	Respond to of 18137

Jon, Dan, does that rule apply to Snet orders? Yes it applies to Snet orders. The MM's "dual liability" with SOES and SNET is a major underlying issue behind the SuperSOES change. It is difficult to prove if the MM is quick because he can always claim he was changing price just before the order came in, but if you have several occurrences you certainly have ammunition to fight with. You can't fight the battle yourself. You have to get your broker to do it, and you have to do it right away when it happens. Dan

To: Jon Tara who wrote (8300)	5/6/2000 7:26:00 AM
From: Eric P	Respond to of 18137

Jon: The reason I ask is that during the past few days, I have had SEVERAL occasions where I have placed a directed Snet order (specific MM) where the MM was displaying, say, 1000 shares. As soon as I place the order, they move their price by 1/8. No trade prints, so there wasn't anybody in front of me. What you described is called 'backing away'. This is against the rules and the market maker is obligated to fill your entire 1000 share order at his posted price. You need to contact your broker as soon at this occurs and have him file a backing away complaint with Nasdaq within 5 minutes of when it happens. Nasdaq will then contact the market maker and get there side of the story. In a clear cut case as you described, the market maker will be forced to retroactively give you the shares at his former posted price. However, make sure you instruct your broker to check the current bid/ask on the stock before he agrees to accept the shares to ensure that the stock has not moved adverse to your 'position'. If the 'position' is in the money, you can take the trade for a profit. If the trade is underwater, then your broker simply tells Nasdaq that after this delay, you no longer want the trade. Definitely a risk free solution to market maker backing away problems. I know OZ and the folks at Cornerstone hold market makers to the rules to fulfill their obligations on a very frequent basis, and win most of their complaints. I have tried it once. Nasdaq told my broker I was entitled to the shares if I wanted, but the stock had moved back down in the meantime and I refused the shares. Anyway, it's worth a try the next time it happens. Also, it's a good way to check on the quality of the customer service at your firm. If they give you a hard time and aren't too pleased with filing a backing away complaint, then maybe they aren't really looking out for your best interests. Good luck, -Eric

To: Jon Tara who wrote (8300)	5/7/2000 12:18:00 PM
From: Shoot1st	Respond to of 18137

You might have had slightly stale quote feed. I've had that happen with Tradecast. Instantly, when my order is entered, the price changes......My order actually acts as the refresher. Try this. Put 2 stock windows side by side and run the same stock. If you see 2 different sets of inside quotes....you got yourself some bad data feeds. Also, switch between quote servers and watch the volume....If it goes down fro;m one server to the other....you've got bad quote feeds. Shootie