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.

Non-Tech : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (432)	8/5/2000 12:06:14 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1426

Let's assume you are referring to illiquid BB stocks since for 10,000 NAZ issues this claim is blatantly false. The MM isn't required to bail the greedy public out of their bad judgement, not even within 1/4 point. Depends on other factors. The stock may admit 1 point nominal spreads. Let's say the MM didn't even provide the 1/4 discount. That would be more in line with free market principles and it provides the gambling public fast information that they can't operate glibly in illiquid stocks. When the MM is bailing out the day traders a false appearance is generated that liquidity is higher than actually exists based on the public order flow. In light of this consideration it is eminently fair and reasonable that MMs should have no requirement to make an accommodative market. You should be allowed to lose more. You say that the MM suddenly provides "tons of liquidity". This is actually a statement that the MM is bidding or offering in front of the public's action and that is expressly prohibited. Why is that? Because you claim the MM is buying more at a level lower than where they had been buying, but how do you know whether the MM is working a public order specifying that level or buying for their own account because the nearest bid is too far away to make a continuous market? 99% of the action is agency even in obscure BB stocks. The MM could care less about profit opportunities in these cases. The profit opportunities come when the public wants to transact at some level way away from the last trade based on their fear or greed. The MM is required by rule to get on the other side of the public action since none of the public will do that at any rational level. If there was no MM, you clowns would be dealing with square well price action, and that would also be free market and eminently fair. You're damn straight they do this. They have to obey the rules.

To: Wayners who wrote (432)	8/13/2000 1:09:03 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1426

I'll tell you walking is. Walking is when market makers provide minimum liquidity, i.e. 100 shares every quarter point and then lifting for several points and then all of sudden provide tons of liquidity once it gets to a point where they can easily make money by suddenly filling 1000 shares and more at a clip. You're damn straight they do this. Gee, really? If this is true, then why is it that the Evil M&Ms are never accused of "walking" a stock up, only down? The same kind of trading can occur in both directions.