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: ahhaha who wrote (439)	8/5/2000 12:25:47 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1426

99% of the action is agency even in obscure BB stocks. The MM could care less about profit opportunities in these cases. Exactly, and this was my point in a previous message. To think that either dealers or proprietary desks of big houses would waste their capital, time, and effort on anything but facilitating retail hunger for drill bits is nothing short of absurd. LPS5

To: ahhaha who wrote (439)	8/5/2000 9:55:19 AM
From: Keith Monahan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1426

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. I have read some of your comments in the past about trading and negative expected return. However, couldn't a person develop a profitable trading system which mirrors the activities of the MM (i.e., going against the public action at the end of unsustainable runs). This assumes that market making is a profitable profession.

To: ahhaha who wrote (439)	8/13/2000 5:06:49 PM
From: Wayners	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. Don't assume anything. Where do you get the idea I was talking about OTC:BB stocks? You pulled that out of thin air and then claim I'm posting "blatently false" information. 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. Another bad assumption. I never stated whether the MM was trading for their own account or representing a customer order. Don't believe me. Read the Marc Friefurteig (sp ?) book. He's a former MM and fully discusses MM tactics to move prices to fill a customer's large order. If there was no MM, you clowns would be dealing with square well price action I never said get rid of the MM's. The liquidity rules have changed twice since the MM's got caught colluding on spreads. They got away with that one for years and everybody went on scoffing at the notion that MMs were not on the up and up. All those self proclaimed experts were WRONG. Dead WRONG. MM's don't exactly have an untarnished reputation, and are not exactly known for high standards of honesty and integrity given the 1 Billion settlement they had to dole out just a few years ago for price fixing.