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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maverick61 who wrote (36995)	10/2/2000 1:51:53 AM
From: Frederick Langford	Respond to of 57584

Head Trader Alert #2000-69 - September 28, 2000 Nasdaq to Modify SuperMontage Proposal (Alert #2000-69) The Nasdaq Stock Market® intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) an amendment that will modify its SuperMontageSM proposal in response to issues raised by market participants. The amended proposal will be submitted shortly to the SEC. Here is an outline of the amendment. Nasdaq to Propose Offering a Choice in How Orders Are Displayed A major concern expressed by certain electronic communications networks (ECNs) with the current SuperMontage proposal relates to ECN access fees. Supporters of the proposal as currently written argue that the access fees represent an added cost to the price of a security, and therefore should be reflected in the prices displayed in the SuperMontage for the ECNs, rather than having these fees "hidden" from investors. On the other side, certain ECNs maintain that the inclusion of their fees in the price puts them at a competitive disadvantage, and argued to have their quotes shown without the fee included. In response to concerns raised about the priority and execution rules with respect to ECN access fees, Nasdaq® will be proposing changes to SuperMontage that are intended to give market participants greater choice in their order routing decisions. Specifically, Nasdaq is proposing to design SuperMontage to route non-directed orders (i.e., those that do not specify a particular recipient or group of recipients) to Market Makers or ECNs that are at the best price based strictly on time priority, irrespective of whether they charge an access fee. Nasdaq will also give market participants a choice to allow the system to route orders based on strict time priority that takes access fees into account or based on other criteria, such as size. Additionally, if a market participant wishes to direct an order or orders to a particular firm (similar to the function available in SelectNet® today), SuperMontage will permit it to do so. Next Steps Nasdaq is currently preparing SuperMontage Amendment #8 to its SuperMontage proposal and will forward it to the SEC shortly. The amendment will set forth the proposed changes, and will be subject to SEC review and public comment. Background Description of the SuperMontage Proposal SuperMontage is the proposed successor to Nasdaq's current trading system. The proposal was originally submitted to the SEC on October 1, 1999. Since that time, throughout seven amendments and four comment periods, Nasdaq has worked with all interested parties and the SEC and has modified its proposal to respond to issues raised. SuperMontage, which will provide a mechanism for trading more quickly and efficiently, will also give investors a better understanding of the supply and demand for trading a stock by showing the total number of shares available at the three best prices. By substantially increasing the information available to investors and improving trade executions, it will continue to drive down the cost of trading of its three-level price montage nasdaqtrader.com.

To: maverick61 who wrote (36995)	10/2/2000 2:34:03 AM
From: The Flying Crane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Hello all again... Here are some more "forest" looking of the Nasdaq closing of the last 10 years. I'm including the closing of the last 4 months of each year so we can all take a look at the historical "fall" rallies, if any. As you can see on the figure below, only 1998 and 1999 have very decent "fall" rallies. 1990 thru 1992 also had a relatively decent "fall" rallies as well. On the other hands, from 1993-1997 (5 years), the so-called "fall" rally were mediocre if at all. On the positive note, 1990-1992 had a progressive 8.52%, 11.29%, and 16.06% increase in "fall" rally respectively leading to the Presidential election in 1992. Do we have a repeat of the 3 years "fall" rally leading into this year election? "Hmmmmm....." However, don't forget that in the 1996 Presidential election, there were only mediocre increases in the "fall" rallies. "oohhhhhhh....." My conclusion based on the figure below is that statistically, there is no consistent "fall" rally in an annual basis. Will Year 2000 include another "fall" rally? My guess is that it is 50/50 at best. Therefore, IMHO, I will play the rest of this year in a more defensive stance. Not unlike defensive driving so to speak. Date Close Change Change 12 mths Change from Sept. % Change % -------- -------- ---------- ------ -------- ------ 12/31/99 4,069.31 1,323.16 48.18% 1,876.63 85.59% 11/30/99 3,336.16 590.01 21.48% 10/29/99 2,966.43 220.28 8.02% 09/29/99 2,746.15 12/31/98 2,192.68 498.84 29.45% 622.33 39.63% 11/30/98 1,949.59 255.75 15.10% 10/31/98 1,771.38 77.54 4.58% 09/30/98 1,693.84 12/31/97 1,570.35 (115.33 -6.84% 279.32 21.64% 11/30/97 1,600.55 (85.13) -5.05% 10/31/97 1,593.61 (92.07) -5.46% 09/30/97 1,685.68 12/31/96 1,291.03 64.12 5.23% 238.91 22.71% 11/30/96 1,292.61 65.70 5.35% 10/31/96 1,221.51 (5.40) -0.44% 09/30/96 1,226.91 12/31/95 1,052.12 8.58 0.82% 300.17 39.92% 11/30/95 1,059.19 15.65 1.50% 10/31/95 1,036.06 (7.48) -0.72% 09/30/95 1,043.54 12/31/94 751.95 (12.34) -1.61% (24.85) -3.20% 11/30/94 750.32 (13.97) -1.83% 10/31/94 777.49 13.20 1.73% 09/30/94 764.29 12/31/93 776.80 14.02 1.84% 99.86 14.75% 11/30/93 754.38 (8.40) -1.10% 10/31/93 779.26 16.48 2.16% 09/30/93 762.78 12/31/92 676.94 93.67 16.06% 90.60 15.45% 11/30/92 652.72 69.45 11.91% 10/31/92 605.16 21.89 3.75% 09/30/92 583.27 12/31/91 586.34 59.47 11.29% 212.50 56.84% 11/30/91 523.89 (2.98) -0.57% 10/31/91 542.97 16.10 3.06% 09/30/91 526.87 12/31/90 373.84 29.34 8.52% 11/30/90 359.06 14.56 4.23% 10/31/90 329.84 (14.66) -4.26% 09/30/90 344.50 Disclaimer The above numbers were pulled from my 10 years monthly chart. I did not verify if the data were corrected or not. It may include typo error. Therefore, read those numbers with caution.