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 (12869)	5/4/2001 5:39:18 PM
From: bozwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

So if I and many other people use $10,000 plus margin to buy and hold internet stocks, or whatever is hot at the moment, the brokerage firms are protected? If we didn't have a "mass failure" in the last year, it's likely we won't. I am very skeptical that, all of the sudden, after decades of margin lending, the brokerages need protection. IMO, there is another motive.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (12869)	5/4/2001 10:07:20 PM
From: Allan C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18137

If they are concerned about a mass failure, I think it would be more "fair" to adjust the margin requirements to a point that makes the system safe. Instead of allowing borrowing at 2:1, maybe it should be 3:2. This way small traders could still short, which to me is the big issue. By prohibiting shorting, a large part of the "game" is taken away from traders. I am not too passionate about the issue, since it doesn't apply to me anymore, and I am not a big fan of margin or shorting in my own account anyway. But I am big on folks having as much freedom as possible up to the point it negatively effects others. I guess the powers-that-be determined that in this case that line had been crossed...