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: Mama Bear who wrote (12922)	5/8/2001 6:34:46 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

While semantically it may be correct... There's no "may" about it, Barb. Currently, there is no regulatory business detail that describes a broker-dealer as a "daytrading" firm. ...the apparent fact that all accounts at certain brokerages are coded automatically by SEC fiat as pattern daytrading account has that effect. This is not, and will not, be the case. And I think that the effect you envision is "apparent" only to you. There are no brokerages for whom all of their customers will be coded as daytrading accounts instantly, by regulatory decree...without an examination of the activity taking place in said accounts. In fact, I would go as far as to guarantee that at every direct access firm, whether operating on an "office" basis or online, there will be some customers who practice exclusively swing trading or, yes, even investment (buy and hold) strategies. Those will - of course - not be treated as pattern daytrading accounts. It is for this reason that the suggestion that firms will have all of their accounts classified in a certain manner by the SEC without an examination, at one level or another, of the activity taking place therein, is, yet again, laughable. By your own admission, you're basing your above assertion - which you call an "apparent fact" - on something that someone who "might have" been a rep at one direct access firm said/posted. That, dear Barb, is a (to borrow your phrase) pretty lame basis for such a sweeping hypothesis. :) LPS5

To: Mama Bear who wrote (12922)	5/8/2001 6:54:50 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

You might notice that there was a question mark and the end of the series of words that you claim is an 'assertion'. That was put there specifically to let folks know that I was asking if it were possible. The last sentences in this small paragraph sound more like a suggestion...a.k.a. an assertion...than a "question:" http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=15081434 That's not it. TWE also enforces the rules so that one may buy and sell without regard to the overnight nonsense, and they don't update anything except once a day. How about this one...some brokers are designated as 'daytrading' firms and others are 'investment' firms and they're treated differently? Specifically, the clause "[h]ow about this one," made it seem like you were attempting to steer Ap towards a conclusion, an explanation, that you already had in mind. In short, more rhetorical than interrogative. But, Barb, if you claim it was a "question," then that's what it must have been. Clearly, if you were wrong, you'd admit it humbly, quickly and completely - so it must be me. :) LPS5