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 (12942)	5/9/2001 2:13:14 PM
From: OZ	Respond to of 18137

Hmmm. Maybe this would be a better place to duke it out. Subject 34441 My bet is in LPS5 by split decision LOL. Oz

To: Mama Bear who wrote (12942)	5/9/2001 5:59:50 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 18137

Hmm, so are you saying that fellow from MB Trading is a liar? Now why in the world would you automatically assume that? No, I'm saying that he is incorrect. For someone so resolute about other individuals providing links and other evidence toward proving their statements, you seem...not surprisingly...to have a far lower burden of proof where your careening leaps of logic are concerned. Or are you saying that Ken Wolff is putting up false transcripts on his site? Don't know the person, never been to the site. No, what I'm saying is that your assertion that certain broker-dealers will have all of their accounts, with utter disregard for the specific activity going on therein classified as "pattern daytrading account(s)" is nothing short of ludicrous. It is ludicrous from the point of view that options accounts and certain penny stock transactions are qualified on an account-by-account basis; why would this be any different? It is ludicrous from a logistical point of view: how do you propose the regulators would find out exactly what was going on in each and every account in order to classify said firms? If, Barb, any of the top five online brokers, with millions of online accounts, had customers that fell under the pattern daytrading guidelines, would every other of the millions of accounts at the firm be - as you suggest - classified as and subject to the pattern daytrading account specifications? If not, then how would the differentiation be accomplished? Size of the firm? Percentage of pattern vs. nonpattern daytrading accounts? Would the regulators put in place a plan that would set tens of thousands of accounts in motion, as non-pattern daytrading accounts at firms branded, as you suggest, as your hypothetical "all pattern daytrading account" firms, hustled to transfer their account to other firms without breaks in their investment activity? And, it is - and should be - a ludicrous assertion from point of view of anyone who knows how to read. Note that the proposal speaks of individual customers and pattern daytrading account(s). Not pattern daytrading firms. Or, Mama Barb, is it - as I assert - more likely that all broker-dealers, informed of the new rules and under the penalty (and watchful eye via examination) of their respective SRO(s), will be required to monitor the activity in all of their accounts and apply the pattern daytrading account rules only to those accounts whose activity incurs those requirements? Is it more likely that instead of, as you suggest, certain firms being branded in such a way that makes all of their customers subject to the pattern daytrading rules...that some firms will have many - perhaps all, for some very small daytrading shops - pattern daytrading accounts, some will have few, and some will have none? You have a good evenin' :) LPS5