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 : Options for Newbies -(Help Me Obi-Wan-Kenobe) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Waynick who wrote (2150)	9/16/2001 10:26:54 PM
From: rjm2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2241

a number of my small buy orders did indeed get executed. The reason the spread was so big was that was back before the new manning rules were well known and this was a very illiquid stocks. The reason the 500 share order was executed was the market maker had his computer set to "autoexecute". My argument then,and now is simply I took advantage of a market makers innefficiency. The SEC however protects market makers. If someone finds a way to take $5000 from a market maker they are all over him. If someone steals $5 million in an all out fraud, its lower on their priority list. I probably should have fought it, but my securities attorney didnt know much about trading and it would have cost an arm & a leg to fight it even if I indeed won. So I settled. An easy way for the SEC to boast it is attacking spoofing but really, I did not spoof in the sense that I did not enter large orders and then pull them in an attempt to manipulate. Whatever, its over with now. However, the SEC guys still go to work for the big securites firm when they leave. And that shows where their priorities are.