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 : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TFF who wrote (9650)	12/18/2001 5:47:54 AM
From: atto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12617

TFF thanks for that article. A couple of comments... First, this instrument, commonly known as the “Q’s”, has become the single most heavily traded equity in the world, surpassing even the biggest tech stocks. Second, futures on the QQQ would have a lower margin than on the instrument itself, especially on the short side. There are already three instruments I know about that track the NASDAQ 100. Do we really need futures that track instruments which themselves track the index? Maybe high net worth people and corporate insiders with large positions in company stock [will participate] Corporate insiders? Will they be bound by any regulation regarding trading the futures contracts tracking the stock of their own company? If not, doesn't this make all such regulation for stocks meaningless? “Partly because they will be able to short the stock in a way that is easier, with no uptick rule to worry about.” Does anyone know how the uptick rule restrictions are handled by the institutions which do arbitrage between stocks and futures? Doesn't having such restrictions on one instrument but not the other cause mispricing? Perhaps this isn't a huge problem now, but won't it become a problem if one of the major uses for stock futures is supposed to be the avoidance of the uptick rule restrictions? atto