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.

Pastimes : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (127)	5/12/2002 4:32:01 PM
From: Qone0	Respond to of 589

From your link. 7. Defendants and their co-conspirators raised, fixed and maintained the spreads for Class Securities at supra-competitive levels by, inter alia, refusing to quote their bids and asks for Class Securities in so-called odd-eighths; and instead widening spreads to even-eighths. This results in a minimum spread of at least $0.25 per share for Class Securities, whereas the typical spread for actively traded Class Securities otherwise would be half that amount or less. Since then spreads have been reduced to a penny through decimal quotes and ECN`s. This has about stopped spread manipulation. IMO. And it has cost MM`s dearly. From NITE`s last 10k. For the year ended December 31, 2001, we had revenues of $684.7 million, a 46% decrease from 2000 revenues of $1,257.3 million. Our pre-tax income decreased to $54.3 million in 2001, an 87% decrease over 2000 pre-tax income of $418.5 million. In 2001, we executed 117.3 million U.S. equity trades and traded 135.0 billion U.S. equity shares, down from 142.7 million trades and up from 112.1 billion shares in the prior year. This is an example of one good change for investors.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (127)	5/18/2002 12:00:13 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 589

Man, get a hold of yourself. LOL! You first. Have you ever actually read any of your self-important, hilariously bluster-charged posts? Where did I express an "interventionist approach"? Your immediate answer, when I showed the highly subjective nature of the academics' case some posts back (as highly refutable by another, equally legitimate academic argument), was to post a link to an SEC finding. And, more recently (and a bit pitifully, I must add) to post a link to a university Economics class webpage. By willingly - indeed, it seems enthusiastically - delegating freedoms that are not Constitutionally specified to regulatory bodies - you are advocating the interventionist approach. Moreso and worse yet if, as I suspect, you don't even understand that you're doing so. Those who steal should be punished. I agree, but that's irrelevant with respect to this example. How do the width of spreads constitute "stealing," in any context? They don't. Would you, Count, accept a governmental body setting revenue and profit maximums for dentists, car dealers, sports figures, or attorneys? Simple. Nothing is that simple, much less the intersection of freedom and commerce. Or do you disagree? Do you think artificially manipulating stock prices is acceptable? LOL!!! "Artificially" manipulating stock prices? As opposed to what - naturally manipulating stock prices? Let me answer you this way: I think fraud should be treated more harshly than it currently is. In my opinion, it should be punished - and not the way it is currently, whereby a violator can get back into the market by paying a fine or receiving a blotch on their U-4. On the other hand, I think that market engineering, profit capping, and other quasi-socialist intiatives are unquestionably unconstitutional and, for that reason, that attempting to divine one-size-fits-all, universal price margins - whether spreads or the cost of root canal surgery - is, or should be, equally illegal. And ultimately - perhaps a fitting outcome for those of us who allowed interventionists to overreach their boundaries here and elsewhere - increasingly narrower spreads will have done far more harm than good, but that's only starting to become evident. It will become increasingly clear in months and years to come. I can give you a few predictions now, though, if you'd like. I am sure the brokerage firms feel it is. Why? LP.