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: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 10:08:39 AM
From: Ken Adams	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18137

I can't comment on any of your specific topics, Vad, but I can tell you this year has been extremely difficult for me. Most of that is due to some major health distraction coming from my very elderly mother. A bad thing for getting serious trading done on a regular basis. I will have to say, in spite of the above, it just doesn't seem to me many of my previously successful approaches to trading yield positive results these days. The number of trades I do is down substantially, as are the results. Sad... Not much of a contribution here, I know.

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 12:25:30 PM
From: Dominick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

And that is exactly why I now play the E-minis. Oh sure! I get punched in the face often but I love the action.

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 12:35:24 PM
From: Eric P	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

Biggest Changes for Traders Since 1998-2001 Commissions Back in the 'good old days', commissions were almost exclusively charged on a per ticket basis, and rates of $20-25 per ticket were normal, plus hefty ECN fees of up to 1.5 cents per share for executing orders through INCA, REDI, ARCA, etc. ISLD fees were zero or minimal for most firms. A typical 500 share execution against Instinet (INCA) would cost $29.50 ($22 commission + $7 ECN). Note that this is equivalent to a combined cost of 6 cents per share. These days, commissions are becoming extremely competitive, and most active traders get commissions that are charged on a per-share basis, with 0.3 to 0.7 cents per share being typical (lower for extremely active traders). ECN fees are also lower, running 0.3 cps to remove liquidity and 0.2 cps rebate if you add liquidity with your order. So, for that same 500 share order on Instinet (now INET), you would pay $2.50 in commissions and another $1.00 in ECN fees (assuming you removed liquidity with your order). So, the same trade now costs just $3.50 (i.e. 0.7 cents per share) versus $29.50 (6 cps). => Commissions are much, much cheaper now than in the 'old' days, making active trading for small profits (i.e. scalping) much more feasible. This has been extremely helpful in my trading. Back in 1999, I probably averaged 25-35 executed orders per day for the year. As a result of the new, cheaper commission rates, I am now consistently trading ~1500 executed orders per day, while paying roughly the same amount in annual commissions. -Eric

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 12:37:30 PM
From: KM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18137

Program trading is the biggest one IMO. How the heck are all of you?

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 12:56:51 PM
From: Eric P	Respond to of 18137

Biggest Changes for Traders Since 1998-2001 ECN Consolidation Back in the 'good old days,' a Nasdaq trader had much to consider just to decide how to route his order... Choices included ISLD, INCA, REDI, ARCA, BRUT, BTRD, ATTN, NTRD, SOES, SNET, etc. Since then, ISLD and INCA have merged, and are apparently considering merging with Nasdaq. REDI and ARCA and the Pacific Stoch Exchange have merged, and they are in the midst of a proposed merger with NYSE. SOES became SuperSOES and SNET went away. NTRD and ATTN are illiquid and essentially useless. Overall, the order routing options today are SOES, INET, ARCA or BRUT, and 'smart routing' technology is very common to enable a trader to send out a single marketable order, and have the order automatically routed to various market particpants until the entire order is filled in many pieces. Overall, I think the fewer market players and easier routing of marketable order (smart routing) has been a positive development for traders. Granted, it was a big negative for me, as I made the bulk of my income from ECN arbitrage in 1998-1999, and that disappeared with the market bubble and ECN consolidation. However, for traders in general, the consolidation of ECN's and exchanges has made the markets more efficient and helped traders, IMO. -Eric

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	6/16/2005 11:46:31 PM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

Vad, Another point of discussion is adapting to the ever changing market. What worked in the late 90's likely doesn't work as well today. So finding new ways to make a buck are important, especially to those who do this to pay the bills. I've been quicker to take profits in the past 2 years, even though they're smaller (per trade) than what I'd like to make. Dave

To: Threei who wrote (17297)	7/20/2005 12:50:25 AM
From: aldrums	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

I think the economic theory of "perfect competition" explains why a lot of traders got blown out. Too many traders using the same TA techniques leaves less money or no profits for all but the most skilled or capitalized. Also, after the volume died down, if felt like there was nothing left but a bunch of proprietary traders with OPM competing against me. That's what took me out of it. Finally, I really believe trading your own account sucks as a job...ha ha! When I go to work today, I don't have to worry about losing the money I made yesterday.