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.

Technology Stocks : NEXTEL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimmyo who wrote (5535)	4/2/1998 11:06:00 PM
From: Kevin F. Spalding	Respond to of 10227

Sounds like all you can really say is that where x = "True Volume", 18.5 Mil <= x <= 37 Mil. Pardon the math teacher in me. In other words some (but probably not all) transactions were recorded twice. If one broker worked as the intermediary, as I suspect happens with most basket/institutional trades then the transaction (share volume) only gets recorded once. Otherwise twice. Or...if it went from broker to broker to broker...?????? You do the math. Kevin P.S. Before I previewed this message I had spelled "broker" as "borker." Maybe the first time was right???

To: jimmyo who wrote (5535)	4/2/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: PHG	Respond to of 10227

jimmyo: Volume and transactions NASDQ style As I said I would I spoke to a top level NASDQ exe. today about trades and transactions, after cornering him on a few things I came away that He was very defensive. Was that the young fellow delivering your WSJ earlier this morning? I was driving by your B+B on my way to work. I got a glimpse of you in your robe and slippers carrying on with the newspaper boy. Did he really like your Mickey and Minny Mouse slippers? ...........................Phil.......................................

To: jimmyo who wrote (5535)	4/2/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Frederick Smart	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10227

Jimmyoo: >>As I said I would I spoke to a top level NASDQ exe. today about trades and transactions,after cornering him on a few things I came away that He was very defensive about volume.He spoke to me as if I was some sort of NYSE exe.>> Jimmy, the NASD should be running scared on "volume" for exchanges and the NASD get "tape revenue" from trades - based on the fees you and all of us pay directly and indirectly to get real-time quotes. Since the NASDAQ has a long history of printing more shares than actually change hands - not quite double printing, but in some cases this is true - they have been collecting more tape revenue that what one would consider, perhaps, fair. It all has to do with the lack of a central limit order book. Sure the MMs have used Instinet as their own private/anonymous limit order book for years - but this exclusivity broke down with the display rule last year - beginning in February. Case in point: the NASD merging with the AMEX. The true reality of this extra printing will have to come to light before this merger takes place. If I were the SEC I'd be looking into this real hard right now. Hundreds of millions of dollars in "extra" tape revenues have been flowing to NASD for years - but now the SEC is chargin NASD market makers - for the first time since last year - the same SEC fee they've charged exchange-based specialists. This has resulted in a $350 mm windfall for the SEC, so I don't know how eager they may be to reform this NASD "trade surplus". The good thing in all this is that Arthur Levitt has done an extraordinary job cleaning up the NASDAQ, but still a lot more needs to be done. For example; 1) Trade throughs - you don't have protection on trade throughs today; and 2) Limit order protection - all MMs have to do today is simply display your limit order. They have no requirement to enforce participation again competing prints. The other thing to keep in mind with the NASD is that they all print with a "T" to the National Market System tape. The only NASD-based trading that takes place on a differentiated tape print is the Chicago Stock Exchange's NASD UTP - Unlisted Trading Privledge - program. If more people would recognize Chicago's sleeping asset, they could demand to at least get the ball rolling by requiring limit trades posted elsewhere on the NASD to participate with prints taking place in Chicago. The NASD is very concerned about the Chicago Exchange - for it represents the only potential venue for limit order protection. Look for other ECN - Electronic Communication Networks - such as Instinet, Island and others to enter the listed market as Class II non-exchanges. I know I may have really confused you. Sorry.