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 : Z Best Place to Talk Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Iceberg who wrote (18418)	1/11/1999 3:09:00 PM
From: Redhook	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53068

Back in BANY at 16 15/16 and INSP 57

To: Iceberg who wrote (18418)	1/11/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 53068

Nasdaq settlement. Ice, I don't want to beat this subject to death either but the settlement marks the end of a lengthy process that resulted in new rules that all Nasdaq market makers must adhere to. These new rules are designed to eliminate the possibility of market makers from doing the types of things that you are concerned about. I don't have a link to the changes that were made but I'm sure if you look around the Nasdaq web site you will find them. If you are concerned about getting ripped off, then use limit orders instead of market orders. And if you think you are due a fill, pull time and sales and complain if you think you are right. I honestly don't think that the entire Nasdaq is a "scam operation". There might be examples where somebody got screwed in a thinly traded, illiquid stock, but it doesn't happen with the frequency that you implied and it is wrong to generalize that the entire Nasdaq is a scam operation because of past issues or isolated cases. Personally, I think that you are unduly restricting the stocks that you will trade, but hey, it's your money--do like you want. Dan