SI
SI
discoversearch

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: agent99 who wrote (6858)3/28/1999 7:28:00 AM
From: Eric P  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12617
 
I had to laugh when I read the end of the NY Times article:

Unlike the NASDAQ market makers they hope to replace, ECNs do not commit any capital to maintain orderly markets in the stocks they trade. While most large, reputable market makers stand ready to buy or sell 1,000 shares of the stocks they trade -- they are required to handle 100-share trades -- ECNs do not.

Moreover, according to NASDAQ, the average block of stock available at the best bid or offer on an electronic network last year was only 340 shares. So an investor with more than 340 shares to sell or buy may well have his offer only partly filled. By comparison, the average block available from a market maker was 1,741 shares.


This seems outdated. These days, most market makers tend to post 100 share orders. And even so, they frequently 'back away' from your order. If you want to get any real liquidity, you have to go to the ECN's: They often have more size displayed, and they are 'real' => i.e. they do not back away from your order unless another trader beats you to the order.

-Eric



To: agent99 who wrote (6858)3/28/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: Dan Clark  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12617
 
Datek wants to become an exchange!

Here is an article referenced by another thread.

newsalert.com

Now the reasons behind Gretchen's article become more clear - not just competition, but MAJOR competition. I don't know whether this is good for investors/traders, but I suspect that it is REALLY BAD for the traditional brokerages and MMs. Imagine what it must feel like to have your fastest growing competition be OUTSIDE of Wall Street.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch!



To: agent99 who wrote (6858)3/28/1999 3:26:00 PM
From: Morpher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12617
 
Moreover, although commissions to trade online are indeed rock bottom, there are hidden costs in using the networks. Prices on these networks are inferior on 8 out of 10 stocks they trade, according to the National Association of Securities Dealers. In large part, that is because investors are trading only with other investors who are using the same network, rather than "meeting" all other investors in the broader NASDAQ marketplace.

That's a wrong comparison. There is no such thing as a "broader NASDAQ marketplace." I could make the same argument: any given MM offers inferior prices in most of the stocks.

Frustrations over poor prices or trades that were not executed at all have led some experienced investors to wonder whether something is amiss between the time orders are placed and the time they show up on an ECN.

I've placed thousands of orders on Island and I can't recall any of them appearing more that a couple seconds after my entry.

"The upside is that investors are getting that meeting possibility," said Richard G. Ketchum, president of the NASD. "The downside is that they are not getting any execution guarantee."

What's that about? When taking out orders it's much easier to get an execution against an ECN than against a market maker. When placing non-marketable orders, of course there are no guarantees.

The networks now account for about 20 percent of trading in NASDAQ stocks -- more than the volume on the American Stock Exchange and all the nation's regional stock exchanges combined.

It sure seems a lot of people don't agree that ECNs suck.

The ECNs split up the market even more. When fewer trades are posted in one place, it is less likely that orders to buy and sell at the same price will find each other.

Just as when each new market maker is registered it splits up the market.

"If the volume is going on in one place, and you are at another, you won't get executed," he said.

This was true of Nasdaq before new ECNs appeared (even more so).

Or say an investor has placed a limit order -- an order to buy stock at a set price -- on an ECN. If there is no seller willing to take the other side of the trade at that price, his order remains unfilled.

Yes. Exactly the same thing as if he would place that order with a market maker.

Even then, this time lapse -- maybe just a few seconds -- can be costly.

The time lapse would be much greater if he placed that order with a market maker.

ECNs, unlike market makers, charge other dealers to execute on their networks, increasing costs.

Note that very soon market makers will also be able to do so. ISLD costs are very low anyway.

The temptation to trade ahead of a customer is greatest when investors place market orders, meaning that they will buy or sell at the prevailing price.

The writer seems to want to create confusion between brokers and ECNs. Most ECNs don't accepts market orders.

Mazzeo points to numerous examples of market orders that he placed with Datek Online and Island ECN that were not executed for minutes at a time, or were executed at prices that to him were suspiciously off the prevailing market levels.

What a garbage. How could he place a market order on Island through Datek?

On Jan. 15, Mazzeo put in an order to sell 500 shares of Network Event Theatre, a small NASDAQ stock that rarely trades. The bid price on the stock was $13.8125 when he placed his market order on Datek Online.

Again confusing a broker with an ECN. BTW, what "experienced" trader would place a market order on a NASDAQ stock that rarely trades?

While most large, reputable market makers stand ready to buy or sell 1,000 shares of the stocks they trade -- they are required to handle 100-share trades -- ECNs do not.

Is that a joke?

You get to a point of uncertainty and no one is going to sit out there and say they are a buyer during a market break," said Ketchum of the NASD. "If markets drop, ECNs have a harder time providing liquidity."

And MMs will? Yeah, right. According to a study I saw on the ETA's site that's exactly opposite of what happened during volatile days in Oct. 97 (can't access ETA's site now).



To: agent99 who wrote (6858)4/8/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: Morpher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12617
 
ETA Response to the Article Entitled "Hidden Costs In On-Line Trading"

electronic-traders.org