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 : Trading For A Living -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric P who wrote (1635)	4/30/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: Eric P	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1729

I had something very annoying happen to me twice, in two different stocks this week. I was trying to short a stock, premarket, and posted an offer on ISLD for 1000 shares of the stock, which was subsequently displayed as the best ISLD quote on Level II. Shortly thereafter, I was filled for 10 shares of the order and was left with an unfilled order for 990 shares and no remaining fill. The very next day, the same thing happened on another stock, only this time I was filled for ten shares and moments later someone filled me for the additional 990 shares. I remember seeing someone post a similar experience in the past and agree with them that the ten share fill was likely from a market maker who was merely 'playing games' with me, hoping that I would fill my remaining 990 shares by hitting his bid on INCA, as opposed to paying a full commission on only 10 shares. Anyway, it was very annoying to have this happen, especially on consecutive days. Screw the market makers! Unfortunately, I don't know of any good options for avoiding this problem. The other ECN's will only fill in increments of 100 shares. However, they offer less liquidity (ARCA, STRK, ATTN, REDI, etc.) or they cost an additional ECN fee (INCA). Therefore, I/we are left getting screwed by the market makers. I am interested in hearing everyone's ideas on this problem, or your experiences with similar situations. -Eric

To: Eric P who wrote (1635)	5/7/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: semi-techie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1729

A comment was posted on this thread a while back about a proposed change in Nasdaq to form a central limit order book: <<To: +Eric P (1618 ) From: +Eric P Wednesday, Apr 21 1999 7:11AM ET Reply #1635 of 1700 The SEC is taking another look at a proposal to create a central Nasdaq limit order book... A sort of 'super ECN'. This would look to be an excellent proposal for small investors/traders, bringing back a greater degree of fairness to the market. However, as such, it is likely to fail once more. bloomberg.com; It seems like a good idea for the individual investor, so I brought together some information about it for you folks to look over. I believe that the SEC proposal I identified below is the correct one, but would appreciate it if someone else could look it over to double check. If you agree that it is a good idea, then send your comments to the SEC using the URL near the bottom of this post. You don't have to write a book, just let them know that you support the change. News item referring to the re-opening of a public comment period on a proposal to set up a "super" limit order book: bloomberg.com The text of the proposal can be found under: electronic-traders.org about 1/2 the way down, with the title: NASD Proposal to Integrate the Nasdaq Order Delivery and Execution System Securities and Exchange Commission March 12, 1998 [Release No. 34-39718; File No. SR-NASD-98-17] You can send your comment to the SEC by going to the following URL and entering the file number given above (SR-NASD-98-17): electronic-traders.org Sure, the MMs will oppose this change, but if the SEC gets indication of enough support, they may approve it anyway and then it will come into being. It would be nice if everyone in the market were playing on a more nearly level field. TIA, ST