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.

Non-Tech : Ashton Technology (ASTN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (664)	5/4/1999 11:44:00 PM
From: Sergio H	Respond to of 4443

Sheesh your post is lucid Auric. I think that you're sweating this one. I'm enjoying the show you're putting on. When does the rest of your traveling circus arrive? AS

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (664)	5/5/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4443

Humble Responses: 1. I have heard from those whose own diligence I respect that B/D's are expected to pay ATG 0.075 to 0.01 per share to buy VWAP shares on the commitment side - which they can then presumably sell to their customers for an additional spread. The lower profit margin is offset by the increased liquidity. I think the specifics on this will become clearer as ATG gets closer to July. 2. Responses: >>Optimark are not fools, they include the founder on Instinet. << They are not fools - all I am saying is that they have a complex matching algorythm with a more "call" oriented system. It is apples and oranges and less user friendly than VTS, which involves a single decision that even an institutional money manager can make, and their matching ratios have been disappointing. Lupien is an innovator -- he and Rittereiser were CEO and COO of Instinet, respectively - they know each other well, and I doubt Lupien underestimates Rittereiser the way that you seem to. >>And forget "academic studies" It's all bs until it's proven. ANY institution will try a system if they think it might save money and that is what the status is as we speak. Anybody ever hear of the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle? Well it applies here since if you get enough people trying to place orders to beat the VWAP, well then they effect the VWAP itself. << Institutions will try VTS. At what volumes will not be known until live operations begin. The possibility of price manipulation has been an SEC concern - the Rule amendment approval theorizes that if VTS garners more than 20% of the market in any single stock, the price of that stock might be subject to manipulation to affect VWAP results - that concern is actually stated on the face of the Reg 237 approval. But don't you think the nature of the concern reflects an assessment by the SEC that VWAP will be popular enough to actually generate that level of volume given current instituitonal practices in trading. And the PHLX study you call BS (without reading it I presume) actually tracked the executions of seven large institutions, comparing historical trading data to historically established VWAP prices in the same trades to arrive at the 8-12 basis point difference - you should read the paper before you trash it - you might actually learn something. >>BTW, for the uninitiated, VWAP is not a new term, good institutions demand and good BD's deliver at or below the VWAP when buying and above it when selling (or selling short in our case). As I said earlier, anybody can hire a buy side broker for 1 cent and they deliver all day long all year long. << The VWAP you refer to lacks anonymity, the single largest factor in why B/D synthetic VWAP loses the 8-12 basis points -- MM's can't help but gouge an institution when they know they are buying and selling -- it is in their nature. And index funds, hedge funds and many other funds do not buy or sell on news - a good percentage of the trading is process driven and intersects with retail buyers trading into news and hype, which is why they seek anonymity and VWAP executions in the first place. Institutions want to be outside of the normal order flow, and its subtle manipulations, whenever possible. I personally believe that the volume of stock trading in the USA alone is more than adequate to make more than one ATS profitable. As Carl Sagan would say ". . . billions and billions . . . ". It does not take a large percentage of that total (less than 1% really) to make a few hundred million a year. I do not think ATG is the be all and end all, but you must admit they are in the right place at the right time -- does that not count for anything in your analysis? MST

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (664)	5/5/1999 1:42:00 AM
From: Zebra 365	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4443

I rarely address posters (particularly of opposing viewpoints)directly but I always say there is no ignorance like aggressive ignorance. I am reminded by your post of "Slip" Mahoney of the Bowery boys who had a large array of "big words", none of which he understood, and frequently used to impress only those who were more ignorant than he. <<Anybody ever hear of the Hiesenberg(sic) uncertainty principle? Well it applies here since if you get enough people trying to place orders to beat the VWAP, well then they effect the VWAP itself.>> Werner Heisenberg was a German physicist who lived between 1901-1976. He developed new theories in quantum mechanics about the behavior of electrons which agreed with the results of previous experiments. Heisenberg is most famous for his "uncertainty principle", which explains the impossibility of knowing exactly where something is and how fast it is moving. However, this principle is only significant for tiny particles such as electrons. The reason has to do with the frequency of the radiation you would have to use to make the measurement. I took advanced physics courses as electives for fun, though it had nothing to do with my major. For your next sophist analogy please mention the Lorenz contraction of time or Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity. However you are right, even in your error, in that it is impossible for anyone to know exactly where this stock is and how fast it is moving. Where you are wrong is in underestimating the intelligence and evaluation that the real money on the long side has also invested here. You are arguing past fundamentals when you should be looking at future market dynamics. That is like losing your car keys in the front yard, but looking for them in the back yard, "because the light is better there". Best of luck in your investing. Ego is a heavy burden in the market. Zebra PS: MST_2000 welcome to the SI board, you gave an excellent analysis on the Yahoo board last week, perhaps you would copy it here?