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 : A.I.M Users Group Bulletin Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JZGalt who wrote (7542)5/28/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: OldAIMGuy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18928
 
Hi Dave,
Yes. Before hour and after hour trades are not recorded in the high/low of the day.

Knowing that most of us AIMers are using "gtc" limit orders, our orders tend to float to near the top of the pile over time. Therefore it would look on first blush like we'd get orders filled in the thin trading part of the extended sessions when the Bid/Ask might be larger than middle of the trading day.

Overall, I'm looking forward to the extended hours - even if I'm not "on-line" trading during those hours, my orders will be in place and waiting at my limits.

I have been home bound this week while waiting for my neck bones to grow together, and have hence been watching CNBC more than usual. I didn't realize how often they repeat the same stuff! Anyway, they discussed the extended hours several times yesterday and it got me thinking.

It strikes me that Mr. Lichello's book was written in anticipation of market conditions as they are now unfolding. I felt this first when I read his book back in the mid '80s when we still didn't have regular 100,000,000 share trading days!!! Even then I felt that volatility was not going to be a thing of the past. With discount commissions, limit "gtc" orders, high volume trade days, and volatility that may not be that different in percentage, but is down right scary in numbers! All these things seem to be custom built for AIM users.

Thanks again for your thoughts on this.

Best regards, Tom