Let's revisit 12/21 -12-24 GBN jerks ...
I want to retract some of my rhetoric concerning the vacuum after Friday's AMEX close, and the buoyancy after Monday's early close. I have comments from a retired floor trader, and coincidentally a PhD mathematician ... excerpts follow:
(snip)
The move to an ITS (intermarket trading system) is supposed to give the customers in the other markets in a stock a chance to participate at better prices. To the degree it doesn't work as predicted, or designed, there's a problem, but it is not nearly as bad as it used to be.
(snip)
What I suspect is that the trade occurred AFTER the close on another exchange. I wouldn't be surprised if the AMEX specialist was bitching about not getting as much of the trade as they would like for their own account, or perhaps not even getting any of it (typically a firm would let the specialist know a trade was going up after the primary market close at a different exchange, and offering the specialist a chance to participate. The firm gets the lion share of the action, but if they shut out the specialist completely, the specialist can make it difficult for that firm when they want to trade on his floor).
(snip)
I just don't think it's due to the AMEX specialist, or the intent of the SEC wrt ISO. It may sound naive, but I think the SEC recognizes the problems, and at least makes noises about doing the right thing.
(snip)
Thank you, sir. I need to "just relax" ;) Limit orders instead of market orders, and mental stops instead of entered stops, as suggested by my trading system, will remain my practice. If I show my hand only late, as counterpoint to short term trends, stones may be throne but no broken bones. :)
Best Regards,
Bob
