3 ms·

I'm not saying get RID of all regulations but clearly there's a limit to how much regulation....if someone can't be bothered to google "market order vs limit or

I'm not saying get RID of all regulations but clearly there's a limit to how much regulation....if someone can't be bothered to google "market order vs limit order" then they deserve to get their a handed to them when they decide to panic sell on one of the worst times to sell. They clearly aren't cut out for this if they are panic selling in the first place. I made money during this time partly b/c I took 2 minutes out of my day many, many years ago and learned the difference between a market and a limit order. Literally, 2 minutes! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that if someone sells at a loss (nevermind it being a "panic" or not) they should be compensated by the gains I made from their stupidity.

usertaken 11y ago
Let's say a regulation was passed that didn't allow market orders. Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why not dump all our money into stocks if the government is gonna protect us, right? The problem is that there are a million ways to lose money in investing....chief among them is not spending time to do the research on the companies in which you are invested. The best protection is to be well-informed of what is going on. Certainly, we can't know everything (such as how our food was prepared, quality of it, etc) but every investor putting money into stocks should know something as basic as a market order vs a limit order....that is NOT too much to ask.
- lmm 11y ago
  > Let's say a regulation was passed that didn't allow market orders. Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why not dump all our money into stocks if the government is gonna protect us, right? I think you're greatly overestimating this effect. The government already regulates the stock market a lot. One more regulation isn't going to make retail investors suddenly start taking much bigger risks.
  - usertaken 11y ago
    Not saying it will make a HUGE change in and of itself but it does compound
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why would this be the case? A regulation prohibiting market orders doesn't even in theory serve to protect against poor-quality securities that will decline in value, it protects against poor quality market price information and/or order execution that results in an order being executed at a substantially different price than expected. It might reduce the degree to which retail investors research information on order execution between different entities through which they might trade securities, but the jump from there to it reducing the degree to which they research the underlying securities seems unwarranted (if anything, it would seem more likely to focus their research more on the securities themselves.) But, the thing is, its not like retail investors are bothering to research and understand the issues it would address now much at all, so its not like it would actually change anything except the degree to which they get bitten by them. (And, conversely, the degree to which counterparties benefit from them getting bitten by them.)

usertaken 11y ago

Let's say a regulation was passed that didn't allow market orders. Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why not dump all our money into stocks if the government is gonna protect us, right? The problem is that there are a million ways to lose money in investing....chief among them is not spending time to do the research on the companies in which you are invested. The best protection is to be well-informed of what is going on. Certainly, we can't know everything (such as how our food was prepared, quality of it, etc) but every investor putting money into stocks should know something as basic as a market order vs a limit order....that is NOT too much to ask.

lmm 11y ago
> Let's say a regulation was passed that didn't allow market orders. Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why not dump all our money into stocks if the government is gonna protect us, right? I think you're greatly overestimating this effect. The government already regulates the stock market a lot. One more regulation isn't going to make retail investors suddenly start taking much bigger risks.
- usertaken 11y ago
  Not saying it will make a HUGE change in and of itself but it does compound
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why would this be the case? A regulation prohibiting market orders doesn't even in theory serve to protect against poor-quality securities that will decline in value, it protects against poor quality market price information and/or order execution that results in an order being executed at a substantially different price than expected. It might reduce the degree to which retail investors research information on order execution between different entities through which they might trade securities, but the jump from there to it reducing the degree to which they research the underlying securities seems unwarranted (if anything, it would seem more likely to focus their research more on the securities themselves.) But, the thing is, its not like retail investors are bothering to research and understand the issues it would address now much at all, so its not like it would actually change anything except the degree to which they get bitten by them. (And, conversely, the degree to which counterparties benefit from them getting bitten by them.)