5 ms·

Interestingly, trading for regular stocks on US exchanges is halted for many reasons including when the price moves too fast, a 10% move in 5 minutes automatica

Interestingly, trading for regular stocks on US exchanges is halted for many reasons including when the price moves too fast, a 10% move in 5 minutes automatically gives a 5 minute halt. https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=tradehaltcodes https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=tradehaltcodes

throw10920 4y ago
Yeah, the conventional financial markets are rigged, despite (or because?) of layers of regulation and "oversight" - the Robinhood-GME incident and banks/individuals that contributed to the 2008 crash getting off scott-free should have been enough to convince most individuals of this.
- seabird 4y ago
  2008 crash is a decent example of finance being rigged. Robinhood's handling of GameStop is not. They may be a pretty shit brokerage, but DTCC collateral requirements hit everybody, and they just didn't have enough money lying around to deal with that in the way a lot of customers would have wanted.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - MegaButts 4y ago
    So you agree the DTCC doesn't know how to manage their collateral requirements? It's one of their primary reasons for existing. It seems like something they should've been able to foresee or handle, rather than force brokerages into PCO when they already lost control of the situation. It's really akin to the LME trade halt fiasco, which then became even worse when they retroactively reversed trades. The point is, when they're about to lose money they'll change the rules of the game. If you don't recognize that then you're the sucker at the table.
    - seabird 4y ago
      They know full well how to handle their collateral requirements; that's exactly what they did! The idea that they "lost control" of the situation is pretty wild; how would they have exerted control over it? GME went nuclear in a day, and nobody a week before then would have told you it was going to happen the way it did. Should they require near 100% collateral from brokers on every trade, and everything that comes along with that? And no, them biting the bullet on trades that don't clear isn't a real solution. The ideal situation that would have mitigated it and kept them safe is same-day settlement cycles, but that's not a choice they alone get to make. The LME situation and the DTCC/meme stock situation have very little in common, besides both of them being triggered by extreme price movement. It's much easier to argue that LME was rigging the game, but commodities are a different market that hit a little closer to home when things go bad. If the LME let short hedges get vaporized, the idea that they should have been left out to dry would be very unpopular in the fallout of that situation. Maybe they should have, but you're going to have a hard time convincing people not involved in finance of that. Unless you are an institutional trader, the market isn't out to get you specifically. You aren't even shit on their shoe. You're shit three counties over, if that. They barely think about you. They barely even know you exist. You're background noise that most large players need to filter out to find out who is actually on the other end of the trade. Financial markets are rigged in the sense that big players will be bailed out and cut loose no matter what. They are not rigged in the sense that a retail investor can be on the losing end of a trade because they didn't understand what's actually happening.
      - MegaButts 4y ago
        This is absurd. If you make a bet that you're unable to honor which forces you to shut down the market, you've lost control. If they can't account for this then they can't account for the trades they're supposed to honor. Yes, it's literally their job to account for situations like this. They failed. Pointing out how insane the situation was only points out how poorly they predicted what might happen with private information they still haven't shared publicly. If they can't account for the bets placed then we don't have functioning markets. They knew what the short interest was, they knew what the options chain was, they have data about trades the public can't even see. There were multiple traders pointing towards a potential short squeeze in GME going back well into 2020, so if they could see it why the fuck couldn't the DTCC? Your stance is "their job was hard therefore it's not their fault." That's quite frankly batshit insane when we're talking about the stock market which is an enormous functioning part of our economy. Yeah man, I'm concerned they don't know what the fuck they're doing because they've already proven they don't. If they didn't care they wouldn't have changed the collateral requirements - you're contradicting reality with your argument. You can have the last word, I'm not going to respond any further.

throw10920 4y ago

Yeah, the conventional financial markets are rigged, despite (or because?) of layers of regulation and "oversight" - the Robinhood-GME incident and banks/individuals that contributed to the 2008 crash getting off scott-free should have been enough to convince most individuals of this.

seabird 4y ago
2008 crash is a decent example of finance being rigged. Robinhood's handling of GameStop is not. They may be a pretty shit brokerage, but DTCC collateral requirements hit everybody, and they just didn't have enough money lying around to deal with that in the way a lot of customers would have wanted.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MegaButts 4y ago
  So you agree the DTCC doesn't know how to manage their collateral requirements? It's one of their primary reasons for existing. It seems like something they should've been able to foresee or handle, rather than force brokerages into PCO when they already lost control of the situation. It's really akin to the LME trade halt fiasco, which then became even worse when they retroactively reversed trades. The point is, when they're about to lose money they'll change the rules of the game. If you don't recognize that then you're the sucker at the table.
  - seabird 4y ago
    They know full well how to handle their collateral requirements; that's exactly what they did! The idea that they "lost control" of the situation is pretty wild; how would they have exerted control over it? GME went nuclear in a day, and nobody a week before then would have told you it was going to happen the way it did. Should they require near 100% collateral from brokers on every trade, and everything that comes along with that? And no, them biting the bullet on trades that don't clear isn't a real solution. The ideal situation that would have mitigated it and kept them safe is same-day settlement cycles, but that's not a choice they alone get to make. The LME situation and the DTCC/meme stock situation have very little in common, besides both of them being triggered by extreme price movement. It's much easier to argue that LME was rigging the game, but commodities are a different market that hit a little closer to home when things go bad. If the LME let short hedges get vaporized, the idea that they should have been left out to dry would be very unpopular in the fallout of that situation. Maybe they should have, but you're going to have a hard time convincing people not involved in finance of that. Unless you are an institutional trader, the market isn't out to get you specifically. You aren't even shit on their shoe. You're shit three counties over, if that. They barely think about you. They barely even know you exist. You're background noise that most large players need to filter out to find out who is actually on the other end of the trade. Financial markets are rigged in the sense that big players will be bailed out and cut loose no matter what. They are not rigged in the sense that a retail investor can be on the losing end of a trade because they didn't understand what's actually happening.
    - MegaButts 4y ago
      This is absurd. If you make a bet that you're unable to honor which forces you to shut down the market, you've lost control. If they can't account for this then they can't account for the trades they're supposed to honor. Yes, it's literally their job to account for situations like this. They failed. Pointing out how insane the situation was only points out how poorly they predicted what might happen with private information they still haven't shared publicly. If they can't account for the bets placed then we don't have functioning markets. They knew what the short interest was, they knew what the options chain was, they have data about trades the public can't even see. There were multiple traders pointing towards a potential short squeeze in GME going back well into 2020, so if they could see it why the fuck couldn't the DTCC? Your stance is "their job was hard therefore it's not their fault." That's quite frankly batshit insane when we're talking about the stock market which is an enormous functioning part of our economy. Yeah man, I'm concerned they don't know what the fuck they're doing because they've already proven they don't. If they didn't care they wouldn't have changed the collateral requirements - you're contradicting reality with your argument. You can have the last word, I'm not going to respond any further.