[The Bear]

Originally Posted by ezduzzit »

The thread starter's comment as regards the uptick rule wasn't that futures trading was going to get hit with it but instead that it was likely to be eliminated sometime in the foreseeable future from stock trading.

I recall having read that myself in a couple of places other than forum threads in the past few months. So, while it may have some merit, I don't know anyone that could put any realistic deadline to it.

Happy Trading

Finally I could start shorting Halliburton quickly. Let's wait and see.

[GCB]

Originally Posted by The Bear »

Finally I could start shorting Halliburton quickly. Let's wait and see.

That's too funny! I remember shorting Haliburton once with a market order and getting filled thirty cents lower than where I intended because of the uptick rule.

Needless to say, the trade was a loser.

Ah, the lessons...

[The Bear]

That's funny. That would happen to me too. It would happen with my stop orders too...so buy to cover on shorts.

My stop would get hit and my market orders would just sit there. Sometimes 30 cents later I would get filled. It was a joke. I picture some specialist named vinny laughing down at the post and he sees our orders just sitting there.

I used to be a chronic short seller of HAL. Those days are long over though.

[dalby]

i think the comment about the futures market vs. equities market and zero sum game etc. by Bear is spot on

the futures market is not a market of "stuff" like the stock market is. it's a market of "contracts" which are simply agreements.

a very big part of the futures market is commercials doing hedging (producers and consumers of goods), and in order to serve its purpose, it has to give "equal access" to both sides of the commercial game, not to mention speculators.

if coke wants to lock in (what they see as a low) sugar price, they go long sugar contracts, and that means that any gain in sugar price will not hurt them, since their long contract will offset the additional costs of buying sugar for their product.

and a sugar producer goes short of course, to hedge the price of his sugar that is in storage, or waiting to get processed, etc.

purposes like this are why the futures market was INVENTED in this country, and others (we weren't the first.)

the stock market has a limited # of shares for each company, however the futures market can have unlimited # of contracts outstanding (called open interest). heck, you could have only ONE person long and one short the dow futures, or 10,000,000 long and 10,000,000 short because the contracts are merely agreements created out of thin air.

the stock market otoh, is not a zero sum game, and is not structured to be a free flowing shorts vs. long market.

so, personally, i have no problem with the stock market uptick rule. it would be insane (and nobody believes it would be instituted) in futures

[Anonymous]

I think there are many more interested parties in seeing stock prices rise. Thus they want to make it harder for prices to fall. There is no good reason to have curbs, unless you want to make it more difficult for the market to fall.

Futures still have a sense of being instruments for professionals. Many people still argue that the retail person should not even be involved in the derivatives side of the game.

The "experts" point to the fact that a futures contract can trade lock limit down or be shorted on a down tick as reasons they are only for the sophisticated monied player. But the stock market is for everybody. As long as you put your money in and leave it there for the long run.

Do you think analyst disclosers are a good thing? Then why weren't they a good thing before the bubble burst? A "sale" call by the street is still rare.