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 TrendsThe Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: TFF who started this subject2/20/2001 11:22:31 AM
From: TFF
   of 12617
 
On the Table, A Bigger Risk For Investors

By Jerry Knight
Sunday, October 1, 2000; Page H01

Buried in a bill that's buried under the pile of legislation Congress is trying to clear off before it goes into reelection mode is a provision that would give gutsy investors a whole new game to play.

It would permit trading in futures contracts on individual stocks, an idea that's been kicking around Washington, Wall Street and the Chicago futures markets for 18 years. Futures contracts are obligations to buy or sell something at a set point in the future and at a set price.

Trading futures contracts on stock market indexes has become so much a part of the fabric of the markets that on weekday mornings the radio and TV tell us what's happening to the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index's futures. But futures on individual stocks have been forbidden by federal law.

Investors may not understand how the machinery works, but they know the S&P futures provide a preview of what's likely to happen when trading opens on Wall Street.

The same role could be played by individual stock futures, if Congress can get its act together and pass the measure before the members go home to protect their seats.

Last Friday, for example, investors could have seen Apple Computer stock falling if there had been futures contracts traded on Apple's stock, because the futures markets open well before the stock market. Apple shares lost roughly half their value in half an hour after the Nasdaq Stock Market opened Friday morning because the company warned that its fourth-quarter earnings would be far less than analysts had been expecting.

As it was, the only warning of how fast Apple would fall came from after-hours stock trading, which is often not a very accurate predictor of what's to come the following morning.

A market in individual stock futures, in fact, not only would have shown how far the Apple was falling from the tree, it might have made it possible for Apple shareholders to mitigate some of their losses. They could have protected themselves by selling Apple futures before the stock market opened.

And assuming there were futures not only for Apple but also for other prominent personal-computer stocks, investors might have been able to keep the rotten Apple from spoiling the whole barrel. The stocks of Intel, Microsoft, Dell and Sun all were soured by Apple.

But there is no trading now in Apple stock futures or any others.

Part of the reason is that the stock markets have been lobbying ferociously to maintain the federal ban on trading futures on individual stocks--divining the "right" price for each individual stock is, after all, why stock exchanges exist in the first place. The federal ban on individual stock futures was written when Congress set regulatory standards for stock index futures in 1982.

Trading futures on single stocks is a concept that is difficult to understand. In fact, it might not even work. This kind of contract has never been tried in any place with a serious stock market. If you saw a list of where individual stock futures are traded, your first question would be: They have a stock market? Would you believe Budapest?

Another part of the reason is that federal regulation of financial services has traditionally been based on the premise that if the government doesn't specifically permit something, you can't do it.

But now there is proposed legislation that would permit trading futures contracts on individual stocks. That is not the primary purpose of the bill. Its main goal is to clear up arcane legal questions about regulation of far more complex and esoteric financial transactions that are used by multinational banks and global corporations. It would settle long-standing turf battles between the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates stocks, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures.

Late Friday, congressional leaders and industry lobbyists were trying to cut deals to bring up a vote soon on what is known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

In reality, it's not an act but a drama in four acts, with three different versions coming out of three different House committees and a fourth emanating from the Senate. As always, the devil is in the details, the little phrases that can mean millions to specific companies, billions to influential industries. Needless to say, no one is representing individual investors in these talks.

The basic principle involved is not a partisan issue. The Clinton administration is for it. The Democratic chairmen of both the SEC and CFTC are on board, as are the Republican chairmen of all the key congressional committees--Agriculture, Banking and Commerce. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, widely respected as an intellectual force on such matters, is a backer.

The New York Stock Exchange is leading the opposition, backed by the Nasdaq Stock Market and the various options exchanges. The Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Futures Industry Association, the big banks and the big Wall Street firms are the principal proponents.

Campaign coffers are overflowing with checks, metaphorically paper-clipped to a memo explaining where the donor stands on these issues.

What's fascinating about the policy debate is the agreement on the guiding principle: The government should not stand in the way of financial innovation.

John Damgard, president of the Futures Industry Association, says it best: "Let the marketplace decide whether these are good products, not some GS-13."

Sorry 'bout that, bureaucrats, but that's the thinking these days.

Two other factors are driving the legislation: internationalization and technology.

The world has turned into one big market. Billions of dollars worth of yen, marks and pounds are traded in the United States every day. The London futures markets threatened to turn the tables on us a couple of weeks ago by announcing plans to trade futures on individual U.S. stocks. Nobody could have handed the American advocates a better weapon to wave in front of Congress.

In fact, international trading is easy with today's technology. The pits where agricultural futures are traded in Chicago and the equally fabled floor of the New York Stock Exchange are not going to get the stock futures business. They'll be traded electronically in a system modeled on the Nasdaq market.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange has already established the model with a special version of its S&P 500 contract that was created for individual investors.

The S&P futures contract is far and away the world's most successful stock index vehicle. It is traded in quarterly cycles that are settled based on where the S&P ends up on the last trading day in March, June, September and December. The next contract coming due--right now, that's December--is where the action is. As of Friday, there were about 390,000 December contracts outstanding.

The big appeal of futures contracts is that traders do not have to pay the full value upfront, or even come up with the 50 percent margin required to buy stocks on credit. Instead they make a small down payment--also known as margin--that typically is 5 percent to 10 percent of the value of the contract.

That creates tremendous leverage. If a stock jumps 50 percent in value, the profit can be several times the amount invested. But the lever moves in both directions. If the value of the contract plunges, the trader not only loses the down payment but also must cover the full amount of the loss.

The bustling pits still trade the original S&P index futures contract, which represents $250 multiplied by the actual index. That's a wholesale-size contract, designed to serve the needs of institutions. On a day like Friday, when the S&P was down 21.78 points, the contract lost $5,445.

To attract individual traders, the Merc created an S&P "mini" contract that is valued at $50 times the index. Its moves are still hefty but more affordable; it dropped $1,089 on Friday.

The S&P mini is traded electronically and has attracted growing interest from online traders. Instead of sitting at their home computers trading one stock, they try to outguess the whole market by buying and selling the mini S&P, which had more than 31,000 contracts outstanding as of Friday.

The same kind of two-tiered market is expected to evolve for single stock futures.

There will probably be a "maxi" contract for institutions such as mutual funds, which will use it to manage their portfolios. When they think a stock is likely to fall, they can sell stock futures contracts and lock in the price without actually unloading the shares, which might drive down the market.

Officials at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange consider details of upcoming contracts a trade secret. But they make it very clear that if the government gives the green light, they will create contracts tailored to small traders. Most likely it will be 100 shares--the stock market's standard "round lot"--and it will be set up specifically to encourage online day trading.

Now, of course, day-trading stocks--popular as it may have become--has proved to be the riskiest business that small investors can get into. Even with a 50 percent down payment on stocks, traders can be wiped out in a single day.

That happened Friday to shareholders in Apple. On Thursday, Apple stock closed at $53.50 a share. It opened the next morning around $28 and soon slid to $25.75. Investors holding fully margined Apple shares were broke by the time the stock fell below $26.50.

But anyone who had purchased an imaginary Apple stock futures contract--locking in the obligation to buy the stock at a now-higher-than-market price--would have been in even deeper doo-doo. When the market opened at $28, such a buyer would probably have already lost the entire down payment and would have had to come with additional cash to cover the rest of the loss.

In the days before deregulation, a lot of people would have argued that investors should be protected from such big risks, but those days are over.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jon Tara who wrote (8753)2/20/2001 10:20:15 PM
From: TFF
   of 12617
 
MB Trading splits from Terra Nova to become own Broker Dealer.

Instinet acting as Clearing House.

Launching "CyberX like" product call Navigator that can be integrated into to QCharts, Esignal, Nextrend, RT3 etc.

Commissions 14.95-7.95

Will provide Navigator free with 5 trades per month.

Will provide MB dollars to apply against data provider costs.

realitytrader.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: TFF who started this subject2/22/2001 4:38:22 AM
From: supertip
   of 12617
 
Downbeat internet traders learn the secret of swing
By Lesia Rudakewych
Published: February 21 2001 23:12GMT | Last Updated: February 21 2001 23:46GMT

If this week's International Online Trading Expo in New York City is any guide, "day trading" is out and "swing trading" is in.

In these times of market uncertainty, the reasoning goes, it makes sense to swing trade - hold positions in stocks beyond the day's market close - because it could take more than a few minutes or hours to be certain of a stock or market trend.

Though held at the glitzy Marriott Marquis, on Times Square, the expo was anything but glamorous. With the 50 per cent downturn in the Nasdaq Composite since last March having wiped out many of the tech stock "easy wins" of 1999-2000, traders and exhibitors alike were focusing on how to win in an increasingly competitive environment.

The few who made an attempt at lightheartedness looked out of place. The fatigue-wearing representatives of ReconTrader.com rarely ventured out of their army tent, set up in a crowded space near the elevator bank. The twenty-somethings in thick-rimmed spectacles from myTrack.com, clones of a character in a company advertisement, gesticulated wildly - to no avail.

Such attempts at attention-grabbing might have worked last year, at the height of stock market euphoria. But most exhibitors offered a more sober message of training, risk management, short-selling and loss-limiting techniques.

On two floors crammed with stalls, small audiences of mostly middle-aged men listened to sales staff with headset-microphones making subdued pitches.

"We got focused on the wrong things - the money. You need to focus on the risk," Chris Wilson of ProTrader.com told a group seated at his stall.

At the crowded booth of the Online Trading Academy, where Equity Trading Online LLC promoted its training courses, Ed Bassett exhorted his audience to be circumspect: "We're pretty pompous to think this market is always going up. You need discipline as a trader."

Among the participants, who each paid a $50 entrance fee for such trading insights, many agreed that training was a pre-requisite.

Gary Cirillo, a semi-retired art dealer contemplating trading as a part-time career, said: "I know a handful who've made money, out of many more who've lost money. You have to be dedicated to do this well. There's nothing casual about it."

But if the industry seemed to be succeeding in inculcating the need for education, matters appeared more muddled on the technology front.

Myriad trading dotcoms competed to show off their trading platforms, each trying to sell a higher execution speed and more complex trading platform than the next.

With once stellar names such as Charles Schwab and E*Trade seeing growth in accounts and trading volumes dwindle, there was a sense of heightened competition among brokers, research services and trading software providers.

Broker dealers and proprietary trading firms, which hope to benefit from any consolidation among online brokers, argued that a professional in-house trading environment offered the best success ratio for traders, as well as access to capital.

Nowhere was the growing gap between the experienced trader and the novice - the twin targets for the online exhibitors - more evident than near the booth of Broadway Trading LLC.

There Michael Sedek, a 24-year-old veteran trader and registered principal at Broadway Trading, talked of his training techniques for clients who pay $75,000 to open an account and trade full-time. Somewhat discouraged by the age of the crowd, he said he hoped to attract young people without the worries of a mortgage.

Brad Giaquinto, 26, of Long Island, said he felt confused by the online brokers. "Most of them seem the same and the $50 expo fee is way too steep."
markets.ft.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: TFF who started this subject2/22/2001 11:15:37 PM
From: dlipsett
   of 12617
 
Terra Nova launches free platform that enables traders to take control

Chicago, IL / December 7, 2000 – Terra Nova Trading, L.L.C. (“Terra Nova”), a leading direct access broker, introduces the Terra Nova Investor Series -- a free, web-based trading platform designed for active investors who want real-time data and the power to route their own orders.

Terra Nova, in conjunction with Townsend Analytics, Ltd., developed the software to address customer demand for a simple yet powerful direct access trading platform. The Investor Series is a rich intermediate-level solution that will appeal to customers of conventional on-line brokerage firms. Through the Investor Series, active investors will view real-time prices and route their order from the same screen. Double click features permit quick order entry, adjustments and cancellations. Live order status helps customers evaluate their fills, and real-time account updates reflect current buying power. The Terra Nova Investor Series operates on the same state-of-the-art technology found in RealTickä, and it is the first web-based direct access product to integrate RealTick with Microsoft’s ActiveXâ technology. It also incorporates Archipelago’s integrated ECN book, which allows traders to view Archipelago, Island and Redibook ECN orders in real-time.

To encourage active investors to try direct access, Terra Nova will offer the Investor Series at no charge, with trades starting at a special rate of just $8 for up to two calendar months.

Features include:
· Easy point-and-click access
· Real-time Nasdaq, NYSE and AMEX Level I quotes
· Real-time charts
· News
· Live order and account updates
· E-mail stock alerts
· Customizable watch lists
· Zack’s Brokerage Research and Market Guide
· Archipelago’s integrated ECN book
· Direct order routing to the Archipelago, Island and the NYSE
· Integrated customer support chat room
· Live news web cast from JAGfn

“We want active investors to experience the benefits of direct access, and the Investor Series provides an easy, non-intimidating way to do so,” said Terra Nova President Chris Doubek. “This new platform puts power and control where it belongs – in the customer’s hands.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: dlipsett who wrote (8763)2/23/2001 4:41:36 AM
From: Jon Tara
   of 12617
 
Ugh! I think this is the same thing that Townsend used for the awful CME experiment. :(

My understanding was that the ActiveX stuff was to be the basis for the "next generation" RealTick. But the "next generation" RealTick never came, and, instead, they did incremental improvements to RealTick III. (With the 7.0 release.)

There was some tantalizing discussion about being able to "snap-in" third-party components into RealTick.

I would presume that the ActiveX version was less stunning that Townsend had hoped-for...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: dlipsett who wrote (8763)2/23/2001 4:44:39 AM
From: Jon Tara
   of 12617
 
Now, I am REALLY confused.

An MB customer forwarded me an e-mail from them saying that they were changing their name to Terra Nova-MB, and would be changing their web site address to www.terranova-mb.com starting Tuesday.

The e-mail also said that the currrent MB Trading is "a branch office of Terra Nova, LLC".

This seems in direct conflict with other infomation here.

What gives?

(Not an MB customer - just intrigued.)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TFF who started this subject2/23/2001 5:29:51 AM
From: supertip
   of 12617
 
Online Traders Wanted (in China)
By Christina DeFalco, AsiaWise
21 Feb 2001 17:22 (GMT +08:00)
News that China's government will allow domestic investors to invest in B-shares, previously open only to foreigners, is sure to cause a short-term trading surge when the B-share markets reopen on Monday. Are China's investors likely to be placing their orders online?

Online stock trading has become a global phenomenon and China has been making efforts not to be left behind. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has made its support of online trading practices clear.

CSRC Chairman Zhou Xiaochuan has repeatedly assured the financial community that the securities watchdog would work to facilitate online trading - this despite uncertainty about the country's Internet policy in general and trading corruption concerns in particular.

Generally slow to pass clear regulations when sensitive areas are involved (offshore listing being one recent example), the CSRC picked up the pace when it came to online trading, passing guidelines last May. Under the new laws, companies offering online trading services must be approved by the CSRC - freezing out Internet start-ups who had moved to fill the gap in the market.

So who is allowed to offer online trading services? Last week the CSRC pronounced 23 domestic securities brokerages competent to offer online trading services.

Of the approved firms, China Galaxy Securities Company Ltd. is a good example of the type preferred by the government. Wholly owned and directly supervised by the central government, it was formed six months ago by merging five leading investment and trust companies. Already the largest securities company in China by share capital, the company has a head start on clientele - now it just has to convince them to embrace online trading.

But will they? There remain substantial hurdles to be overcome before the masses in China wholeheartedly embrace online trading.

A survey last year by the Social Survey and Investigation Office of China showed that 72% of those surveyed believed security to be the biggest problem with online trading. This is going to be an ongoing problem since the government restricts the level of encryption allowed to civilians - right now the level is below that needed to access a U.S. online bank account. China's online trading providers simply aren't able to offer the same security as brokers elsewhere in the world.

Another factor hindering growth is that personal computers remain the exception rather than the rule. The spread of WAP and TV set-top box technology will be instrumental in determining the future of online trading. Not to mention speed - an important factor as investors place orders while prices are constantly changing.

China's online traders relying on web browsers have to compromise price accuracy, while streaming options require high capacities currently unavailable outside major cities.

Monday's news that domestic investors will be permitted to invest in B-shares will help increase the profile and appeal of online trading, but it means more red tape for investors and brokers offering the service.

Controlling foreign currency outflows was a prime factor in the decision to open the B-share markets to domestic investors. But mainlanders will have to have a legal foreign exchange account in order to place orders for B-shares, which trade in U.S. dollars in Shanghai and Hong Kong dollars in Shenzhen.

The introduction of the ever-sensitive foreign exchange issue is likely to complicate things. It isn't clear whether China's online securities companies have systems in place to deal with B-shares or foreign exchange account verification. The ease of adding B-share services may depend on what stance the State Administration of Foreign Exchange intends to take on the matter.

At China Galaxy, international business department manager Wang Xiao Lei admits security and technology are the two biggest challenges this year. Ms. Wang didn't have much to say about plans to meet these challenges, but she did state that the company is making efforts to improve networking and address security issues.

In the meantime, all but the most cosmopolitan mainlanders will most likely look upon online trading with mistrust - and use conventional methods to place their buy and sell orders.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jon Tara who wrote (8765)2/23/2001 8:05:14 AM
From: TFF
   of 12617
 
It's called a marketing war. Both "Terra Nova - MB" and "MB Trading" trying to retain clients.I think;)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TFF who wrote (8767)2/23/2001 1:57:43 PM
From: Jon Tara
   of 12617
 
Did they split-up the clients? Or were their already two different MBs? Boy, I'm confused.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: TFF who started this subject2/23/2001 3:11:04 PM
From: TFF
   of 12617
 
ATTENTION QCHART USERS - THERE IS HOPE:
groups.yahoo.com

Generation V is the code name for the fifth generation financial server written by Eric Scott Hunsader. The 4th generation was Continuum/QFeed which continues to power QCharts and Livecharts (Quote.com).

Join the group and show your support. Hopefully we can get this feed running with RavenQuote.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10