SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If the government really wanted to protect us from ourselves they would limit gambling, which costs poor people a lot and is known to result in unfavorable odds, and they would discontinue the lottery. Instead because the lottery and gambling make the government and big institutions money they are legal. Restricting pattern day trading is, likewise, an attempt to give those with money more leverage over those without money. This law directly discriminates against those without money and it was passed by those with money. The government has essentially passed two sets of laws, one for the rich and one for the poor.
These laws were undemocratically passed by the rich for the rich under the false pretense of protecting the poor. Such is a hallmark of an aristocracy. No nation should have a different set of laws for the rich than for the poor.
The entire Wikipedia article, especially all the criticisms, are worth reading.
FINRA (formerly National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or NASD) rule applies to any customer who buys and sells a particular security in the same trading day (day trades), and does this four or more times in any five consecutive business day period; the rule applies to margin accounts, but not to cash accounts. A pattern day trader is subject to special rules. The main rule is that in order to engage in pattern day trading you must maintain an equity balance of at least $25,000 in a margin account.
[...] The SEC believes that people whose account equity is less than $25,000 may represent less-sophisticated traders, who may be less able to handle the losses that may be associated with day trades.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @12:32AM (11 children)
Where's the fucking News here? A link to Wikipedia?
Hey Everybody let's get Riled Up and have a fucking Flame War!!
FUCK SOYLENT-NOT-NEWS
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @12:38AM
Kill the Rich! Give to Me!! Everybody who Isn't Me should Be Poor and Be Dead!!! Die!!!! Die!!!! Die!!!!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 15 2017, @12:57AM (9 children)
S'true we generally don't run Op-Eds. We're looking to start to some degree though. They'll go in their own Nexus when the new site update rolls out, which is as soon as paulej72 has time to roll it out on a weekend.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @01:24AM (8 children)
I don't necessarily have a problem with "Op-Eds" (though the idea of an AC "Op-Ed" is a bit weird), as long as they are confined to a separate nexus.
I do however think most "Op-Eds" should still have some sort of relationship to current events or other news coverage, which is also true of most traditional newspaper Op-Eds. There are various ways the present submission could be tied into recent events, proposed governmental policy, etc. But as written, it's not. The SEC regulations discussed here were adopted in February of 2001, which I think would be a record in the "old news" department even by Slashdot standards.
Without some tie-in to news or current events, there's no difference between an AC "Op-Ed" and somebody's random internet rant. Isn't the latter what journals are for?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 15 2017, @02:02AM (4 children)
Well, ACs around here are roughly 20:1 with registered users, so we're probably going to be accepting AC subs for them.
I don't think we'll hold to "must be opinion on current news or events", just that they may be of interest to our community, but we will definitely hold them to a higher standard than journals (which have no standards at all except don't do illegal stuff in them).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @01:36PM (1 child)
Thanks for your thoughts, though please note that you changed my "most Op-Eds should" have a tie-in to current events to "must be opinion on current news or events." I wasn't suggesting a strict rule, rather a general guideline, not unlike the kind of commentary one actually tends to see on traditional newspaper Op-Ed pages. Obviously newspaper pages often contain some "random thoughts" opinion pieces, but they aren't generally the majority.
And actually, I'd say my concern here is more with quality than the strict "news" aspect. At least with a tie-in to news, a poor submission can still become discussion about the underlying news story. I haven't been really paying attention to "Op-Ed" submissions, but what I've seen here recently for submissions that didn't tie-in to other recent media stories is this submission (somewhat interesting, but with only a Wikipedia article tie-in, which is a pretty low bar, since not every Wikipedia article has high accuracy or a good balanced discussion) and the recent rant on higher-ed (with a bunch of misleading claims) couched a proposal for everyone to watch sped-up videos and get a degree in 10 weeks.
There's a good reason real newspaper Op-Ed pages rely on syndicated columnists: it's hard to find good writers. And even with people who have good ideas, it frequently takes a lot of editing -- so the role and need for editorial intervention is often greater. If the editors are actually willing to put in some time to ensure quality Op-Eds, that's okay; if we're going to post extended rants by people with a bunch of links that don't support their arguments, that's not so okay (in my opinion).
All that said, I am very grateful for everyone who puts in the time and effort for running this site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 15 2017, @02:32PM
We more or less agree then. Mind you, I'm not on the Editorial staff; we just talk a lot. What I got from my discussion with nick, wherein I raised some similar concerns and questions, was that he'd like to run some Op-Eds and this topic was something he was interested in seeing discussion on, even if the quality wasn't especially sterling or timely.
I think we can find a place in the beastie that is SN for interesting topics that aren't exactly news to be brought up. At least for those interested in such a thing. For those who aren't, they can always uncheck the check box for the Nexus when it's installed or just skim past as they scroll down the page/feed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @03:52AM (1 child)
> ACs around here are roughly 20:1
Maybe counting bots and skimmers and inline links. By participation the majority is accounts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 16 2017, @10:29AM
Actually, I think that's half and half roughly. Let me check real quick. Nope, it's been 3:2 registered:AC over the past year and 2:1 over our entire lifetime, so we're currently trending towards more AC comments.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Monday May 15 2017, @02:20AM (2 children)
I take full responsibility for publishing this story. I found it interesting enough to put it up, my assumption was not many people would be aware of these rules and barriers to entry and could generate some interesting discussions, which seems to have been achieved.
As another commenter put it, Soylent News ...is people. I felt this fit in with that, but you are right... I could/should have included some more relevant stuff with current FINRA/SEC regulation news. This is certainly an exception rather than the rule, I used my editorial discretion on this occasion.
If we do go forward with an 'op-ed' nexus, it would certainly be used sparingly and subject to the discretion of the editors if it gets published, or would be better suited to a journal.
Anyway, I appreciate your position and concern in regard to this type of story, and it's not something I have any intention of pushing regularly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @03:15AM
Folks who are aware that the London Stock Exchange fell on its face multiple times during trading hours--once for 7 hours--after which they switched from an all-MICROS~1 stack to a Linux stack already know the tech angle.
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=li:1&q=London.Stock.Exchange+Linux+7.hours [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @01:45PM
To be clear, I wasn't directly attacking the choice to post this, just sort of "wondering aloud" what the guidelines might be for TMB's proposed "Op-Ed" section and giving my thoughts.
I agree that it may be good to have stuff posted on issues that may be of interest to the community, even if there's not a recent news tie-in. My main concern is about quality (see what I posted in reply to TMB above).
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday May 15 2017, @12:36AM
Mid 80's, I was a 20 something and we went to an annual trade show in Vegas. First year there. Me and a bunch of co-workers got something to eat, then decided to go up one side of the strip and down the other, collecting as many free drinks for as little cash as possible. I ended up at a blackjack table. I could barely sit on my stool, and I was winning. Winning big. $2 bets, I was something like $200 ahead. My friends wanted to keep going but I was too drunk to get of the stool I was sitting on.
Next thing I remember, next day sucked. Too young to have gotten really drunk before, had to pull booth duty, but I had a nice wad of cash in my pocket.
/ math major here
// I like Vegas, but never gamble there
/// In my 20's I'd pull out a 20 and leave when it was gone or I was bored.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Monday May 15 2017, @12:52AM
Social ills aren't "News" in that they aren't new or different from what happens every day.
Day-Trading is gambling, and gambling addictions aren't "News", just as homelessness and drug addictions aren't "News". but it is "People".
Soylent News is People.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @01:57AM (7 children)
... in many situations.
If the government really wanted to protect us from ourselves they would limit gambling, which costs poor people a lot and is known to result in unfavorable odds, and they would discontinue the lottery. Instead because the lottery and gambling make the government and big institutions money they are legal.
Many states place heavy legal restrictions [wikipedia.org] on various types of gambling. Very few states allow commercial casino-style gambling statewide without severe restrictions (generally to specific geographic areas). There are all sorts of restrictions on the types of gambling that can be offered, what constitute "fair games" even at commercial establishments, etc., etc. Most private gambling is illegal.
As to lotteries, they were illegal for most of the 20th century almost everywhere. There still are a few states that prohibit them for moral reasons (and those moral reasons frequently include the fact that gambling often leads to financial ruin), though lotteries have expanded greatly over the past few decades.
Personally, I agree that state-supported lotteries should be abolished. I view them as a regressive "tax" on the poor and mathematically illiterate. It's ironic that so many states initially instituted lotteries to pay for "education" (the extent to which that money actually goes there varies), when if schools were doing a better job at teaching concepts like probability, significantly fewer would play the lottery. Frankly, it's an inherent conflict of interest. I'm NOT saying states are colluding with teachers to keep kids dumb so they play the lottery -- but it's a disturbing irony. And by the way, for all you lottery fans who say they help states provide for their residents -- only ~30% of the money tends to actually go to states for their programs. Imagine what good that money could be doing for the local economy in the pockets of poor people instead.
Anyhow, all that said, I agree this rule on day trading is stupid and arbitrary as written. I completely agree that restrictions here obviously favor rich people with no other good rationale. This is hardly the only place in the stock markets that official policies favor the rich, though. By all means, if we want to ensure solvency in margin accounts, require extra collateral of ALL investors or whatever. But this rule is just stupid, since it doesn't actually require more collateral -- it just places a minimum deposit limit on who gets to play with MORE credit. It's not like there's never been a case of a wealthy stockbroker jumping off a building after losing his savings in some random trades. Rich people can do stupid stuff too, and if we're going to try to protect people from themselves, we should at least do it across the board.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @02:11AM (4 children)
Oh, and for those who think I'm overreacting and the lottery is just "entertainment," I'd suggest you read this piece [theatlantic.com] from the Atlantic. The U.S. spends $300/year for every adult on lottery tickets on average, and that number is a lot higher for low-income folks. There are all sorts of studies that clearly suggest poor people view them not as "entertainment," but as a money-making endeavor, and spending on lottery tickets dwarfs U.S. spending on a lot of other popular forms of "entertainment." We can argue whether gambling of various kinds should be allowed, but for state governments to use this as a money-making scheme is pretty reprehensible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @02:19AM (2 children)
Grab 2 people. Yourself and someone else. Blindfold your friend and lock them in a building somewhere.
Walk out to a LARGE gravel parking lot. Pick up a rock. Now throw it back into the lot.
Now unblindfold your friend and drive them out to the lot and have them pick up the exact same rock. Without you giving them any hints.
That is about the same as winning the lottery.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday May 15 2017, @04:07AM (1 child)
Blindfold your friend and lock them in a building somewhere.
No good idea contains this step in its list of its directions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @08:35AM
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 15 2017, @12:14PM
There's a lot of money laundering going on. You don't need clean money for everything but for the few things you do need, the 50% lotto tax is ironically not that far from legit salaried employment taxation when you add everything up, making it quite sustainable. When I was a starving student a quarter century ago we had "poor" people buying $500-$1000 of lotto tickets at a time a couple times per week.
This also applies to those weird retail businesses that are cash based and never seem busy but never seem to die. Before they were busted the local hippie artistic candle shop was a major weed dealer.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @02:24AM
Sorry for the multiple consecutive posts, but one other thing I forgot is that for those who argue people will want to "bet on something" anyway, there are more ethical alternatives for states to engage in. One obvious option would be prize-linked savings [wikipedia.org], which encourage people to save money in accounts for a chance at a pooled-interest prize. At worst, there people lose no money AND are encouraged to save. At best, they learn to save AND win some extra cash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @01:49PM
Yes, most of the gambling restrictions government places are intended to favor big gambling institutions over mom and pop shops that simply wish to put a slot machine in their store. Can't have mom and pop competing with big gambling rigs.
Interestingly, years back when I visited Chili, people had slot machines in their backyards and any random neighbor or person in the neighborhood was allowed to go in your backyard and put quarters in it and gamble. Not that I'm in favor of gambling, I'm not, but the point is that here any restrictions that do exist aren't intended to protect you. They're intended to protect big institutions under the false pretense of protecting you. You are still allowed to gamble all your money away yet they limit how you trade it on the stock market provided that you aren't wealthy. That's income discrimination and these laws directly discriminate based on income.You're allowed to gamble all your money away at the casino exactly because that helps big institutions. You're not allowed to freely buy and sell stocks if you don't have money because it gives those with money an advantage.
If you want to buy, say, twenty stocks and ten of them go bad on the same day you are forced to not be able to sell them or else face serious restrictions. The money you lose ends up going to someone with fewer restrictions that can do what they want because they have more money. So they have more options in terms of the stocks they can buy and sell because they know, if something goes wrong, that they can sell before it goes too wrong at any time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday May 15 2017, @03:43AM
According to the SEC, 80% of day traders quickly end up being "those without money". I fail to see a problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @05:25AM (9 children)
The main rule is that in order to engage in pattern day trading you must maintain an equity balance of at least $25,000 in a margin account.
To be honest, you're not going to get the time of day from a broker for less than $25,000, much less open a margin account. It's a practical restriction, not just an arbitrary SEC rule. And to be honest, $25k is not much of a restriction either. If you can't scrape that amount together from the usual approaches of saving and investing, then you don't have the chops to day trade either.
If you want a real, rich-people-only rule consider the "accredited investor" [ecfr.gov] . This is the minimum level of investor needed in order to greatly reduce the SEC regulation you are exposed to. For example, you would need to have a net worth of at least a million dollars or consecutive income of $200k for several years, including the present one, in order to avoid a lot of SEC nannying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @06:12AM (8 children)
To be honest, you're not going to get the time of day from a broker for less than $25,000, much less open a margin account. It's a practical restriction, not just an arbitrary SEC rule. And to be honest, $25k is not much of a restriction either. If you can't scrape that amount together from the usual approaches of saving and investing, then you don't have the chops to day trade either.
It's not the government business to make such restrictions, effectively coddling people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @08:20AM (7 children)
It's not the government business to make such restrictions, effectively coddling people.
But if the government is going to make such pointless restrictions, wouldn't it be better to set the thresholds for those levels so low as to be ineffective? At this point, the only real cost to the restrictions is the bureaucracy of maintaining the paperwork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @08:31AM (6 children)
Give me two percent of your net productivity. No? Then I'll get my friends and take it at gunpoint.
If you object, then you defeat your own argument. There is no justification to adding pointless, needless drains on productivity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @08:37AM (5 children)
Give me two percent of your net productivity. No? Then I'll get my friends and take it at gunpoint.
If you object, then you defeat your own argument. There is no justification to adding pointless, needless drains on productivity.
Except of course to immunize against even worse, even more needless drains on productivity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @08:41AM (4 children)
Very well. All your time off work is hereby cancelled. Report to my labor farm to begin your first sixteen hour shift of your new 116 hour work week.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @08:51AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @08:59AM (2 children)
The point is you and your undermining of your own claims.
It's sad, really.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @09:45AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @10:06AM
Oh - so you called it such because you were trapped trying to lie?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @08:42AM (1 child)
One rule for big fish another rule for small fry. The pattern continues.
Of course the Day Traders have to be protected, because when they lose big they don't have friends who'd rollback their mistakes for them: https://can-turtles-fly.blogspot.my/2010/05/sec-speculates-on-flash-crash.html [blogspot.my]
Some Senators also complained about the arbitrary way that exchanges later cancelled trades made in the midst of the market mayhem.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/flash-crash-rules-made-knight-keep-bad-trades-2012-08-07 [marketwatch.com]
(they didn't cancel for Knight but they still cancelled many others).
They don't like it when the small timers do the same things they do: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/two-norwegians-face-6-years-prison-time-doing-what-hft-algos-do-us-every-single-day [zerohedge.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-21/guy-trading-at-home-caused-the-flash-crash [bloomberg.com]
See also: https://qz.com/133695/96-8-of-trades-placed-in-the-us-stock-market-are-cancelled/ [qz.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @04:47PM
I have an uncle that made 90 grand in one day on May 6th 2010. He's very good at stock grading, which is partly why he is so wealthy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @09:15AM (7 children)
However, a new paper by Jesse Blocher, assistant professor of finance at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management, finds little evidence of HFTs creating phantom liquidity. Lead author Blocher and his collaborators based the study on their analysis of a 5.78-terabyte dataset of all message activity (not just completed trades) on S&P 500 stocks for the 2012 calendar year in the NASDAQ limit-order book.
“Phantom liquidity only can really be a problem if those who cannot get good execution find the price moving against them when they try to trade,” Blocher and his co-authors wrote in the study, published in the summer 2016 issue of Journal of Trading. “We do not find that in our data.”
To determine the effects of HFTs cancellations, the researchers identified what they termed “cancel clusters,” brief periods that arise from HFTs cancelling multiple trade orders within a small timeframe. Their investigation yielded three main findings:
They instead found that the key spurts of order cancellation appeared to be for different reasons:
So why are HFTs engaged in this practice of placing, then cancelling, large batches of orders? Blocher and his colleagues argue that “cancel clusters are a lower-cost means of price discovery.” In other words, HFT computer algorithms run a kind of rapid series of tests to determine the “right” price of an asset, rather than use the method to try to trap (and profit from) unsuspecting investors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @09:32AM (6 children)
Is phantom liquidity and market insta-crashes [zerohedge.com] factored into your "lower-cost means of price discovery"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @09:47AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @09:52AM (4 children)
Yes, khallow, I have a few more questions for you:
1. How did you become so comfortable with blatant lying?
2. How much money did your HFT scams bring in for you this week?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @10:00AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @10:11AM (2 children)
khallow sez, "Why is my hand in your pocket? I'm cheapening price discovery! Don't worry about why I have more of your money now than before I stuck my hand in your pants - that's just your ignorance talking! That 97% of market volume being nothing but robots was totally shown to be just normal idiots ordering millions of instant-cancelled trades! I'm sure that phantom liquidity (from normal human daytraders, yessiree!) won't ever cause more flash-crashes like they have consistently in the past - after all, past performance is not indicative of future results!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 15 2017, @11:58AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @04:53PM
I bet you say that to all the girls.
"Stop raping you? Wow, I get that you're emotional, but you need evidence. That's not my penis violating your bodily orifice, it's a perfectly legitimate action on my part that you willingly participated in by walking near to the entrance to the dark alley near your home. The 97% of the other girls that escape me unscathed just show that everything is working just fine - in fact, I'm surprised at the success rate, myself!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @03:51PM (1 child)
There are reasons for lottery and limited gambling. Main reason being if you make it illegal than people will still do it but underground.
It is often the same assholes who want to legalize marijuana also want lottery and gambling banned.
It's there leave it alone.
Maybe we can put a limit on how much you can spend on Lotto in one day, I seen people who spend $20 a day, which is retarded. Then those people are in my family, then they always ask for money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @06:16PM
People who have found no other effective painkillers are assholes? People who realize that the war on drugs has cost society more in money and lives than the drugs the war was meant to stop are assholes? People who are smart enough to disregard the "gateway drug" type propaganda are assholes? Your group of assholes includes people who are doctors, social workers, and police officers. It also includes me, and that being said, let me reply to that part of your post with something equally intelligent: FUCK YOU CUNT!
You want gambling legal because if it's illegal then it will go underground, but having drugs illegal is fine and won't result in an underground drug market? How can you exist with that level of cognitive dissonance?
You sound republican. "I got mine, screw you! You're not like me, screw you! Bootstraps! No taxes! Deregulate! Free market! RAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!"
*cough*