|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to take a stand because the market makers had nothing to lose except their preferred position, and I had everything to lose. The overwhelming profit potential presented by SOES was a factor significant enough to warrant a fight. I was also compelled by the moral issue of the democratization of trading for the entire public. The NASD, as an industry and as an institution, never wanted the general public actively engaged in electronic day trading. Investing was permitted. Short-term speculation was allowed. The investing public was permitted to live in the suburbs of the stock market but excluded from the second-to-second, minute-to-minute downtown day trading domain where the real action often resided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The industry was in no hurry to reform its treatment of the investing public because investors rarely demanded change. It was very difficult for an individual to fight for a cause. For one thing, the rewards did not justify the fight. In addition, the adversary, in this case the brokerage industry, was so well financed, and had so much political clout, that even if one chose to fight it, the chances of success would be minimal at best. Moreover, when you consider that the cost of losing the case could include being barred from the industry for life, you can begin to understand the risk I was undertaking. The reward would be Pyrrhic at best because the cost of winning is more than the cost of defeat. In this case, the cost of victory to me was millions of dollars, and the cost of defeat for the normal person would be an eighth ($125) or quarter ($250) of a point on any given trade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enter SOES. A system that can and has taken average individuals and turned them into millionaires (also thousandaires), demonstrating that if the Wall Street playing field becomes somewhat level, even an average human being can make amounts of money heretofore never thought possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This phenomenon became the impetus for a revolt. When the powers of Wall Street saw that the mechanics of trading were beginning to change, the industry's answer was to rally round its old rules. This time, however, it was different. Now these few dissidents were making enough money where they too could retain competent counsel, petition the courts, and |
|
|
|
|
|