Jump to content

maybe4less

Member
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

maybe4less's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. It looks like any company with an East Asian supply chain is going to have it disrupted for probably a couple quarters. Most companies should be able to survive that, but there have to be some that are overlevered, have debt due soon, or some other issue that will make it hard to avoid financial distress. Does anyone have any good short ideas along these lines?
  2. Source of this information? Thanks Why would they need to take down the old one to build a new one?
  3. Thank you! What I am looking for for larger orders is that they can fill some, wait for a bit, and fill more, wait a bit, and fill more. Do you see that happening when you have adaptive order? The other question I have is, do you know if they reset their scan time when bid/ask moves? If that’s the case then the order may never get filled when bid/ask is constantly changing. Lastly, I noticed a much higher chance to be filled in NYSE when using this order type. Not sure if I have enough data sample to prove that though. Yeah, the behavior of filling some and waiting and then filling some more is what I typically see with the adaptive orders. Sometimes if the price puts my limit "in the money" I will start getting fills in quick succession. Not always but sometimes (sometimes my limit will be below the bid/above the ask and the algo won't get me a fill for a while). When it doesn't happen, I usually adjust my limit price to slow it down, unless I am eager to get shares. I think they must reset the parameters depending on price moves, volume, etc, but I don't know exactly what they do. Never compared the different exchanges with the algo.
  4. Thank you! I tried the adaptive algo for a while and found that sometimes as IB is scanning between bid and ask, stock starts to move up without me getting any fill. I wonder if it is moving because IB is scanning and detected by other HFTs, or if it is just coincidence. Have you experienced this? Sometimes IB scans and fills a portion of my order and scans again and fills another portion later. Have you seen them doing this? This sometimes happens with smaller and less liquid stocks on the "normal" urgency setting. When I switch to "patient" urgency I don't drive the stock up. I think no matter what though you have to be patient with large orders if you want to avoid moving the market.
  5. In my experience with lightly traded stocks, a limit order at the ask will only fill 100 shares and then the bid will move to one penny over your limit order which is of course why market orders are good to use when filling the order is more important than scalping a couple pennies. Buth then, a market order can really stick you with some bad fills, hence the allure of the adaptive algo, but alas it has its problems too. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch... Free trades at Merrill Edge are nice because you can split your order into multiple orders for free (assuming you are within your monthly allotment of free trades). But then Merrill won't trade many low price/volume stocks anymore. Years ago, I absolutely never used market orders, but over the past 10 years, I find sometimes they are just the only way to get a fill. Yep, but the most annoying trades are those where your bid never gets a fill, but then you see a trade for 0.01 penny higher a microsecond later. While you can only trade in 1 penny increments some HF trade can do smaller increments and suck up all the liquidity. At least that’s my take of it. FWIW, I use IB's adaptive algo all the time for all kinds of stocks and get great fills. For most stocks I use it on normal urgency and more illiquid stuff I used the patient setting. Merrill's free trades are nice, but the execution is the worst of all the brokers I use (Schwab, TD, Fidelity, IB, and Merrill). Which broker do you think has the best execution? I've tried out TD, Fido and IB. Initially I have my bigger account in IB and it usually has worse fill, but after I moved the account to TD, I notice bigger accounts have worse fills in general. I see the same behavior of getting a small partial fill and price moves up. That experience of having a small partial fill and then seeing the price move up is why I like IB's adaptive algo so much. It simply hasn't happened to me with the algo. Of the others that I've tried, it seems like Fidelity might have the best execution, even for larger accounts.
  6. In my experience with lightly traded stocks, a limit order at the ask will only fill 100 shares and then the bid will move to one penny over your limit order which is of course why market orders are good to use when filling the order is more important than scalping a couple pennies. Buth then, a market order can really stick you with some bad fills, hence the allure of the adaptive algo, but alas it has its problems too. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch... Free trades at Merrill Edge are nice because you can split your order into multiple orders for free (assuming you are within your monthly allotment of free trades). But then Merrill won't trade many low price/volume stocks anymore. Years ago, I absolutely never used market orders, but over the past 10 years, I find sometimes they are just the only way to get a fill. Yep, but the most annoying trades are those where your bid never gets a fill, but then you see a trade for 0.01 penny higher a microsecond later. While you can only trade in 1 penny increments some HF trade can do smaller increments and suck up all the liquidity. At least that’s my take of it. FWIW, I use IB's adaptive algo all the time for all kinds of stocks and get great fills. For most stocks I use it on normal urgency and more illiquid stuff I used the patient setting. Merrill's free trades are nice, but the execution is the worst of all the brokers I use (Schwab, TD, Fidelity, IB, and Merrill).
  7. It's outside the feds circle of competence too. Interests rates, the time value of money, are a market phenomenon. You might as well have a government board set the daily price of Avocados. Can I ask your opinion on the Fed slashing interest rates in the 2009-2013 period. This was most certainly not a market phenomenon, as credit was drying up. The Fed's action essentially re-started the US economy and prevented a depression. Beautiful deleveraging and all that. Do you think they were wrong, or lucky, or something else? It was a market phenomenon. The demand for risk-free assets soared, pushing down interest rates. The Fed was following/supporting that.
  8. This is correct - so obviously correct, in fact, that I would be absolutely shocked if the Fed got this wrong... Yeah, fair enough. As others have posted the Fed seems to have done a very good job through the crisis and since. However, I think this is the market's concern as evidenced by the flat/inverted short-end of the curve (i.e., that they will have to reverse some of the planned rate hikes in the near-term). I can see the point too. The Fed is being fairly aggressive despite the short-term nature of the stimulus, so why not pause a bit and see how the economy develops? However, I'm not smart enough to say which is right, let alone that the Fed is definitely making a mistake.
  9. As long as those tax rates stay in place, yes the increased value is "permanent." However, I'm talking about GDP growth. Cutting taxes gives a boost to GDP growth (not GDP level) that is transitory. Which I agree in macro terms is important, but when I look at specific portfolio companies, it really isn't. If I own FRP, and their income consists of lease revenue, interest income, and cash from the rock pits... let's say all of this stays the same, just to keep things simple. At 22% tax rate the company is now significantly more valuable, even with the same figures as last year, when paying 35%. You can look at different figures, but simplistically, you should be throwing a multiple onto that incremental income, and the value of the company should be higher. The markets right now in a lot of cases are saying the opposite. People have essentially fabricated the recession narrative out of nothing, and what I'm saying is that even if it were true(to the extent that is reasonable, ie not a crisis) it doesn't in many, many instances, with a lot of companies, support lower equity prices. I don't disagree with you. I was making a different point about why the Fed might be in danger of making a policy mistake.
  10. As long as those tax rates stay in place, yes the increased value is "permanent." However, I'm talking about GDP growth. Cutting taxes gives a boost to GDP growth (not GDP level) that is transitory.
  11. I don't disagree with your bullishness, but tax cuts are definitely a one time boost to growth. The rate of change is more important than the level and we aren't getting a tax cut every year.
  12. Totally agree with this. I would add that it seems tax reform is one time stimulus that has juiced growth this year, such that some of the headline strength this year may prove ephemeral. It appears that the Fed might not be taking this into account and that there is therefore a meaningful risk of a policy error. I think we are seeing this concern reflected in the flattening or "inversion" at the front end of the curve. Ignore those complaining that the Fed doesn't care enough about the stock market, but I think serious market participants should be concerned about the Fed mistaking temporary strength for something persistent that they need to get ahead of.
  13. Yes, just like mutual funds, ETFs sometimes have to make distributions to shareholders. Information is given to you that tells you which portion is short-term and which is long-term. Thank you! In this case, what would be the reason for a manager to create an active ETF instead of a mutual fund? I remember Peter Lynch saying it is bad idea to buy any mutual funds near the end of the year, because investors won't get the distributions but have to bear the tax on the capital gain. Does the same apply for active ETF? Because ETFs are getting inflows and mutual funds are not :) It would depend on the particular active ETF, but if it was sitting on unrealized gains and then got outflows during the year, you might expect a similar dynamic to play out with the capital gains distributions.
  14. Yes, just like mutual funds, ETFs sometimes have to make distributions to shareholders. Information is given to you that tells you which portion is short-term and which is long-term.
  15. Yes, that's true, but generally if your position is not huge and you hold it briefly, you'll show no income on the K-1 and then there is nothing to report on your taxes.
×
×
  • Create New...