Comments on: Why dedecimalization is a bad idea http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: traducere daneza romana http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-53649 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:02:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-53649 Wow, marvelous blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is great, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about image1

]]>
By: dsquared http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47015 Wed, 15 May 2013 06:42:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47015 “Americans are — finally — beginning to realize that discount brokers and ETFs and index funds are much more sensible ways to invest than the old method, where a friendly sales guy from Merrill Lynch would chatter away about this stock and that stock and eventually charge you an enormous commission for the privilege of buying or selling at what was invariably exactly the wrong time.”

Strange that Americans haven’t got richer, with all these great developments, isn’t it? Specifically, the evidence has pretty much piled up that without that friendly sales guy, middle class American saving has absolutely cratered. Non-selling is a much bigger problem than mis-selling, but the regulators never look at that because it’s not a problem that can be blamed on anyone.

]]>
By: Christofurio http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47013 Tue, 14 May 2013 20:13:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47013 I think Schweikert is right. David Weild and Edward Kim have done the best research I know of in this area. They point out for example that looking at the decade of the 1990s as a whole, the average annual number of IPOs was 520. If one makes the reasonable assumption that the number of IPOs each year should increase in a way proportionate to the growth of the broader economy, then in 2011 the US would have had 950 such offerings. If fact, it had roughly 1/6th of that number.

http://www.gt.com/staticfiles/GTCom/Publ ic%20companies%20and%20capital%20markets  /gt_wakeup_call_.pdf
The US stock market as a whole is shrinking. The number of companies that have left it every year since 1997 has surpassed the number entering. Nothing goes public today in the US markets that isn’t worth several hundred million dollars. It was not always thus — in the days of fractional stock prices it was not thus. Intel went public in October 1971 for a market valuation of but $6.8 million.

The shriveling up of the IPO world is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible disgrace: Wall Street is malfunctioning. It doesn’t work as a way to do what we do need a system for doing — a way of getting the money of savers into the hands of entrepreneurs.

]]>
By: IntheMkts http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47010 Tue, 14 May 2013 18:33:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47010 I understand the desire to bring back the days of Alex. Brown, Hambrecht & Quist and other such firms that specialized in making markets for small stocks. It certainly was a good time for small companies and lots of people got rich. And one reason they got rich was that Nasdaq market-makers were gouging investors by fixing prices — quoting prices of, say, $10 1/4 for a share when the real price was $10 1/8. It was a big scandal at the time, but no one seems to remember it now and who can blame the folks who want to bring back fractional prices for reminding us. But here’s the Justice Department press release about the matter:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1996/July9 6/343-at.html

]]>
By: UpHillStill http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47009 Tue, 14 May 2013 18:28:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47009 I have an idea: let’s mandate that brokers make locked market for unlimited size! The fed can just print money to make up the brokers loss so everybody will be happy!

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47008 Tue, 14 May 2013 17:20:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47008 Felix – I think de-decimalization is a terrible idea, and I think that this post is almost completely spot on, except for one thing: I may be wrong, but I don’t think this is accurate:

” For instance, say a stock is quoted at $13.35/$13.40. If you put in a buy order, you’re going to pay $13.40. But the real trading will be going on inside the spread, and your broker can go into the market and snap it up at $13.38, while you still pay the higher price.”

If the stock is “offered” somewhere that your broker can see for 13.38, you should still get that fill. The problem is that with fragmented markets, and undisplayed liquidity, it’s harder to get that 13.38 stock, because you have to be at the right market center and “get lucky” since it’s probably not displayed (which is the whole point of the bill)

]]>
By: QCIC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/why-dedecimalization-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-47007 Tue, 14 May 2013 16:48:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21723#comment-47007 David Schweikert is just a shill for the financial industry. Case closed.

This is an unmistakably terrible idea.

]]>