Is there an association or group of retail traders?

[jacknapier]

Like, an association similar to that of the NASD, but of non-institutional non-proprietary non-corporate affiliated traders. Sort of like a union for independent traders. Is there any such thing?

It seems to me that similarly minded people need some sort of collective voice to stand up to behemoths like Goldman Sachs and the like. Or the SEC for that matter.

 

[NVP]

o that there were such a thing ...........what a noble idea

 

[trendie]

union?
independent?

Nice idea for a pressure group to ensure brokers function in a transparent way, and to uphold to quantifiable regulations.
And for the group to be able to voice a collective opinion, about brokers, loud enough to affect their business if found wanting.

Can you be sure that scalpers have the same requirements as buy and holders or traders on larger TFs?

Can speculative traders, who seek to profit from volatility and short-term market moves, have the same frame of view as investos, who may seek stability and long-term, regular dividend yields, etc?

What would you say is a critical mass to make it gather momentum?
Free to join, or by subscription?
Would the traders, by joining, be regulated as well?

Interesting idea.

 

[chaselancaster]

Marx (Groucho not Karl - this is T2W after all) said I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have the likes of me as a member ! If there was such a body _ I for one would avoid it like the plague - I want to surround myself with winners not losers looking for others to blame - and as retail traders Goldman etc are of no consequence to us .

Retail traders are generally lazy and unwilling/unable to learn what is required to become profitable because it requires time and effort and in some cases they either cannot or will not dedicate sufficient of either. If they cannot - then they shouldn't start - if they will not - then they'' ll get what they deserve. On the flip side of that the ' industry ' promotes unrealistic expectations both in terms of time scales required to be profitable and returns, and this is propogated by huge leverage etc offered by brokers. I think those that ' get real ' are the ones with the best chance of success with or without a 'union' for protection.

Like, an association similar to that of the NASD, but of non-institutional non-proprietary non-corporate affiliated traders. Sort of like a union for independent traders. Is there any such thing?

It seems to me that similarly minded people need some sort of collective voice to stand up to behemoths like Goldman Sachs and the like. Or the SEC for that matter.

 

[timsk]

. . . If there was such a body _ I for one would avoid it like the plague - I want to surround myself with winners not losers looking for others to blame - and as retail traders Goldman etc are of no consequence to us . . . Retail traders are generally lazy and unwilling/unable to learn what is required to become profitable because it requires time and effort and in some cases they either cannot or will not dedicate sufficient of either. . . . I think those that ' get real ' are the ones with the best chance of success with or without a 'union' for protection.

Hi chaselancaster,
If I may say so, your comments are a tad harsh, IMO, although I do take your point and appreciate the general sentiment!

I think the idea has merit, but it would have to be pitched at the 'serious' retail trader, not the feckless get-rich-quick chancers that 'chaselancaster' refers to above. A subscription would help to separate the two. But, if members have to pay, they would rightfully want to know what they're getting for their money? So, for example, if someone experiences what they regard as unfair or excessive slippage on a trade, would they shout foul play and expect the 'union' to take up the case with their broker? That sounds like an expensive minefield to me!

Even if this 'union' is well organised, well funded and well supported by a sizeable membership, I'm not clear how (or why, even) it would stand up to 'behemoths' like Goldman Sachs or the SEC? In the case of the latter, they are a regulatory authority and, as such, the union would surely work with them and not against them?

This could be a great idea whose time has come. Or it could be a massive cul-de-sac which consumes inordinate amounts of time, money and effort - but ultimately achieves very little. Which is it?
Tim.

 

[Shakone]

An interesting idea, but I don't really see it working.

Unions have power if going on strike has a powerful effect. Since we're not paid or employed by brokers, or SEC we have little leverage with any of them. If a broker is up to dodgy practices you can vote with your feet and change brokers, so they lose customers, but profitable traders aren't going to stop trading completely because a broker treated some customers poorly.

The best you could do is form a group that negotiates for lower commissions as some have already done

 

[barjon]

Mmmm, I wouldn't see such a thing as as union. More a well organised pressure group which represents x thousand retail traders and is able to speak with one voice rather than the fragmentation of individuals. As it became increasingly respected (perhaps sailing under T2W banner would give it a head start) its voice would become stronger with more attention paid to it.

Within that body it would have the expertise to advise individuals how to complain about their grievances, take up some cases directly with the "offending" company and/or make representations to the regulatory authorities where appropriate.

Difficult to set up, difficult to organise and difficult to fund adequately maybe, but I think the idea has legs.

What we wouldn't want is some charlatan coming along to take our subs just as a means of enriching himself. That's why I think it should be born by some already respected body like T2W.

 

[trendie]

Maybe a centralised place to get clear information.

Maybe metrics on how many complaints are being held against each and every broker, with sub-sets of whether they're related to funds, slippage, number of requotes, etc.

Then traders can use these as means of making judgements.
Since brokers are unwilling to reveal these stats, it would only work if people informed this union they were experiencing difficulties, and had initiated a complaint.
And make these stats avail to all in the union.
Maybe even time taken to resolve a complaint as a stat.

I still think within the union traders on different time-frames will have differing issues, and the prospect of the union becoming fractured is great.

Maybe a star-rating for brokers, if they fulfil certain criteria in their behaviours, service levels and offerings.

 

[pboyles]

Mmmm, I wouldn't see such a thing as as union. More a well organised pressure group which represents x thousand retail traders and is able to speak with one voice rather than the fragmentation of individuals. As it became increasingly respected (perhaps sailing under T2W banner would give it a head start) its voice would become stronger with more attention paid to it.

Within that body it would have the expertise to advise individuals how to complain about their grievances, take up some cases directly with the "offending" company and/or make representations to the regulatory authorities where appropriate.

Difficult to set up, difficult to organise and difficult to fund adequately maybe, but I think the idea has legs.

What we wouldn't want is some charlatan coming along to take our subs just as a means of enriching himself. That's why I think it should be born by some already respected body like T2W.

I agree but I wonder if it would be in T2Ws interest to do that, well in fact I'm sure it wouldn't as they would be in constant conflict with their own advertisers. Having said that forexpeacearmy still have advertisers and they go after brokers quite regularly.

 

[barjon]

I agree but I wonder if it would be in T2Ws interest to do that, well in fact I'm sure it wouldn't as they would be in constant conflict with their own advertisers. Having said that forexpeacearmy still have advertisers and they go after brokers quite regularly.

oh I dunno. T2W already turns down advertisers of the more dubious kind and I'm sure the more reputable ones would listen more actively to what T2W had to say than they might do to the individual posts scattered around.

 

[pboyles]

oh I dunno. T2W already turns down advertisers of the more dubious kind and I'm sure the more reputable ones would listen more actively to what T2W had to say than they might do to the individual posts scattered around.

I used to think that reputable vendors would be keen to see disreputable ones put out of business and that T2W could do a form vetting/approval. Of course approval would come with certain caveats but at least the bankrupt Cyprus based convicted fraudsters would be exposed. To be honest I see no desire from reputable vendors to do that. It makes me wonder if they're all at it and fear being shafted themselves.

 

[jacknapier]

Retail traders are generally lazy and unwilling/unable to learn what is required to become profitable because it requires time and effort

I didn't mean it as a platform to complain about how you lost money on XYZ stock. I was thinking along the lines of (just for example) stopping institutions from giving a sell rating to a stock that they are buying. Things like that. I suppose there could just be a website that would do point to institutions who have done that in the past and expose them as the frauds they are, if it's impossible to stop them from doing it(which it probably is). As well as the ideas you guys had, which seems more than I could think of.

It was just an idea I had. I just thought, maybe I wasn't the first one and there was already something like it.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

I didn't mean it as a platform to complain about how you lost money on XYZ stock. I was thinking along the lines of (just for example) stopping institutions from giving a sell rating to a stock that they are buying. Things like that. I suppose there could just be a website that would do point to institutions who have done that in the past and expose them as the frauds they are, if it's impossible to stop them from doing it(which it probably is). As well as the ideas you guys had, which seems more than I could think of.

It was just an idea I had. I just thought, maybe I wasn't the first one and there was already something like it.

The American Association of Individual Investors is a fairly influential US group, and the UK Shareholders Association covers similar ground. In practice the industry is very heavily regulated and both the SEC and FSA are stepping up enforcement, so if you have a genuine grievance you can blow the whistle in their direction. The fact that you are concerned that 'institutions give a sell rating to a stock that they are buying' suggests you're not really up to date with either how the brokerage business works or the existing rules in place to prevent sharp practice. Not everything on Zero Hedge written about Goldmans is true...

 

[jacknapier]

The fact that you are concerned that 'institutions give a sell rating to a stock that they are buying' suggests you're not really up to date with either how the brokerage business works or the existing rules in place to prevent sharp practice. Not everything on Zero Hedge written about Goldmans is true...

Well, I was thinking of some hedge fund, I forget who, issued a sell rating for NFLX at the absolute bottom. Don't tell me they didn't know. Or the whole OCZ buyout pump instigated by some, I forget who, blogger. I guess it's within theoretical possibility that they are just a bad at forecasting, but then why advertise it? This is an every man for himself industry and you can't tell me that it isn't filled to the brim with 'used car salesman' types.

I was just using that as an example. Various people here came up with better ideas than I had thought of...