K,
Please note that I entered the discussions on this thread before you did and did not "just appear on this thread and intervene in a discussion about a particular issue by calling other people stupid losers"
If you want to be pedantic you made your first post about an hour before mine. However you did not post again for another 5 weeks and therefore did not participate in the debate that occurred during that period. During that time there were a number of very good and interesting posts from Stevespray # 41 & 53, Animal # 60, Peter # 40 & 58 and Zemysto #66. I also made my views about this issue very clear in posts # 28, 42 & 71.
When you reappeared, whilst you didn't specifically use the term "stupid losers", but that was the tone of your post when you returned on this thread.
Please advise the members of the post number in which I used the words "stupid losers" or even inferred that other people were "stupid" losers. Read the words I actually used carefully before you make untrue statements. Also take time to think that my words may be "interesting, relevant and constructive " to some - even if you do not find them so. Please remember also that you do not hold a monopoly of opinion on this matter.
Please advise the members when and where I said that this was not a legitimate issue - it is perfectly legitimate to complain but in my view you have not a cats chance of forcing a change in the rules either retrospectively or forwards. You are entitled to do whatever you please in an attempt to change the situation but in my view you are wasting your time.
That's your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to express it but it is unnecessary to do so in a derogatory or patronizing way.
Please tell us what personal basis you have for calling Albert (incidentally did he ever give you permission to use his first name?) a charlatan and “my loony associate” and referring to his contributions on these boards as “garbage”
Albert Labos aka Socrates is well known on these boards. His posts are nearly always pompous, patronizing, enigmatic and nonsensical. I originally clashed with him on another thread and at that time received many private messages from other posters who not only shared my view but were also expressed their surprise that he was permitted to disrupt threads in that way.
On the two occasions where he posted some specific projections, on where a couple of Indices would close, he was dead wrong. When I pointed this out he made a post stating that he would ensure that "I would be sorry for trying to make a fool out of him". I've not seen him make a specific prediction since but he still appears, trying to pretend that he has omniscient insight and can predict in advance what will happen. If you want to buy into that and associate yourself with his absurd pronouncements then thats entirely up to you.
As far as I am aware this is a free country and you do not need anyones permission to call someone by their given name !
It is clear that your anger springs from the problems you have had with a particular trade or trades.
I'm not angry - where is your evidence to draw that patronizing conclusion - those were the rules as I pointed out in my post # 71, which you obviously have not read. My objections to the new EDSP rules - and those of many other posters - are well documented here. I would like to see them changed to a more transparent and consistent system which reflects the underlying instument (FTSE 100 Index) rather than an arbitrary & divorced auction process.
It is also clear that you hold the rules that were 6 months old when your problem appeared, responsible in large measure for whatever situation you now find yourself in. You appear to put the blame for any losses you may have made entirely on the Exchange by saying that their change of rules caused the problem.
I'm not in any "situation". I lost money at the June expiry and thats now history. The new EDSP system provided the opportunity for the settlement price to be distorted. Both LIFFE and the LSE tacitly acknowledge this and that is why they initiated an investigation into it and also brought in the FSA. My interest is to try and prevent this kind of distortion recurring again in the future.
Indeed you do not even accept that the situation prior to the rule change was satisfactory to you (“For all of its faults the prior system was more logical, transparent, credible and less iniquitous* than the existing auction”). If I am mistaken in saying this then I apologise in advance, as I am sure you will correct me. Perhaps you could explain to those of us in ignorance (and there are some) what all the faults of the “old” system were. It would also be helpful if you would give us some detailed suggestions about how you think the amended rules should read and what you have proposed to the exchange as an alternative.
I didn't find the prior EDSP system unsatisfactory. It was LIFFE & the FSA who did after the FTSE whipsawed by 100pts during the expiry day in September 2002. That prompted them to change it. No system is perfect and only tends to reviewed and changed once it has been manipulated or distorted by someone. I preferred the old system, with its vulnerabilities, to the current auction process. I have discussed this with 2 directors of LIFFE and also with people at the LSE and suggested that either an averaging or snapshot process would be better than the auction. Other people will have different ideas - it is up to the Exchange, who offer the product, to determine the best solution. Anyone who does not like the existing system or any new system does not have to trade it. However if the Exchange cannot find a solution that satisfies the majority of traders then liquidity will decline and that is not in their interest either.
I have already said that I regard myself personally responsible for all the losses I have incurred over the years. In making those losses I have sought to learn why they occurred and learn from my mistakes and not sought to cast the blame elsewhere. You do not it seems take this approach but strike out at the “iniquity” of the “system”.
Everyone is responsible for their own losses. I've had drawdowns before and will probably have some again in the future. I have no problem with this if the market is transparent and properly regulated. However when it is opaque and distorted then that is a different matter.
Now firstly the rule change occurred in November 2004 and the FTSE settlement we are discussing was the June 2005 settlement - seven months later. Secondly the rule changes were published immediately they happened and took place only after wide and considerable consultation. Thirdly “the rules” are “the rules” until such time as they are changed and the rules that you appear to state "caused" your problem also "caused" others no problem because they were ware of what might legitimately and within the rules, occur as a result of the changes.
The potential to exploit new rules is often not apparent until it occurs. The Exchanges reacted quickly to the June EDSP and launched an investigation. In the interim they modified the existing rules (post # 64) for July to try and prevent the same distortion recurring in July. If they were satisfied with the existing system they would not have implemented any changes prior to the next expiry date. Whether this alteration is their ultimate solution or just an interim measure remains to be seen
There is a saying in current usage to the effect that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". This would seem to apply here.
There is also a saying that the law is an ass. Laws or rules are not sacrosanct and are often amended or repealed when they fail to optimise the principle of fair play.
We may also safely say of the markets "caveat emptor" or "let the buyer (or seller) beware”. No one twists our arms to make us enter trades.
I've already said in prior posts that you make your own decision to trade within the rules that apply at the time so I don't know why you deem it necessary to make this point. However when those rules appear to be flawed and result in opapaque distortions then traders have the absolute right to lobby the Exchanges to change them. If they are not changed then the trader has the option to continue or stop trading in the future.
It is facile to blame others or “the system” for our misfortunes.
It is not a case of blaming others for our misfortunes. It's a case of trying to ensure that the risks of manipulation and distortion are minimised going forward when flaws in the existing system become apparant. You don't blame an airline if a plane is brought down by a bird strike but you do if the engines fail because maintenance schedules were not properly adhered to.
Your comment here implies a "whining losers" attitude rather than an acknowledgement that several people have made a rational assessment of an EDSP system which is demonstrably flawed.
In saying this I am not patronising or condemning but stating the harsh truth. In fact I am sorry for anyone who sustains a loss, as I know from personal experience what pain this can involve.
Harsh truths tend to relate to matters that either appear to be, or are, unavoidable. Man made systems rarely constitute harsh truths since they are malleable. Rational people may indulge in self recrimination when they get it wrong but will equally question the validity of a process that has been shown to be vulneranle to manipulation.
I hope that you are able to see the sincerity behind all this and take it as it is intended but somehow I doubt it.
Can't avoid a closing swipe right at the end can you !
*Iniquity (definition of) :-
1: a gross injustice.
2: A wicked act – a sin.
Wrong is a synonym of iniquity - and in my very humble and personal opinion the current EDSP system is wrong since it has proven to be too vulnerable to distortion and is divorced from the underlying instrument upon which the options are traded.
