Would being able to daytrade 100k shares be a positive for the game?

[SiteWolf]

Ok, since noone else got this started, I'll do it......just to see what thoughts it brings.

While I'm fully aware there are other issues to consider, other changes to make, there is a potentially significant change that can be made literally in a matter of hours- changing the max shares for stocks that have already split from 10k to 100k shares.

What would this do? Well on the face of it you might say it'd 'kill' every 100k and under split. The question being....is that a BAD thing? It would allow you to daytrade that many more stocks if you so chose........even allowing you to consider daytrading ALL active splits, chancing that daytrading 100k is better than longterming 1mil shares (not suggesting it....suggesting you could in some cases).

This would also increase, possibly quite noticeably, the number of shares traded on a daily basis making the entire market more active, more fluid.

What are the negatives? There would also be larger antimoo in the morning for those who don't daytrade as much. It would also tend to pump up already obese cash balances. Those of us who were at WSS prior to and after the change from 5k shares to 20k shares know it certainly increased interest and activity...but that was perhaps short lived. Would we be simply doing the same thing here? There it was the entire market whose max shares changed....here I'm suggesting the change only for those stocks who have split.

Your topic is max shares on splits............discuss!

[TroyB911]

Good idea. It will definitely lead to more activity. Plus those who continue to be active will find it easier to gain on inactive players.

One thing, though. Moo should be turned down so that instead of 300k = 1%, perhaps it should be 2 million = 1%.

Here's my thinking: 300k = 30 max buys (current 10k system)
2 million = 20 max buys (new 100k system).

This would help to reduce potentially huge moo impacts from just a few buys, which I think is a good thing.

[SiteWolf]

I can change the moo rate in less time than it took for me to type this post....so that's just a matter of playin' with the numbers...

For what it's worth, too, my thought is that IF we did this, it'd initially be a temporary deal until all star breaks. THEN we could look back at the results and decide whether we want it to continue.

Again...in case that wasn't clear. My proposal would ONLY involve stocks that have already split...tho could/would be extended to any new splits along the way as well. This would also end any 40-50k splits that still exist- they would be increased to 100k whether this is temporary or not.

[TroyB911]

The only potential concern with this proposal is that Monthly, Quarterly, and even most Yearly buys will have virtually no impact on players who have 100k max tradable shares.

Assuming the moo rate does get adjusted to something like 2 million shares = 1%, most of the all of the Monthly/Quarterly buys will only involve about 500k shares, or 0.25% (no impact).

This isn't necessarily a "problem", just an issue that we should be aware of.

[hork]

it is actually an issue because let's be realistic most who are currently LT'ing aren't going to magically come back. and those who can't afford 100k max aren't going to magically be able to.

i like the notion that things are proposed but i'm still not sure why there is such resistance to simple and effective measures like substantial reset-taxes, larger nega-divis, and the other things that have been mentioned so much that many of us feel its pointless to bring up again.

[bballjer44]

Originally Posted by hork

it is actually an issue because let's be realistic most who are currently LT'ing aren't going to magically come back. and those who can't afford 100k max aren't going to magically be able to.

i like the notion that things are proposed but i'm still not sure why there is such resistance to simple and effective measures like substantial reset-taxes, larger nega-divis, and the other things that have been mentioned so much that many of us feel its pointless to bring up again.

I'm with you, I gave up on ever seeing the simple thing like larger nega-divis.

[SiteWolf]

FWIW.....I can increase the size of negadivis in about a minute.......tho I'd likely need to do at least a little more tweaking on top of that...............but again, not something requiring extensive programming.

A reset tax would require programming, but would be a relatively easy project for Nick to take on I'm fairly sure.

Remember, tho....all 3 would work to cut into the profits of the less active (even those who are here, but just don't trade real actively).......it would defeat part of our purpose if we cause casual traders to become inactive rather than more active.

[hork]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

FWIW.....I can increase the size of negadivis in about a minute.......tho I'd likely need to do at least a little more tweaking on top of that...............but again, not something requiring extensive programming.

A reset tax would require programming, but would be a relatively easy project for Nick to take on I'm fairly sure.

Remember, tho....all 3 would work to cut into the profits of the less active (even those who are here, but just don't trade real actively).......it would defeat part of our purpose if we cause casual traders to become inactive rather than more active.

if they were substantial enough it might ecourage the casual player to come back knowing there's a point given the inactive player would drop down the boards more rapidly and allow the "casual" player a real opportunity to move up.

[SiteWolf]

more devils advocate here....strictly so that angles are covered:

One issue we've had is not enough people playing in comps. If we give more people more reason to trade their TV ports more actively with changes we're talking about, do we also make it that much harder to get people playing in comps...even if there are changes to comps like handicapping them or putting in the ladder system I've mentioned?

[bballjer44]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

more devils advocate here....strictly so that angles are covered:

One issue we've had is not enough people playing in comps. If we give more people more reason to trade their TV ports more actively with changes we're talking about, do we also make it that much harder to get people playing in comps...even if there are changes to comps like handicapping them or putting in the ladder system I've mentioned?

I don't see how the proposed changes would discourage playing comps. If you don't actively trade in a comp you aren't going to be very high. You will have less money, but everyone playing them will, so the playing field shouldn't change.

[SiteWolf]

Originally Posted by bballjer44

I don't see how the proposed changes would discourage playing comps. If you don't actively trade in a comp you aren't going to be very high. You will have less money, but everyone playing them will, so the playing field shouldn't change.

I guess what I'm meaning is....if it takes more time to actively maintain your TV port, are you less likely to play comps as well. Maybe I'm wrong, like I said just trying to look at the angles.

[ldzppln]

All this talk of larger nega-divis got me to do some thinkin' and figurin'. I took pre-divi NBA prices from 11.03 and compared them to post divi prices from 12.09 (the earliest & latest NBA divi files I have handy), and calc'd the percentage & value change for each stock.

IPOs are included, and prices were adjusted for splits (only one split in this timeframe). I don't know what marke was priced at when he was relisted, so I guessed $50.

Assuming max shares of each stock, the overall market grew by 7.14%, and if you have max shares of each stock and didn't day trade, you'd have gained $1,705,403,700.

Out of the 227 listed stocks, 132, or 58.1% increased in value, while 92, or 40.5% lost value. Three (3) stocks were unchanged.

Assuming max shares, the 132 stocks that increased in value went up a total of $2.407B. Those that dropped decreased in value by ($0.702B).

I'll just throw the numbers out and let you all decide what to make of 'em.


Here are the NBA top 25 % gainers from 11.03 to 12.09

Grant Hill 161.09%
Keith Bogans 142.99%
Chris Kaman 93.52%
Marko Jaric 61.16%
Richard Jefferson 54.33%
Andrei Kirilenko 46.72%
Kenyon Martin 44.16%
Bonzi Wells 43.98%
Vladimir Radmanovic 41.52%
Tony Parker 40.68%
Hedo Turkoglu 39.35%
Danny Granger 37.06%
LeBron James 36.93%
Rudy Gay 34.80%
Sebastian Telfair 34.05%
Marquis Daniels 33.48%
Jameer Nelson 33.34%
Brad Miller 32.67%
Mike Dunleavy 32.24%
Tim Thomas 31.85%
Rasheed Wallace 30.53%
Antoine Walker 29.59%
Dwight Howard 28.55%
Manu Ginobili 28.06%
Corey Maggette 27.77%

and the bottom 25 %

DeShawn Stevenson -13.86%
Rafer Alston -15.23%
Wally Szczerbiak -15.26%
Eric Snow -15.47%
Jeff McInnis -16.37%
Zaza Pachulia -16.46%
Channing Frye -16.47%
Chris Mihm -18.44%
Matt Harpring -18.55%
Delonte West -19.21%
Mark Blount -19.89%
Brevin Knight -20.36%
Kirk Hinrich -20.52%
Alonzo Mourning -21.15%
Joel Przybilla -21.23%
Raef LaFrentz -21.28%
Hakim Warrick -22.23%
Nenad Krstic -22.87%
Bobby Simmons -23.01%
Kenny Thomas -23.42%
Ruben Patterson -26.01%
Jamaal Magloire -27.77%
Juwan Howard -31.57%
Nazr Mohammed -32.70%
Primoz Brezec -40.36%

And the top 10 value gainers, assuming max shares of each:

LeBron James 252,220,000
Brad Miller 147,850,000
Antoine Walker 142,900,000
Jason Terry 127,670,000
Richard Jefferson 121,450,000
Caron Butler 111,140,000
Bonzi Wells 102,900,000
Tony Parker 97,300,000
Michael Redd 93,240,000
Michael Finley 84,730,000

and the 10 biggest value losers, assuming max shares of each:

Pau Gasol (23,010,000)
Kwame Brown (23,220,000)
Gilbert Arenas (27,650,000)
Gordan Giricek (38,140,000)
Tim Duncan (39,600,000)
Juwan Howard (40,390,000)
DeShawn Stevenson (40,760,000)
Eddie Jones (41,880,000)
Wally Szczerbiak (42,990,000)
Stephon Marbury (95,020,000)

[lovelyman]

Hi Guys, It's been a very long time I didn't post. Just try it and let see what will happen.I can see a lot of resistance of changes here like anywhere else.Let do it and move on.I rather have a problem to buy stock because I don't have enough money than have way too much that I can't invest anyways.

Are we here to have fun or only to see the trains passing by.

this is a great game don't let it die

lovelyman

[Bill Shaw]

It seems that the proposed change "fixes" a problem almost nobody has. Unless the "problem" is holding splits that are losers.

And by the way... unless I missed it, not once has anyone complained publicly about holding splits at a loss.

[TroyB911]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

It seems that the proposed change "fixes" a problem almost nobody has. Unless the "problem" is holding splits that are losers.

Bill, I think the "problem" is that there is not an opportunity to day-trade the majority of NBA stocks. Many would like to be able to do this.

According to my rough calculations, this change would free up around 40 additional NBA players for day-trading. This, presumably, would lead to more activity and might create more interest in trading the NBA sector.