Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Alert: CAPS Rule Change. Average Daily Trading Volume Requirement for Stocks

Recs

42

May 26, 2010 – Comments (65)

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that on the evening of June 9th (two weeks from today), we will make a change to the threshold requirements that determine whether or not a stock can be rated in CAPS.  Today, we require a stock to have a market cap of $100MM and a share price of $1.50. 

As we've previously discussed, the problems with the current threshold is that sometimes some very liquid stocks are excluded from our ratings while some stocks that meet our rating threshold are very illiquid.  Based on your feedback, we've decided to change the rating threshold to the following: Stocks must have an average daily trading volume >= $50,000

Based on our current analysis, I expect the impact on the rated stock universe to be neutral. The total number of rated stocks is unlikely to change materially.  But, we'll do a better job of  ensuring that we are covering stocks that are liquid enough to be of interest to Foolish investors.

 

Fool On!

 

jk

 

 

 

65 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM, kdakota630 (29.58) wrote:

Excellent news.  Thanks for the heads-up.

Report this comment
#2) On May 26, 2010 at 12:59 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Great but the post is a bit confusing.

Just "an average daily trading volume >= $50,000" or this in addition to 150MM and over $1.50?

SIRI for instance trades for 90-100 cents a share but trades in the millions. 

Report this comment
#3) On May 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

I'm JakilaTheHun and I approve of this message!

But seriously --- good move.  :)

This should help exclude some of the more bogus stocks from being rated and allow some great microcaps to be rated.    

Report this comment
#4) On May 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Option1307 (29.73) wrote:

Thanks for the heads up!

Quick question, what will happen to our picks that are already open and active, yet do not meet the future daily trading volume requirements?

Report this comment
#5) On May 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, 100ozRound (29.49) wrote:

Will this be retroactive?  Will current picks that don't meet this threshold automatically be ended?

Report this comment
#6) On May 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM, EnigmaDude (94.68) wrote:

I predict that SIRI will immediately become the most rated stock on CAPS after this change, and that its rating will be 2 stars.

Report this comment
#7) On May 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

yeayyyyyy!

finally!

there is a god!

(we will just hear less about him now that you have taken the favourite toys from bravobevo, hehe ...)

 

(just kidding!)

Report this comment
#8) On May 26, 2010 at 1:24 PM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

Over what period is this average trading volume determined? 3 month rolling period?

UltraLong

Report this comment
#9) On May 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TMFCHarris (99.56) wrote:

@ IIcx

We will be repealing the share price and market cap minimums, and replacing them with the volume threshold.

@ Option1307 and 100ozRound

This will not be a retroactive change - no picks will be closed as a result, but some stocks that are currently ratable will become unratable. If you have an open pick that doesn't meet the requirements, it can be ended but not reopened.

@ UltraLong

Three month rolling average, according to our data providers' numbers.

Report this comment
#10) On May 26, 2010 at 1:54 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Thanks TMFJake,

The above questions are similar to mine.  Sometimes it's hard to trade OUT of an illiquid stock since it generally takes a trade to activate the close.

What will happen to current picks that don't meet the threshhold. For example walk us through a PALG.OB scenerio. :)

Will be be closed out of them or will they be grandfathered.

Thanks!

 TSIF

Report this comment
#11) On May 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Guess most of my questions were answered while I was "slowly typing" them!  Bit crossing again. Thanks!

Report this comment
#12) On May 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

What about IPO's, or something that changes tickers?  Will they not be playable until 3 months of data is accumulated???

Report this comment
#13) On May 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

I know I'm asking a lot, but would it be possible to list the new stocks somewhere when they are ratable rather then having to hunt for them.

I'd like to hit the ground running.

Report this comment
#14) On May 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@ChrisGraley:  Chris, great idea.  I'll try to post a list of stocks that are newly ratable on or before launch night.

Report this comment
#15) On May 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@TSIF:  Ticker changes shouldn't make a stock inelegible.

I also think that we have built in support for IPOs but will double check. 

Report this comment
#16) On May 26, 2010 at 4:59 PM, rexlove (99.43) wrote:

It's about time!

Report this comment
#17) On May 26, 2010 at 5:08 PM, mrindependent (89.94) wrote:

This is a much needed improvement!!!!

Report this comment
#18) On May 26, 2010 at 6:41 PM, rd80 (98.46) wrote:

Woo hoo! 

Fannie Mae will be able join her partner Freddie Mac in the house of red thumbs.

Report this comment
#19) On May 26, 2010 at 9:53 PM, TCWeaver (99.85) wrote:

Is this the reason that I can't close some picks. They seem to stay in limbo for a few days such as CFL, HAVSF.pk, BFRMand MXFD. OB to name a few. Good call, I look forward to the change.

Report this comment
#20) On May 26, 2010 at 10:05 PM, zzlangerhans (99.69) wrote:

The share price and market cap minimums will be repealed? So now we can rate the thousands of penny stocks that have volumes over 50000? And you don't expect the number of ratable stocks to be affected materially? So I can pick up a quick 100 pts when my .01 stock goes to .02? Might as well replace the scoring system with a random number generator.

Report this comment
#21) On May 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

@TCWeaver,  even under current rules picks will not close until there is some volume, so it's easy to get locked into a low volume stock and not be able to unload it until it trades again. Best bet is to set limit orders so they will close in the direction you want when there is a trade.  Unfortunately, they  can be hard to manage as the S&P has been volitile lately.   A HAVSF.PK could be in the green for you one day and negative the next due to S&P movement even if the equity doesn't trade.  When this is put into effect you won't be able to pick a HAVSF.PK or a MXFD.OB.

 @zzlangerhans, I'm confused also.  Seems there could be a whole class of stocks that trade below $1.50 or with lower market caps that trade $5,000 per day.   I thought when this was first proposed that there was still going to be a share price limit such as $1.00.   Granted anything $0.01 would need to trade 5 Million shares to hit $50,000, but there are some that do.   Sounds like a $0.05 equity that bounces up to $0.25 would be worth a quick 500 points. 

 

Report this comment
#22) On May 26, 2010 at 11:09 PM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

Yeah, my concern with this is the same as above TSIF... that companies which regularly trade 10M shares a day but trade at a fraction of a penny would become pickable stocks. I guess we'll just have to see how this works out. Admittedly I'm intrigued because it allows me to pick a few companies I until now could not.

UltraLong

Report this comment
#23) On May 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Tastylunch (29.25) wrote:

Nice! Thanks so much CAPS team. single best improvemnet you guys have made since I've played imo.

while this may not change ratings on currently covered stocks much this will help make sure CAPS players devote their energies to ratings stocks that are of greater value to traders and investors.

 

Report this comment
#24) On May 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@TSIF: Confirmed that IPOs won't be blocked by this change. 

And the liquidity threshold is $50,000 per day on average using a 90 day lookback period (as mentioned above we treat IPOs differently).


You aren't going to find a lot of .01 per share companies trading at these volumes consistently...  

 

Report this comment
#25) On May 26, 2010 at 11:40 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

Regarding IPOs:  We will rever to the 1.50 share price 100MM market cap requirements until there's 90 days of trade history to evaluate against our liquidity threshold.

Report this comment
#26) On May 27, 2010 at 12:33 AM, StatsGeek (29.24) wrote:

Finally!!

 

There goes BravoBevo's whole CAPs strategy.

Report this comment
#27) On May 27, 2010 at 6:51 AM, zzlangerhans (99.69) wrote:

Just from my "dead biotech" watchlist.

MMRF.OB     share price 0.17    avg 3 month vol 730,979

LJPC.PK       share price 0.06    avg 3 month vol 1,557,730

NVLT.OB      share price 0.18    avg 3 month vol 1,445,520

ADLS.OB      share price 0.08    avg 3 month vol 759,538

These are all junk stocks and I could dig up 100 more in about an hour that fit your $50000 criteria. If you enact this change the way you have described then you have killed CAPS with a single blow. You may think you're killing off BB but I'm sure he'll instantly find 200 penny stocks that double and triple faster than you can say 100000 points.

What's wrong with keeping the old requirements and adding the new one, or relaxing the old limits slightly? I'm really surprised to see so many long-time top players endorsing the complete destruction of the site.  

 

 

Report this comment
#28) On May 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

What's wrong with keeping the old requirements and adding the new one, or relaxing the old limits slightly?

We considered this, but ultimately concluded that liquidity is the most relevant metric in support of investors helping investors find great stock ideas.  I don't think that we're suddenly going to see the leaderboard dominated by penny stock traders.  More likely is that we will see a lot of people flame out chasing this strategy...  They should study TMFStockSpam.  However, if we see that kind of unintended consequence, we would likely re-introduce a share price minimum.  

Report this comment
#29) On May 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

Please end the ridiculous 20 minute dalay cancel "feature" as well.

See for example cpmments #3-5 here.

And the "wrong ticks" thing described in the same post.

Report this comment
#30) On May 27, 2010 at 9:18 AM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

#27 I had thought about that before. That certainly will be a problem and one way to solve that problem is to somehow create a "risk adjusted performance measure", combined with a minimum price of around $0.30 (instead of the former $1.50) and a maximum for the "average bid-ask-spread" of around 10%. I agree that the absence of a price limit will create new abusers (and yes, probably most of the old ones will join ...).

Report this comment
#31) On May 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@poreteeuille and zzlangerhans:  This is why we wanted to post the change in advance.  While I continue to think that the affect will be muted, the notion of a share price minimum is something I'm open too.  

I'd be interested in other people's thoughts about, say, a .50 share price minimum.

 

Report this comment
#32) On May 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

FWIW:  There are about 300 stocks under $1.50 that meet liquidity requirements. About 70 of them have been >1-bagger from their 52-week lows.

Report this comment
#33) On May 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

And, if you implement a .50 share price minimum there are about 80 stocks that would be newly ratable and 12 stocks that are more than 1-baggers from their 52-week lows.

Report this comment
#34) On May 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM, JaysRage (88.77) wrote:

I think a .50 share price minimum would be appropriate to complement the volume change.   I am excited that those stocks that play just below the 100 million threshhold will now be in play.   These are the stocks that I buy most often.  

Report this comment
#35) On May 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

I don't think you're counting stocks that haven't been added to CAPS.  There are plenty of garbage companies that haven't been added in the past because there's been no point - you couldn't rate them.  I've seen that companies that are newly added are often companies that have recently become rateable. 

By the way, I do like the change overall; I just think there's a pretty good chance of there will be unintended consequences. 

Report this comment
#36) On May 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM, TigerPack1 (97.80) wrote:

What's the procedure for closing ETFs that have stopped trading and are being liquidated...  I have 6 of those and tried closing 2 of them yesterday, but they did not take at the close and are still open today????  RRY RMM

Do I get the liquidation value as of last Friday vs. the SPX close that day???

Report this comment
#37) On May 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

Implement a .25 share price minimum with our liquidity constraints and there are 284 newly ratable companies and once again 70 stocks more than 1-baggers.

Report this comment
#38) On May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, TMFCHarris (99.56) wrote:

TigerPack - if you could drop us a note via the Feedback link, we'll get those delisted retroactively.

Report this comment
#39) On May 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Option1307 (29.73) wrote:

By the way, I do like the change overall; I just think there's a pretty good chance of there will be unintended consequences. 

I agree. I certainly like the change and often follow stocks that are just below the 100M threshold, so I'm excited about this. But I think ZZ brings up a really good point above. You guys should definitely look into this more before hand. I'd hate to see this change introduce a whole mess of other problems.

I appreciate the effort though!

Report this comment
#40) On May 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

Ouch, it wasn't enough that I forgot to remove "of" when I added the "there will be" part; it had to be quoted as well.

I agree with Option1307 on doing more research before the final rollout and I believe you've stated that somewhere in the comments section. 

I didn't like the original $1.50 share price limit because companies do reverse splits all the time to meet listing requirements on exchanges or to dupe investors.  However, I like a double-digit share price minimum (in cents, of course) to weed out garbage trading at less than 10 cents.  It's far from perfect, but it's better than being able to get 25 points just because my 4 cent basis stock went up 1 penny. 

I do like 50 cents more than 25 cents, but any limit at all is better than none in my opinion.  Anyway, I still do like the changes, since calls based on liquid garbage are still more realistic and one stands a much better chance of duplicating said calls in real life.  Illiquid garbage? Not so much.. 

Report this comment
#41) On May 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

@27 and @35.  I'm with ZZ and Bullish.  TMFJake, if you are using the CAPS "world of stocks" to determine the additional stocks that would fit into this matrix then you're missing the vast majority. Many of the ones that meet this volume threshhold that are currently not pickable on CAPs are because at one time they were!!!  Many are currently a detriment to CAPS because this still hold 5-STAR ratings because they can't be picked any longer and Fools have left or are keeping them open for various reasons.

As ZZ quickly came up with some off his dead bio-list most of us could quickly find others that have never been put onto CAPS.

BravoBevo won't be crimped by this....he'll have a field day!!!!! :)

I'd suggest $0.50 at a MINIMUM. 

Thanks for exploring ideas!!! 

 

 

Report this comment
#42) On May 27, 2010 at 11:13 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@TSIF:  I'm not using the CAPS "World of Stocks" in the numbers I'm reporting above.  I'm screening outside of CAPS using the various share price and liquidity thresholds.

Anyone against a .50 minimum?  I made an error in my screen above.  Even with a .50 minimum and $50K daily average dollar trading filter, we would be allowing a little more than 200 new stocks to be rated, with about 50 having scored more than a 1-bagger in the last year.

There's no perfect solution here, but I do see the argument about single digit stocks, although I think it will be more difficult than some think to succeed with a strategy focusing on liquid penny stocks...  Still, a .50 minimum with $50K trading volume threshold *largely* eliminates the problem without eliminating too many stocks that many of us think are worth including in CAPS.

Anyone want to argue against adding a .50 minimum?

Report this comment
#43) On May 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

@TMFJake: I'm glad to see you're screening the entire universe as best as you can.  For what it's worth, I think the liquidity and $0.50 limit combined make a pretty good combination. 

I think Bravo will be just fine, possibly even better.  I'm actually a bit excited myself.  I will be closing whatever picks I can to make room for stocks I've previously been unable to rate. 

Report this comment
#44) On May 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

TMFJake, is your screen catching PK and OB stocks???

Sounds like you're doing your homework, but it just doesn't feel right.  I think I used $5,000 instead of $50,000 in a few I looked at, but there are definitely penny stocks that trade millions of shares a day.    Some disappear before they hit 3 months. No arguments with $0.50.  Any minimum will always leave something on the "edge" that pops into and out of range, but I think we need something.  You pretty much can't lose if you upthumb a penny stock.   Your risk/reward for penny stocks would seem to err in your favor here on CAPS.  

Guess I would lose MCZ on it's low range with $0.50, but if it trades any lower than $0.30 it wouldn't have $50,000.

Thanks!

Report this comment
#45) On May 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

You pretty much can't lose if you upthumb a penny stock.   Your risk/reward for penny stocks would seem to err in your favor here on CAPS.  TMFStockSpam disagrees!  :)

Okay, I'll wait for any opposition for the .50 / $50K rule, but right now, I'm persuaded to adopt the proposal to add back a .50 share price minimum from those on this thread..

Report this comment
#46) On May 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM, zzlangerhans (99.69) wrote:

Here's a quick run down of stocks off my watchlist that would be newly ratable with a 0.50 minimum and $50000 average 3 month volume.

ARYX,MIPI,ANIK,ACAD,ADLR,CRXX,EPCT,PARD,TRMS,FOLD,TTHI, LGND,AGEN,OXGN,JAV,GTXI,ANDS,HEB,DDSS,LXRX,ASTM,INSM,SNSS, APPA,AVII,OGXI,IDRA,BDSI,STEM,YMI,ONTY,CYTR,MRNA,ANPI,TTNP.PK, RXII,ROSG,KOOL,ISTA,INO,TRBN,OPXA,MYRX,TNGN,RNN,CYCC,GENT, ACHN,SPEX,THLD,TELK,ABPIQ.PK,ABIO,OCLS

That's over 50 stocks looking at about 200 on my watchlist. I have no doubt I could find 50 more newly ratable biotechs in another hour. I find your figure of 200 stocks to be highly suspect, and I would put it at more like 2000.

I work in a highly technical, complex environment and we have found over and over again that making multiple simultaneous large changes invariably results in worsening performance. You are about to ruin CAPS. There is no reason to add the new criteria and change the old ones simultaneously. Also, I completely support Portefeuille's position about the 20 minute delay. This complaint about a ridiculous feature has been ignored more times than I can remember.

Report this comment
#47) On May 27, 2010 at 12:18 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

@45.  TMFStockSpam is only doing downthumbs. Focusing on those that have been hyped, so are suspect. Maximum point gain about 100 points.   Upthumb potential on a single stock could be hundreds/thousands.  Granted accuracy would be no better under this model and downthumbing would be more dangerous as a stock could get wildly away from you and cost you hundreds.  TMFStockSpam hasn't picked up any "runners" using that model.  Agreed though, Accuracy rules would probably preclude the bonanza of a runer.

I no longer downthumb any liquid stocks that are below $3.00 for that reason.

@46  I agree ZZ.  Screens seem suspect.  Wonder if it's missing some boards.

While we're tossing this around, can we do an EASY FIX??

The PENCE Stocks that aren't tradeable are marring our Market Movers board.  :)  Talk about PENNY Stocks making HUGE MOVES!

3.17p (+17.41%)

MEDIA CORPORATION ...

 

 

Report this comment
#48) On May 27, 2010 at 12:18 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

Well, I have my objection.   I'm away from my desk but was using a CAP IQ screener when searching for the newly elegible stocks.  I'll double check those results to make sure I'm not underestimating the impact.

ZZlangerhan's, a lot of the stocks on your list above, just miss being elegible with the current system.  And they are more liquid than many ratable stocks. 

Report this comment
#49) On May 27, 2010 at 12:22 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

I agree that a .50 minimum stock price rule would make sense.  That should weed out a good chunk of the penny stock universe that's mostly garbage.  There will be a few legit companies eliminated by this (such as SIRI back in '08), but for the most part, not too many companies traded on major indexes sell for under .50.

I'd also support a "Major Index" rule where any company traded on one of the three major indexes qualifies automatically, but OTC and .PK stocks would have to meet more stringent rules. 

Report this comment
#50) On May 27, 2010 at 12:22 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

@TSIF:  Pence bug is filed.  --jk

Report this comment
#51) On May 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM, zzlangerhans (99.69) wrote:

I didn't include stocks that just miss being eligible by your criteria. The net result is the same. You will be throwing in thousands of new stocks and massively disrupting the game. 50 cent stocks frequently shift more than 20% in a day, even liquid ones that meet your criteria. I would be more amenable to a $1.00 minimum and a 50M minimum cap but still favor one change at a time.

Report this comment
#52) On May 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM, TMFCHarris (99.56) wrote:

One thing to remember - we're not adding new stocks to CAPS, we're just moving the ratability constraints. These are rough numbers, but the changes that TMFJake has referred to - $50k ave volume and $0.50 cent share price - will make 441 stocks ratable that aren't currently. Of those stocks, the average market cap is ~89M, and the average share price is ~$2.50.

While people will bring stocks to our attention that meet the new criteria, they are not entered automatically - there are additional checks (the $1.50 price and $100M market cap restrictions if the ticker is less than 3 months old) as well as human eyes on problem tickers and players. If there are stocks which are being abused, we'll remove them, and any score associated with them. That said, if there are players who can accurately predict the movement of micro cap companies with a real trading volume, that intelligence would be valuable for CAPS, and we should reward it.

Report this comment
#53) On May 27, 2010 at 1:42 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

Yes, Chris, thanks for clearing up the confusion!  We've been looking at stocks listed on the NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq. With some exceptions these are the only stocks that we include in CAPS.  As a result, we capture a fair number of OTC stocks with Nasdaq, but we haven't been looking at the larger universe of OTC stocks, which, as Chris notes, we typically enter on an ad hoc basis after evaluating whether or not the company is suitable for CAPS. 

TMFStockSpam is the exception, where we've been letting in stocks we'd typically reject to teach a lesson.  We might have to shut TMFStockSpam down if we see a problem here, although many of these stocks don't meet a .50 / $50K threshold requirement.

Bottom line, ZZlangerhans, we wouldn't be allowing into CAPS most of the companies you're concerned about because they're not listed on the Nasdaq.

 

Report this comment
#54) On May 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

As we start the development for this, we're digging into the data further, and, as some have expected, the total number of new stocks that could be eligible is higher than what I represented above.  This is true even though we are only including major exchange stocks and the handful of OTC that we let into CAPS that aren't on the major exchanges.

I'm going to share a spreadsheet via another blog post (probably tomorrow) that is sortable by avg. daily dollar trade volume, share price and market cap, so that you can see what I see when we play with different trade volume and/or share price limits.  I still think some form of lowish share price and a dollar trade volume limit is the way to go, but I'm reconsidering whether $50K is too low or whether it should be higher. I'll post the data set for more feedback.

Report this comment
#55) On May 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

cpmments

comments

Report this comment
#56) On May 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Option1307 (29.73) wrote:

Thanks for asking for our input Jake, very much appreciated!

Report this comment
#57) On May 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

#20,46 What is your comment on the 20 minute delay cancel feature?

Is it so hard to understand that there is no "legitimate" use of this? Do we have to wait another year or so until we get a post that after careful consideration you will have to think about it for another few weeks.

Either this is a backdoor (for whom is it? please post a list of the players that used that "feature" more than 10 times in the past year, while you are at posting lists) or it is a test of "community intelligence" (how many players are willing to play a game that is unbelievably "compromised").

Or the staff is simply unbelievably stupid.

Or you are still waiting for the pizza I said someone should send over for the hacking dude.

Report this comment
#58) On May 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

#20,46

#29,46

Report this comment
#59) On May 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM, portefeuille (99.59) wrote:

more things that should be implemented/fixed are described here.

Finding the true gurus in CAPS

Report this comment
#60) On May 28, 2010 at 9:41 AM, TMFJake (77.83) wrote:

I'm going to start a separate blog post for more feedback on the proposed new liquidity filter that will include a spreadsheet that is sortable by avg. daily dollar trade volume, share price and market cap, so that you can see what I see when we play with different trade volume and/or share price limits.

I won't to keep this conversation laser focused on the proposed ratability threshold since we do want to make a change on that in the short term. 

 I don't want to use this blog to open up threads on all the other potential CAPS improvements.  We can do that separately.  On the 20 minute delay that has received so much commentary, I will make a few comments.  First, I'm not totally opposed to eliminating this. I realize that some folks may attempt to abuse CAPS and lock in a more attractive starting price by canceling picks that are move away from their desired target start price.  The fact is that the window to cancel varies from about 5-20 minutes, depending on when our next calc cycle starts.  A "calc cycle" is the process we use to open/close picks and recalculate player ratings and stock ratings. While we deliberately don't open picks for 20 minute--to eliminate any gaming from someone who has access to real time quotes--once a calc cycle starts (typically we do at least 3 per hour), then a pending pick would not be something that you can cancel.  The this controversial window actually varies in terms of the time available.

Regardless, why do we keep it?  The primary reason is that this window prevents us from having to support people who "fat finger" a pick in the wrong direction.  Our policy is not to cancel a pick or change the direction of a call when someone contacts us to do so.  We almost never do it.  Without this window, we'd be dealing with a lot more of these type of request and service issues.  We believe that the 7-day minimum holding period eliminates any real advantage that the cancel window might provide to someone who is trying to control their start price.  Besides, we provide limit orders for those who are so inclined.

We can debate this rule. Maybe I'm feeling a little sensitive this morning, but please at least try to see the logic to our reasoning.  Maybe we're wrong, but we're not "simply unbelievably stupid."  Sometimes I find the full-throated personal attacks charming and a good way to recognize how passionate you are about a problem.  But sometimes, sometimes it just hurts man.  Peace.

Report this comment
#61) On May 28, 2010 at 10:46 AM, zzlangerhans (99.69) wrote:

The personal attacks are definitely uncalled for. Some of us have obsessive-compulsive tendencies and the perception of chaos in the system (20 minute cancels, massive point scores on weird ticks in illiquid stocks, phony recs, etc.) brings neurosis to a froth. Also a tendency to think of the staff behind the site as silicon chips on a motherboard, no doubt. Let's just remember we're all here for a noble common purpose, which is to make money at the expense of the less intelligent and diligent. Peace.

 

Report this comment
#62) On May 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Seems reasonable to me.

Report this comment
#63) On May 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Option1307 (29.73) wrote:

Let's just remember we're all here for a noble common purpose, which is to make money at the expense of the less intelligent and diligent.

Ha ha ha, perfect!

Report this comment
#64) On May 28, 2010 at 9:44 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Think of it as offering them an education at a cost.  They pay us for their Foolishness, some will learn and some will not!!

TMFJake, the Pence's are still showing up in several places, including the CAPS home page.  Are you trying to appease the British Fools!   I didn't know we had a Dawson International, but at 2Pence, I'm not sure they would be a good buy.

The PENCE leaders/laggers are a good example of what can happy with Penny Stocks!!!  They often make the leader/lagger board multiple times!!!!  :)

 

Today's Worst$21.47 (-25.55%) Blue Coat Systems,... $40.87 (-15.73%) Universal Corp $5.17 (-14.55%) Beasley Broadcast ... $10.64 (-11.70%) ATP Oil & Gas Corp 2.00p (-11.11%) DAWSON INTERNATION...

 

Report this comment
#65) On June 02, 2010 at 4:47 AM, spreadsheetV1 (98.82) wrote:

Yes taking out a limit on stock price minimum would be highly detrimental for the CAPs system.

A $0.50 minimum would in addition to the volume threshold wouldn't be as dangerous of a change - I'd say go for it.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement