[Sinkie]

power789 wrote:

i hope other banks and secureties firms start waking their f@cking idea up! Stop charging minimum commissions and stop being such a greedy fag.

All shall use SCB eventually and its them who lose out, haha, not us consumer!

Want to monopoly? hahah. lucky SCB came and pawn them all!

Mai lah, no minimum commission for them means no more contra which also means a significant drop in volume and liquidity since more than 70% of our daily volume are contra.. U wouldn't want sti to drop till 1800 because theres no buyer except scb user and market remaining in that level in an extended period

[athletic91]

I still can't find a way to trade using the iphone browser. Always takes me to the mobile version of scb

[santafluke]

previous wrote:

Hi all,

Any one know what the minimum Qty ( Share ) purchase for HK stock.

Exp. SG Stock to be purchase minimum 1 lot ( 1000 share )

Thank

stocks in HKSE have different lot sizes, from a few hundreds to some 10 hundreds.

you can check their website, the "BOARD LOT" column:
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited

[santafluke]

athletic91 wrote:

I still can't find a way to trade using the iphone browser. Always takes me to the mobile version of scb

can only be accessed from web browsers.

you can try using Safari on your iphone, however, it may not reliable.

[athletic91]

santafluke wrote:

can only be accessed from web browsers.

you can try using Safari on your iphone, however, it may not reliable.

Safari iphone not possible. I would buy a iPad if the Scb trading can be done on it.

[Shiny Things]

Sinkie wrote:

Mai lah, no minimum commission for them means no more contra which also means a significant drop in volume and liquidity since more than 70% of our daily volume are contra.. U wouldn't want sti to drop till 1800 because theres no buyer except scb user and market remaining in that level in an extended period

I dunno, I think contra's a terrible idea, and the sooner it dies the better. It's pretty much an abuse of the T+3 settlement system.

It's bad for the brokers, because they're handing out interest-free loans instead of being able to charge interest on margin loans. It's bad for the exchange, because it cripples the development of derivatives markets and stock lending (because you don't need to borrow stock to be able to short it via contra). And it's bad for investors, because it gives them infinite leverage and thus infinite capacity to blow themselves up.

In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of anyone it's good for.

----------------------

I guess the brokers and the SGX are terrified of the collapse in volume that'll happen if they ban contra trading. (Is it really 70%, though? Contra's a retail thing, and there's no way the SGX's volume is >70% retail muppets.)

(And I doubt the STI would drop that far - or at all. Contra trading's a short-term thing, so it's not like people are holding huge long-term buy positions that they'd have to close out; and I'd imagine contra volumes are pretty much equally balanced between buyers and sellers... so if you ban contra, the net result would be pretty much a wash.)

[santafluke]

athletic91 wrote:

Safari iphone not possible. I would buy a iPad if the Scb trading can be done on it.

I tried SCB trading platform on iPad using Safari and other browsers (like Dolphin). It was very bad experiences, the web pages often halted without any response.

I really hope they can someday develope an app for trading, or integrate trading function into their satisfactory Breeze app.

[Sinkie]

Shiny Things wrote:

I dunno, I think contra's a terrible idea, and the sooner it dies the better. It's pretty much an abuse of the T+3 settlement system.

It's bad for the brokers, because they're handing out interest-free loans instead of being able to charge interest on margin loans. It's bad for the exchange, because it cripples the development of derivatives markets and stock lending (because you don't need to borrow stock to be able to short it via contra). And it's bad for investors, because it gives them infinite leverage and thus infinite capacity to blow themselves up.

In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of anyone it's good for.

----------------------

I guess the brokers and the SGX are terrified of the collapse in volume that'll happen if they ban contra trading. (Is it really 70%, though? Contra's a retail thing, and there's no way the SGX's volume is >70% retail muppets.)

(And I doubt the STI would drop that far - or at all. Contra trading's a short-term thing, so it's not like people are holding huge long-term buy positions that they'd have to close out; and I'd imagine contra volumes are pretty much equally balanced between buyers and sellers... so if you ban contra, the net result would be pretty much a wash.)

Usually in sgx, there's 3 groups of traders providing liquidity and volatility; funds, proptraders (traders+Remiser+hedge funds) and the retailers traders (uncle/Aunty/students/sme's bosses etc)

Funds may or may not contra, the 2nd, 3rd groups are where the contra volumes comes from.. Hold 5 days with no need for margin or financing cost..

Imagine no contra, they have to cough out $35,000 margin to hold a $100,000 intraday position etc

So when contra extinct, see only the funds and retailers playing with price moving in a very huge range or else will be selling driving price down due to lack of buyers.

Then probably one will see many stocks in sgx moving likes jardine or diary farms..

But it will be good one will really see how our local stock market will really reflect on our locals income growth ($3000) as well

But just my assumptions..

Contra is like nuclear weapon, know how to make use of it, but it will destruct anyone who abuses it.. Stay away from it if one have no expertise to handle it

[power789]

Sinkie wrote:

Mai lah, no minimum commission for them means no more contra which also means a significant drop in volume and liquidity since more than 70% of our daily volume are contra.. U wouldn't want sti to drop till 1800 because theres no buyer except scb user and market remaining in that level in an extended period

where u get the logic no minimum commission = no contra?

what has it got to do with each other?

[Sinkie]

power789 wrote:

where u get the logic no minimum commission = no contra?

what has it got to do with each other?

Just treat it as i heard from someone working at that management level who is able to make such decision.

lets put at end to this discussion

lets stick to the topic.

[arcan3]

Shiny Things wrote:

I dunno, I think contra's a terrible idea, and the sooner it dies the better. It's pretty much an abuse of the T+3 settlement system.

It's bad for the brokers, because they're handing out interest-free loans instead of being able to charge interest on margin loans. It's bad for the exchange, because it cripples the development of derivatives markets and stock lending (because you don't need to borrow stock to be able to short it via contra). And it's bad for investors, because it gives them infinite leverage and thus infinite capacity to blow themselves up.

Just to clear any misconception regarding shorting of stock, borrowing of share is required if the short position is held overnight regardless whether it is contra position or not.

[Shiny Things]

arcan3 wrote:

Just to clear any misconception regarding shorting of stock, borrowing of share is required if the short position is held overnight regardless whether it is contra position or not.

Really? OK, I genuinely didn't know this. (I'm a bit surprised by it actually - since the cash leg of the trade nets out, I thought the stock leg would get netted out as well.)

Still, doesn't that mean short-sellers using contra aren't getting charged the real borrowing cost?

[arcan3]

You will need to borrow share if shorting because if you short sell share at T day and then buy back at T+1, you will not be able to deliver the share that you sold on T+3 as the share you bought will only be delivered to you on T+4.

Thus, you need to borrow share so that you can deliver on the T+3 day. Furthermore, it is very risky to short any share overnight without confirming that you can borrow the share, as the share you shorted may not be available in the lending pool. Thus, the usual pratice is to borrow the share before shorting which will incur at least 3 days of borrowing charge. This means that short-sellers using contra will still be charged the borrowing cost.

[Sinkie]

arcan3 wrote:

You will need to borrow share if shorting because if you short sell share at T day and then buy back at T+1, you will not be able to deliver the share that you sold on T+3 as the share you bought will only be delivered to you on T+4.

Thus, you need to borrow share so that you can deliver on the T+3 day. Furthermore, it is very risky to short any share overnight without confirming that you can borrow the share, as the share you shorted may not be available in the lending pool. Thus, the usual pratice is to borrow the share before shorting which will incur at least 3 days of borrowing charge. This means that short-sellers using contra will still be charged the borrowing cost.

Take note, Standchart does not allow short sell nor nude short nor offer anyone securities borrowing account to short overnight

You need either a cfd or a SBL account to short (sell first buy later) overnight..

Only a trading/brokerage firms will offer you facilities like SBL, CFD accounts and ability to nude short (cover by T) and contra trading

Scb is strictly to buy then sell with no contra

Just to clarify these small bits of details

[Sinkie]

arcan3 wrote:

Just to clear any misconception regarding shorting of stock, borrowing of share is required if the short position is held overnight regardless whether it is contra position or not.

If not on T+3, sgx will buy back for shortist if he decides not to borrow at 50% margin