What do you think about FINRA $25,000 PDT rule?

George W. Bush Government in 2001,
The minimum equity requirement in FINRA Rule 4210 was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 27, 2001, by approving amendments to NASD Rule 2520.

  • Day trading minimum equity: the account must maintain at least USD $25,000 worth of equity.
  • Margin call to meet minimum equity: A day trading minimum equity call is issued when the pattern day trader account falls below $25,000. This minimum must be restored by means of a cash deposit or other marginal equities.
    • Deadline to meet calls: Pattern day traders are allowed to deposit funds within five business days to meet the margin call
    • Non-withdrawal deposit requirement: This minimum equity or deposits of funds must remain in the account and cannot be withdrawn for at least two business days.
    • Cross guarantees are prohibited: Pattern day traders are prohibited from utilizing cross guarantees to meet day-trading margin calls or to meet minimum equity requirements. Each day trading account is required to meet all margin requirements independently, using only the funds available in the account.
  • Restrictions on accounts with unmet day trading calls: if the day trading call is not met, the account's day trading buying power will be restricted for 90 days or until day trading minimum equity (i.e. the margin call is met).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_day_trader

  1. Do you think this helps poorer experienced traders from losing? and it actually helped them for 20 years?
  2. Is that the requirement is "governmental paternalism" and anti-competitive in the sense that it puts the government in the position of protecting investors/traders from themselves thus hindering the ideals of the free markets? Consequently, it is also seen to obstruct the efficiency of markets by unfairly forcing small retail investors to use bulge bracket firms to invest/trade on their behalf thereby protecting the commissions' bulge bracket firms earn on their retail businesses.
  3. Is it problematic not because it is some sort of unfair over-regulatory attack on the "free market," but because it is a rule that shuts out the vast majority of the American public from taking advantage of an excellent way to grow wealth? It does so by imposing a "poverty tax" on those who do not have $25,000 available.
  4. Is that the rule may, in some circumstances, increase a trader's risk. For example, a trader may use three-day trades, and then enter a fourth position to hold overnight. If unexpected news causes the security to rapidly decrease in price, the trader is presented with two choices. One choice would be to continue to hold the stock overnight and risk a large loss of capital. The other choice would be to close the position, protecting his capital, and (perhaps inappropriately) fall under the day-trading rule, as this would now be a 4th-day trade within the period. Of course, if the trader is aware of this well-known rule, he should not open the 4th position unless he or she intends to hold it overnight. However, even trades made within the three trade limit (the 4th being the one that would send the trader over the Pattern Day Trader threshold) are arguably going to involve higher risk, as the trader has an incentive to hold longer than he or she might if they were afforded the freedom to exit a position and reenter at a later time. In this sense, a strong argument can be made that the rule (inadvertently) increases the trader's likelihood of incurring extra risk to make his trades "fit" within his or her allotted three-day trades per 5 days unless the investor has substantial capital.

The rule may also adversely affect position traders by preventing them from setting stops on the first day they enter positions. For example, a position trader may take four positions in four different stocks. To protect his capital, he may set stop orders on each position. Then if there is the unexpected news that adversely affects the entire market, and all the stocks he has taken positions in rapidly declining in price, triggering the stop orders, the rule is triggered, as four-day trades have occurred. Therefore, the trader must choose between not diversifying and entering no more than three new positions on any given day (limiting the diversification, which inherently increases their risk of losses) or choose to pass on setting stop orders to avoid the above scenario. Such a decision may also increase the risk to higher levels than it would be present if the four trade rules were not being imposed.

What I found about this rule is that the rule only applies in the US. Not in other countries. And I believe the rule increases a trader's risk since they can't do any risk controls which is also very important in stock trading.

If you also find this rule was quite helpful for you or have another opinion on this rule, please comment below.

View Poll

Submitted November 10, 2020 at 07:01PM by ClientSpare8405
via https://ift.tt/3pfV5fa

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s