No, that rules against a dealer canceling a customer's *executed* order (except under certain circumstances); nowhere there is anything prohibiting "OCO" (contingent) orders.
Try again. Incidentally, the author of the paper does not blame any existing regulation for the lack of OCO orders. On the contrary, he sees no reason for those type of orders to be unavailable in the "coming decades," "This OCO-3 assumption is not currently available but there is no reason to believe it would continue to be impossible or impractical several decades from now. Thus, in principle, the implications of this section on programming the market will be testable when the market evolves and allows more sophisticated order handling abilities." After nearly a decade since the initial publication... Nada (except in Lala Land). On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:54 AM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:38 PM Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can you name a single regulator, the specific regulation, and the > > jurisdiction where the regulation prohibiting "OCO" applies? > > Are you asking about > > https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebook/rules.aspx?Section=4&RuleID=RULE%202-43 > ? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
