tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post1493155851470158495..comments2024-03-19T22:16:57.934+08:00Comments on My Little Corner: Do not agree on reducing the board lotchantchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02775213670329844143noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-8873632138980606862013-09-07T23:18:41.348+08:002013-09-07T23:18:41.348+08:00Yes you're right. I'm risking a no-fill ri...Yes you're right. I'm risking a no-fill risk but that is the risk I'm willing to take because there are times where the market will mis-price it.<br /><br />The lot size of 1000 shares reduces my risk of no-fill and also reduces the risk of me having a higher expense ratio due to the minimum charge.<br /><br />The lot size of 100 shares will not reduce my risk of no-fill since this chantchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775213670329844143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-10680569467112697762013-09-05T10:31:01.860+08:002013-09-05T10:31:01.860+08:00I think you need to step back and separate the iss...I think you need to step back and separate the issues: liquidity and lot size.<br /><br />You are facing the "non-fill" problem because of your investment strategy: you pick an illiquid stock to invest. So either you pay the "liquidity premium" associated with the stock (i.e. buying with market order / higher limit price), or you accept the "no-fill" risk. There is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-86288626132155659682013-09-03T21:52:06.464+08:002013-09-03T21:52:06.464+08:00Personally though, it's not a different issue ...Personally though, it's not a different issue if reducing the board lot cause me to face these problems for me. Regardless of the illiquid nature of the company, it doesn't mean that its not worth investing in.<br /><br />If the board lot is reduced which cause other problems to crop up, these problems need to be resolved and not pushed to another issue altogether.<br /><br />If it cannotchantchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775213670329844143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-27348651899282205292013-09-03T16:19:53.447+08:002013-09-03T16:19:53.447+08:00Ah, what you described is a different issue altoge...Ah, what you described is a different issue altogether. In your case, the market simply wasn't there for you. It has nothing to do with the lot size.<br /><br />You should either 1) increase your limit price, 2) do a market order to guarantee a fill, or 3) find a more liquid stock to trade.<br /><br />The "non-fill" phenomenon can happen with any lot size.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-79616405793445435702013-09-03T00:42:00.955+08:002013-09-03T00:42:00.955+08:00I think you might have misunderstood. I would love...I think you might have misunderstood. I would love it if it is 100 shares per lot with a reasonable expense ratio. However, many times I have tried to purchase 3 lots but only 1 lot was filled. In the end, you're stuck with the minimum charge that drives up your expense ratio.<br /><br />You might have targeted to get 10 x 100 shares but you might just end up with 2 shares for some reason or chantchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775213670329844143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5661870875403268442.post-2847978497468931182013-09-02T13:23:19.243+08:002013-09-02T13:23:19.243+08:00Hi Little Corner,
With all due respect, your anal...Hi Little Corner,<br /><br />With all due respect, your analysis doesn't make sense. A smaller lot size is to the investor's benefit as it offers more investment combinations and opportunities.<br /><br />I understand what you are trying to say about the expense ratio, but someone who can afford 1x1000 shares, can likewise afford 10x100 shares. Your broker should not be charging 10x the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com