Hacker News Reader

A lot of people think of stop orders as a risk mitigation method but I think in today's markets, stop orders are a bad idea. The only "normal" investors I know who have been hurt by flash crashes are people who use stops.

View on HN

A stop with a limit is perfectly fine. It's essentially saying "If the stock trades below X, sell it, but not unless its above Y." So if you bought at 80, its now at 100, and you want to make sure you make some profit, you could put in a stop loss that was at, say, 90/85. So you sell if it goes below 90, but only at better than 85.

The issue there is that in a fast moving market, you might not get filled. When the stop triggers, the order "becomes" another limit order in the limit order book, and if the market's already moved bellow your limit, you dont execute.

Also, Market Orders are ALWAYS executed before limit orders, even if the limit makes it executable. That's just the priority system of the market.

Also, Market Orders are ALWAYS executed before limit orders, even if the limit makes it executable.

In the continuous market time priority rules. If a marketable limit order arrives before a market order, the limit order executes first.

The priority system of which market? There's something like 40+ exchanges where equities trade, each with different rules. There is no "market"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com