Slashdot Mirror


Google to Offer Real-Time Stock Quotes

Apro+im writes "Today, Google announced that Google Finance will report real-time prices on NASDAQ-listed securities. While real-time stock quotes are not new, they have long encumbered with subscriptions, legal agreements, or pay software. This may be the first free source for real-time quotes."

299 comments

  1. Simpsons already did it. by X43B · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yahoo! does this already.

    1. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Jesus, what fucktard mod labeled this "flamebait"?

    2. Re:Simpsons already did it. by lilfields · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know why this is flamebait, Yahoo did actually start doing this about a month ago, but got no Slashdot coverage. I'm glad to see it done, 15 minutes/20 minutes were the actual delay times, and were kind of annoying...not 3 hours as some people have already stated. Anyhow, most brokers give you real-time quotes for free, such as Scottrade...others are a bit more stingy about it...such as ING. Hopefully this will force brokerage firms to lighten up on their lower tier subscription fees.

    3. Re:Simpsons already did it. by UncleTogie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yahoo! does this already.

      Are you sure? Read the fine print at the bottom of the Yahoo finance page next time:

      Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quote data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, 20 minutes for NYSE and Amex. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service.
      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    4. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Wister285 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Assuming Google quotes NASDAQ directly, the difference is that Yahoo! quotes ECNs instead as the managing editor over at CNBC explains:

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/24927068/site/14081545/

      This has a wide range of implications, mainly how exchanges charge for their data. This will probably help NASDAQ to continue to put more pressure on the NYSE. It may be a good step though as I'd like to see the futures exchanges allow for their data services to be more freely available.

      It also helps to empower the individual investor as the gap between the institutions and in the individuals closes. This can have unintended consequences though in terms of volatility as the retail money may get more fidgety with this more timely data. Either way, it should be interesting to watch this develop.

    5. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      yahoo used to do it, then they had to stop... legal stuff, at least that's what they said.

      For a while, they just removed the "realtime" button, but you could type in the extension manually to get realtime quotes. Then they disabled that. They probably still have a more sophisticated method, but the quick n dirty brute force version was disabled.

    6. Re:Simpsons already did it. by protohiro1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yahoo recently started offering realtime quotes: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=26853 Look during trading hours and you will see it them.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    7. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check during the day when the exchanges are open.

      Not only do they have real time quotes for NASDAQ, they also have real time for NYSE. Google is NASDAQ only.

      http://ycorpblog.com/2008/05/28/real-time-stock-quotes-on-the-house/

    8. Re:Simpsons already did it. by DriedClexler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm more interested in being able to search the 20+ year history of a stock, mutual fund, index (with dividend reinvestment), or futures contract. They only seem to let you go back 10 years, or not see the result of dividend reinvestment. Even google finance only lets you go back a few years in many cases.

      Interestingly enough, people on investing forums casually reference these values as if they're easy to get, but I've never seen a free source for that information.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    9. Re:Simpsons already did it. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually this is really cool since you can call google finance tickers from a google apps spreadsheet. You can now easily do some advanced data manipulation with realtime data for free.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo has been providing free RT quotes for a few days now at least, while Google has not. You have to look at a quote for an individual stock, not multiple tickers at once. Yahoo used to offer free RT quotes a while ago, too, before it became too expensive to do so (not a Google first). Back then, multiple tickers were allowed, so you could have a hundred stocks up at once all updated in real-time.

    11. Re:Simpsons already did it. by videoBuff · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080602/stocks_real_time_quotes.html?.v=3 BATS provides free real time quote to Yahoo. So Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. had to respond to that. Their business model is slightly different from BATS. After all BATS is trying to become an national securities exchange!

    12. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People on investing forums probably don't care that the sources aren't free. I bet most of them are dealing with large enough sums of money that any fees for access to information are worth it. Information is money, if it will earn you more money you will pay for it.

    13. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      As the programmer of a share marketing charting app I'd love to see more data freely available. Surely exchanges recognise that more data = more casual trading, and charging pennies to a small number of people isn't the same as brokerage fees from a much bigger number.

    14. Re:Simpsons already did it. by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, the stock brokers better be doing it for free. Imagine Safeway asking you to buy stake based on the price it was sold for 20 minutes ago. Not sure what's in it for Google. Maybe computing power to produce realtime quotes is now low enough to be paid for by text ads.

    15. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Imagine Safeway asking you to buy stake based on the price it was sold for 20 minutes ago. Safeway doesn't sell stakes, you illiterate idiot. Maybe try a hardware store or somewhere like that.

      Please moderate me -1 flame, not flame bait because this is truly a flame and a single digit IQ idiot like the poster deserved it.
    16. Re:Simpsons already did it. by sarcas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yahoo! does this already.

      Are you sure? Read the fine print at the bottom of the Yahoo finance page next time:

      I am - Yahoo! Finance Launches Free Real-Time ECN Prices. Of course, both the Y! and Google finance teams have been trying to do this for a while - in our case (obvious disclaimer: I work for Y!, although not on Finance) we have to thank Bats Trading Inc for providing us with the data. It's not universal yet, but the blog post above indicates that we're working on it.

      Google don't indicate where they're getting their data from, but they've been fighting to do it for a while as well, and as they're starting out with NASDAQ, you can assume they'll be trying to roll it out to further exchanges and markets as well.

      All good for the market, as is the competition.

    17. Re:Simpsons already did it. by rmstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yahoo lets you download way more than 20 years of stock history, with and without taking into account dividends. You can even download all that in a .csv.

      F. ex: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=IBM shows IBM quotes going back to 1962.

    18. Re:Simpsons already did it. by dintech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is, this is only open and close prices. If you want to write algoritms that run on actual tick data (what realtime algos are actually useful for), you have no way to back-test it without collecting your own data first.

      My job involves persisting tick data from a Reuters feed for large investment company and the amount of data we collect every day for 16 exchanges in Europe is huge. Something like 25Gb (growing exponentially) and that's being selective about which stocks to capture.

    19. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you even use finance.yahoo.com? they provide two quotes during the trading hours as well as pre-market and after hours. the usual delayed quotes and the real-time in smaller fonts.
      besides, this isn't even a google news. nasdaq started offering real-time quotes to websites that wanted it.

    20. Re:Simpsons already did it. by maxume · · Score: 1

      You just have to clickety the clackety that says historical prices:

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=INTC&d=5&e=3&f=2008&g=d&a=6&b=9&c=1986&z=66&y=5478
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=VFINX&d=5&e=3&f=2008&g=d&a=2&b=27&c=1987&z=66&y=5280

      You would have to go through and parse out the dividends and splits and so forth and then apply the dividends as purchases to get the results of dividend reinvestment though.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Simpsons already did it. by grizdog · · Score: 1

      Everyone can try this for themselves. Get some quotes at 4:01 EDT, and then do it again a few minutes later. Since the exchange closes at 4:00, if anything changes, it is not real time. If several active stocks don't change at all, you can probably conclude that it is real time.

    22. Re:Simpsons already did it. by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      Yahoo seems to go back quite a ways. A lot more than 10 years, at least. ANd it does show dividend payments, so you can do your own math to at least estimate what results would have been (depending when the amount got credited to your brokerage account, whether there's any fee or commission charged for the service, and whether the broker lets you accumulate fractional shares).

      And even that will skew, because it doesn't note spin-offs, it just shows the amount value of stock received as a cash distribution...

      Also, when a company delists, their data goes away - so you can't look up defunct companies.

      So yes... after writing that, i agree, there is a ton of room for improvement!

    23. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketwatch offers free realtime quotes too. I think yahoo did it first.

    24. Re:Simpsons already did it. by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Funny

      Imagine Safeway asking you to buy stake based on the price it was sold for 20 minutes ago. . Seriously? That's a pretty bad comparison. I mean... it's not like steak prices are prone to precipitous drops because, say, the CEO of Angus International was caught siphoning off corporate funds to build a love nest for his heifer mistress.

      Or something. Look, my point is that stock prices are a lot more volatile than food prices. If you want a good analogy, go to an analogy... making... person.
    25. Re:Simpsons already did it. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot.

      We're supposed to use car analogies.

      So, I'll use gasoline.

      (And, actually, seeing as rises in gas prices are directly linked to oil futures...)

    26. Re:Simpsons already did it. by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Aww FFS, now even the 13 year olds with chips on their shoulders have become grammar Nazis. Damn you slashdot, look what you're doing to our youth!

    27. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Zen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the GP is really trying to do something as extensive as you are, I would hope they don't expect to be able to find that data for free. 25Gig a day for a few hundred or thousand stocks is a lot of traffic. I would never expect someone to extrapolate the data, collate, host, and allow me to download that for free every day. That should definitely be a pay service.

    28. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      NYSE keeps a trade and quote (TAQ) database with intraday trade data, but it is very expensive. You might be able to find free copies on DVD at certain libraries though, but more often than not they are categorized as non-circulating. You should be able to bring in a laptop though so you can analyze the data right there.

    29. Re:Simpsons already did it. by corbettw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My job involves persisting tick data from a Reuters feed for large investment company and the amount of data we collect every day for 16 exchanges in Europe is huge. Something like 25Gb (growing exponentially) and that's being selective about which stocks to capture. I think you just answered your own question. Anything that requires that kind of storage on a daily basis isn't going to be cheap to provide access to. And since Joe Daytrader isn't going to care, but companies creating new investment products will, I can't see the viability of providing access to that data for free. That doesn't mean someone won't (or hasn't) done it, just that it seems like the kind of thing that someone would charge for access to.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    30. Re:Simpsons already did it. by quanticle · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what kind of grocery store you go to, but I certainly wouldn't patronize any grocery store where prices changed multiple times per day.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    31. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a financial website that also turned this functionality on yesterday. We've been waiting over a year to flip the switch, because the SEC hasn't approved this Nasdaq RTQ business. Long story short, it's still not approved, but Nasdaq started a trial of the service yesterday. If Yahoo turned this particular functionality on a before then, they could face fines from the SEC.

    32. Re:Simpsons already did it. by v0x0j · · Score: 1

      Now if anyone would give historic prices for options for free, that would be awesome

    33. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      In any case, the delay was so NYSE could charge a high premium to day traders and big investment firms for those who want to trade spur of the moment on live data.

      I presume Google and Yahoo are paying a very steep premium to NYSE since this will gut much of the value to all of NYSE's other premium customers.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re:Simpsons already did it. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. A lot of those services include very high quality software that does a lot more than just deliver real-time quotes for a few stocks. If you're a professional day trader you definitely don't want to use some slow web-based interface. You need good software to keep track of streaming 1000's of stocks and do analysis and statistics, etc... I think those people will still want to pay the premium to use that software. Granted I haven't seen what Google's interface is, but I doubt it's currently as full-featured or mature as some of these pro packages.

    35. Re:Simpsons already did it. by foobsr · · Score: 1

      I would never expect someone to extrapolate the data, collate, host, and allow me to download that for free every day. That should definitely be a pay service.

      Yep, the common tragedy is that the tragedy of the commons is not and probably was never well understood.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    36. Re:Simpsons already did it. by 0xygen · · Score: 1

      But are your company planning on making your company's 25Gb data available for free?

      No? Why not?

      I'm going to be bold and that this is the same reason you also cannot get per-tick stock data from other sources.

    37. Re:Simpsons already did it. by city · · Score: 1

      Wrong. That fine print is only for the main page quotes. The Real-time quotes fine print is here . And it is in real time, but only data streaming from the ECNs. Which basically means you may not be getting the best real-time bid and ask prices from the NASDAQ or NYSE.

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    38. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo does, sort of. They get their data through BATS http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080528005382&newsLang=en

      E*Trade Canada gets theirs through Recognia.

      Both offer real time, but not directly from NASDAQ.

      Only recently did NASDAQ start offering free RTQ on their site, and reselling to others ($100,000 / month I believe).

      It is this service that Google is subscribed to, and it is true real time quotes.

      ** To most of us though, there's really no difference.

    39. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Knara · · Score: 1

      Comeon, now. "Steaks" vs "stakes" is something you really should know how to spell correctly.

    40. Re:Simpsons already did it. by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      But are your company planning on making your company's 25Gb data available for free?

      Because they would get sued. Every real-time data service I have used very explicitly stated that redistribution was a no-no.

      That doesn't make it right - I think the gov could make a pretty good case that exchanges need to provide free data as a transparency mechanism - but that's where things stand now as far I know.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    41. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm more interested in researching the 20-year future of a stock, mutual fund, index (with dividend reinvestment), or futures contract. How the hell else would I be guaranteed to make money?

    42. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't spent much time on investing forums...

      These guys are pure asshats. Seriously, they are more childish than drunk fratboys. Real players don't hang out on yahoo finance spending half of their time insulting people and the other half trying to pump up their long positions or discredit their short positions (usually not with any attempt at insightful analysis, but by berating those on the opposite side of their position).

      I can tell you where most people get their info from though- Bloomberg. It is the gold standard for information.

    43. Re:Simpsons already did it. by brjndr · · Score: 1

      He wrote stake, not steak. Haven't you ever noticed the price of stakes at Safeway goes up just before sundown?

    44. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15-20 minute delay != realtime.

    45. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      Clearly a peer-to-peer data exchange is the modern solution to this particular problem. So, a bittorrent-like system for exchanging the data would then relax the resource crunch on the overused data source.

      How exactly to convince torrent trackers (and worse, the users themselves!) to actually maintain torrents for the 25Gb generated on March 25, 1986 (or whatever arbitrary day you want) is the wicked problem. I'm not sure it could keep up with 25Gb of new porn per day.

      Perhaps financial data compresses well...

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    46. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, someone has to make up for digg.

      Right??

    47. Re:Simpsons already did it. by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg. It is the gold standard for information.

      Agreed. In another lifetime (it seems, now), the mid-Eighties, I had the full Bloomberg terminals, at my home in Costa Mesa, CA. It was costing a fortune, and I was only running money for four guys. But we all made out like bandits. My order desk was rifling buy/sells to one floor above the Floor.

      I got great execution. Most of the 'online' forums are nothing but pump 'n' dump scammers and guys that are a little 'smarter' than they actually are. But the way to really have fun isn't Day Trading, not for me, anyway. My favorite 'accidental' 'brainiac' move was to sit on a fountain near the NYSE at lunch, and spot the right guy, with his laptop out, inhaling a corned beef (etc), look all dead serious, and ask, "Who do you like this afternoon?" I did that for a couple weeks in Manhattan, and made a small boatload of cash.

      I know enough about odds, to have pretty-much decided, after enough events, that I had probably been benefiting from front-runners. I met guys who could pull down a hundred grand on their lunch hours, near triple witching days and 'odd' times like that.

      I was not 'smarter' than the 'other guy', but I knew this, and didn't take myself too seriously. So I played issues that I knew, and had nice big blips around some fortuitous (and totally ethical) moves into stocks that were set to outperform (exceed expectations) right before quarterly results were due from the companies, themselves. There's nothing sweeter than entering the Market right before the close, and having a sell order in place for a specific time, close to the Open in the morning. Damn, give me deal that I can grasp, immediately, and limit the market risk (exposure), and I'm happy (8 times out of 10).

      My 'story', when I pitched someone else, always made good, rational sense. But when your only 'gun' is rationality, you are doomed, at least periodically, in almost any market, if you stick around long enough. Sometimes it's safer to go with the herd, and bail out early. Let the daredevils find the 'bottoms', cede them the first 5-10% upward move, then get in, and then cede the 'tops' to the greedy goofballs. Taking even 70% of movement to the upside, and stifling greedy impulses, might be the surest bet. But how would I know? Past performance, does not... blah blah blah.

  2. Real time or delayed? by Whuffo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Are these stock quotes actually real time, or are they delayed 3 hours? There's lots of places to get stock quotes but unless you're getting them directly from a broker or the stock exchange they're delayed.

    1. Re:Real time or delayed? by bucky0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Looking back on the google finance blog, they apparently went to the SEC and asked to get a feed straight from the source. I think it's gonna be as real time as possible

      --

      -Bucky
    2. Re:Real time or delayed? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only the article contained this information...

    3. Re:Real time or delayed? by barzok · · Score: 1

      Where the hell are you seeing a 3-hour delay? Yahoo! Finance!, Google Finance and most others are a 20-minute delay, not 3 hours.

    4. Re:Real time or delayed? by lilfields · · Score: 1

      AMEX has 20 minutes delays and NYSE Euronext/Nasdaq have 15 minutes delays, the indices (NYSE/DJI/SPX/RUT/NAS) are always real time...You had to have just pulled 3 hours out of no where. There are some quoting services that are end-of-day quotes...but that's rare nowadays. I think Yahoo used to offer a .cvs feed that was end-of-day, but now they have their Yahoo widget that has a 15/20 minute delay.

    5. Re:Real time or delayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 hours?

      Did you time travel from 1930 or something?

      15-20 minutes is the current delay (enforced by the agreements with exchange).

    6. Re:Real time or delayed? by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If only the article contained this information...

      I think I can speak for everyone when I say that nobody who values their time RTFA, after all it's just superfluous details that aren't needed to post comments. In fact, based on a lot of the comments I read, I assume that many people are so busy they cannot even RTFS. This too is understandable to some extent since the summary is just a wordy version of the article title. This is, however, the first time I've met somebody who couldn't bother to RTFT.

      Short version: RTFT.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    7. Re:Real time or delayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the article contained this information... "Article"? What is this mysterious "article" you speak of?
    8. Re:Real time or delayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pity they wont show us the volume in DARK POOLS being traded.

    9. Re:Real time or delayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. Nobody knows -that-. Until end of the day that is. At the end of the day, all trades must be cleared, and volume accounted for.

  3. I got 'em in E*Trade readily enough. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

    I got free real-time quotes with my E*Trade account readily enough. You do need to open an account and log in each time, and you do need to accept a legal agreement, but I don't think you need to actually pay for them.

    The legal agreement was mostly "you can't sue us, or NASDAQ, or the NYSE or anybody, for giving you these quotes... and you can't, like, republish these to other people". It didn't seem excessive.

    I guess Google will be more convenient than these, but it's not a huge deal. Besides, if you actually care about a 15-minute delay, you'll have your brokerage account open anyway.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:I got 'em in E*Trade readily enough. by Wister285 · · Score: 1

      This does have at least one good facet though. It's going to be easier (and less obvious to your employer) to monitor the market at work!

    2. Re:I got 'em in E*Trade readily enough. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      My brokerage website is encrypted. google finance isn't.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:I got 'em in E*Trade readily enough. by Wister285 · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Google Finance won't be executing your trades. It's just giving you a number, the stock's price quote.

    4. Re:I got 'em in E*Trade readily enough. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      If your employer monitors http activity and you use google finance (or yahoo, or anything unencrypted), they'll know every stock you looked at.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  4. This is a big deal... by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    tons of subscription services will lose most of their user base overnight - not just the ones charging for real time quotes, but also all the free sites that only offer delayed quotes. It could even have implications for market as a whole, because a whole lot more amateur investors will be getting involved in watching real-time activity. Evil though they may be, it's hard to deny that google gets their product offerings dead-on nearly all the time.

    1. Re:This is a big deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "tons" of subscription services will not lose most of their user base overnight as "tons" of subscription services offer more services than just "real-time quotes." Including research/reports, customer service, stock trading, etc... This is a non-issue.

    2. Re:This is a big deal... by ocirs · · Score: 1

      What subscription services? Those that offer similar services are usually brokers that provide research and real time quotes as long as you have a couple hundred in the account, without monthly fees. I don't see why anyone would actually pay for subscriptions to independent sites, since those who are interested in this type of information are looking to utilize it to trade stocks.

    3. Re:This is a big deal... by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a big deal, and it is a good one. Long story short, people charging to repeat information to you will be shafted by a company like Google that can do that simple task for free. Very cool. Hell, why should we be paying subscriptions for someone to tell me public info?

    4. Re:This is a big deal... by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they lose their user base last week when yahoo started doing this?

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    5. Re:This is a big deal... by Doorjam · · Score: 1

      Google will be disseminating quotes realtime but won't be a datafeed that will compete with other market datafeed competitors like Esignal. Traders need feeds that stream directly into charting and other trading analysis programs either directly or via an api. This is a move to compete with yahoo and marketwatch etc. Exchanges used to execute transactions in seconds, then milliseconds, and lately has been moving to microsecond status, which is another reason why Google isn't a competitor for quote dissemination among the serious quote watchers.

    6. Re:This is a big deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's google. google is all that matters. google is the saviour us ms-bashing lemmings have been looking towards for years now that we've lost faith in the power of linux.

    7. Re:This is a big deal... by Knara · · Score: 1

      This is correct. Real-time quotes aren't hard to come by if you've already got a brokerage account.

  5. Yeesh. by tm2b · · Score: 1

    What part of "We're very excited to tell you that real-time quotes on NASDAQ securities are now available on Google Finance" was ambiguous?

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  6. Who needs real time stock quotes? by ForestGrump · · Score: 5, Funny

    First it was "15 minutes delayed" stock quotes being all the rage.

    Now people are getting excited over "real time"? bah!

    Give me "In 10 Minutes" stock quotes and I'll pay for that!

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      Give me "In 10 Minutes" stock quotes and I'll pay for that!

      I just bought several hundred thousand shares of some stocks that are supposed to go through the roof next week. Many emails from good friends who's names I don't recognize recommended them!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironically, nobody. At least not at the personal level. Hedge funds need'em in order to buy/sell ETFs in relation to the underlying---and hopefully do it quicker than anyone else (ie: making the market `efficient'---by making a profit!)

      At consumer level... if you care for ``real time quotes'', you're not investing, you're gambling.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    3. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/who's/whose/
      Ironically, CAPTCHA: dumber.

    4. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      Keep buying... keep buying....

    5. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you bought SCOX??

    6. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSH! It is a secret

    7. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just trying to get a jump on the geohashers, aren't you!

    8. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Give me "In 10 Minutes" stock quotes and I'll pay for that!

            That's called the "futures" market...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      you're not investing, you're gambling.

            We prefer the term "day trading". For us "investing" is a dirty word, and it usually happens involuntarily when we make a mistake. Holding stock for more than 20 mins or so is called "investing".

            And it's not gambling, it's called an "educated guess". Stock movement is far from random. You just have to have enough experience to learn the patterns. If it was gambling I would be right as often as I was wrong. It turns out that although I lose money, I make a lot more than I lose.

            Of course if everyone starts "day trading" once they have access to "real time quotes" that will make me very happy indeed. More people I can take money from.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/who\'s/whose/

      lurn 2 escape:)

    11. Re:Who needs real time stock quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSH! It is a secret it's not a secret, it's a secure shell tunnel
  7. ja1217 by ja1217 · · Score: 1

    Alright, time to use an idea from Ghost In the Shell 1. Create software that analyzes, buys and sells stocks. 2. Let it run. 3. Profit! I've always thought something like this would be a good idea, and the fact that I haven't heard of anyone doing it makes me wonder if there are some legal issues with it. Then again, I'm completely new to the stock market.

    1. Re:ja1217 by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Probably the fact that it can't be done...

    2. Re:ja1217 by daenris · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know that I'd want the program actually doing the purchasing directly without human interaction, but many/most professional investors certainly use forecasting software to help them decide what stocks to pick. The forecasting is the difficult part, adding functionality to buy/sell electronically I'm sure is fairly trivial.

    3. Re:ja1217 by Umuri · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No one's done anything that is both efficient, accurate, and smart enough that it makes money.

      The minute you can make a program that can do it, you have, essentially, a "forumla" for the stock market.

      While the formula may be hugely complex, if such a formula exists, it's kinda self destroying, because the stock market exists in a way because there is no formula.

      The best you can do is make a psuedo-ai that can make guesses based on data. And again, no one's made a computer good enough at guessing that it makes money.

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    4. Re:ja1217 by pyite · · Score: 4, Informative

      The best you can do is make a psuedo-ai that can make guesses based on data. And again, no one's made a computer good enough at guessing that it makes money.

      Hahahahahahahahahaha. PLEASE keep thinking that. How do you think companies like D.E. Shaw & Co. exist? Not to mention Goldman Sachs, etc.

      The reason I get a paycheck twice is month, in part, is because you can create efficient algorithms to make money in financial markets. But please don't let that dissuade you from your obviously very informed opinion.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    5. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is any chance of doing this by just using a stock feed. Maybe if you added many and many other sources like real time news.

      What you can probably do is creating some kind of safety watch that warns you if the stock start to fall too fast or rise too fast.

    6. Re:ja1217 by nick79au · · Score: 0

      Tried that in 1987. It didn't work out too well. (I know, it's only one theory)

    7. Re:ja1217 by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I will second ja1217. Yes, there are computers out there that trade automatically and they make a ton of money. Sometimes it is called picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Sometime it is called drive 60 mph down Wall Street chasing nickels before they go down the storm drain. It costs a lot to hire the computer and brain power to make it work. And then somebody will develop something a tinny bit better they your money machine and you are no longer making those dollars. It is a bit of a arms race.

    8. Re:ja1217 by thebear05 · · Score: 1

      The idea of a program that analyzes buys and sells is part of any brokerages program. i.e limit buy/sell orders but the problem is who creates the parameters of when to buy/sell ends in the same result as what we have now, though the machine may be better at following the established rule. but then again i think that is what the problem with the W.O.P.R was

    9. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Any such process is inherently self-limiting. If you find an algorithm to make effective profit, people will take notice, and start emulating your trades. This eventually leads to a decrease in liquidity. There are always short-term models available with profit-generating potential. The problem is not finding these models, but exploiting them before market forces change the balance to obviate your model. If you are smart, and willing to make a concerted effort, you can profit this way. But far greater profits have been gained through random chance, than through any sort of trading model.

      There are true patterns in the stock market. These can be exploited, and it's exciting to do so. The problem is that the patterns shift like sand in the wind. You can keep up, but it is exhausting from mental and capital standpoints. The best strategy to profit from the stock market, IMHO, is to possess a keen understanding of world affairs and economics, and to recognize global or national trends before most others. You can always get lucky and get a cookie. But perseverence and a stock of cash to weather the rough times are the true components of success.

    10. Re:ja1217 by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      No one's done anything that is both efficient, accurate, and smart enough that it makes money.

      The minute you can make a program that can do it, you have, essentially, a "forumla" for the stock market. Uhhhh... invest in a financial instrument that is made up of S&P 500 or Fortune 500 stocks and you're guaranteed to make money in the long term. That's why everyone compares their rate of return to the S&P 500.

      The only reason you would lose money in the stock market is if the entire stock market is tanking or if you've put most of your eggs in one (poorly performing) basket.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:ja1217 by sirambrose · · Score: 1
      While this is true in general, it was possible during the dot com bubble to exploit other people's limited view of the market to make money. Some times the prices for a particular stock are different on different exchanges. If someone on Island is offering to sell for 25 1/4 and someone is offering to buy at 25 1/2 on Instinet, then it would be possible to make money by programming a computer to buy at 25 1/4 and immediately sell at 25 1/2. This sort of thing only happens during extended hours trading, but it did happen fairly frequently.

      Pulling this off would require a very low latency connection to the exchanges. I believe that it is also be a violation of the contracts for the exchange data feeds. Of course that just means that you disconnect the splitter box from the green screen terminals before the vendor sends a technician out.

    12. Re:ja1217 by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're just a little late to the party, brokers call theirs program trading, and hedge funds call theirs black box/anylitical trading. It's probably 60-80% of the shares traded on any given day.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    13. Re:ja1217 by lazlo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been done. It's being done. I find it interesting that Renaissance Technologies' Nova fund, which is basically a computer program, from my understanding, some days makes over 10% of the total volume of trades on the NASDAQ.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    14. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...adding functionality to buy/sell electronically I'm sure is fairly trivial. Yeah, if your broker offers a web interface for buying / selling, you can simply write a perl/python/ruby script.

      Some brokers offer programmable interfaces. As far as forecasting, there are several common technical indicators that are generally built in to such systems. You probably won't make money just sticking with one of the common indicators, though (that, or your trading will be so sparse that you'll make more money other ways).
    15. Re:ja1217 by yankeessuck · · Score: 1

      Such a thing is widely used. It's called algorithmic trading and there's a wiki article about it. These firms have lots of money and employ people who are much smarter than we are.

    16. Re:ja1217 by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      To do it for real you don't want to analyze the market... you want to analyze the world economy. The market is just a funhouse mirror of what is actually happening in the world...

      What you want is to look at things like oil, food, hydro, raw metals, etc. and analyze how those feed into manufacturing and service... then add in innovations which offer new optimizations and mess with economies of scale... all that stuff might be analyzed and some forecasts and predictions could be made that would be an accurate reflection of reality... but you'd have to assume that the market was based on reality and not on hype, excitement and fear, not to mention direct manipulation...

      Good luck.

      I'll start a business selling paper products and make a couple M a year without the headache if you please.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    17. Re:ja1217 by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm struck by the irony.

      The reason I get a paycheck twice [a] month

      and ...

      you can create efficient algorithms to make money in financial markets

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else?

    18. Re:ja1217 by rfunches · · Score: 1

      you're guaranteed to make money in the long term

      Past performance is not indicative of future results. Index investing may have a track record but there is a reason U.S. government-backed securities price in a small amount of risk.

    19. Re:ja1217 by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Well spotted.

      I was once called by a marketer trying to sell me a stock trading program:
      He had a job selling the program.
      He claimed it was making him 20% (maybe 30%, few years ago, it was a lot at the time)
      Claimed he had paid off his mortgage with it. (about 6% interest at the time).

      So, if he had $100,000 to pay on his mortgage, he was working a job selling a program he was using that was supposed to make you not need a job and essentially he told me he had given up $20,000 pa to save himself $6,000 pa (yes I know, compound interest, inaccurate figures, you get the idea though).

    20. Re:ja1217 by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else? Because those people have the Ultracash needed to make the ROI worthwhile. Even if your salary is say $4k a month, it'll still take a decade or so before your investment is big enough for you to live on the ROI.

      If you want to 'get rich quick' you need to start your own company. Selling financial algorithms, perhaps?
      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    21. Re:ja1217 by ballwall · · Score: 1

      There is no guarantee when it comes to [any] stocks.

      There are a bunch of books that illustrate this, "Irrational Exuberance" is one, and point out that stock market pricing has more to do with investor sentiment and enthusiasm (among other things) than company fundamentals.

      If, for example, defined benefit retirement plans came back in style the market would surely take a very long hit as workers stopped contributing all of their 401k retirement savings to it reducing demand for stocks. This would happen regardless of the earnings of the companies in the market.

      Just because we haven't seen a period where they don't make money over a set of hypothetical "long run"s doesn't mean that *your* long run will be as rosey.

    22. Re:ja1217 by pyite · · Score: 3, Informative

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else?

      I never said I was creating these algorithms. While that could be fun and interesting, I only have a recreational interest in financial mathematics. Those that actually work on methods to make money in this manner typically have PhDs in varying fields (engineering, math, physics).

      I said that this sort of thing pays my bills because I work for a Wall St. firm that makes some of its money doing this.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    23. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm struck by the irony.

      The reason

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else?

      Even if the algorithms work, they won't gave a return of, say, 1000% per year. And with realistic return percent, one needs a big amount of money to invest, which I suppose one doesn't magically obtain from nothing. That's why one usually needs to work for someone who has money to invest.
    24. Re:ja1217 by Fross · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, most savvy traders shun top-flight stocks (such as S&P 500, DJI, FTSE 100). The reasoning is that to get chosen to join these indices/groups, the stock needs to have performed well in the past. Once they get to that level, they've generally plateaued. Look at eg coca cola, AT&T or other companies in the Dow 30, they aren't making great strides. Most investors are more interested in the stocks that still have to make their huge rises - that is where the money is to be made.

    25. Re:ja1217 by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And with realistic return percent, one needs a big amount of money to invest

            Let's see, I work with a "realistic" amount of money ($35k), make 4k a month spending money AND grow my capital by around 10% a month... so pretty much around 25% a month is what I make. You don't need all that much money... but you DO need the right "algorithms"... especially the one that says TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    26. Re:ja1217 by mverwijs · · Score: 1

      The reason I get a paycheck twice is month, in part, is because you can create efficient algorithms to make money in financial markets. But please don't let that dissuade you from your obviously very informed opinion. Care to switch jobs and move to Amsterdam? :)

      --
      mverwijs
      unix admin @ optiver
    27. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah big financial houses only spend millions on infrastructure to run their algorithmic trading systems because it attracts girls.

    28. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one's done anything that is both efficient, accurate, and smart enough that it makes money.

      The minute you can make a program that can do it, you have, essentially, a "forumla" for the stock market. And your knowledge of the stock market is... ?

      Such financial algorithms exist. Short-term strategy tradings (i.e., I want to cut my share of a corporation by 5% in the way that makes me the most money possible) almost completely rely on this algorithms. Even long-term strategies have financial algorithms. And are capable enough for multibillion-dollar portfolios to rely on them.

      If it's good enough for the financial moguls, then it has to be good enough to make money.
    29. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      employ people who are much smarter than we are. The investment world is a bit of an Old Boys' Club in the UK. If you want a job, you've gone to Public School (that's private school, my straight-talking American friends), then Oxbridge. And if there's one thing we do well, it's give an air of exclusivity to what we do.

      But really, really, while the trading floor may be flooded with first class mental arithmeticians, it's not awash with genius. Automation is still the same old model - compare - refine - rinse - repeat.

      I look back and forward to Asimov's psychohistorians, though as noted in the early pages, once you're aware that you can be so analysed, you'll change your behaviour.
    30. Re:ja1217 by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Alright, time to use an idea from real life 1. Create software that analyzes, buys and sells stocks. 2. Let it run. 3. Profit!

      Fixed that for you. If you've never heard of algorithmic trading before, I suggest you spend a lot of time studying before you attempt it. Otherwise, all it will do is bankrupt your trading account faster than manual trading decisions.

    31. Re:ja1217 by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else? The algorithms in question exploit small discrepancies in the market. In order to make money exploiting these discrepancies, one needs to have a substantial sum of money. When I say substantial, I mean Billions with a "B". Your average Joe would have all of his profit taken by broker fees etc. Even a multi-millionaire can't compete with these companies. The person with the most money can take advantage of the smallest discrepancy. This leaves no room for the small investor to make money.

      This is part of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, a great example is Forex.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    32. Re:ja1217 by pyite · · Score: 1

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else?

      I hate to reply twice to the same post, but even if you have great algorithms, they're not the sort of thing you can put into place in your basement to get any sort of real gain. You get into issues regarding processing power and latency. For instance, the speed of light is pretty slow. It's slow enough that you can't have servers too far from an exchange to make use of some sorts of algorithms. No one ever said this stuff is easy; it requires massive infrastructure that typically only corporations can manage. In addition to the financial mathematics talent, it requires expertise in implementing the algorithms in code, and expertise in building networks that can support low latency and lots of resiliency. It's not exactly something one person can manage. Quantitative trading isn't as profitable as it was in its infancy, but it still works and still makes money.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    33. Re:ja1217 by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      If these algorithms actually worked, why would you need to be working for somebody else?

      That's very easy. I work in this field, and I have trading models that have made millions for my company. So I should use the info that I've learned and trade my own money right? I should make those millions for myself, right?

      There are two (really three) reasons I can't do this for myself. The first is that you already need millions to successfully trade this way. You can't take $50k and turn it into $1M because of many reasons, the biggest being that commissions charges would eat away at your $50k faster than you could make anything. You can however, take $2M and turn it into $4M, because once you have that much money to start with, it only costs you a fraction of a penny to trade a share, and brokers are willing to give you good leverage, like 10 to 1. The second reason I can't do this on my own is the IT infrastructure. We have millions (per year!) invested in having the fastest servers, the fastest connections, the most recent market data. You need a lot of expensive information and infrastructure to do this trading.

      The third reason is that I have a non-compete, so I can't just go and do it on my own now. I'd have to wait a couple of years. That's definitely not worth it when you can work a deal to get a percentage of the profits for the year. It might be fun to run my own fund someday, but there are a lot of good reasons to work for someone else, making money trading models that you say don't work.

    34. Re:ja1217 by jdmetz · · Score: 1

      Savvy traders shun such stocks, but they are exactly what investors want. The stocks are in the indices precisely because they are relatively stable, established companies. Their movements reflect the broader movement of the market as a whole. If you want to make or lose a lot of money quickly, they are not what you want. On the other hand, if you want a consistent long-term return, you want stable, established, profitable businesses.

    35. Re:ja1217 by Rycross · · Score: 1

      My friend does this along with manual trading. Theres plenty of companies that have platforms and services for you to code against to do this. The boxes (as he calls them) that he codes make pretty good money, apparently.

      Of course, his boxes just analyze the way the price of various stocks are trending and attempt to buy/short the stock based on how its trending. I think he found that some of the very large firms may use things like Bayesian networks to try and figure out relationships between stocks (stock A is going up, so stock B is likely to also go up, etc).

      I don't think theres anything that can account for the human factor though. You'd probably have to have something that could parse financial news and analyze it semantically.

      The thing is that you and I probably couldn't afford it. You'd really need to work for a trading firm with a real-time connection (both quotes and ability to buy/sell). You probably wouldn't be able to do well with web-based trading, since most of their strategies kinda depend on low latency.

      Of course, I'm not a trader and really know nothing about it (other than what I hear from my friend), so anyone who wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

    36. Re:ja1217 by bobobobo · · Score: 1
      How do you think companies like D.E. Shaw & Co. [deshaw.com] exist? Not to mention Goldman Sachs [gs.com], etc.

      Because there are people greedy and/or dumb enough to pay in, that think they can consistently beat the market?

    37. Re:ja1217 by rachit · · Score: 1

      You *do* realize that there have been long periods of time where you get negative *nominal* returns from the stock market. 1969-1982 (S&P 500). If you talk about *real* returns (after inflation), results are even worse. There are probably worse drops if you consider the Dow and the great depression.

      People don't realize that the bull market between 1982-2000 was a positive fluctuation, not the rule.

    38. Re:ja1217 by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Its a lot like asking a black jack dealer why he doesn't go and open up his own casino. It takes an immense amount of infrastructure and capital.

      I work in finance, I was at GS for some time (I did not work in algos/electronic trading though), and prior to that worked for another large bank on an electronic trading app that traded on its own, and made a nice sum of money each day. I was not the originator of this app, but I did maintain/enhance it for awhile.

      The markets produce torrents of data. These torrents of data need to be analyzed in real time, using producing some sort of meta data, and then all of this data needs to be routed/packaged and sent to the appropriate components to act on. This requires a *lot* of computing power. The data itself is quite expensive- direct market feeds are many thousands of dollars per month (relying on yahoo won't cut it- you need as little latency as possible. The software infrastructure is difficult to write- it needs to be massively scalable. You need lots of capital as well. Unless you are using an absolutely risk free algo, which even if it looks like it is on paper, it is most likely NOT, you need a really large bank account to live past those "oops" moments and times when your algo is not working. On top of this, the guys that are good at coming up with algorithms and the guys that are good at building the infrastructure are rarely the same person. If you made a video game comparison, John Carmack is a badass engine programmer, but he also needs to rely on artists to make his games work.

      Algorithmic trading in itself is generally not a main revenue driver. It is usually a nice chunk of change on the side, or a cost reducer, but I don't know of any shops (not to say that there aren't any people out how there who may) that use algorithmic trading as the bread and butter of their business. Hence the guys that do this tend to live in large banks.

      Also keep in mind that finance tends to pay very well. If you are a revenue producer, there is really no bound on what your comp for the year can be. It is very difficult to get a startup going in NYC for the very reason that most of the best developers are in finance working for banks making very comfortable livings.

      Interestingly enough, I am at a startup that is not necessarily doing what is considered "algorithmic trading" but something similar, and we needed to be backed up by VC's because it costs so much to get up and running in the financial world (I didn't even get into the SEC requirements). So in some sense you could consider me one of those guys that "just went out and did it on his own." I do not plan on putting in an order for a yacht any time soon.

    39. Re:ja1217 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your average Joe would have all of his profit taken by broker fees etc

      And by a few losses.

      I spent three years making an OK living buying and selling stocks based upon a Bayesian anti-spam filter. Basically the pattern recognized was that after a stock dropped in price because on average it bounced back within 2-4 days on average and ten days almost always. The first year I did about seven buys and seven sells a day on average, and at $7 per trade, the $98 per day really ate into my profit. In the first year with $50k invested I doubled my money in stocks, but spent almost $25k in fees which cut my profit in half. The fees are killer, but...

      The reason I quit was that I just didn't have enough money to make the statistics work. I started doing fewer trades to save on fees, but then I would often make a mistake by buying losers when on average my program gave me good winners. Also by buying few stocks, the losses hurt even more. It was so frustrating to see my program consistently pick a 1-2% profit per day, but I just couldn't take advantage of it. I needed to do preferably twenty or more trades per day for the statistics to work.

      I eventually sold the program to a friend of the family for $100k. He made more than that in the first six months of use with a $700k investment. This was last summer when the market was dropping so that makes the gain even more impressive.

    40. Re:ja1217 by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how much you want to say, but I'm considering basing an algorithm purely on tick data (technical analysis rather than fundamental). At least when opentick.com opens its doors again. Is this a viable approach considering that I only have £3000 to spend initially? Is your algorithm purely automatic or is there a human element?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  8. This is a NASDAQ story, not a Google story by nodwick · · Score: 5, Informative

    While I know Google makes for good news, this story is in fact more about the exchanges loosening their grip on quote restrictions than it is a feel-good Google story.

    Historically the exchanges have required anyone offering free quotes to delay them 15-20 minutes since a big part of their revenue stream derived from charging brokerages for real-time quotes. (Brokerages in turn only offered this service to their customers.) NASDAQ announced a deal to allow Google, the Wall Street Journal, and CNBC to show real-time quotes for free. Yahoo Finance announced a similar deal with a different group (BATS Trading) to phase free real-time quotes throughout its site also.

    Looks like the internet continues to bring down barriers to information.

    1. Re:This is a NASDAQ story, not a Google story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair though, Google did spend a lot of effort lobbying the SEC to do this. I read a while back their argument to the SEC and it was well done. Its a good example of a corporation using Washington lobbying to help the public while also helping themselves. Also the opening of this is not (as far as I know) limited to just Google. They have argued for an agreement that would make this information available to all, not just Google finance. Either way as a person who follows stocks I'm delighted to be able to get realtime pricing from Google or from any other site.

    2. Re:This is a NASDAQ story, not a Google story by DesignFlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Very True. This is actually a new feed from Nasdaq called NLS (Nasdaq Last Sale). They have been working on it for quite some time and most major financial news sites went live with it today. AOL, MarketWatch, Google, WSJ and Yahoo are using this feed.

    3. Re:This is a NASDAQ story, not a Google story by DesignFlaw · · Score: 1

      Lobbying that hasn't fully paid off yet. Nasdaq is running this as a trial to get around requiring SEC approval. Also - this story says they worked with the SEC and NYSE while the feed that went live on major financial news sites today is provided by Nasdaq. The slashdot article is wrong as well. The real time quotes aren't limited to Nasdaq-listed securities - they're on all securities traded on the Nasdaq exchange.

  9. Big deal by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    Anyone can access real time quotes. Call me when Google offers accurate intraday historical data. Now *that* would be huge.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Big deal by greg1104 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you tried http://www.opentick.com/ ? It's not always free, but it's so cheap it's close.

    2. Re:Big deal by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Only problem with opentick is it's been "upgrading its network infrastructure and temporarily cannot accept new users" for the past six months or so. But it sure looks like a cool service.

  10. Welp by Ritontor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel a great disturbance on the Internet. As if millions of tenuous business models suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    --
    Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
  11. First Free Real Time? No. by pyite · · Score: 1

    This may be the first free source for real-time quotes.

    No. There you are.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    1. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      finance.yahoo.com started real-time quotes a couple of weeks ago.

    2. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by rfunches · · Score: 1

      That's the NYSE Arca Book, which only shows bid/ask and size for a stock, not the last execution price. The best bid/ask on NYSE Arca is not necessarily the national best bid/ask, meaning the B/A size is likely different too. Plus it doesn't operate in real-time. (Sure, it's delayed by 5-15 seconds, but it's nonetheless delayed.)

      If a security trades outside the bid or ask, or if the security is illiquid and the spread is large enough, you would never know the actual price it is trading at. The Arca Book is only useful as a Poor Richard's Level II screen, although if you need LII you should be able to afford the data fees anyway.

    3. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      although if you need LII you should be able to afford the data fees anyway.

            Agreed. The $60 or so a month my broker charges me for level II pales in comparison to the couple hundred dollars I pay each day in commission. There's not much point in having "realtime" and "level II" if what you're going to do is pick up your telephone and "call your broker" to "place a trade". You either day trade, or you don't. Only day traders need real time quotes. Everyone else is just going to lose more money as they panic during the typical daily rollercoaster ride. Hmmm now that I think of it, this should help volatility overall. Happy times are coming!!!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by raw-sewage · · Score: 1

      That's the NYSE Arca Book, which only shows bid/ask and size for a stock, not the last execution price. The best bid/ask on NYSE Arca is not necessarily the national best bid/ask, meaning the B/A size is likely different too. Plus it doesn't operate in real-time. (Sure, it's delayed by 5-15 seconds, but it's nonetheless delayed.)

      If a security trades outside the bid or ask, or if the security is illiquid and the spread is large enough, you would never know the actual price it is trading at. The Arca Book is only useful as a Poor Richard's Level II screen, although if you need LII you should be able to afford the data fees anyway.

      Could you elaborate on that a bit? I can't seem to find a lot of concrete information on the difference between Level I and Level II information. I.e., what information is contained in each level? Why is it split up in levels in the first place? What exactly is the Arca book, and how does it relate to the "actual" book? Is it just a delayed snapshot? Why do they maintain two books in the first place?
    5. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1
      Welcome, grasshopper, and get ready to lose a lot of money learning the answers to your questions - but we all started where you are now, once upon a time. Go to Amazon and get a remaindered, out-of-print copy of The Undergroundtrader.com Guide To Electronic Trading as a one-stop place to get up to speed on all of this.

      ARCA (AKA Archipelago) is a commercial electronic trading system and competitor or ISLD (AKA Island, get it?) and other so-called ECNs that "shadow" the NASDAQ, which is the true major market. Think ARCA=Yahoo, ISLD=Google and NASDAQ=Microsoft, sort of. ECNs allow a subset of users to make trades faster (under 1 second) than the NASDAQ market as a whole (maybe 5 seconds), but at a greater price and risk in that the stock shares may not be available at all (thinly traded). They are useful in saving your butt if you are on the wrong side of a suddenly moving market and need to bail out RIGHT NOW.

      And everybody else, yes, I realize this is a vast oversimplification. But understanding gotta start somewhere...

    6. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      Here, read this Investopedia article, which is about at the same level as saying women are complicated but interesting. Always remember that f*cked has two meanings, and Level II screens and women will eventually show you both.

    7. Re:First Free Real Time? No. by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      Here's a less sexist explanation. In Texas Hold'Em poker, everybody tries to tell lies (sell bluffs) about what their secret cards are when paired with public community cards that are true and visible to everyone. Level II screens are a different form of poker where the public cards (bids and asks) shown by each of the market makers are the lies being told and the secrets of their true intentions are kept solely to themselves.

  12. I'm curious about the bandwidth by kiehlster · · Score: 1

    I saw this early this morning, and of course it was before it showed up on the google blog. Just viewing the site, the numbers tick constantly and it makes me wonder how soon Companies are going to block the site thanks to high traffic from all these streaming numbers. Just leave it open with your huge portfolio and watch as the admins see these constant streams appearing.

    1. Re:I'm curious about the bandwidth by espiesp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few numbers vs. high resolution video...

      We're talking about two entirely different beasts.

    2. Re:I'm curious about the bandwidth by afidel · · Score: 1

      Streaming the entire ticker used to be done over a system more primitive than teletype, I imagine the bandwidth requirements for your person portfolio are minuscule.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  13. Screw Stock Quotes by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny
    Screw real time stock quotes, I want real time feeds to video cameras in the 50th floor offices of investment bankers when the US economy completely tanks.

    Bill: $50 says he jumps.
    Johnny: You're on !

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Screw Stock Quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather have the camera outside pointing down. This way I can watch them fall and splat.

    2. Re:Screw Stock Quotes by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Screw real time stock quotes, I want real time feeds to video cameras in the 50th floor offices of investment bankers when the US economy completely tanks.
       

      Bill: $50 says he jumps.

      Johnny: You're on !

      Except those people are spending at least $1,500 per terminal per month on Bloomberg, which provides a hell of a lot more financial information than Google ever will.
    3. Re:Screw Stock Quotes by Joebert · · Score: 1

      non sequitur

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  14. Google vs Bloomberg by TibbonZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As some of you may or may not know, Bloomberg provides huge amounts of financial data to investment banks/firms via "Bloomberg Terminals" that Bloomberg offers. These terminals are very expensive to the firms. Yet all they offer is information. Information is something that Google excels at. I've used these Bloomberg terminals and they aren't exactly technology that you'd think of as cutting edge for 2008. Data is often inaccurate and researching things on them is an art.

    I've wondered if Google might just enter the financial data market strongly. Google knows how to deal with large amount of data better than many places that are somewhat stuck in the past.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Google vs Bloomberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Bloomberg still has going for it at the moment over Google etc is that the infrastructure is designed not to go down. I remember sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal on Sep 11 because the internet was down (to many people clicking 'refresh').

    2. Re:Google vs Bloomberg by elem · · Score: 1
      What Bloomberg also has going for it is that everyone on it is contactable through their terminal - everyone has a Bloomberg e-mail address as it were.

      The reason why that's important is because brokers and traders are gossips, it's an information driven business so everyone talks to each other. A lot.

      Until Google gives them all ways to find each other (Bloomberg also has a directory to look everyone else up), as well as news feeds (don't forget that Bloomberg is also a financial news company), and does IPTV (Bloomberg streams video), you're not going to pry it out of the hands of anyone in the industry.

      Oh, and don't forget that a lot of pricing isn't shown on things like stock tickers, but on Bloomberg and Reuters pages full of bid/offer pairs for whatever that company is actively trading in. See, for example, BGC21 on BBG or Kobra.

    3. Re:Google vs Bloomberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Causal Bloomberg user (e.g. in a university library) may type "MSFT US Equity" in the text console like Bloomberg terminal and come up with the conclusion that Bloomberg does not offer much than the free alternatives... But it is not the point.

      Gaining data access is the more important aspect of the Bloomberg's business model. It is something Web2.0/AJAX/Semantic Web or whatever does not help because of the human factor. Many info are originated from over-the-counter trades. You will have to gain trust from the investment banks and they may think about releasing those info for you. It is also the de facto transaction platform in many sectors. You send quote around for the selected clients. People would confirm the trade by phone if interested. Some of its analytics are cutting edge.

      Maybe I am from the old EE school, I don't fuss about eye-candy. While line of source code can be an indication of bloatness rather than software complexity, I read that the code base of Bloomberg is in fact a few times larger than say Vista and Linux putting altogether.

    4. Re:Google vs Bloomberg by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg terminals are more than just dumb systems; they can also be used to send messages. They run on a secure proprietary network that has low-latency and high-reliability. The Bloombergs have also undergone many regulatory tests and comply with all sorts of government regs (Sarbanne-Oxley, etc.) Google, with its infinite betas, are not ready to compete in this space.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  15. Even better would be... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    It's good, but I'd rather have a system to stream the data to my HD in CSV format, or even historical tick data for all stocks. That would be tasty.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Even better would be... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Presumably you could write a little bot that scrapes the page (or uses their API if they provide one) every 30 seconds or so. It's not perfect but it should get the job done well enough.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Even better would be... by Bentov · · Score: 1

      Use Finance::Quote; ##I currently us yahoo ## Probably the closest you are going to find, it's easy to take that output and drop it into whatever database you want. Historical, current, company profiles. I don't really like google, but I would definitely like someway to get to that info easily at the end of the day. There are some companies that offer end of day data, and charge you by how soon after the market do you want the data, i.e. 8pm is cheaper than 6pm. But lets be realistic, if I'm at a point where intraday is necessary, my day job will have me sitting at a terminal that is directly connected. Anyone who thinks they need intraday through cnbc is kidding themselves.

    3. Re:Even better would be... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      But lets be realistic, if I'm at a point where intraday is necessary, my day job will have me sitting at a terminal that is directly connected. Anyone who thinks they need intraday through cnbc is kidding themselves.

      Not necessarily. An automated system of trading could make use of intraday data, and you wouldn't have to touch the PC once.

      Use Finance::Quote; ##I currently us yahoo ##

      I take it that's a C++ API for Yahoo Finance? The closest I found was opentick.com but they're currently upgrading their system so are down for new users atm.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  16. How will Google make money? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know how Google will make its money on this particular service. How? Are the data feeds on prices free and a middleman has always ripped us off all this time?

    1. Re:How will Google make money? by chromatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd like to know how Google will make its money on this particular service. How?

      How does Google make money at anything? They'll sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

    2. Re:How will Google make money? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Advertisements.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:How will Google make money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is FOSS, they don't need money.

    4. Re:How will Google make money? by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      How does Google make money at anything? They'll sell your eyeballs to advertisers. As long as they sell my eyeballs off to the side with no blinking or animation, that's fine by me.

  17. Not just Google. by LargeMythicalReptile · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not just Google that's doing this. CNBC and the Wall Street Journal also started providing free real-time quotes today. MSN Money has been doing this for a while.

    Granted, some of these require a subscription (MSN, WSJ)--a point noted by the submitter--but all of these services appear to be free-as-in-beer. I don't think a subscription is that big a deal; YMMV.

    From what I can tell, CNBC doesn't mention either a subscription or a daily/monthly limit; I admit I haven't looked at their service in detail though.

  18. Not new, just different by pinqkandi · · Score: 1

    Free real time quotes are not new. What is new is a major player doing it, and publicizing it well. I remember there was a good free real-time quotes (even live listings of trades) in the early 2000s. I believe it may have been stockquotes.com? (Now a parked domain). If I remember correctly, they simply ran out of funding.

    Anyway, glad to see a free real-time quotes provider that may stick around a while!

  19. Prediction systems by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the formula may be hugely complex, if such a formula exists, it's kinda self destroying, because the stock market exists in a way because there is no formula.

    That's the only part of the above posting that's true. There have been successful technical analysis systems over the years. The trouble is that once someone finds a working strategy for beating the market and uses it on a large scale, others notice and replicate it, and it becomes the market. There's also a failure mode where structured investment vehicles are constructed in such a way that they have a high probability of a continual small gain coupled with a small probability of a big loss, for a negative expectation overall. (See "Long Term Capital Management".)

    So much programmed trading activity is going on that it's most of the market now. That's why the number of transactions has become so high.

    1. Re:Prediction systems by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1
      The trouble is that once someone finds a working strategy for beating the market and uses it on a large scale, others notice and replicate it, and it becomes the market.

      The current example is, "investing in real estate".

    2. Re:Prediction systems by miraboo · · Score: 1

      There's also a failure mode where structured investment vehicles are constructed in such a way that they have a high probability of a continual small gain coupled with a small probability of a big loss, for a negative expectation overall. (See "Long Term Capital Management".) I don't believe this was true of LTCM. Their problem (to simplify horribly) was that short term volatility in leveraged positions exhausted their capital resources. In the long run they would have made money (if they had sufficiently large resources) and therefore each bet had positive expectation. In fact the institutions that bailed out LTCM made a small profit on the LTCM positions.
    3. Re:Prediction systems by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Any idea on the number of computerized transactions compared to the number of human transactions? Same question with computer cash traded compared to human cash traded.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  20. Maybe to some, not to me. by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The vast majority of investors should ignore the minute by minute blows of the market. At this time scale the market is literally a big roulette wheel. Virtually all day traders and every amateur who thinks they can reliably extract disproportionate gains out of the market long-term (i.e. more than they would by say, holding an appropriate mix of diversified indexes) are fooling themselves into making predictions on what essentially amounts to sheer randomness. Think I'm crazy? Do yourself a favor and read A Random Walk Down Wall Street and save yourself the decade it took me to figure out how the market works. You're welcome.

    1. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with the "truth about real-time quotes," but it often tells you a lot about how the market is reacting to news which can have some interesting implications.

      As to the other subscription services, i was surprised that the WSJ is starting to go to real-time quotes as well. The more the merrier-- greater transparency for all.

    2. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      do yourself a favor and read "a non random walk down wall street" and don't give up on a topic that has been the most misunderstood among timeseries predictions ever. Trading live for 3 years and making more than my day job(MSc comp science, top paying dev job). I am not alone. sorry for the formatting, on mobile.

    3. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by menace3society · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, if you want to maximize your profitability you can time your share purchase precisely. The best way to do this is to buy strong companies during a recession, but even once you take that into account, if you're buying 500 shares, saving 1 or 2 percent can be a big deal. Obviously that's not 1 or 2 percent you can plan on taking to the bank, but if you can get it for the lower price, you should.

    4. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Theoretically this makes sense, but practically speaking, its irrelevant. The reason is because buying begets buyers and selling begets sellers, destroying randomness and creating endless opportunities to buy undervalued and sell (or short) overvalued items. This is the case in movement over weeks, days, minutes, even seconds. You're welcome.

    5. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      Yeah but it's way more 'fun' to watch the ups and downs.... I mean if you've got nothing better to do than watch a line graph ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Your long term is not my long term. While stocks and the like are probably suited for daily and longer timeframes, there are many markets (including indexes based on stocks) that can be traded with decent statistical edges with a few hours of graphical info at a time. Granted, this is still above the ranges the article is talking about, but even that can come in useful and is generally nice to have: what if some disasterous news release comes in and you want to know whether to bail out or not? The market can go either way no matter what the news is.

      Also, there is a good number of brilliant traders on some exchanges who actually make very decent consistent winnings by having access to "book" information. Let's just say that amateurs and pros alike tend to be positioned ridiculously during the news, where you can benefit from the surges in price due to low liquidity. In that case, you need a tick-by-tick feed from the book, not just 15min updates.

      Dont stop at "A random walk..". Recently, "a non-random walk" was published by princeton university press, for free. Huge debate. Good luck.

    7. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is very VERY true. Speculation is, afterall, a zero-sum-game. You can only beat the average of the market to precisely the same degree that someone else underperforms the market. The only sure winners are the brokers collecting transaction-fees.

      Now -investment- is *not* a zero-sum game, over time most companies turn a profit (those who don't go bankrupt), and so buying random stock at random times and keeping it until you need the money will, on the average, give you precisely the same return as the market-average.

      The Random Walk book gives good advice, except I personally prefer just naked stocks instead of index-funds. For the fairly simple reason that index-funds have -low- costs (typically 0.2%/year or thereabouts) whereas holding random stock has -zero- overhead-cost pro year.

      4% pro year over 30 years give 324% (4% above inflation is a fair longterm guess for the stockmarket) 4.2% over the same period gives 344%. It's not a big deal though, either is sound advice.

      index funds make sense if you ain't got enough money to invest to get an acceptable diversity yourself. Personally I change from index-funds to raw stocks when I can afford to hold 10+ different stock in a market. (which means for example for OSE, you'd need on the order of $20K)

      Also in most funds, the fund-managers are technically the owners of the stock, and you own only a part of the fund. Which means, for example, that you don't get a vote on the general assembly. Instead the fund-managers get to vote -- even though it's YOUR money that bougth the stock.

    8. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      if you want to maximize your profitability you can time your share purchase precisely.

            Hahahahaha I have been day trading for years and I wish Joe Average a LOT of luck with "timing the purchase" based on some "Google real time info". You know that stock that dropped 8% today? Who says it's not going to drop another 8% tomorrow too? And the day after. I've seen stocks go from $18 to $6 within a week, and stay there for months. Stocks in billion dollar companies with healthy fundamentals and little debt. Example, look up COCO (NASDAQ) from last Christmas up until about a month ago.

            Never try to catch a falling knife, and never try to "time" the market. It has more money than you. The TREND is your friend. Learn that, and save yourself a couple thousand bucks.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by davemabe · · Score: 1

      Day traders who know what they're doing love this type of attitude.

      Yes, please, everyone read this book and continue believing it.

    10. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I forecast future demand you insensitive clod!

      And that requires looking at line graphs for many hours each day :(

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    11. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by HankB · · Score: 1

      There are also knowledgeable traders who really know what they're doing that make a lot of money off day traders and casual traders who think they do.

    12. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by smellotron · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with the "truth about real-time quotes," but it often tells you a lot about how the market is reacting to news which can have some interesting implications.

      ...and those interesting implications can't wait 20 minutes?

    13. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by smellotron · · Score: 1

      ...if you want to maximize your profitability you can time your share purchase precisely.

      You can predict the future? If so, more power to you, you will defeat the entire market. If not, then "timing your purchase" is a gamble. Who cares if you can predict the behavior within the next 20 seconds when you can't even see the behavior in the next 20 milliseconds?

    14. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Add Fooled by Randomness to that reading list. In one particular example, the author shows that a dentist looking at hour-by-hour market data sees mostly noise, wheres a dentist looking at quarterly reports sees very little noise.

    15. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Virtually all day traders and every amateur who thinks they can reliably extract disproportionate gains out of the market long-term (i.e. more than they would by say, holding an appropriate mix of diversified indexes) are fooling themselves into making predictions on what essentially amounts to sheer randomness.

      A "mix of diversified indexes" will get tend to net you single-digit returns overall. It is the *safe* way of investing, however. If the markets are up as a whole, you'll be up. The markets tend to go up so this strategy is generally safer.

      Return requires risk. If you can afford the risk, then don't diversify too much and instead roll the dice by investing big. This means committing beyond what a typical financial adviser says is safe. There is risk of course, but the payout is better. I'm not saying to pounce on every new startup. You still need to do the research to make sure the company is worthwhile, but once you find that rocket, take the risk.

      Your advice about minute by minute investing is true. However, it is a lot of fun to play the roulette wheel and you can get some payouts. But don't bet the mortgage on it. Use it as entertainment only.

    16. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I tend to think of stock markets like a game of poker: if you don't know who the weak player at the table is, that's because it's you.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    17. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
      You are actually being generous when you say that speculation is a zero-sum game. Because of trading costs, there's a natural "load" built in. Sort of like going to a casino - the more bets you make, the greater the impact of the load. If you MUST bet at a casino, your best bet mathematically would be to place one bet with the best expected payout (within your risk tolerance), and you'll lose the least amount of money.

      Commissions will eat up a day trader.

      Other than that, your post is right on target. Buy a handful of well-researched stocks (I like to hold about 40 across various market segmets (caps), industries and geographies). You don't get the mutual fund load. The 0.2% gain may be offset by losses due to lack of day-to-day research, but I am quite OK with that.

      I also like to review, on a monthly basis, any stocks that I've owned for 10-12 months. If I show a loss, and can find a suitable substitute for the stock (or if I've lost the passion for the stock), I'll sell it and take the short term loss, offsetting my income (instead of falling into the "greater than 12 months" capital gains offset. So your losses are worth more on day 364 than they are on day 367.

      The upward bias of the stock market makes gambling fun! In a sense, you "are the house" in the transaction, unless you do it wrong!

    18. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons why having an index fund makes more sense than buying the underlying stocks themselves--and in fact, buying index funds will save most investors money. First, index funds provide much better diversification of risk--for instance, they can buy all the stocks making up the SP500, which you cannot. Second, they rebalance their portfolios to track the index. If you did this yourself, you would get hit by transaction fees and realize capital gain. Lastly, buying an index fund reduces the temptation of chasing individual stocks, which is immense if you are buying naked stocks.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    19. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking he was just talking about things like how people react in real time to a presentation being given. A bad point is brought up and the stock starts dropping. Then the bad point is put into context with something like "but this downturn has provided us the opportunity to improve..." and suddenly the stock shoots up. And then repeat over and over. It's interesting to see how bi-polar investors behave.

      From an investment point of view, this could be helpful, because it could help you better gauge what sort of things appear to be most important to the market and help you make future decisions.

    20. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by menace3society · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about day trading, I'm talking about buying for long-term. Just because something is a long-term purchase doesn't mean you don't want to try to get a better price for it. If I bought a stock that I thought was a good purchase at $18 I wouldn't regret that purchase just because it went down to $8 and stayed there a while; I would, however, be somewhat annoyed that I could have bought a lot more had I waited.

      The US is in a recession. Generally, that means stock prices are going down. That means that it's a good time to buy, even if all the day traders are losing their shirts. 1999, when the market was strong and everybody was happy, was a lousy time to buy stocks.

      Put it this way: Warren Buffet is richer than you. Warren Buffet does it this way. Case closed.

    21. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NORSK!

    22. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Just because something is a long-term purchase doesn't mean you don't want to try to get a better price for it.

            You don't need real time streaming data for that. This is where you sort of missed the point of the argument. If you're waiting for a second by second "price" you are now "day trading". Why? Because you'll regret it the second you buy and the price drops 5 or 10 cents, and you'll be tempted to do something silly. I know I was, at the beginning. It cost me a lot of money.

            If you're "investing" then once you've decided on the company, close your eyes, buy it at whatever price and enjoy the ride. No real time streaming data needed.

            Warren Buffet may be richer than me, but I consistently make around 15-25% on my money every MONTH. I sleep very well with that ROI. And you're not Mr. Buffet therefore I will argue that perhaps it's not as easy as all that. Otherwise we'd all be multi-billionaires just by imitating him, right?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, any no-load market index fund which indexes the same (or similar) funds, and carries a maintenance ratio below 0.2%, is, in your opinion, just as good?

      Well, how about VTSMX (or it's ETF, VTI), and FSTMX? Assuming you choose a brokerage that offers commission-free trades on those funds (Fidelity for the latter, I really don't know who goes commission free for the Vanguard securities). They run 0.19% and 0.10%, respectively.

      What you're saying is that anyone who doesn't want to rebalance their entire portfolio on a monthly basis is better served by offerings in the same class as those I mentioned above. I would have to agree.

      I do see the benefit in rebalancing monthly, but how is that any different than the commission death of the day-trader, albeit amortized over a greater time period? I do also see the benefit in holding, well... your own holdings, in terms of special requirements (i.e., socially-responsible investing, inclusion in a foreign retirement account like a Canadian RRSP, etc.), and also the benefit of being able to conduct your own vote on shareholder initiatives.

      Real-time quotes may be nice for timing market entry, when extending your long positions, e.g. if you're an steady, monthly index investor, you may pick the most opportune day-of-week/time-of-day and pick up a few basis-points worth of value. Maybe this is a reason for choosing ETFs instead of traditional funds, since quotes could stream from the exchange directly. Of course, whether you're in a couple of funds, or holding dozens of long stock positions, once you've opened up an online brokerage account, your streaming quotes are essentially free (or super cheap) anyway.

      At least mine are.

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    24. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
      No, really not saying that at all. Not that I disagree with you, but that wasn't what I was saying.

      I didn't suggest rebalancing monthly. I said review each month looking for stocks that are short term losers, particularly those that are just under one year old (since the deduction for short term losses is currently much greater than the deduction for long term losses). This is merely taking advantage of the tax laws.

      Generally, though, I am a net buyer of stocks, as one probably should be (very generally speaking) during their working years. So my inflows into the market will vastly exceed my withdrawals, over a 50 year period - my working years. In this case, "rebalancing" can simply be done by aiming your NEW investments, not selling your current investments.

      Therefore, this almost totally removes the drag that comes with stock turnover. So it's not the same as the commission death of the day trader. Generally, you have one "buy" during your working years, and one "sell" as you approach retirement, for a particular stock. And you get the benefit of the vote.

      But different strategies suit different people.

      A similar strategy would take advantage of the Direct Stock Purchase programs that many companies offer. While you cannot control the timing of your purchases down to the minute, these generally have very low commissions. And you can set up automatic purchases, so that you continue to invest in the same company. Pick a handful of good companies that you feel that you could own for fifty years, and put it on auto-pilot.

    25. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Eivind · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like with driving -- surveys show that aproximately 80% of all motorists consider themselves "above average" drivers.

      The same thing applies to daytraders, only more so, *ALL* of them believe they are better than the average speculator. (If they didn't believe this, there would be no reason to DO daytrading!)

      There is one more effect that makes it even worse; It is -known- that some people are cheating. I.e. some people trade because they really genuinely do have information that the market at large does not. They know the quarterly numbers a few days before the rest or whatever.

      These will -really- do better than average. It follows mathemathically that the sum of non-cheating-traders will underperform the market. A bit like playing a game of dice with 20 people where you know that one of them is cheating, but have no way of telling which one it is. Unless you're the cheating one, the only sensible choice is not to play that game. The average effect of playing over time is afterall that all the non-cheaters get sligthly poorer, and the cheater get sligthly richer.

    26. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Eivind · · Score: 1

      How will a fund that takes 0.2% or so in yearly fees save money over a solution that typically costs -zero- or at worst a low commision on every rare trade ?

      Buying a single stock-post on OSE costs $2 in comissions in general, though it's not hard to find opportunities to get this for free, and the same on sale, so you're out $4. Average value of a stock-post is $2K, so the fees add up to 0.2% if you buy the smallest unit possible, and hold each stock for an average of 1 year. If you hold it longer, or buy larger quantities, or take advantage of one of the free-comission-offerings its even less.

      Paying 0.2% for owning a stock for a decade beats paying 0.2% EVERY year for owning the same stock.

      You are right that index-funds can diversify more than you can. But the expected deviation between 30-random-stocks-from-SP500 and all-stocks-from-SP500 over a long timeframe is essentially zero. (and can equally likely go in your favour and disfavour)

      I do however agree with you that naked stocks are more dangerous for people who don't consider themselves immune to speculation. Me, I buy when I have money and sell when I -need- money, completely without even looking at market-conditions. I do however systematically sell the lowest-performing-stock when I do need money. As you point out, tax-rules makes this a gain, since you get (in effect) a interest-free loan on the tax on your gains as long as you don't realize them.

    27. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Sure I was generous. In reality speculation is a negative-sum game. The trades as such are zero-sum, but there are externalities:

      • trading-costs mean that, on the average, the harder you try, the more you lose.
      • there's a significant opportunity cost with using TIME for trading. Most people could use the same time for something with positive expectation (like working an hour longer)
      • There are cheaters in the trading-game. If you aren't one of them, you're financing their profit. (how many they are and how significant this effect is can be debated, but it's certainly not zero)
      • tax-rules mean that not only do you sligthly-underperform the market on the average, you also realize gains all the time, which means you lose out on the free tax-credit that longterm unrealized gain represents. (this disadvantage goes away if you incorporate and trade trough the corporation, but if you do it's pretty unlikely you use slashdot for advice.)


      There's no loss to not performing "day-to-day research", like we just agreed, that research and the trades that result from it is a negative-sum-game. Not playing a negative-sum-game makes you, on the average, richer.

      Comparing it to being the house in gambling is apt. That's precisely it. It -is- a random walk, but the average long-term direction is upwards.

      The only adjustment you can make that really honestly makes a difference is adjusting risk. Taking higher risk, on the average, lets you get somewhat higher expected payoff. And besides this, if you're the gambling-type you may consider 0.1% chance of 10000% gain *preferable* to 100% chance of 10% gain.

      You can also do your part to push the world in a direction you desire. This gives you no expected change in return, so is irrelevant in financial terms. But most of us care about more than just money. So you can choose to NOT buy arms-dealers and tobacco-farms and buy hydro-power and furniture instead, so to say. This -does- sligthly increase risk, but this can be counterbalanced by reducing OTHER risks you have.

      For example, if you consume electricity and higher power-prices are thus a risk to you, you can reduce this risk by investing in aforementioned hydropower. If you invest the "correct" amount you reach a point where changes in electricity-prices make no difference to you -- your risk is reduced.

      The silliest reason I have some hydropower ? It reduces the mental risk of rain. Really truly. It -does- blunt the impact of last summer having consisted of literally 2/3rds rainy days to see http://uk.ichart.yahoo.com/z?s=AFK.OL&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=l&p=s&a=v&p=s no ? "Sure it's been raining all summer honey -- how do you feel about 2 weeks in the pacific in november?"

      I freely admit to being extremely silly.

    28. Re:Maybe to some, not to me. by menace3society · · Score: 1

      I just have no capital to invest. It takes money to make money!

  21. Barrons.com Free Real-time Quotes by Skizzo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Coincidentally, Barrons.com announced free real-time quotes today too http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121237840349237093.html

    1. Re:Barrons.com Free Real-time Quotes by rfunches · · Score: 1

      Barrons is a WSJ property, which was one of the companies involved in the agreement. No coincidence there.

  22. Yawn...free real time at eTrade since 1996 by BrianCarlstrom · · Score: 4, Informative

    eTrade has had free real time quotes with a free account for over a decade. For those that really want/need this information, it was not hard to get.

    It is good if you can avoid an account, even a free one, to get this information now, but this seems a little over hyped to be on /.

    1. Re:Yawn...free real time at eTrade since 1996 by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't want to leave my machine logged into my account at work all day. I could go off to lunch and forget to lock it down. Somebody could then come along and steal all of my information/money.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Yawn...free real time at eTrade since 1996 by BrianCarlstrom · · Score: 1

      I had the free account for real-time quotes since before I was actually had an account with any equities in it. When I actually was forced to get an eTrade account for my employers stock plans, I kept it a separate account.

    3. Re:Yawn...free real time at eTrade since 1996 by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Do they have historical tick data, and do they allow one to stream live data to one's HD in CSV format?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Yawn...free real time at eTrade since 1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly have some historical data. I have to admit I don't use it anymore, pretty much used it to watch .com bubble IPOs. I'm sure Google's stuff will be a lot more flexible, eTrade was just meant to be viewed as HTML. I did know people who scraped it for their own little desktop display widgets.

  23. Exchange Rate Feeds? by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

    I'll use this opportunity to ask if anybody has a good source for daily exchange rates. I'm building an open source app (geek cred?) that needs to pull daily exchange rates. I have only found a tab delimited file from the International Monetary Fund so far. That works okay, but does anybody know of other/better APIs/feeds for exchange rates?

    --
    Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    1. Re:Exchange Rate Feeds? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Currency source offers the IMF data as a series of RSS feeds: link

      You could also write a screen scraper for yahoo finance like this post explains how to do from google spreadsheet.

      Ultimately you are best off writing a spec and an interface like the xmltv people did, sources of free data come and go, especially those which are abused through automation, but if you have a good framework people who want the information will find a way. I personally choose to pay for my tv data today because it's easier than hassling with a screen scaper that breaks every few weeks/months, but I still use the xmltv format, so a good framework doesn't have to just support leechers from free data sources =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Exchange Rate Feeds? by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

      Why, thanks. The currency source feeds look usable.

      If at all possible I don't want to bother with screenscraping, I'd rather use a bunch of different freely available feeds. I was planning on building in a few different sources that I can fallback onto if necessary. As this is my first such application: How bad is it, how often can I expect a source to go south?

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    3. Re:Exchange Rate Feeds? by afidel · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, the big ones for tv data seem to either go down or revamp their site to defeat scrapers every 6 months or so. For financial data like that I have no clue. Since the IMF provides the data for free the websites costs shouldn't be too much, but you will probably still want to randomize the download time and use a normal agent string to keep your traffic kind of below the radar. Since it's not too much data and you probably won't have millions of people using the app the websites probably won't notice and it mostly be site redesigns and sites folding that will make them unavailable.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Exchange Rate Feeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want realtime FX rates? Try dailyfx.com or oanda.com, Hope you know what you're letting yourself in for.

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. Yahoo users - don't be fooled by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yahoo users - don't be fooled by simple "Web 2.0", and "AJAX" magic. It's just a bunch of javascripts refreshing your browswer... on a time delay.

    On occasion, I have seen quotes for FDRXX (money market fund) report 123,000%+ on finance.yahoo.com, so you still have to think once in a while, as wonderful as the Internet is, it is not perfect.

    And to be a bit off-topic and rambling, it will not be technical hurdles that "kill" the Internet, it will be lawyers and legislators, mark my words.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Yahoo users - don't be fooled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I just did it - in FireFox 2.0.0.14 (Win XP), I went to http://finance.yahoo.com/ and typed fdrxx into the "get quotes" box and got 2.56% for a second, then it magically updated to 122,816.10% Wow! where do I invest!

    2. Re:Yahoo users - don't be fooled by thealsir · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought. "Realtime" my ass. You're just getting the 20-minute delayed quotes updated every second. Of course, actual realtime quotes are available for a fee. GOOG may be on to something here...dunno how they got around it legally...I believe YHOO had to back down because of some NASD rule, but I may be mistaken.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
  26. Not Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to produce infosystems for traders and equities researchers/promoters on Wall Street (and in Toronto) during the 1990s Bubble. When those brokers say "realtime", they are talking about delays that are under 1 second. They're talking about WANs, LANs and apps at both client and server that have next to no latency. Because for their hottest traders, the software that makes them $billions a day, any edge in faster info means beating the competition.

    The time to hit a Google page of "realtime" quotes is going to be at least a couple seconds, to say nothing of how long Google takes to get them from the market infosystems (which could be under 1s, because Google is rich and smart). That's not the realtime that real brokers pay for. It's better than 15-minute delayed quotes, which is what you usually get for free. But let's not call something realtime that isn't, even if it's free. That's the kind of BS that made the 1990s Bubble such a catastrophe, despite the best infosystems to deliver it that money could buy.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Not Realtime by wass · · Score: 1

      But let's not call something realtime that isn't, even if it's free.

      Tell me about it. I'm still miffed that my "realtime" quotes suffer latency due to the finite speed of light.

      --

      make world, not war

    2. Re:Not Realtime by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Well, in the world of computing the phrase 'real time' doesn't mean what you think.

      It means that the operations take a predictable - and usually constant - amount of time, and usually before the next event trigger.

      In the case of a market data feed you'd want the trade to be published in X milliseconds - and always before the next trade occurs (on the same instrument), in this way the data is following the market in 'real time' (i.e. although your view of the market is delayed, the events occur at the correct intervals in the correct order)

      You can't sense *anything* in your definition of 'real time' - light, sound, electricity, etc take time to travel. Everything you experience has already occurred. The sunlight on your face took 8 1/2 minutes to get there. Then it took a few milliseconds for you to sense it.

    3. Re:Not Realtime by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Another thing to add is proper streaming quotes show every single up and down tick against the symbol. There could be dozens every second. Google probably conflates the data so even if it did deliver a quote every second, it would be an amalgamation of the all those little trades. Chances are it's not going to be a quote a second either unless they intend to maintain an open http pipeline for every browser and push the data down. Maintaining tens of millions of open sockets could be... problematic. So maybe they'll poll in which case the chances are that realtime means 60 second updates or similar unless the user hits a refresh button.

      Still better than it was though and perfectly fine for most regular people. If I were a broker I would pissed at Nasdaq who charge a small fortune (which they must pass on to their customers) to get realtime quotes. If Nasdaq are allowing basic realtime quote data to Google, they're going to have to offer it to brokerages on similar terms. It would be good news for brokers and customers since they can cut their commissions.

      The next thing is when will Google start offering commission free or extremely cheap trades. I can see it happening. It's a very scary thought actually.

    4. Re:Not Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's why everyone in finance struggles (and pays through the nose) to have offices in Midtown and the Financial District, because that's where the deals are made that are carried on light as info about the deals for the next guy to trade on. Since the deals being traded on exclude from the derivative trades the parties to the deal (at least until after their inside info is published), as they're insider traders, everyone's got some delay that's greater than the speed of light.

      Which isn't just a smartass reply, just an exaggeration. Manhattan infosystems connected to NASDAQ and other markets can indeed have a speed advantage over more distant traders who get it over a WAN. No one is getting info faster than a few milliseconds delay, as it pumps through all the wires and fibers of their networks and computers. But what counts is the difference in time delay, not whether there's a delay. Google's Web "realtime" quotes will get beat to crap every time by a Midtown infosystem.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Not Realtime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Moderation +3
          60% Interesting
          20% Troll
          20% Insightful

      TrollMods don't want to get the truth fast. They want to believe the 1990s Bubble was the Rapture, and this is heaven.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Not Realtime by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you think that realtime computing has any relevance here? What google is talking about is clearly NOT realtime computing. They can't provide that until they own your computer, the OS on it, and the link between them and you.

      They're talking about realtime trading here, but as Doc Ruby points out, they're not _really_ doing that either. What they're doing is the same as all consumer-grade online trading services who promise "realtime quotes": They're presenting data directly to the end-user without deliberately introducing a delay (typically 20 minutes) in the feed. They're giving you the info as fast as they can present it. Not realtime, but not "quotes are delayed by at least 20 minutes."

      Not realtime computing. not exactly realtime quotes either, but closer.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    7. Re:Not Realtime by brkello · · Score: 1

      A second or two is real time for a human. Unless you have a computer that executes buy/sell scripts based on a quote, it isn't going to make any difference.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    8. Re:Not Realtime by imess · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should just call it Live Quotes

    9. Re:Not Realtime by smellotron · · Score: 1

      When talking about web page load-times, it's not uncommon to measure things in hundreds of milliseconds. Two seconds is a long time for a simple page to load, and it is very noticable.

      Not that it matters, though. Professional human click-traders will still have time to act before Google's data hits any clients over the internet; and even the very fastest pros are still slower than robots.

  27. Level II by shawn.fox · · Score: 1

    What good is a real time quote without the ability to click on the quote and make a trade? Anyone that cares about real time stock quotes already has a brokerage account that gives this to them free anyway. Most brokerages do charge for level II quotes though.

    Now when Google gives me free stock trades and free real time quotes they will have my business! Not sure how they will make money off of it though.

  28. Call me when they provide ... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    ... a real time price data feed.

    No offense Google, but I've had free real time quotes for years. Give me a stream of prices and I might sit up and notice. Having to continuously request the latest price is dumb, let me subscribe to the latest price and then provide me a continuously updating stream. Hell, I'd pay a reasonable fee ($1.00/day/symbol for DJIA constituents) for that service - as long as I don't have to pay the prices Reuters, Bloomberg, or the others charge (not to mention having to code to their idiotic API's.!

  29. I don't think real-time feed == real-time market by stypica · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the whole point of the delay was so that we don't reproduce the crash that happened in what? '87? Which was exacerbated by real time software being triggered to sell in a downward spiral after the stock market had dropped a certain amount.

    I need to confirm that, but is that only the rule for NYSE, or US exchanges as a whole?

  30. How would they open a window? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't the windows sealed after a certain level? I mean how would they even open a window to jump in the first place? And the glass is pretty tough as well so breaking it wouldn't be too easy.

    1. Re:How would they open a window? by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aren't the windows sealed after a certain level? I mean how would they even open a window to jump in the first place? And the glass is pretty tough as well so breaking it wouldn't be too easy.

      I laughed for two days when the dog I adopted from the shelter ran fullspeed into the fullsize window next to the sliding glass door on our way out.

      The stock quotes could be win or lose, but a video feed will always be entertaining.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:How would they open a window? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On 9/11 people in the WTC tossed monitors through windows and jumped after them. Who knows.

    3. Re:How would they open a window? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "I mean how would they even open a window to jump in the first place?"

      Airplane?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:How would they open a window? by shacker2762 · · Score: 1

      Aren't the windows sealed after a certain level? I mean how would they even open a window to jump in the first place? And the glass is pretty tough as well so breaking it wouldn't be too easy. It's not extraordinarily difficult to gain access to the roof. Once one has reached THAT level of desperation, an alarm going off isn't going to stop them from opening the door.
  31. Ctrl-r by MushMouth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just because they stop streaming after 25 minutes doesn't mean they aren't providing free real-time quotes. Because if you look at the top of a quote page during trading hours you get the realtime quote. Its been that way for at least a month. So the bit about google being the first free real-time quote is standard google fan boi on slashdot. As there have been FREE real-time quotes available for years (not just talking about yahoo, although they provided them years ago but were forced to discontinue them a few years ago

    )

    1. Re:Ctrl-r by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just because they stop streaming after 25 minutes doesn't mean they aren't providing free real-time quotes.

      Guess you missed the end part where Yahoo said:

      Quote data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, 20 minutes for NYSE and Amex. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service.

      ...that doesn't strike me as free and real-time.

      not just talking about yahoo, although they provided them years ago but were forced to discontinue them a few years ago.

      "Forced" by whom, and how?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    2. Re:Ctrl-r by protohiro1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are wrong. It is free, it is real time: "Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise." During trading hours most quotes are real time. Press release: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=26853

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    3. Re:Ctrl-r by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you reading the bottom of the same http://finance.yahoo.com/ page that the rest of us get?

      They state clearly, once again, at the bottom of said page:

      Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Hemscott Americas. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quote data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, 20 minutes for NYSE and Amex. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service.

      Unless you think they're yanking our chain, that's the disclaimer as of 3 minutes ago. Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? In addition, according to the page you gave us on the Yahoo quotes:

      The data comes via a deal with BATS Trading, an independent exchange. While its information doesn't exactly dovetail with the quotes other bigger exchanges would provide for individual stocks, BATS is said to be pretty close.

      Pretty close? Good way to lose your shirt....

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    4. Re:Ctrl-r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      http://ycorpblog.com/2008/05/28/real-time-stock-quotes-on-the-house/

    5. Re:Ctrl-r by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Just because they stop streaming after 25 minutes doesn't mean they aren't providing free real-time quotes.

      Guess you missed the end part where Yahoo said:

      Quote data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, 20 minutes for NYSE and Amex. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service.

      ...and I guess you missed the part up at the top where Yahoo said:

      For consolidated real-time quotes (incl. pre/post market data), sign up for a free trial of Real-time Quotes.
  32. holy cow by unity100 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    what turdface mod labeled this 'Offtopic' ?

    1. Re:holy cow by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1, Funny

      What dumbfuck mod labelled this "Troll"?

    2. Re:holy cow by Starburnt · · Score: 1, Funny

      What dicksmoker didn't mod this at all?

    3. Re:holy cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that may have been you...

  33. To late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um...
    1. Become a TradeStation customer
    2. Learn EasyLanguage
    3. Do what you said

    Or, look up "Quant." A lot of people use automated trading.

  34. Free Realtime streaming quotes by 2ndRateSoul · · Score: 1

    For the curious, we just released the 9.0.1 version of our windows based portfolio manager/charting/trading platform app called Personal Stock Streamer, which now provides free streaming realtime quotes to non-professionals for up to 600 tickers when used with supported brokerage accounts.

  35. from reuters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nasdaq arrangements will begin as a six-month pilot project, while Nasdaq waits for definitive approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to sell market data to the sites for a fee. It hopes to get the approval within a year. The move comes at a time when the major exchanges are trying to squeeze as much revenue as possible from market data, which now makes up a larger share of revenue than equities trading. At Nasdaq, market data generates 20 percent of revenue, while at the NYSE, the figure is 14 percent. Nasdaq says the exchange's high trading volumes make its data more accurate, allowing it to charge a fee for a service that BATS is providing free to Yahoo. Nasdaq handles about four times the equity trading volumes that BATS does. A NYSE spokesman declined to say whether the exchange had similar projects in the pipeline. The project will generate only modest revenues, said Adena Friedman, an executive vice president at Nasdaq OMX. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN0227850020080603

  36. I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that it is done on a regular basis by a lot of people. Technical analysis is basically the field of automated stock trading techniques. Granted, many technical traders don't have a program do the buying and selling, but many do.

    Unless you meant that it can't be done in a way that guarantees a profit ... in which case you are still wrong. Arbitrage trades exist in many markets, but you'd better make sure you have the lowest latency connection to the exchange.

    For the most part, market makers have to be daft to not make money. And there are computerized market makers.

    1. Re:I beg to differ by Fross · · Score: 1

      It is a very common occurence already, especially on the short term market. Simple scripts set to buy and sell when the spread hits certain levels. If you watch the order book for any major stock, you can see these. Rapidly-injected identical small sequential orders.

  37. I'm a long-term investor by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Tell me what the prices will be in 10-20 years.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:I'm a long-term investor by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      That's easy. In 20 more years, the prices will be in Euros.

  38. Re:I don't think real-time feed == real-time marke by stypica · · Score: 2, Interesting

    hate to reply to my own post - after digging through 570,000 ads for ticker software (what the hell?) I find that I was misinformed.

    The NYSE has "breakers" in place that close the markets after certain percentage drops so that auto-trading won't continue the downward spiral.

    external link to definition of "Rule 80b"

  39. Please fix the typo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they have long encumbered with ... probably should be "they have long been encumbered with ..."

    Thanks.

  40. Opentick.com by Doorjam · · Score: 1

    Opentick.com is a free quote datafeed that provides unlimited realtime streaming quotes for a variety of 3rd party software interfaces (some free as well) and only charges exchange fees, i.e. nyse is $1 (which gets paid to the exchange.)

  41. Great! Now how's about Forex? by delirium28 · · Score: 1
    This is definitely excellent news for most traders, but I trade on the forex (Foreign Exchange) market. Now my broker has his/her own live feed and you often have to worry about the pip-spread between brokers and such, but if you just want to make a nice stand-alone web-base trading information tool (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) then you quickly find that feeds get pricey pretty quick for a good quality one. I'd love to see something similar come out for the forex market.

    One of the problems of course is the fact that there isn't a single body like the SEC (well, the IMF is I suppose) like there is for the NASDAQ and the like, so Google might have a harder time of it.

    --
    Who is John Galt?
  42. Don't be A Speculator. Be An Investor. by saudadelinux · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of investors should ignore the minute by minute blows of the market. At this time scale the market is literally a big roulette wheel. Virtually all day traders and every amateur who thinks they can reliably extract disproportionate gains out of the market long-term (i.e. more than they would by say, holding an appropriate mix of diversified indexes) are fooling themselves into making predictions on what essentially amounts to sheer randomness. Think I'm crazy? Do yourself a favor and read A Random Walk Down Wall Street and save yourself the decade it took me to figure out how the market works. You're welcome. Amen. I'm reading the original version of Graham's The Intelligent Investor . It teaches the mindset of the value investor - defensive or aggressive, and leaves no room in the mind for bootless, wild speculation. Graham taught Warren Buffett himself, and he hasn't done badly ;-) I only have a tiny bit of money directly on the stock market, because I'm spending a year or so building up a six-month rainy-day fund before seriously beginning to invest for the long haul. During that time, I'll be learning the basics of various methods of analysis, picking stocks, mutual funds, index funds, etc. This won't absolutely prevent me from making mistakes - anyone can and probably will goof up on the market - but it'll help avoid some mistakes.
    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  43. For the mathematically unenlightened... by arnoldo.j.nunez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... what sort of mathematical tools do researchers use to create the models that help people thrive? What sort of undergraduate math courses should I take in order to better understand the algorithms involved? To give a technical analogy... in high school, I was on a robotics team. I programmed the robot to respond to joysticks that told it how to accelerate. Of course, mechanical aberrations, among other things, caused the system not to function properly. So I learned about a process called PID feedback control. Basically, without it, acceleration would be jerky and the robot would be difficult to maneuver. However, with it, smoother, finer-grain control was granted to the operator. In a sense, it threw out outliers over time. Is this the essence of the stock market models? or is there something deeper? Either way, please let me know your thoughts.

    1. Re:For the mathematically unenlightened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the beautiful things (to me anyway) about the financial markets is that you never know what tools may be used to model the markets in a more efficient way.

      To get started, Google "Fixed Income Mathematics." Or "option pricing" to get an idea as to what is involved.

      Currently I am working on using linear programming to increase the efficiency of our trading.

      To comment on your example... you NEVER throw out the outliers in finance, they are what tend to make or lose you a whole ton of money at once, often negating any previous gains or losses. There is a whole book about this- "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb.

  44. Bzzt wrong by MushMouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    During trading hours the part that of their quote page that currently says "after hours" says "real-time" which is "indicating otherwise" when it comes to the disclaimer on the bottom.

    But continue to be uninformed all you want.

    1. Re:Bzzt wrong by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      During trading hours the part that of their quote page that currently says "after hours" says "real-time" which is "indicating otherwise" when it comes to the disclaimer on the bottom.

      Well, it's trading time, the markets close in about 4 hours, and let's check the same place. Better yet, let's pull up a quote for Dell.... Gee, what's Yahoo say right under the quote?

      Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise. For consolidated real-time quotes (incl. pre/post market data), sign up for a free trial of Real-time Quotes.

      How about the bottom of the page?

      Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service.

      Hmmmmm.... Thought you said that didn't happen during trading hours...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    2. Re:Bzzt wrong by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      DELL INC(NasdaqGS: DELL)
      NEW Real-time: 23.56 0.77(3.38%) 11:41am ET

    3. Re:Bzzt wrong by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      You are still wrong...this is getting embarrassing. Yahoo offers free, real time quotes. This is a fact. I am looking at them right now. You can continue to believe that they don't, but that will make you a fool.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    4. Re:Bzzt wrong by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected on the real-time! Just double-checked, and thanks for the input!

      Glad to admit I was wrong... Jus' wish they'd update the REST of their page.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    5. Re:Bzzt wrong by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      It seems you have a problem understanding the first clause of the disclaimer; "Unless otherwise indicated". My guess is that they only have free realtime quotes for certain markets (NASDAQ and NYSE are the only ones I've seen), which happens to be more than google is currently offering (They do not give real time quotes for NYSE). If you want real time streaming quotes for a stock that is on the Stockholm exchange from yahoo, you probably have to pay. Which happens to be consistent with the copy on the page. They "indicate" the Real Timeliness of the quote with the label "Real Time:".

  45. FIRST POST!!!! by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny
    First post!!!

    All post data delayed 15 minutes for Slashdot. Sigs are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity.

    1. Re:FIRST POST!!!! by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      Dude, how can your first post be a reply to someone?
       
      ...and who's making that whoooshing sound over my head?

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    2. Re:FIRST POST!!!! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hey, flyingsquid, you seem like a smart guy. Do you want to buy some Northern Rock shares? I'll sell them to you really cheap!

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  46. Easy version by rubies · · Score: 1

    Buy low.
    Sell high.

    That's all you have to do!

    1. Re:Easy version by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Buy low.
      Sell high.

      That's all you have to do!


      Of course there are those of us that prefer to sell high and buy low... but I guess you can't help your preference...:P
      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Easy version by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The old truism - sometimes the bulls make money, sometimes the bears make money, but the pigs - they never make any money. I still sleep better with buy low, sell high - at least my loss is limited if I end up in the hospital and can't close out a losing position.

    3. Re:Easy version by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      unless of course you also hold call options to limit your loss...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  47. is it insider trading to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... invest based on clickthrough streams? ie, if there's a marked increase in the number of people checking out a particular stock - it's not unreasonable to assume that they're thinking of buying.

    or selling i guess - but you should be able to guess what they're going to do based on the trend for the stock.

    1. Re:is it insider trading to... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      it's not unreasonable to assume that they're thinking of buying.

            Oh please please please trade. Then when I have taken your money I will have shown you just how far "assumptions" will get you on the market floor.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  48. Pfft by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    Disappointing. This is after all Google (Motto: Our Office Plants Are Smarter Than You Not That We Have Office Plants Because Well You Wouldn't Understand Why Not) so I would have expected at the very least 15-minutes undelay into the future.

    You just know they have that tech but they won't share it because, well for reasons that take tensor calculus to explain.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Pfft by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Funniest thing I've read on /. in ages! I haven't seen humourous truisms packed that densely for FAR too long.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  49. Not the real value prop. by lantastik · · Score: 1

    Real time bid/ask would be so much more tantalizing. I could cut my brokerage fees in half if Yahoo or Google would offer real time bid/ask.

  50. Can't download stock index histories by iliketrash · · Score: 1

    I notice that while you can download the complete (daily or weekly) history of companies' stocks to a CSV file, that option is not available for indices such as NASDAQ and Dow Jones Industrials. That kind of shodiness reminds me of, well, Yahoo.

  51. More gambling opportunities by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Yay! More gambling opportunities right here, next to your child's bedroom.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  52. Real-Time is an illusion by hughk · · Score: 1

    I have worked at several exchanges. Prices go out in what is usually known as the broadcast feed.

    The normal method is that when bid and offers come in, they are added to the order book. If this changes the best bid or offer on a product then this is added to the feed. When a deal matches, you get an execution price and that is also added to a feed. In addition, depending on the product and the time interval, you will get something called market depth, i.e., best 5 (or whatever) bid and asks.

    This is a lot of data but it is buffered. Usually the system will wait until the buffer is full before dispatching the data, or until the holdback timer expires (usually around a second or so). If you look at something qith high liquidity, you can be more or less guaranteed that the best bid or offer (top of the book) has already gone and you must look deeper.

    The thing is that often the price you see is not the most recent price. Even if you are paying $$$$$ for proximity services (you pay to be on the same LAN as the exchange, which is what the Algorithmic traders do).

    When you are outside you need to use depth information as well as current best bid and offer and price history to predict where the price is going to be by the time that your order reaches the market.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  53. blaming lawyers and legislators by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    it will not be technical hurdles that "kill" the Internet, it will be lawyers and legislators, mark my words I know it is habitual Slashdottery to blame lawyers and legislators, but these are just... people, just you and I and our neighbours.

    A people, a culture (yes, I will use the word) must want freedom. If people are too lazy to want freedom, if they will not defend their rights when their rights are threatened (or removed in PLAIN SIGHT) by dictators, "corporate citizens" and other interested parties, then they don't deserve their constitution... and they deserve the consequences.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:blaming lawyers and legislators by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      I know it is habitual Slashdottery to blame lawyers and legislators, but these are just... people, just you and I and our neighbours. I can only assume that you are unaware that most legislators are politicians.
      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  54. Note to all women, dont date lawyers by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Stop; them from breeding, and make them the "new nerds" that wont get any dates or action.

    Nerds are honest, lawyers are not and become politicos

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Note to all women, dont date lawyers by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Nerd $
      Prostitute $$
      Lawyer $$$
      Politician $$$$$

      Now looking purely at the "ability to provide for childern" motive, why on earth would a woman not want to breed with a lawyer?

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
  55. Relativistic trading... by argent · · Score: 1

    Well, of course, otherwise people wouldn't need to be on the trading floor!

    Eventually, of course, the trading floor will migrate into virtual reality, simply to get around the limitations of time and distance on teh floor itself.

    1. Re:Relativistic trading... by hughk · · Score: 1

      But there is still a lag between you abnd your avatar unless you can give your avatar autonomy - which is effectively what proximity services are all about. Your program sits milliseconds in roundtrip away from the market. It makes the buy/sell decisions based on what you program and what you parameterise but you cannot interact with it in real-time.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Relativistic trading... by argent · · Score: 1

      But there is still a lag between you abnd your avatar unless you can give your avatar autonomy

      Charlie Stross's "Economy 2.0" in Accelerando is closer than I thought.

    3. Re:Relativistic trading... by hughk · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In a way the smart agent is an avatar, just a specialised one.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  56. Instant gratification by VindictivePantz · · Score: 1

    Moe: Oh, boy! The deep fryer's here. Heh heh, I got it used from the navy. You can flash-fry a buffalo in forty seconds.

    Homer: Forty seconds? But I want it now!

  57. Now if they would just fix the charts... by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

    Real-time quotes are nice, but if they really want to leap over finance.yahoo.com they need to add an option to their charts to graph "growth of $10,000 investment" or "adjusted price (reinvested dividends)." Both Yahoo and Google only graph price, which means that the graph gaps down when a dividend or capital gain is paid out, but the drop has no economic significance -- the price drop represents money that was paid to the shareholder, not money that was lost. This is especially significant for mutual funds, which can have very large capital gains payouts (e.g. 20%), typically around the end of the year.

    For example, look at the 1-year or 5-year chart for MVALX. The huge drops every December are misleading -- they represent money that was returned to the shareholder (or reinvested), not money that was lost. Quicken.com got this right a decade ago when they offered stock charts, so why can't Google or Yahoo get it right?

  58. No agreements? Doubt it by worldcitizen · · Score: 1

    The exchanges do not allow redistribution of realtime quote data to professional traders. They will need to put something in place to at least give the impression of compliance.

  59. BOTs! by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for them to release an API so everyone can build his/her own trader bot. Talk about Wintermute...

  60. Not Tick by Tick by Danimoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    I took a second to look at both Yahoo! and Google's quote system compared to my Thomson machine (actual real time, tick by tick quotes, market depth, etc.) and neither gave true real time reporting of the consolidated tape. Google seems to go off of the primary market center only, which for a heavily traded stock isn't so bad. For something a little thinner you could be getting quotes that can be very misleading. Yahoo, well, I couldn't figure out where they were getting their quotes, as they were some times dramatically different to actual quotes. Long story short, be careful.

    --
    No smoking sigs indoors.
  61. NY Times by ruben.gutierrez · · Score: 1

    Real investors get their quotes from the NY Times!

  62. Harbinger of things to come by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Let's be clear on something here: There is no advantage to having 'realtime' quotes vs. 20-minute delayed quotes unless you're trading, and trading on tight schedules.

    I'm not aware of any online brokerage which does NOT provide comparable realtime quotes.

    Ergo, Google is looking to open up an online stock trading service. Free trades? Hard to say if they'll go that far. (Don't know if they'd be allowed, in fact.) But expect to see gtrade.com become a google property and service in the next year or so.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  63. Wrong, Yahoo is not realtime by TravisO · · Score: 1

    If you go to Yahoo's stock page and view a stock, yes you'll see it stream updates to the page every 1-7 secs (depends on how fast the stock changes) but this is not realtime, it's a stream of the data that's 15mins old.

  64. Google has a 15 minute delay too, it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real-time data provided by NASDAQ - Volume delayed by 15 min. From NASDAQ:GOOG right underneath the chart thing.
  65. It's been available awhile now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  66. Define Real-Time by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

    Are we talking about some webpage ticket that ticks ever second? That's nice but not all that great. What I want is access to a real-time data feed, and I mean real time, every single share done and every tick on the exchange, not snapshots. I looked into several options, satellite feeds, even 1-2 internet based solutions. The biggest problem with those? They required proprietary software, windows only, can't or not easily able to save data for later mining, and extremely expensive. So, this might be one step closer but I doubt it's the same thing brokerage firms get.

  67. How does Google's feed actually work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does the Google feed actually work? Is it client-side javascript polling on a fixed-period basis, or do they actually push to the browser client asynchronously, really per-tick - using nasty tricks to keep the GET open indefinitely, or some special plug-in, etc?

  68. This Is Terrific News!!!! by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    There's nothing worse than finding out your 'golden' years are going to involve a diet of cat food... 15 minutes after the fact.