Slashdot Mirror


Trading the Markets With FOSS Software?

Robert writes "Along with many other techies, I share an interest in the world of finance (bubble-era stock options pulled me in). Unfortunately, as someone with a strong preference for GNU/Linux as my operating system of choice, I have found that software in this area seems quite sparse. For awhile I have made do with Python, R, Gnumeric, Gnucash and a telephone, along with some small utilities I have written myself. What I would like to know is: what FOSS software do you use for financial analysis, trading, system development, and testing in a Un*x environment? Are there programs you would like to see written or ported? Do any brokerages, data providers, or other services provide good support for we the few? And finally, what commercial entities do you know of that are using FOSS software in their operation?"

417 comments

  1. buy Nortel buy Nortel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    this stock is great buy nortel buy nortel good north american stock nortel is great buy buy buy
    recommended +5 AAA

    Signed,
    Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:buy Nortel buy Nortel by actionbastard · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find your views on investing interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Sig this!
    2. Re:buy Nortel buy Nortel by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking about it, but you forgot to include a "target price". That's my favorite part

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  2. The best tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is a dartboard.

    It's unfortunately not available on most distros, but building yourself isn't too hard.
    The dependencies are merely a wall, and Newton's three laws of motion.

    1. Re:The best tool... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Optional upgrades- poison and a blowgun, along with photos of the guy who's getting billions in free money from the goverment while your portfolio tanks.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:The best tool... by vlad30 · · Score: 1
      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    3. Re:The best tool... by treeves · · Score: 1

      actually, I think darts would work fine without Newton's Third Law.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:The best tool... by Firehed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but it's part of physics.h so get over it.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:The best tool... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny
      Another option, for those who cannot afford their own wall, is to take a ordinary pack of playing cards, and write the word SELL! in biro on each and every one.

      Then, each day, just pick a random card and follow the instructions...

    6. Re:The best tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are wanting to buy US banking shares, and their assets are houses and the home owners are able to walk away and just leave the keys through the door, we only a slightly marred credit profile to worry about.
      Land of the free and truly irresponsible.

    7. Re:The best tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /dev/random

    8. Re:The best tool... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't follow that advice this morning! :-/

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. The NYSE runs linux by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SEE

    1. Re:The NYSE runs linux by onefriedrice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's nice, but I think he's more interested in analysis and management tools rather than actually running a stock market...

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    2. Re:The NYSE runs linux by pravuil · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's nice, but I think he's more interested in analysis and management tools rather than actually running a stock market...

      I think you're right. Here's a list of apps from something I just googled.

    3. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's nice, but I think he's more interested in analysis and management tools rather than actually running a stock market...

      In a gold rush, the ones who sell mining tools are the ones who are guaranteed to make a profit.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Joebert · · Score: 1

      That comment really makes me wonder, what happens to the person who loans out tools to the gold miners for free ?
      Is that person to hope some of the people he loans to strike it rich and remember the loan ?
      Should the tool lender feel taken advantage of when none of the people who struck it rich do anything more than pay him fair market value for the tools ?

      To me, it seems foolish to develop FOSS for financial markets.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's also the ones running saloons, gambling halls and brothels. In fact, forget about the mining tools!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The NYSE runs linux by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's all about the consulting gigs that follow.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    7. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Meaning never use free tools if you expect to make any money.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    8. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Nebajoth · · Score: 1

      SEE

      That's like asking for a web browser and being told slashdot runs apache.

    9. Re:The NYSE runs linux by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      That comment really makes me wonder, what happens to the person who loans out tools to the gold miners for free ?

      Lol, are you really so out of it that you think *that* is how it works?
      If so, that would probably explain your lack of success in the business.

      The majority of software development money is spent on non-cots/non-shrinkwrap software.
      Nobody loans software, ESPECIALLY to wall-street.

      Whether you write it on contract as Free or as proprietary, the important part is to write it on contract so that you get paid for the work you put in.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:The NYSE runs linux by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      To me, it seems foolish to develop FOSS for financial markets.

      If you need software to analyze the markets, write your own, open source it and someone else takes it, improves it and gives you the patches, then you've both won. He didn't have to write or buy his own, you just had help developing it without needing to pay anyone for it. If enough people use and contribute to it you can add new tools and features at accelerated pace, thus justifying the initial development cost. This is one aspect of how open source works, I don't see how it's different in financial markets vs anything else.

  4. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lehman, Merrill, AIG, HBOS all used lots of FOSS IIRC.

    Screw automated trading; screw Ben Bernanke, screw McCain-Bush. I'm going to be foreclosed because I lost my job in the operations dept at Merrill and I can't refinance my mortgage. Why should they get a bailout? Quants screwed over my life and I want them to pay.

    1. Re:Hmmm by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you lose billions of dollars in the stock market? Don't have enough cash to cover your debts? Call the Federal Reserve hotline! You could have $85bn in your checking account by tomorrow, no collateral or responsibility required! 1-800-FED Call now and we'll start a commission to get investors off your back for free!*

      *offer applies with enrollment in triple advantage and is subject to a vote for John McCain

    2. Re:Hmmm by onefriedrice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why screw McCain-Bush (as if the two were related anyway)? The housing bubble, which is undoubtedly the cause of the economic downturn, came about because democrats on capital hill thought every American should be able to live the "American dream," and buy houses which they couldn't afford. They urged the major lenders to to get into sub-prime lending, which they wouldn't have done otherwise because it's terrible risk management. I believe many republicans were also in on this, so at best it's quite bipartisan.

      You can blame a lot on Bush, including the terrible budgeting since that's an executive job, but the economy, not so much. Not unless you're a tool of Nancy Pelosi and Reid. I know it's popular around here to blame everything on Bush, but get the facts. Be enlightened.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    3. Re:Hmmm by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quants screwed over my life and I want them to pay.

      That's the thing. They can't!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:Hmmm by CSMatt · · Score: 2, Funny

      screw McCain-Bush

      No thanks.

    5. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      no collateral or responsibility required!

      Ummm...please check your facts. AIG's assets are collateral and the loan is 11%+. I pay a lot less than than that on the equity lines and mortgages I have with my real estate investments. Sure, it's a bail out, but AIG's going to spend some big bucks paying it back or lose big time.

      Financial Literacy is most people's problem, thus their finances are a problem.

    6. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you have some facts skewed and some misplaced causality.

      In 1999, Republicans wanted less regulation, causing investment banks to make create financial derivatives to hide risk and gain back their margins and bonuses, where normal banks could now compete.

      Second of all, remember Bush touting the "Ownership Economy" where the sub-primes had artificially elevated the percentage of citizen's who lived in homes they owned?

      Hardly sounds like a left-wing plot of the Democrats altering private banks attitude of lending via mind-control.

      Less regulation, market forces, and human animus(greed, aggression, and fear), which if totally unchecked/balanced by other concerns can spell disaster.

    7. Re:Hmmm by mweather · · Score: 1

      That's never stopped my creditors.

    8. Re:Hmmm by Mansing · · Score: 1

      They urged the major lenders to to get into sub-prime lending, which they wouldn't have done otherwise because it's terrible risk management.

      So the major lenders are easily swayed by suggestion? Some how this doesn't sound quite right unless all the major lenders are managed by complete financial idiots. More likely, they saw lots of profits, and the White House (Mr. Clinton at the time) gave them a convenient excuse to exercise unbridled greed and usury.

      /me leaves to continue burying the gold in the yard

    9. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The housing bubble was caused by the de-regulation of the mortgage markets that allowed mortgages to be divided up into little pieces and sold off in the stock market (mortgage-backed securities). In case you didn't know, McCain and Bush are big proponents of deregulation. You may be right (democrats want everyone to have a house and republicans want deregulation) and that's the formula that got us into this mess. As you said, a bipartisan effort made it happen. But you're not giving the republicans all the credit they deserve.

    10. Re:Hmmm by tedu_again · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time buy what you can afford.

    11. Re:Hmmm by snilloc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not only is the interest rate over 11%, but the Feds took a 79.9% equity stake in AIG. The US Taxpayer now owns 80 percent of AIG.

    12. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >The housing bubble, which is undoubtedly the cause of the economic downturn

      Undoubtedly the cause? The single cause?

      Really?

      We spend enough on military crap to buy everybody in the country a new house every year,
      and you blame the whole economic collapse on the reduction of a few percentage points of value in a fixed asset that most people would not liquidate *anyway*....

    13. Re:Hmmm by sukotto · · Score: 1

      Sure they do/did ... in the IT department. The traders and researchers don't use any of that though. They use Excel, or the stuff built into their Bloomberg turrets.

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    14. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When I took the mortgage out 8 years ago I budgeted for being able to afford 3 months out of work without any problems. But mortgage interest rates have gone crazy. LIBOR isn't my problem, I'm just a cog. And if they're not going to refinance then how is it my fault.

      Screw you too.

    15. Re:Hmmm by Oswald · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You need to inform yourself. First of all, the housing bubble was primarily fueled by errors on Wall Street, not Washington. The explosive growth of the mortgage-backed security industry created an environment that gave people lots of incentive to do really stupid things, like loan people money without requiring them to invest significantly in what they were purchasing or demonstrate that they had the money to pay back the loan. Secondly, here is just one of many available articles explaining that the really big hit has come from borrowers with good credit ratings and sufficient cash flow who simply do not wish to continue to pay the mortgage on a house that is no longer worth nearly what they paid for it. It turns out that you can default on your mortgage and all they can take is your house, not your other assets (who knew?).

      Anyway, it's certainly not "authoritative," but here is a funny and true cartoon that does a pretty fair job of explaining how the screwed up incentives turned normal people in financial fuck-up machines.

    16. Re:Hmmm by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >Next time buy what you can afford.

      Many did, and then saw the economy collapse around them, changing the nature of "what they can afford".

      Some of these were unable to liquidate their real estate, because to do so would require them to literally pay a mortgage on the amount of money that the property declined by.

      In my case, it has forced me to decline certain job opportunities because relocation is not an option, because of real estate values. (I would not seek, nor do I believe anyone will offer, a $45,000 relocation bonus to start, and that's what it would cost me to walk away from my home, never mind the fact that I like where I'm living and would prefer a *benefit*, not just a break-even proposition, for relocating.)

      My story is not at all uncommon. I'm not bankrupt, but I'm at the threshold. And I have university degrees, more than a decade of experience, and the real estate in question is a modest property.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    17. Re:Hmmm by sonsonete · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention that the United States is now the largest sponsor of Manchester United.

      --
      "Folks bent on reinventing the wheel should understand that if it's not round, it ain't a wheel." - Jonah Goldberg
    18. Re:Hmmm by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read this 2003 NY Times article about Republican efforts to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There is plenty of blame to go around. Here's a little snippet from the article:
        Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

      ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

      Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

      ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
       
      I'm not a proponent of either party - and so I think it makes it easier to see that they are both grossly incompetent for the most part.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    19. Re:Hmmm by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Get off slashdot and go get a job already.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    20. Re:Hmmm by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The "Ownership Economy" included private equity accounts funded by your social security payments. As you might imagine that idea would have most of America up in arms right now.

    21. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The AIG deal was fully collateralized, the rate was MUCH higher than AIG could have gotten from another institution (if only they had more insight), and AIG had to give up a controlling interest in the company (to the US taxpayer). The Fed's bailout was hardly a great deal for AIG.

    22. Re:Hmmm by superslacker87 · · Score: 1

      /me leaves to continue burying the gold in the yard

      So.... where do you live again?

      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
    23. Re:Hmmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, if you believe that it is the government's job to regulate interstate commerce, then you might agree that there should have been some regulations to ensure that such a situation could not occur. However, blaming a particular political party makes little sence, as this is the system that we have had. The government, and most experts, failed to see the consequences of the increase specialization of the financial systems that caused all parties to focus on short term gains.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    24. Re:Hmmm by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      GP:

      Sure, it's a bail out, but AIG's going to spend some big bucks paying it back or lose big time.

      P:

      Not only is the interest rate over 11%, but the Feds took a 79.9% equity stake in AIG. The US Taxpayer now owns 80 percent of AIG.

      That's great. Let's hope it turns out to be worth something. AIG's stock price 52 week high was $70.13, and it's now trading for $2.69. It seems that investors didn't have too much confidence in it. Anyway, I suppose the feds won't let it go bust, but buying 80% of something is not a good deal if it's value continues to fall or it collapses altogether and defaults on that loan.

      Anyway, it was a joke, lighten up guys :)

    25. Re:Hmmm by bnenning · · Score: 1

      In my case, it has forced me to decline certain job opportunities because relocation is not an option, because of real estate values.

      Serious and possibly stupid question: why does it matter that real estate prices have fallen, in terms of relocating? Sure your house has lost value, but the house you'd be moving to will also be cheaper, so doesn't it even out?

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    26. Re:Hmmm by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Man U can get Uncle Sam to assign an Apache gunship to defend their goal during matches. God knows they need it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:Hmmm by billcopc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The US Taxpayer now owns 80 percent of AIG.

      When they start paying everyone dividends, let me know.

      The US Taxpayer doesn't even own government anymore. The real owners get tax exemptions.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    28. Re:Hmmm by bnenning · · Score: 1

      The "Ownership Economy" included private equity accounts funded by your social security payments. As you might imagine that idea would have most of America up in arms right now.

      Short term, the stock market goes up and down. Long term, it goes up. It's silly to use short term volatility as an argument against holding equities for retirement.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    29. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lehman, Merrill, AIG, HBOS all used lots of FOSS IIRC

      Don't know about the rest, but AIG definitely uses Linux as VMs in ESX.

    30. Re:Hmmm by tedu_again · · Score: 1

      So what did you think the word "variable" meant in variable rate?

    31. Re:Hmmm by Bytal · · Score: 1

      The idea is correct but unfortunately, you reversed the parties. This idea has been called the "Ownership Society" and is very much a Republican ideological creation.

      The main application to our current crisis is the idea that home ownership lowers crime and increases wealth, so expanding the lending pool to less qualified owners (aka sub-prime) would also tackle crime and poverty. Unfortunately, there is a reason why these underserved population slices were underserved for so long. It's not exactly that easy to pay back a $500K debt with a $30K salary.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

    32. Re:Hmmm by tedu_again · · Score: 1

      The definition of "what you can afford" should not be "stretching my finances to the limit during a boom economy". Rainy days and all that.

    33. Re:Hmmm by mdfst13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the housing bubble was primarily fueled by errors on Wall Street, not Washington.

      There were three important Washington errors. Washington allowed banks to loan federally insured deposit money to companies with only securities (e.g. securitized mortgages) as a collateral. This put taxpayers on the hook and led to the Bear Stearns bail out.

      The second Washington error was that even with the housing bubble, Washington left the reserve rate (how much banks have to hold of their deposits) at 15% rather than raising it. If they had raised the reserve rate, there would have been less money for loans and banks would have been more careful to whom they loaned it. As it was, banks were over capitalized and desperate to loan money.

      The third Washington error was to make it more difficult to take bankruptcy. As a result, banks were more willing to loan money for over priced houses (figuring that they could grab other assets instead).

      At the worst of the bubble, house prices were sixty percent over priced (using rental values for a comparison). House prices are still thirty percent over priced. They have more to fall before the market stabilizes. Unfortunately, most of the programs that are being launched are aimed at stabilizing house prices. This won't work until houses stop being over priced.

      What Washington should be doing is helping house prices fall. One way that they could do that would be to amend bankruptcy laws back to their previous difficulty and add the ability for judges to adjust the principal of the loan down to the current value of the house. This would allow people to sell their houses after declaring bankruptcy (rather than taking a foreclosure). Too many people can't sell their houses because they owe more than the house is worth.

    34. Re:Hmmm by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      So the major lenders are easily swayed by suggestion? Some how this doesn't sound quite right unless all the major lenders are managed by complete financial idiots.

      The magnitude that I intended for the word urged is considerably more than mere suggestion.

      I also don't mean to downplay the greed of Wall Street executives either. It would be overly simplistic to say that the blame rests entirely on politicians, and that was not my intent. Clearly, the top executives had the choice, and (like you said) they saw the possibility of increased profits. They gambled and lost to the detriment of us all.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    35. Re:Hmmm by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      How is 80% ownership of a failed company good for US Taxpayers ...? Politicians will surely graciously grant $$$$, then forgive debt and criminal negligence? EnRon, GlobalCross ... S&L ... ....

      Corporate Welfare is bullshit defined as economic chocolate pudding, but not Capitalism! Corporate Welfare is more like industrial-communism with a pseudo-democracy label (El President for life of the banana republic of america!).

      Consistent economic failure coincidences over decades indicate intent to defraud US of not only our liberty, and guarantees for only the wealthy entitled few any right/ability to pursue happiness.

      Present, and for the past few decades, economic model for the puppet republic of America requires those of US that have the least to spend ourselves into bankruptcy for the benefit of all those with the banking, corporate, private education, privileged healthcare ....

      The clowns and legacy/dogmatic economic theories that produced the current (and all the many past decades of) problematic and debacle-economic failures are still the same dogmatic managers that will fuck US again and again and again ... always with plausible excuses and politically supported transient-solutions. Works well for those that have, but always will fuck US and fix nothing (unless we are talking about the eUnuch Servants (eUS) republic of the next generation).

      The Iraq conflict/adventure has been for profit not patriotism and has been paid by the blood, health, and life of our Brave and Wonderful Warriors. Shame on US for letting politicians murder our family for their own (and corporate sponsors) profit.

      As our Warriors achieved diplomatic (local tribal) solutions to the terrorist in Iraq our politicians took all the credit. Politicians never understood that the terrorist forced from Iraq by improved relationships between locals US Military Warriors were set too migrate back (with new improved skills) into the mountains of Pakistan to reopen the Afgan-front. Politicians have our Warriors tied down in Iraq (with political grand-standing) when our Warriors should be in Pakistan-kush finding and killing BinLadin ASAP/AFAP.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    36. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, the Republicans were all hot to do something about the FMs in 2003.. Then they got control of both Congress and the Senate and did .... what? Nothing? It looks to me like their demands to something were primarily grandstanding.

    37. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be foreclosed because I lost my job in the operations dept at Merrill and I can't refinance my mortgage.

      You made a bad bet and ended up overexposed...

      [...] screw McCain-Bush.

      Were you as angry at Gore-Clinton, when your dot-com stocks turned to bust in 2000? You would've been wrong then too. The president has somewhere between nothing and very little to do with any of this — in a free Capitalist society.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    38. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you but the Feds are not the federal government. It's the federal reserve and it's a privately held institution...

    39. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

      In 1999 ... remember Bush

      Speaking of 1999... Were you as angry at Bill Clinton, when NASDAQ halved in 2000, as dot-com bust, as you are at Bush today?

      Hardly sounds like a left-wing plot of the Democrats

      Of course, it does — the whole purpose of Fannie/Freddie creation (and the not-so-implicit-anymore-is-it government backing for them) was to alleviate a so called "market failure" — to lend to the poor.

      Bush should've demolished those things in 2002-03 (and privatized Social Security). Unfortunately, Al Qaeda preempted it all, and all he was able to accomplish was tax cuts and education reform.

      Maybe, McCain will do it, if we are lucky...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    40. Re:Hmmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Screw automated trading; screw Ben Bernanke, screw McCain-Bush. I'm going to be foreclosed because I lost my job in the operations dept at Merrill and I can't refinance my mortgage. Why should they get a bailout? Quants screwed over my life and I want them to pay."

      Wait....do you not have money saved for emergencies? I have enough money put away to be out of money for 6-8 months at least?!?! You gotta have FU money saved in this day in age...sounds like you were not planning.

      Also..did you not read the terms and be smart enough to get a proper loan? You got an interest only one or something foolish like that?

      Losing a job should not put one in the poor house and in the streets. Don't live beyond your means man....I feel for ya, but, dude....plan ahead!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    41. Re:Hmmm by windsurfer619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The federal reserve isn't owned by the US taxpayers. It's a private company.

    42. Re:Hmmm by TakeyMcTaker · · Score: 1

      AIG's assets are collateral and the loan is 11%+.

      Back when I got my mortgage, a normal fixed-rate loan required 20% down. So the low-down-payment mortgage insanity has trickled up to giant investment firms too, eh? Not a good sign.

    43. Re:Hmmm by ectotherm · · Score: 1

      No, screw you... You should have gone with a fixed-rate mortgage, math whiz. Thanks for contributing to the sub-prime mortgage problem! Now my tax dollars get to bail your dumb ass out. Quants didn't screw you over- you did! Didn't you understand the terms of your mortgage? Didn't you plan accordingly? If the answer to the last two questions is "no", then you should not be buying a house. No sympathy here- see you at the soup kitchen!

      --
      "Nature bats last..."
    44. Re:Hmmm by TakeyMcTaker · · Score: 1

      Not only is the interest rate over 11%, but the Feds took a 79.9% equity stake in AIG. The US Taxpayer now owns 80 percent of AIG.

      So they got to keep 20%, for only 11% down? The last time I checked, if a bank foreclosed on a mortgage, that meant they got 100% of the house. It sounds like AIG still got off easy, to me.

    45. Re:Hmmm by Falstius · · Score: 1

      You can buy US Treasury bonds to get your dividend. They're selling a whole bunch right now to pay for this bailout.

    46. Re:Hmmm by ectotherm · · Score: 1

      So, why is it that you are at the "threshold" of bankruptcy? Real Estate values are constantly changing- if you turned down a great career opportunity that could have led to more $$ later just because you might lose a little money selling a house, then you might have made a mistake. The housing market will get better and worse, while your salary will increase (or stay steady in bad economic times) if you do things right. You have a university degree (not a guarantee) and a job- go out there and get a better job!

      --
      "Nature bats last..."
    47. Re:Hmmm by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You need to inform yourself. First of all, the housing bubble was primarily fueled by errors on Wall Street, not Washington.

      Back atcha. Federal government organizations have been threatening banks and other lending institutions, forcing them to make loans to persons who were uncreditworthy, for several years. There's an article to that effect (and a very telling photograph) in the current (dated Sept. 19) issue of Investors Business Daily. "Wall Street" stupidly fell into the hole the government dug.

      "Wall Street" is generally considered to be the stock markets, not the banking industry. The banks sold the mortgages to "Wall Street" with the implication that they were very safe.

      There's plenty of blame to go around, but the ROOT of the problem is government messing with the free market.

      The article you cite in turn cites the Boston Federal Reserve. Since it is a government entity, it's unlikely to blame the government.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    48. Re:Hmmm by Falstius · · Score: 1

      Well, switch republican and democratic in your statement and it is correct (including that this was a somewhat bipartisan effort). Republicans were in control of government while most of this went on, and increased home ownership was one of Bush's goals.

    49. Re:Hmmm by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      How could you plan on three months of payments, if you don't know what your payment will be from month to month after the initial period? Why would you make an assumption that the value of your house would never drop, thus preventing you from refinancing at a reasonable interest rate?

    50. Re:Hmmm by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      My question to you is: why did you pay so much for your house? I admit I am making assumptions here, based on what I see all around me.

      A few years ago, people were paying 300, 400, 500k for modest houses - it does not take much to see that these little houses in suburbia were /not/ really worth that much money. Yet people made the purchases, turning a blind eye to the fact that their new house was vastly overvalued.

      I am fortunate in that I purchased my house just before this ridiculous increase in prices occurred - but I also have not moved in the last few years even though I could have made a handsome profit on my current residence.

      The reason was simple -- the idea of paying several times a house's value simply due to market conditions that could not last is absurd. 2000 square foot houses are not worth the kind of money that people were happily paying, and that banks were happily lending.

      If I had bought my house a year later, I would be in your position too - because it would not have been worth what I paid for it. However, a year later, I would have passed on buying a house for that reason.

    51. Re:Hmmm by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      exactly.

      at least someone here knows what they are talking about.

      --
      Bottles.
    52. Re:Hmmm by Tiro · · Score: 1

      First of all, the housing bubble was primarily fueled by errors on Wall Street, not Washington.

      I think it is extremely telling that the mortgage agencies had a thundering herd of lobbyists.

      Also, if Greenspan hadn't keep interest rates so low (negative in real terms) we wouldn't have seen such a dramatic boom and bust in the credit markets.

    53. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is 80% ownership of a failed company good for US Taxpayers...

      Maybe, you need a little more knowledge of Economics in general and this particular sorry situation in particular, uhm? The failure of this company would've left millions of people uninsured, and hundreds of thousands unemployed. Taking it over, breaking it up, and selling the pieces at normal, rather than bankruptcy (a.k.a. firesale) prices seems like a reasonable thing to do.

      I just wish, they would've done better to Lehman Brothers — instead they completely botched trying to sell it to Barkley's and BoFA. Instead of asking the would-be suitors to come up with bids in secrecy, the Feds allowed reps of both to be present in the room at once. Both balked... As a result, Barkley's is now taking over the juiciest pieces of Lehman's assets at a firesale price without assuming any of the liabilities — because Lehman is bankrupt as of Monday. Had they not known (from sitting at the same meeting, that Fed organized), that BoFA is not interested, they might've bet a fair price last Sunday...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    54. Re:Hmmm by Flavio · · Score: 1

      The housing bubble, which is undoubtedly the cause of the economic downturn, came about because democrats on capital hill thought every American should be able to live the "American dream," and buy houses which they couldn't afford.

      The housing bubble is the Fed's work, which started back with Greenspan during the Clinton administration, and was merely continued during the Bush years. Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible, seeing how both encouraged the artificially low interest rates and did nothing to stop it.

      It's remarkable how many Americans fall for the Democrat vs. Republican false dichotomy. There's very little difference between both parties, and the sooner Americans realise this, the better chance they'll have to change things for the better. McCain represents Bush -- he's not a maverick. Obama voted in favor of the things he claims to oppose. Both parties voted to fund the war, and both promote an interventionist policy (in foreign affairs, domestic affairs and financial markets).

      A vote for the Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. It does nothing to promote change, since the same interest groups control both parties. If you want change, vote for a third party or for an independent.

    55. Re: Hmmm by Xaemyl · · Score: 0

      Wow. Someone forgot when Bush, in his home-town self, rolled up his sleeve and helped build a house for the so-called "American Dream."

    56. Re:Hmmm by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, if a bank foreclosed on a mortgage, that meant they got 100% of the house.

      Not strictly. Most mortgages will actually state that you are entitled to the balance after sale and repayment of all debt. It's just that with hefty fees payable, etc, etc, probably interest, you're unlikely to see it.

    57. Re:Hmmm by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      totally unchecked/balanced by other concerns

      Yes, like going bankrupt, foreclosing, and going out of business. Now that we're on the other side, we know for sure that people shouldn't worry about that, because the government will bail them out! It's the best of both worlds, if you like taking money from the government.

    58. Re:Hmmm by rfunches · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You do know a 3-month T-bill was, at one point earlier this week, yielding less than par value? People were buying US government bonds guaranteed to lose money because of the fear that everything else would lose more value.

    59. Re:Hmmm by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      Just have a look at the names of all the executives of Fannie and Freddie, you'll come to the curious conclusion that those same names all had (D) next to them and were on lists of congressmen and senators who were well "persuaded" towards the causes of both Fannie and Freddie.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    60. Re:Hmmm by shiftoner · · Score: 1

      But who was letting (begging) them to make increasingly bad bets in the name of increased home ownership, hmmmm?

    61. Re:Hmmm by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      It's fun to see how the experts have talked about AIG over the last few months.

      http://www.stockchase.com/Company-sl--slq-ID-slv-American--International--Group.php

    62. Re:Hmmm by constantnormal · · Score: 1

      80% -- that's some kinda vig.

    63. Re:Hmmm by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 1

      I don't know what all you people are on about. My financial future is secure.

      /me leaves to continue digging up gold from Mansing's yard

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    64. Re:Hmmm by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      Interesting what the experts say about these different companies.
      Lehman is all "DON'T BUY!!!"
      http://www.stockchase.com/Company-sl--slq-ID-slv-Lehman--Brothers--Holdings.php
      Merrill is a bit more mixed
      http://www.stockchase.com/Company-sl--slq-ID-slv-Merrill--Lynch---slandsl---Co--(US).php
      AIG is a top pick just a few months ago.
      http://www.stockchase.com/Company-sl--slq-ID-slv-American--International--Group.php
      HBOS is off the radar.

    65. Re:Hmmm by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the rub. Many businesses go out of business, some of them more spectacularly than others, and there was no mention of a government bailout of them now was there. It is the same asshats that scream "Free Market" when they perceive a wrong against the corporation that are now screaming to not allow the market to work as it should. AIG knew the market risks when they offered their IPO. Investors knew the risks when they purchased the stock. The company certainly knew the risks when it lobbied Congress to change the laws and lastly the Congress knew the risks when it deregulated everything at the behest of the company. Why should the public be forced to take on the risk these same asshats assumed solely because the asshats screamed "free markets" to get the regulations that would have protected the public voided and the agencies charged with oversight gutted? You didn't see AIG investors protesting the profits they were getting when times where better so why protest when they go belly up? It is corporate welfare pure and simple.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    66. Re:Hmmm by drew · · Score: 1

      The housing bubble, which is undoubtedly the cause of the economic downturn, came about because...

      The housing bubble came about because of sheer greed on the part of the people doing the lending. I think Warren Buffet summed it up well in his most recent shareholder letter:

      Some major financial institutions have, however, experienced staggering problems because they
      engaged in the "weakened lending practices" I described in last year's letter. John Stumpf, CEO of Wells
      Fargo, aptly dissected the recent behavior of many lenders: "It is interesting that the industry has invented
      new ways to lose money when the old ways seemed to work just fine."

      I worked in the financial industry at the time, and I don't really think that either party can claim credit or blame, just as neither party can really claim credit or blame for the tech bubble and burst of 1998 - 2001. The fact is, a lot of people had convinced themselves, and others, that property values would never go down, despite that fact that it had happened in the not too distant past, and so a lot of people got themselves into a position that they couldn't afford, at the encouragement of their lenders. I remember shopping for a house in 2004, and I remember our lender trying to convince us that we could afford a house that was almost 50% more than what we ended up buying, despite the fact that making the regular payments on the house we are in now barely leaves us with any in the way of free income. This is simple greed, and doesn't require intervention or blame of either party. Not that I believe either party is above blame in general, but I think that most of the time that you see somebody saying that "The current success/problem with the economy is because of some policy X implemented by party Y, they are fitting data to their preconceived ideas, and not the other way around. I've heard both Bill Clinton and George Bush assigned either credit or blame for the tech bubble, and burst, and so far I haven't heard a single bit of convincing evidence on either side. I think the same is true now...

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    67. Re:Hmmm by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I wondered about that: how does the even-larger debt AIG ends up with actually help them? This is just postponing the inevitable, isn't it? Are they really relying on some magic upswing in the economy?

      How does this work, exactly?

    68. Re:Hmmm by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      The dot-com crash is a stock market bubble, and we've been through a lot of ups and downs in the stock market due to mass speculation, etc.. throughout history. Think of that as a huge stock market correction rather than anything being fundamentally wrong with the economy.

      What we are going through now is a structural crisis in finance. This problem affects the business models of companies, because many look to the credit markets to fund operations or previous acquisitions. When these markets dry up, they are need to pay back existing loans, but many are not able to get new ones at prices that they can afford.

      You can trace the origins of this back when the Glass-Steagall Act (created after the Great Depression) was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. This effectively allowed, amongst other things, the creation of tje MBS, CDOs and SIVs, causing the current crisis.

      The SEC capital ratio exemptions in 2004 for the big 5 investment banks added more fuel to the fire, allowing them to increase the leverage in their business.

      You talked about Senator McCain. Well, Phil Gramm and John McCain? They go back a long way. Don't take my word for it, do some research yourself.

    69. Re:Hmmm by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Could be - just like the Democrats acted like they were all hot to do all kinds of things a couple years ago - got control and have done nothing.
       
      The more you pay attention the more you'll see that the differences between the two parties are insubstantial.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    70. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Financial Literacy is most people's problem, thus their finances are a problem.

      I think this is the biggest crisis facing the Western World and needs to be addressed in schools.
      The problem is most financial literacy is passed down from our parents, most of them are either not very good at their finances or not very good at teaching. This is the real reason the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
      The scariest thing in the UK will be if this issue of literacy is not fixed by the time the first Child Trust Funds (a tax free saving account partly funded by government) mature.
      Every child in the UK will come in to some amount of money between approximately £1000 (if their parents do nothing) and possibly as much as £40k, if their parents put money into a good account.
      What will happen if these children are not taught to manage their money properly, will be a massive boom to the economy, as they all go on a huge spending spree, which will undoubtedly push inflation high. This will be followed by an even bigger bust as they start taking on credit cards and other huge debts to maintain the lifestyle that they have just gotten used to.
      The CTF is a great idea but it needs to be followed up with Education, Education, Education.

    71. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw automated trading; screw Ben Bernanke, screw McCain-Bush. I'm going to be foreclosed because I lost my job in the operations dept at Merrill and I can't refinance my mortgage. Why should they get a bailout? Quants screwed over my life and I want them to pay.

      Sure, your foreclosure and mortgage problems are some else's fault. Seriously, take a little personal responsibility.

    72. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 1

      AIG knew the market risks when they offered their IPO. Investors knew the risks when they purchased the stock.

      As I already said, this is done to protect AIG's customers — not the management, and not the shareholders.

      It is corporate welfare pure and simple.

      No, it is not. AIG will be broken up and pieces of it sold off. Kind of like in bankruptcy proceedings, except it will not be quite as rushed, and it will not be at "firesale" prices — so that the insurance claims can continue to be honored, etc.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    73. Re:Hmmm by jrexilius · · Score: 1

      I love how fanatics of one political philosophy or another love to see everything as "pure and simple".. Aren't the liberals always trying to label the conservatives as having only black and white views.. I would say that its not that simple and its a very hard topic for passively interested voters to really grok without lots of study and research (not watching the news, study and research.. they're different)..

    74. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 1

      The dot-com crash is a stock market bubble, and we've been through a lot of ups and downs in the stock market due to mass speculation, etc.. throughout history.

      Yes, including today.

      You can trace the origins of this back when the Glass-Steagall Act (created after the Great Depression) was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

      You can "trace the origins" of the "dot-com bust" to Al Gore's inventing Internet. Do you now hate him too — and want the Internet to be either regulated or banned altogether?

      This effectively allowed, amongst other things, the creation of tje MBS, CDOs and SIVs, causing the current crisis.

      Causing? Wow! That's pretty cool. Except, the first Collaterized Debt Obligations were issued in 1987, so no, it can't be explained by something, that happened in 1999. But don't let this fact stop you from parroting somebody else's "analysis".

      You talked about Senator McCain. Well, Phil Gramm and John McCain? They go back a long way.

      No, actually, I did not. Not in this thread. Not that there is anything wrong with either of those two gentlemen or their association, however close — but let's not change the subject...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    75. Re:Hmmm by knewter · · Score: 1

      The *Federal Reserve* took a 79.9% stake and the *Federal Reserve* bailed them out. They are a private company, not a government branch.

      The US Taxpayer just got swindled, and The Federal Reserve now owns 80 percent of AIG.

      --
      -knewter
    76. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
      And to think you were the 1st world superpower.

    77. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably the clearest explanation for the bullshit that is going on that I have heard to date. It's unfortunate that some of these financial idiots try every which way to justify the current state of the economy, but are the first to yell about how the markets should be free to do whatever they please when they are making money hand over fist. I wish this worked if I was to refi my home and blow it all on a weekend in Vegas. What was that number again? 1-800-FED

    78. Re:Hmmm by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      As long as he keeps his current house, the bank won't call in the loan, which presumably is larger than the home is worth right now. Once he sells his house, he would owe the difference right away. Sure, the mortgage on his new house would be smaller, but no bank would give him a loan (not at mortgage rates, anyway) for the extra $45k he owes.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    79. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they have so much collateral in the worth of their asset's.....wait isn't the reason that they are in the current situation because of the LACK monetary value in there asset's? It's a great deal we (US Taxpayers) are getting! Let me guess, you work in finance....

    80. Re:Hmmm by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Yes, free market is nice, and it would be nice to make sure these guys know the loss of running a company poorly. Unfortunately, the repercussions of allowing these companies to fail would affect significantly more than just these companies.

      I'm pretty sure the fed isn't doing this, "cuz gosh, them directors are just nice guys and they tried awful hard.". They're trying to keep the economy from collapsing on itself entirely. And as bad a shape as we are in right now, if we lost Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch all inside of a year, we'd be tumbling down to depression era status.

    81. Re:Hmmm by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      No no, the JSF will operate in hover mode and now has pain rays. Or they could just contract it to Raytheon?

    82. Re:Hmmm by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      You want capitolisam; well according to Mieses you have to take the good medicine with the bad. Just because it tastes bad now don't blame everyone, don't blame anyone, the Market does not Care and the market is run by human animus, it is an extension of ourselves. Bad decisions become a bad market. Regulation is not the awnser, nor is corporate welfare since ultimately neither work.

    83. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your history, every crash of the market is due to people finding new and exciting ways of getting into debt.

      Less regulation, market forces, and human animus(greed, aggression, and fear), which if totally unchecked/balanced by other concerns can spell disaster.

      So the government can control things better then the market place? Move to Washington State and see how you taxes are spent, oh, and be ready to join a Union.

    84. Re:Hmmm by Zerth · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have bought a "ridiculously overvalued" house to get bitten by such a thing. I got my house for fairly cheap, but one of the local "big businesses" just shut down and now 10,000 families in the greater metro area want to get the hell out and go somewhere with work. Throw a few thousand houses onto our market and prices drop 5%. Now, I could come up with the 5k my house changed by, but I live out in the suburbs of the suburbs. If I lived closer, in a 250k or 350k area, it would've been more like his 30k.

      Now I can twiddle my thumbs until the market evens back out, but I'm employed and happily so. If I wanted to job hop, that 5k would be a bit of a negative to whatever they offered.

    85. Re:Hmmm by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      The long-term question is what that 80% is really worth. After all, if AIG's assets were solid, it wouldn't need a bailout. What happens if AIG is unable to sell off enough ancillary entities to raise the cash needed to pay back the loan? There's no way its liabilities will disappear. AIG insured a lot of mortgage-backed securities that are now worth much less than they once were. That's not going to change.

      What will the US taxpayers own then?

    86. Re:Hmmm by yanagasawa · · Score: 1

      This is the old blame the poor for the problems of the rich argument. It gets used a lot in certain circles.

    87. Re:Hmmm by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      no collateral or responsibility required!

      . . . but a small donation to our political party of choice preferred . . .

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    88. Re:Hmmm by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Raytheon rock. They collaborated with Taiwan to build Patriot derived Tien Kung surface to air missiles.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Bow_I#Sky_Bow_I

      The Sky Bow I (TK-1) (Tien Kung I) is a surface-to-air missile system developed by the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology in Taiwan ROC. The system itself is a derivative of the U.S. Patriot missile system and was built with technological input from Raytheon.

      This means if China decides to attack with its Scud derived DF-15 missiles, Taiwan has a fair chance of shooting them down.

      This is important because the US won't sell Taiwan enough PAC3 Patriots to be much use against China's thousand or so DF15s.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    89. Re:Hmmm by moxitek · · Score: 1

      You're obviously ill informed of the FED's previous bailout history. Companies that get aid loan packages from the FED rarely can ever pay them back. What happens? Nothing. More bailout loan packages, more inflation, more debt. Guess who gets to pay it all back in the end? That's right, the American Taxpayer through taxes AND inflation.

      If anybody wants a real explination about how exactly our economy has functioned (or not functioned more accurately) read Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. Every American and actually every world citizen needs to know how this bank and it's subsidiaries the IMF and World Bank are destroying sound economic policy all over the world.

    90. Re:Hmmm by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      But that's not the same scenario - I'm specifically talking about paying too much for a house simply because it's the going market rate. Like I said, I'm making the assumption that this is what GP went through, based on seeing it happen in so many places/to so many people.

    91. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunt them down and kill them. They may not be able to pay you, but you'll be able to sell their skins on the open market.

    92. Re:Hmmm by julesh · · Score: 1

      Why should the public be forced to take on the risk these same asshats assumed solely because the asshats screamed "free markets" to get the regulations that would have protected the public voided and the agencies charged with oversight gutted? You didn't see AIG investors protesting the profits they were getting when times where better so why protest when they go belly up? It is corporate welfare pure and simple.

      Because, like it or not, the risk is a public one. If AIG goes bankrupt, sure, its shareholders lose. But, in many cases, its customers lose even more. And there are a _lot_ of those customers. I believe that they underwrite approximately 50% of insurance policies in the USA. This deal is in the interests of anyone who has such a policy.

      Also, the state taking on this company is actually a good deal for the public. Listen: the government has loaned them $85,000 million, right? And in return it has acquired an 80% stake in the company. A company with assets worth $1,050,000 million. So that stake is (basically) worth nearly ten times as much as the loan (at extortionate interest) that it was given in exchange for.

      Hell, I'd love the ability to make a deal like that. Stop complaining. Your government just made itself richer at the expense of one company, while making _everyone_ grateful that they did so. It really was a win-win deal.

    93. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even worse, your future taxes will go to cover your foreclosed loan while the heads of these companies pulled in $10s of millions bankrupting their companies and forcing a tax payer bailout.

      good things these "captains of finance and government" have no conscience, otherwise, they'd be pretty miserable people.

    94. Re:Hmmm by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Except how much of those assets are funny money anyway, money borrowed from the government and resold at higher interest rates (chop 3-5% off the top). Still a good deal, but how much of that is going to evaporate in the coming contraction?

    95. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investors knew the risks when they purchased the stock.

      Impossible. Risk management models didn't have access to the information necessary to monitor, let alone calculate, the risk associated with an ever increasing percentage of ARM's sold during a period of over-inflated real estate 'values' and declining real wages.

      The company certainly knew the risks when it lobbied Congress to change the laws...

      Which company are were you babbling about, again? During the late 70's and early 80's, the lobbying you must be referring to was a team sport, and it was represented mostly by the brokerage houses who wanted access to the closely guarded savings assets in insured depository accounts. (Looks like the got it in spades and ultimately with an extension of the federal guarantee to money market funds.)

      ... and lastly the Congress knew the risks when it deregulated everything at the behest of the company.

      You seem to place a lot of faith in the all-seeing-eye of government. In as much as the derivative financial products underlying the current collapse of the banking system were not yet a gleam in frontal lobes of the next contender to take the Boskey/Milken Cup, apparently you must also believe that election to federal office conveys powers of clairevoyance. Unless you're willing to consider the last 8 years to have been a flawlessly executed neoconservative master plan, I think your comments are based on little more than quivering Jello awaiting the spoon of the All-Mightie.

      -back to the future-

    96. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, both parties are to blame for this fiasco. Although the Republicans were at least considering the possibility of more oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they fell short of the mark. The stupidity prize goes to the Democrats, but not by much.

      Republicans liked low interest rates because it kept the stock market buoyant. As long as interest rates were dirt cheap, the stock market would attract essentially all investment. This makes for happy investors (if you own stock already or plan on this trend for the future). A predictable uptrend in the stock market is what Republicans dream about (when they aren't thinking about Sarah Palin).

      Democrats like it just as much, because it made home ownership easy. Consumer debt was less of a problem. For a different set of reasons, low interest rates make for happy consumers.

      BOTH Reps and Dems liked the concept of affordable government debt. Despite some past claims of a "surplus", the government is perpetually in debt. During the years of a so-called "surplus", the growth of debt was temporarily arrested.

      Many people in the financial industry are in the business of selling mortgages. They don't just quit and switch to selling stocks, they sell mortgages every day. Because of the dreadfully low rates for well-qualified borrwers, these people were compelled to find a way to deliver higher interest rates to their investors. So they sought out borrowers willing to pay high interest (or accept punitive terms). This market consists of high-risk and high-leverage borrowers, hence the term "sub-prime". Despite claims to the contrary, they didn't need any help from the Democrats to think this way.

      The Democrats are happy because just about anyone can afford a home. An increased number of buyers enters the market and drives up prices, which makes all homeowners happy. Even the borrowers are happy, because there is seemingly no limit to what they can borrow. All of a sudden, everyone can afford any house they want. With a home equity loan piled on for whatever else their hearts may desire.

      Happiest of all are the people who sold all those mortgages and then immediately rid themselves of the risk by selling the debt to the biggies of the financial industry. How much risk are you willing to accept as a lender if you plan on selling the loan before the first payment is due? A lot, as it turns out.

      With near zero equity or reserve cash for contingencies, the over-extended, under-capitalized borrowers were betting on perpetually increasing market prices to provide the missing equity. They expect to sell in a few years and roll their winnings into their next house. Even if they need to take out a home equity loan to make the payments on the house they already have.

      It really hit the fan when two things happened. Oil prices cranked up inflation. With zero reserve, our beloved borrowers started missing mortgage payments. Squeamish lenders, no more easy loans, fewer buyers, lower home prices, less home equity. It didn't take long for the borrowers to realize that with negative equity, they had an easy out -- hand the problem back to the lenders. Indeed, the greediest lenders got paid the highest premiums (above prime) to accept investment risk, and here it is.

      Ironically, the people most likely to be paying for this mess are the ones who managed their finances conservatively, bought houses they could afford, and continue to make all the payments. These are the people who will be screwed. And for this we should take vengeance on those who benefit from this disaster.

      As much as we all hate the concept of bailouts, nothing could be worse than a housing market flooded with foreclosure properties selling for peanuts. The challenge is to avoid rewarding the executives and investors who accepted all of this risk. If they need a bailout, they certainly have not earned their dividends, bonuses, (or even an expectation of continued employment).

    97. Re:Hmmm by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      This is insightful? Please point to specific legislation. Last I heard, Phil Gramm is a Republican, who was for a while a John McCain campaign advisor. He and his cronies spearheaded the legislation that brought this on.

      Keep trying. If you shut your eyes really tight and keep repeating "The market corrects itself!", "Private enterprise is more efficient!", "Socialized [insert industry here] is always bad!", "Laissez-Faire is the only true and good Capitalism!", maybe the bad things will go away. Wake up and see that which is right before your eyes, citizen.

    98. Re:Hmmm by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      Wow what an economic system. Companies are allowed to run rampant, but due to their size when they fail, which is the logical course of their rampant action, they get bailed out to save the economy! man what a design!

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    99. Re:Hmmm by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      Maybe Man U can get Uncle Sam to assign an Apache gunship to defend their goal during matches.

      One gunship? You do know they're playing Chelsea on Sunday, and Drogba is fit?

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    100. Re:Hmmm by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >So, why is it that you are at the "threshold" of bankruptcy?

      I might be exaggerating, but I left a really high-paying (by mid-career software engineer standards) job in order to go into environmental science research. I ended with about a third of my previous salary, in a gig where a "raise" would involve me personally getting grant money into the organization (not likely in the current climate.)

      I spend, on average, about $300 more each month than I actually make, just on necessities and fixed costs. This has been fairly easy to do over the last few years, since I had the money. I can sustain this for about another quarter, and after that I will not be able to do it any more without finding some other source of income.

      As for my outrageously expensive house, I have a $1500/month mortgage on a 3/2 brick.
      It didn't seem like such a big deal at the time.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    101. Re:Hmmm by ectotherm · · Score: 1

      Just curious, did you crunch the numbers in your personal budget to make sure you could afford the 66% pay decrease? Did you take steps to scale back your living expenses before you took the new job? Not judging, but it sounds like you took the job without thinking about the financial ramifications.

      --
      "Nature bats last..."
    102. Re:Hmmm by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Just curious, did you crunch the numbers in your personal budget to make sure you could afford the 66% pay decrease? "

      Oh yes, of course. I've been doing it for years. And this "going broke" thing isn't new. I've actually been looking for, say, contract work that I can do as a side job, for, oh, the same number of years, with limited success.

      I should probably disclose that, at the time, the choices were basically between "66% decrease" and "100% decrease."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    103. Re:Hmmm by ectotherm · · Score: 1

      Bummer! Well, I do wish you the best of luck. Tough spot indeed...

      --
      "Nature bats last..."
    104. Re:Hmmm by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      You understand industrial-communism dogma economics.

      This ain't capitalism we got, that is why our pseudo-capitalism economics works equally well for China and other totalitarian countries.

      Business Science is still BS based dogma for the masses. How much does my family suffer when I have $2B in 1991, then we have to make do with $1B in 2008? Anyway, Corporate-welfare is public-extortion, just like public-welfare is government-extortion, but both are being paid for by the lowest 97% of income US Citizen taxpayers. Screw-US is more than a terrorist chant, it is the BigBiz/Gov mantra.

      You can follow the economic-dogma, or you can follow the money ... one is fact the other is always BS.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    105. Re:Hmmm by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      I am just a US Citizen and very A-political. The welfare of "The USA Constitution" and the Public are what I value. When you fuck and betray both, you are a worthless traitor to USAll.

      So, liberals/conservatives/independents/libertine/anarchist ... are all idiots, because they seek to throw everything of great value overboard as they scuttle the ship in deep waters. IOW: They will take it with them, make sure they are right about nothing, and insist on the worst options, due to faux-instinctive dogma logic [AKA: Self-Centric Reactionary logic].

      On a lighter side has there ever been a movie about zombie politicians feeding on the Public until there are more Zombie Public that starts feeding on all the politicians and the C*Os are the evil wizards controlling the zombies, until the C*Os become a junk-food snack ...?

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    106. Re:Hmmm by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      VFF you should get a +4 funny ... ROFL!

      Biz is fucked up wrong about Biz.
      Gov is right and makes money (not spends/waste)

      You ain't serious are you? I mean, really, it is damn funny!

      THANKS for the chuckles ... already I feel better about my retirement-funds losses.

      PLEASE, say something else that is funny ... the rest of US need it .... I mean the politicians and C*Os have been leaving me in stitches ROFL for weeks now.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    107. Re:Hmmm by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      Funny money for funny times is always the best currency for any depression.

      Don't you agree?

      We are all talking about 90210 emo-depression right (mom takes your credit card stuff right)?

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    108. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yield is a percentage.
      par value is not.

      I think you mean negative yielding or rate of return less than 1

    109. Re:Hmmm by Breakthru · · Score: 1

      Don't have modpoints but this one should be in the top!

    110. Re:Hmmm by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      If you look at the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act by the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, you will understand why investments banks were not creating SIVs and trading in CDOs before that time. Hint: It has to do with regulation.

      Please do your research before posting.

    111. Re:Hmmm by mi · · Score: 1

      why investments banks were not creating SIVs and trading in CDOs

      You missed my hint viz Internet, didn't you... There is nothing wrong with trading in CDOs, and they (and Bush) can not be blamed for the problems any more, than the Internet (and Clinton) can be blamed for the dot-com bust of 2000.

      You are right about the regulation, though — there is a problem there, but the kind you'd think. Too much of it was archaic. The accounting rules governing investment banks require them to price their assets, no matter how far from maturity "to market"... This means, that if today nobody wants the securities you are holding (such as, for example, anything to do with mortgages, even if no more than 10% of them are "bad"), you are worth nothing, even if they aren't maturing in many years, by which time they will, most likely, regain their value, etc. Other financial institutions (such as BoFA, which snapped up Merryll Lynch last weekend at a firesale price) are accounting for the same things differently and thus appear much healthier.

      This is why the last two remaining investment banks got reclassified in a hurry today. Too bad, this was not allowed to Bear Sterns and Lehman earlier this year. Both would've still be standing happily today.

      Do research, what this means, before answering...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    112. Re:Hmmm by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      AIG's going to spend some big bucks paying it back or lose big time.

      And who is they AIG that gets to spend big bucks paying it back? AIG is now you and me, friend; the bailout involves the U.S. government taking over about 80% of AIG.

      It's robber-baron capitalism at its finest.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    113. Re:Hmmm by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that mark to market is the main culprit in the crisis? It might be tempting to believe it as such and may be an aggravating factor, but to imply that it is the root cause in all of this is absurd.

      In fact, the tearing down of the barrier between commercial banking and investment banking allowed multiple conflicts of interest in investment banks, now also involved in brokerage and insurance and other areas. These areas are intimately involved in CDO transactions and coupled with lax regulation of investment banks, the process was undermined allowing banks to pressure for lax lending standard to generate income from other areas, such as fees.

    114. Re:Hmmm by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      The housing bubble, which is undoubtedly the cause of the economic downturn, came about because democrats on capital hill thought every American should be able to live the "American dream," and buy houses which they couldn't afford. [...] but get the facts. Be enlightened.

      You'd like some facts? Allow me.

      The housing bubble collapse triggered the current problem (which is a financial crisis, and not yet an economic downturn), but they are not the sole cause, or even a major one. Other culprits are securitized mortgage debt, underregulation of derivatives, ludicrously lax regulation of investment banking, absurd expansions of Fannie and Freddie, and a failure of federal regulators to keep up with the times. You can find explanations of all of this in The Economist, which has been warning about a number of these problems for years.

      The Democrats may have been complicit in it, but for the last 8 years, the Republicans have been calling the tunes. And most of the failures leading up to this crisis aren't legislative failures; they're executive branch failures.

      As far as I can tell, the real problem here is giving control of government to people who are contemptuous of it. Republicans didn't used to be like that, and I hope they get over it.

    115. Re:Hmmm by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      And if they're not going to refinance then how is it my fault.

      The sheer idiocy of this statement amazes me.

      When you took out your loan, you ASKED FOR a floating interest rate. That means that it could change. If you didn't know that, then it's your fault for not paying attention. And if you did know it, it's your fault for not considering what that means.

      When you took out your mortgage, you bet that future interest rates would be ones that you liked. You lost that bet. I'm sorry for you, because that has to suck, but it's not like fixed-rate mortgages were some sort of secret that they only told you about if your last name was Rockefeller.

  5. Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by FraterNLST · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've started looking at this too as i've picked up some stock recently, and it is a difficult proposition (given that i'm not really willing to pay for a commercial solution).

    Personally, I absolutely love the interface of Google's stock ticker - the interface is nice, the information is top notch. The problem being of course that there's way in any of the nine layers i'd trust google with my portfolio information. The big advantage of a local program in my mind is that the information you put in, even if it is only "I want to track these stocks" is kept wholly to yourself and not stored on some remote server where you have to trust the hoster not to take a peek.

    In the end i've been using the default stock program that came on the iPhone to watch the stock prices. Thats all it will do, that and a short graph history, and it uses the yahoo info instead of the google, but it's close to realtime and it's stored (I hope) on the iPhone. Course, Yahoo can still see which stocks i'm requesting, so maybe in the end it makes no difference.

    Ideal would be a device-based solution that could draw down the information, either from google/yahoo or direct from the *sx, and hold information regarding you portfolio too - but locally, so theres no worry of the monetary values being shunted across the net to the infovores.

    --
    Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    1. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't you trust Google with your portfolio information? What do you think they would do with it?

    2. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by mcbiondi · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. Why are you worrying if others know your positions? Especially if your just buying and holding (which admittedly you may not be). Think of it this way - you've already bought, maybe they'll say - Hey, that's a good idea, and buy it too, driving up the price for you.

    3. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      Why would you trust -anyone- with your portfolio information? Has it become old-fashioned to believe that financial status and business is no-ones business but your own?

      I have no idea what possible use Google (or anyone) could make out of knowing how much of which shares I own, what they're worth, and how much I'm up/down in the current market. There might be no advantage whatsoever they could make out of that information.

      Personally, I'd rather not give them the chance to experiment and find out. That's just me, I like to keep my privacy regardless of whether or not it would hurt not to have it. Once you give it up, it's gone, and if you figure out it hurts later - too bad.

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    4. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, there isn't any real damage that could be done to me from knowing my positions in the market. Not with respect to the positions anyway. I haven't pissed off anyone enough that they would dump stock to hurt my position, and i'm nowhere near so deeply invested that something like that would work anyway ;)

      It is still information that is considered private however. A lot of people don't like openly discussing their finances - but what bothers me more is knowing just how much information about me is out there. I have left a sizeable footprint over the years across the net and it's important to stop and think about just how much information you freely make available to people who are not necessarily going to tell you how they'll use it.

      Doesn't it bother anyone else that there are these huge stores of information about them sitting out there, churning away, doing their best to find a way to make a profit from what they know?

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    5. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      have no idea what possible use Google (or anyone) could make out of knowing how much of which shares I own

      Here's a freebie, despite not believing that they'd try it. With enough correlated stock portfolios they can get an advance look at the movement of volume for those people or at least project such movement. If the information is significant enough, they can alter their own trading strategies based on the extra statistics.

      Not exactly something to make people stab eyes out, but its still an unethical possible use of such data. The power isn't in knowing YOUR data, it's in knowing a populations data.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    6. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by Boawk · · Score: 1

      I've started looking at this too as i've picked up some stock recently, and it is a difficult proposition (given that i'm not really willing to pay for a commercial solution).

      Personally, I absolutely love the interface of Google's stock ticker - the interface is nice, the information is top notch. The problem being of course that there's way in any of the nine layers i'd trust google with my portfolio information. The big advantage of a local program in my mind is that the information you put in, even if it is only "I want to track these stocks" is kept wholly to yourself and not stored on some remote server where you have to trust the hoster not to take a peek.

      In the end i've been using the default stock program that came on the iPhone to watch the stock prices. Thats all it will do, that and a short graph history, and it uses the yahoo info instead of the google, but it's close to realtime and it's stored (I hope) on the iPhone. Course, Yahoo can still see which stocks i'm requesting, so maybe in the end it makes no difference.

      Ideal would be a device-based solution that could draw down the information, either from google/yahoo or direct from the *sx, and hold information regarding you portfolio too - but locally, so theres no worry of the monetary values being shunted across the net to the infovores.

      No, I'm sorry, we're only taking questions about farming.

    7. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by horza · · Score: 1

      Personally, I absolutely love the interface of Google's stock ticker - the interface is nice, the information is top notch.

      What's it currently quoting for United Airlines?

      Phillip.

    8. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it bother anyone else that there are these huge stores of information about them sitting out there, churning away, doing their best to find a way to make a profit from what they know?

      Not really. In fact, not at all. My disclaimer is that as an epidemiologist it's my job to search through huge stores of information trying to get medical knowledge out. I can't see any reason at all for people to protect data if it's anonymised, (apart from I suppose the very rare cases when specific combinations of things would be enough to publicly identify you.)

      Although I appreciate that other people knowing your stock portfolio isn't really going to help mankind in any way, I can't see how it can possibly harm you (particularly if you don't use your real name), and it could bring you a lot of benefits (ie being able to use the online tools of your choice).

    9. Re:Web-based vs Desktop vs Palmtop by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      Quite true, there are good reasons to have anonymised data available for scientific research. Computer science research for instance has been greatly aided by the fact that people like google store such huge quantities of data.

      Except that the data -isn't- anonymised. It's associated with your google account. The same account is used for reader, mail, groups and finance information. That's one of the great things about it, it's convenient, however it also means that your data is associated with your name, with no promise or incentive for google to anonymise it in any way.

      As for "unable to harm you in any way", I can't see any way either to be perfectly honest. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'd rather err on the side of caution, because once the information is out there, it never goes away. That's the biggest lesson to learn of the modern era, I think.

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
  6. Let me save you the trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is none. You will get lots of recommendations to "hack it" with a hodgepodge of crap like the one you seem to be using right now, but that gets you nowhere.

    There is no quality trading/management trading software on any OS other than Windows that bears even a passing mention.

    Posting AC because people around here tend to get tender and defensive when someone dares suggest that their techno-religious experience is not absolutely perfect for everyone in the planet. Email and surfing the web? Linux is great. This? Don't waste your time and just stick with Windows.

    (cue twitter to tell me how I "hate freedom")

    1. Re:Let me save you the trouble by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

      There is no quality trading/management trading software on any OS other than Windows that bears even a passing mention.

      You are correct, sir. It's the only platform trading software companies deal with, unfortunately.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    2. Re:Let me save you the trouble by Xugumad · · Score: 5, Informative

      Areed. I spent 3 months trying to find a good solution. If you've got buckets of money, NxCore ( http://www.nanex.net/NxCore/NxCore.htm - prices start at $500/month) and any of the brokers that support a FIX API (for which you can expect to pay a hefty fee, too; Interactive Brokers (IB - http://www.interactivebrokers.com/ ) for example charge a one time $500 fee, OANDA ( http://www.oanda.com/ ) charge $600 for the first two months then an ongoing subscription fee if you trade $12mil/month or something).

      For those people not wanting to pour money into it, as good as you can get is Interactive Broker's Trader Workstation (TWS), and JBookTrader (http://code.google.com/p/jbooktrader/) or a custom trading platform that talks to their API. TWS is a pain that lacks automated login (for security reasons) and auto-exits every 24 hours (for... err... security reasons?), but it gets the job done. Data feed can be an issue still, though; IB offer up to 100 symbols at a time, and a basic historical data service, but some people dislike the fact they drop price ticks during busy market times (over 10 prices per second) and the historical data service is paced so you can only do a limited of number of requests (about one every ten seconds I believe).

      In short though, AC is right; use Windows, it may well be less painful. Really.

    3. Re:Let me save you the trouble by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      Did you just log this as AC to avoid flaming responses and then.... leave a link to your twitter?...

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    4. Re:Let me save you the trouble by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Windows runs the low-end personal chickenshit version of everything. Besides Windows, trading firms run trading and trading management software on AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, OS/400, HP NonStop, Open VMS, MVS.....

    5. Re:Let me save you the trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. We manage more than $5bn and track everything using linux.

      Postgres, Perl/Python/C/Java/R for various components.

      Posting as AC because you did. Sheesh.

    6. Re:Let me save you the trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To be fair, I should add that our trade execution systems are all running on Windows.

      No real reason for that apart from the fact that our head of operations likes Windows. I didn't dare to mention to him that the LSE was running Windows when it went offline for an entire day last week...

      All you need to do is go look at photos of trading floors from the 90's and all you see is SparcStations.

      The other posters here who are saying that linux has no place in trading operations clearly don't know what they are talking about. Most of the large scientific computing packages are design for a unix platform. And linux is a cheap platform on which to run your analysis.

      Trade execution is no barrier either. The primary trade messaging protocol is the open standard XML called FIX (Financial Information Exchange).

      The reason why you won't hear much in terms of recommendations for systems is that when it comes to large financial operations, your infrastructure is your lifeblood. Most systems are developed inhouse and little is open sourced. Sure, for smaller firms, you can get away with EclipseTrader and whipping up something to interchange with your brokerage.

      Larger firms will have real-human traders, who get on the phone to execute. In addition, they'll have connections to their prime brokers, and to various electronic exchanges and then more code to interface with dark pools.

    7. Re:Let me save you the trouble by jamesswift · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. Orc http://www.orcsoftware.com/ is one of the best known trading platforms. It runs back end services on Linux and client apps on both Mac OSX and Windows. The client apps were even originally written for OSX.

      --
      i wish i could stop
    8. Re:Let me save you the trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please note that thinkorswim (http://www.thinkorswim.com) also will install on Linux. You can even use jnlp to load it, but it requires Java 1.5 at the moment.

  7. EclipseTrader by TheNarrator · · Score: 5, Informative

    EclipseTrader is probably the most advanced open source trading program. It interfaces with some trading platforms and intra-day data feeds. It has several hundred technical indicators. It also is very expandable and easy to write modules for (in Java). I wrote some technical analysis modules for the back-testing system and was fairly impressed with how well it worked as it is based on the very solid OSGI/Eclipse model. I'd say it actually competes fairly well with some of the proprietary trading platforms I have used, especially if you are a Java coder and want to add modules to it to aid in implementing your particular trading style.

    1. Re:EclipseTrader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last time I tried EcT it consistently crashed on my Gentoo machine without warning, and it consumes unholy amounts of memory. I never trusted it enough to actually use it as a trading platform. For keeping an eye on your accounts and whatnot it's fine, but unless they've made heroic strides in the past five months, it's probably still unstable. And for that particular purpose I can use the excellent only Google interface.

      The community around it is also rather thin, and (IMO) actually downright hostile to recommendations and bug reports.

      Frankly, I'd rather trust being able to burst a sell order to an application that a company has spent a few millions developing and actively supports than to a "community project". So far I haven't had any problems with the former. Sure, I have to dual boot into Windows (no WINE for the one I use, at least not yet), but this is my livelyhood we're talking about.

    2. Re:EclipseTrader by TheNarrator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well if you want to go with a proprietary trading tool that runs well on Linux, the "think or swim" trading platform/brokerage has a Java Client that runs on Linux.

    3. Re:EclipseTrader by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried it but aiotrade is an open source (gpl) stock technical analysis application based on the Netbeans platform. Anyone had any joy with it?

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    4. Re:EclipseTrader by snilloc · · Score: 1

      It's a little buggy, but a decent charting package. There hasn't been an update since Feb2007, and that was in reaction to Yahoo changing their format and breaking all the clients who used their data. The original developer turned it over to "the community", who made some commits but never put out a real release. For somebody who knows what they're doing this project could be a great foundation. I still use it some because it gives you a more control over the chart than any other package I've used, but there seems to be a memory leak and there is a date-related bug. I think the neural net features are in the code somewhere (or in a module somewhere) but aren't usable in the official release.

  8. Scottrade (here in my city) is a HUGE Linux DC by zerolock · · Score: 1

    They have a huge pair of Linux data centers... but that said - I do all my financial analysis with web tools from my bank and Online Brokerage.

  9. FOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Firefox

  10. From what I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Financial analysis tools are highly valued commodities. Investment companies spend millions of dollars a year on them. These are probably more high-end than what you are looking for of course, but I would imagine that is a reason why you might have a hard time finding one.

    I would imagine someone must have developed something like this in academia somewhere, I suggest asking an economics professor. (I remember using matlab and another bit of software for regression analysis, the name eludes me atm).

    An amazing amount of analysis is done in excel ... but again not what you are looking for.

  11. Tons of stuff out there: by teknopurge · · Score: 4, Informative

    I understand that the submitter doesn't know what is out there, but if you ever have a trading account you're likely to have API access to your broker's systems. I recommend Interactive Brokers as their TWS software has a lot of different language bindings.

    In finance you don't look for "FOSS" tools, you go to your broker, get API access, and write them yourself.

    1. Re:Tons of stuff out there: by Dave+Tucker+Online · · Score: 1

      I had never heard of that. Are you saying I could write a program to do my own automated buying and selling?

    2. Re:Tons of stuff out there: by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

      For example, TWS has java binding and even a local DDE server do you can write crap in Excel. God help you if you have triggers sent form Excel Macros....

    3. Re:Tons of stuff out there: by Dave+Tucker+Online · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah. I want all my financial stuff running off VBA if possible. Nothing like "on error resume next" to ensure I retire a billionaire.

  12. Technical analysis SW for Linux: Qtstalker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There's quite a decent (altough not very polished) charting + technical analysis program for Linux called Qtstalker: http://qtstalker.sourceforge.net/ . You can import stock quotes from Yahoo finance or other sources automatically, or commodity/stock data from .csv files, which most data suppliers offer for download.

    1. Re:Technical analysis SW for Linux: Qtstalker by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I too am a fan of Qtstalker. It's a great tool, but I wish there was more of a community for it. It's a good tool that could become an excellent tool with more community involvement.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  13. What?! by runlevelfour · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in wanting to use open sourced software to trade stocks of companies that operate for profit? Understandably there are some companies who are open source that turn a profit but your typical for-profit enterprise and their methods are the reason open source came into existence. You just know there is someone out there buying Microsoft stock on their Debian box via Ice Weasel....

    1. Re:What?! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Friend, as long as there is capitalism or closed source, the FOSS movement will have to be compatible with it. You wouldn't say that Samba is a crime against humanity, now would you?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:What?! by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes you're the only one. The rest of us don't mistake open source to mean some anti-capitalist campaign but rather a way to make and distribute good software.

    3. Re:What?! by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Really, it's just you. Me, I like my trading software open source so I can see what the hell is going on inside, and I release my own work from time to time (it's far too rough to link to on /., but there are copies drifting aorund) so people have a platform to work from.

    4. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You wouldn't say that Samba is a crime against humanity, now would you?

      Well, I wouldn't go that far... but, given the general nature of SMB, I'd call anything that uses it a crime against networking.

  14. Think Or Swim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.thinkorswim.com

    No I don't work for them, but they're great. Discount options/stock/futures broker, with amazing desktop trading software that is Java-based (they support Windows, Linux, and OS X). Weekly seminars on trading topics. Autotrade. Powerful charting and analysis. Etc. I've been with them for two years and I am very happy.

  15. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is the kernel, GNU is the toolset sitting around it.

    try googling the string "GNU/Linux", and fail at trolling less.

  16. Interactive Brokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Interactive Brokers has a Java based client which runs nicely in linux. It provides an API for C++ and Java to execute trades and get data. OpenTick provides historical data and realtime data via an API in Java or C++.

    It is not open source, but it does run in Linux.

  17. Who allows you to trade by computer? by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there anywhere a small can find a computerised market in the first place? Are there firms who allow specifies a communications protocol and lets you to trade by computer or does one have to do web scraping to automate things?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  18. Interactive Brokers's Java trading platform (TWS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interactive Brokers has a Java-based
    Trader Workstation ("TWS") and they explicitly support Linux. They offer almost anything you can get anywhere, including mutual funds, stocks, options, futures (commodity & financial), currency, and foreign stocks. Commissions are 10x lower than Charles Schwab if you trade often (if you don't then a minimum monthly commission kicks in).

    TWS is a large, cumbersome Java applet, but it works tolerably well on a fast machine (and there's not much alternative on Linux)

    One annoyance is that they only support jdk 1.5.0_x (not the current 1.6.x), I think because of some concurrency bugs in their code (they claim the newer Java is buggy). However TWS generally does work with the latest jdk, but they won't support it.

    IB's telephone support is sometimes rude, the opposite of "hand holding". I guess they have only a few over-worked support people to keep costs down. Also, they only provide on-line statements and never send physical mail except for annual 1099 tax forms. So, be sure your spouse/executor knows you have an IB account, because if you die there will be no monthly statements to clue them!

    In summary, IB is good, despite their warts. If you trade a few times a month or more, it's worth the hassles.

  19. Tech people interested in finance = backwards by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't know *any* techies who are interested in the 'world of finance'. In fact, as a group, they tend to hate it with a passion exceeded only by that of artists. But I hear there are a hell of a lot of *financiers* with an interest in the world of *tech*. The confusion is understandable. Update worldview accordingly.

    1. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by X_Bones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because the people you talk to appear to be inexplicably (and idiotically) uninterested in tracking their 401Ks, or watching the stock and options they got from their employer, or trying to make a buck by picking up cheap stock before we start climbing out of this hole, doesn't mean the rest of us are too. Maybe you should take your own advice and update your own worldview.

    2. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Techies who sell their product and/or their company to another company get interested in the world of finance PDQ since they're suddenly sitting with several million in the bank.

    3. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking about getting interested in the financial world lately. In my ignorant view of the economy, we are near/at a bottom point, and there are probably some good investments that can be made right now.
      What are some good websites/newspapers to start reading that are informative?

    4. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Fidelity.com
      AAII.org
      Vanguard.com

      are two good places to start.

    5. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how flamebait gets modded insightful; you basically made the statement that techies find an entire world full of systems analysis and algorythm matching possibility completely uninteresting. Might I suggest that you should change your worldview, perhaps find more mature people to hang out with?

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    6. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      The hate tends to be caused by finance people earning insane amounts of money. It therefore doesn't seem to unlikely that some techies go "Wait, can I get that money too?", does it?

    7. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have two words for you:
      Learn to count.

    8. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there are techies interested in the world of finance. What did you think multicast was for?

    9. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I am one, you just hang around with the wrong (or right?!?) crowd. All my tech co-workers went through the bubble with me and their gains are evaporating along with everyone's in this falling knife of a market - but many are active, engaged, and very good traders. You make a boatload of money and you better do something with it.

    10. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fool.com is a great one for sure. Lots of easy to digest information.

    11. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Well, you have a good point with the algorithms, but the fact is that the vast majority of tech geeks are not that interested in applying their skills to that particular subject matter. They just want to collect a paycheque and screw around with their devices. It's just something I've observed -- and I am 39 years old. I can't even explain to you why, but there it is. I'm not saying there are no exceptions.

    12. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Are you a techie? If so, the fact that you think tracking your 401K or reading the odd memo from your employer constitutes getting into the 'world of finance' really does prove my point.

    13. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Collecting lots of money does not = being interested in the world of finance.

    14. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      the movie pi being the most notable exception.

      nonetheless, there is a vast chasm between indifference and hatred, and I don't think you've made that argument. cheers though, it's always nice to see someone back up their statements

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    15. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      We're no where near the bottom. The pundits who are saying that we are near the bottom are the same ones who thought, a few years ago, that we would have a 'housing slow-down'. On the other hand, the pundits who have been predicting this crisis for years are (in general) believers in the Austrian school of economics, and they say that the more the government tries to stop this correction, the longer it will last. So, you pretty much have two choices: Go with the people who have been consistently wrong in their predictions, or go with the people who have been consistently right.

      If you want to follow the smart money, check out some articles by Peter Schiff and Doug Casey. For more in-depth information about the Austrian school of economics, google 'Mises' or 'Rothbard'.

    16. Re:Tech people interested in finance = backwards by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Based on historical analysis of a similar situation, the S&L fiasco of the late 1980's. The S&L's started going tit's up between 1986 & 1988 (I've not been able to find a definitive causal date). My father picked up dirt cheap property at foreclosure auctions in late 1991. Coupled with economic collapse such that my town's bussing was suspended, the shut off half the fire hydrants in town, and about 80% of the street lights. Things didn't really start getting better until 1993 or so.

      So extrapolating from nothing but a past event of similar magnitude, I'd wager the bottom won't hit until 2010. I was predicting this very scenario sometime around Y2K... I was expecting it much sooner than 2007. Oh well.

  20. Timely and Topical, ... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    ... however, given the state of the markets right now, wouldn't it just be easier to pick up the phone, call your broker, and have him dump the stock you're looking to bail on?

    All my savings since January has been in CDs and/or savings accounts, riding this out. But then, I'm only 24 and I don't have much anyway.

    1. Re:Timely and Topical, ... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      At age 24 you should not be in cash unless you are planning for an expense like a house down payment in the bext few years.

    2. Re:Timely and Topical, ... by busyatwork · · Score: 1

      Except perhaps if your trading rules told you to get the hell out before all this happened (like mine did) Although I should say I should switch brokers - to one that allows shorting. I could have made a lot more than the 6% I got on bank interest, but that is considerably more than the -20%+ that I would have hit if I was still long in those stocks!

    3. Re:Timely and Topical, ... by jvin248 · · Score: 1

      Good foresight - just watch for the reentry point (end of October) to get back into stocks. Then watch the markets through March, if you're into timing. Long haul yet to this thing, bumpy for another three years.

      Best you can do at 24 - Crank your savings rate up to 20% of take home. It's hard. Do that for 10 years and let compounding get you to a million for retirement.

    4. Re:Timely and Topical, ... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Buy and hold long stock positions works well if you are in a secular bull market. These last about 15 years or so, the last one ended in 2001 or so. We are now in a secular bear market, which has another 7-10 years to go. In that market you need to be ready to rotate between commodities, bonds, real estate and stocks. Cash maybe ok if you are trying to figure out what to do next, but not for anything more than a month or two.

  21. Don't waste your time by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any trading platform is only as good as the data it gets.

    Not to sound like an ass but anyone who is that serious about trading needs to invest in a Bloomberg terminal. If you are just dinking around - that's one thing. But the summary seems to indicate you are looking for a "serious" trading platform. Don't waste your time with FOSS. FOSS has it's place but a trading platform is not it. Go with a proven solution.

    There are plenty of "active trader" platforms out there from a variety of brokers. Most that I have see are Java apps. I run Schwab's web-based active trading on Linux all the time but even it is a simplified version of the real thing.

    Also, one more thing to consider: I would hate to find out that my FOSS trading platform had a bug. If it's bad enough, it could be devastating and totally wipe you out. Do you really want to take on that kind of risk? This really isn't the place to be "testing" your trading platform when real dollars are at stake.

    Now....analysis is a different beast. FOSS might have a place there. I don't know but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are FAR better solutions already out there. I have yet to see anything from FOSS that is compelling. And no -- MS Money/Quicken imitators are NOT what we are talking about here. Not even close.

    1. Re:Don't waste your time by boredandatwork · · Score: 0

      As far as being able to use a FOSS platform, Reuters provides data/infrastructure software that is specifically geared toward *nix use, including C++ and Java APIs, however, most of it is enterprise level and typically outside of the scope of the individual user. If you're running a moderate to large scale firm full of day traders, it would be the way to go, if not, I'm sure something like E-Trade (ugh) would work just fine in Firefox.

      --
      Yeah, I feed the trolls. Can't help myself. Sorry.
    2. Re:Don't waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, I've tried to use schwab's active-trader program in linux as well but ran into problems with its java detection. How did you get the java-based active trader website to run?

    3. Re:Don't waste your time by JStegmaier · · Score: 1

      I would hate to find out that my FOSS trading platform had a bug. If it's bad enough, it could be devastating and totally wipe you out.

      Because you programs don't have bugs in the closed-source world.

    4. Re:Don't waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in your experience is the best trading software to buy and sell shares on a US exchange through a US broker?

    5. Re:Don't waste your time by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Firefox. Schwab's is just a little Java app that downloads. If you knew the URL, you could prolly spawn it yourself, although I don't know how it handles the credentials and authentication.

      Don't know what the problem is on your end but I have lots of friends that do the same.

    6. Re:Don't waste your time by Rasta_the_far_Ian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      anyone who is that serious about trading needs to invest in a Bloomberg terminal [billpapa.org]

      Only if they are either a professional or very well off. AFAIK, a Bloomberg terminal costs $2,000 a month. Of course, the rate may have come down a bit in the last couple of years, but probably not enough for a person trading his / her individual account, unless he/she is quite well off ...

    7. Re:Don't waste your time by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Now....analysis is a different beast. FOSS might have a place there. I don't know but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are FAR better solutions already out there.

      If Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, or Richard M. Stallman had this attitude, the computing world would be a very different place. Don't write off FOSS just because better solutions are out there.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  22. TD Ameritrade has API by CyrusOmega · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use TD Ameritrade's API (and really nice Java based real-time market tool) which has everything I need for gathering data. Beyond running some perl scripts on the data to generate some basic statistical plots for gnuplot I don't use many other tools. I found that most success in the markets isn't how well you read the past but rather how well you understand the present and can forecast reasonable risk/reward actions.

    I know I don't actually mention any FOSS solutions but as a mostly FOSS user this is how I trade.

    1. Re:TD Ameritrade has API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide a link to the documentation on TD Ameritrade's API?

  23. Umm... Firefox. Perhaps with Flash. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Being most of this stuff needs a network connection anyways I am sure you will find particular websites that will do the trick. Why do you want to find and download an app, run an update every time the regulations change. Most of the apps for this stuff are so old and usually try to get people to use the web anyways. Don't look for an app when the Web can do the work just as well if not better.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  24. marketcetera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://trac.marketcetera.org/

    Copied verbatim from that page:

    Marketcetera Inc is building a new software platform committed to providing fast, flexible and reliable securities trading tools to financial services professionals. Our mission is to make world-class order-management and risk-management software available and affordable to individuals and to institutions of all sizes. Marketcetera focuses on building the key trading functions that are common to all organizations, thus freeing our clients to concentrate on proprietary trading algorithms and other specialized software that provide a competitive advantage.

    OSS, designed to be extensible in Ruby (and I think other languages).

  25. Profit opportunity! by cyberwave · · Score: 1

    I personally know a hedge fund manager who does fixed-income arbitrage. They manage billions of dollars and thrive on volatility. Their trading platform is windows-based, however, and to keep such critical systems running smoothly, they have to pay a lot of people to monitor it constantly. The reason more high-end firms don't use FOSS is due to the fact that all the top trading software out there is proprietary, custom, and Windows-based. Here's a profitable area that enjoys both economies of scale/scope and high barriers to entry. The first people to get in this market stand to make a lot of money.

    1. Re:Profit opportunity! by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Problem appears to be that no-one wants to be the tech guy that rocks the boat, something goes wrong, and the company folds. At least if they use Windows, the logic goes, they're going with the herd, it can't all be blamed on them.

  26. Well, since I develop trading systems on FOSS by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is the trading system I've spent several years working on is built entirely using Open Source tools and libraries. The system itself is not currently open, but that is a possibility we here certainly look favorably at.

    As far as actual entire free trading systems, there is JavaTraders@googlegroups.com which is a good place to start. Also check out the quickfixj.org site, you will find some things there. There is also an Eclipse plugin which provides some level of GUI.

    Frankly we didn't any of the code in any of those projects (although we do use ta-lib). But as I say, you can do a lot with ActiveMQ, any good open source RDBMS (PostgreSQL,MySQL) and your Enterprise Java framework bits of choice.

    Basically if I were you I'd pick one of the java based projects that is kicking and does roughly what you want, the way you want to do it. For simple basic trading of one or two instrument classes you can probably put together something pretty workable.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Well, since I develop trading systems on FOSS by toli · · Score: 2, Informative

      Full disclosure - I am a founder of a startup that develops an open source automated trading platform targeted at institutional investors.

      As was mentioned in above postings, there are a series of open source tools available to bootstrap your trading system development:

      • QuickFIX and QuickFIX/J (I'm also a developer of QFJ project) - a C++ and Java open source implementations of the FIX protocol, the underlying standard protocol for connectivity between financial institutions. Think of it as the HTTP of finance.
      • QuantLib - an open source risk analytics package
      • Esper - an open source complex event processing engine
      • EclipseTrader - Eclipse-based open source trading GUI that's targeted more at retail investors
      • ActiveMQ and AMQP and Qpid for messaging (AMQP standard was initially contributed by JPMorgan)

      And then of course there's my company Marketcetera - we build on top of a lot of the tools mentioned above and others (ActiveMQ, MySQL, Ruby on Rails, QFJ, etc) to provide the basic underlying platform that institutional traders (think quantitative hedge funds) can use to build their proprietary algorithms and start trading. After implementing a few trading systems in a row ourselves for various trading firms we realized that there was an obvious need for an open source trading platform so that people wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel and write systems from scratch every single time.

      To answer the OP's question about which commercial firms use FOSS: - a lot of proprietary trading software is implemented on top of OSS - JPMorgan famously built their trading GUI [PDF] on top of Eclipse, and Progress Apama is built on top of Eclipse RCP as well.

      Not surprisingly, most trading applications are very Windows-heavy (although quite a few companies have Linux clusters, and some exchanges run on Linux as well). Most of the apps that your broker will provide for you to trade with are Windows-only (such as Bloomberg, Goldman Redi, MicroHedge, etc), and a lot of the APIs available from vendors are .NET or COM components and nothing else. We implement our systems mostly in Java (including the Eclipse RCP), thought have connectors for some of the Windows-specific components.

      We know that flexibility is at the heart of any powerful trading application, and we think the open-source model maximizes the ability of our users to control the application. Some think the open-source model is antithetical to the secretive finance industry, but we see it as the perfect fit.

  27. Thomson Reuters by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

    Thomson Reuters has a version of the BridgeFeed Toolkit (acquired by Thomson via Bridge, and then Reuters) in both C++ and Java APIs that works on Linux. The feed provides live quotes, historical data, and wire news, as well as cross-references and ticker lookup. It's not F/OSS, but it runs there. The product is very expensive.

    The Bloomberg system incorporates the Gecko rendering engine from Mozilla. That's only barely topical but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Bloomberg is also extremely expensive.

    1. Re:Thomson Reuters by boredandatwork · · Score: 0

      Thomson Reuters has a version of the BridgeFeed Toolkit (acquired by Thomson via Bridge, and then Reuters) in both C++ and Java APIs that works on Linux. The feed provides live quotes, historical data, and wire news, as well as cross-references and ticker lookup. It's not F/OSS, but it runs there. The product is very expensive.

      And unfortunately is going away within 2 years, along with Reuters Plus. Their replacement product, 3000 Xtra, is Windows-only.

      --
      Yeah, I feed the trolls. Can't help myself. Sorry.
    2. Re:Thomson Reuters by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Was going to, but according to my salesman they reconstituted the development team because so many Bridge users complained about having to switch. He could be talking out of his ass, of course.

    3. Re:Thomson Reuters by boredandatwork · · Score: 0

      Thats been the long standing theory on why its still around now. With the Thomson merger, I'm sure either Bridge or Thomson's equivalent will get the axe. Maybe both. Everyone I've talked to seems adamant that their IDN service is the future, but I guess only time will tell.

      --
      Yeah, I feed the trolls. Can't help myself. Sorry.
    4. Re:Thomson Reuters by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 1

      Re: Trading, honestly if you want real time data (under 15 minutes delay) (And you definately do if you want to stand a change against real traders) then unless you pay a *lot* then you've got no chance. Personally I think this is fair as a *lot* of development goes into providing this kind of information and the price is partially there in order to keep those who do not understand the markets well out of the way.
      Trust me when I say it does not take much to piss real brokers off. The markets are not a place for hobbiests (sp?), especially in these times of serious financial fuckups.
      Personally I'd either get a serious job in the area or leave the trading to someone truly in the know.

      Actually, if I were you, if you've got time to kill, look into fine wines, the returns on those are typically *much* higher (and considerably safer) than you'd ever hope to achieve on the stock market, and that's advice given to me from a very successful broker who now lives considerably comfortably off the stuff.

    5. Re:Thomson Reuters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if I were you, if you've got time to kill, look into fine wines, the returns on those are typically *much* higher (and considerably safer) than you'd ever hope to achieve on the stock market, and that's advice given to me from a very successful broker who now lives considerably comfortably off the stuff.

      What a crock of shit.

      If wine speculation had "*much* higher" returns and it was "considerably safer" than the stockmarket then don't you think everyone would move in to it? Or perhaps it's only you and your successful broker who are in on the secret...

  28. Bush is still culpable by tacokill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say what you want about the origins of the problem but there is no doubt whatsoever that regulation of securities (via the SEC) has been totally and 100% completely absent during all of this.

    That, most definitely, happened on Bush's watch. The "laissez-faire" philosophy of the republicans sounds and looks a lot like Hoover right now. They have, literally, let Wall Street run itself. And you can see the end result on the front pages everyday. Whats the saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Look, I am no regulation lover but even the staunchest of conservative economists recognize free markets must have some regulation to insure a fair playing field. Under this administration -- there has been NONE.

    Do you realize that many firms were allowed to leverage up 30 to 1? Let me break down what that means for the /. crowd. Say you have a $10 watch. You go to a pawn shop for a loan and they loan you what? I'd say about $5 or so. Certainly something less than the value of the watch, right? Well, on Wall Street lately, they've been getting $300 loans based on that $10 watch.

    That is totally fucked up and should have never happened. End of story.

    1. Re:Bush is still culpable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people always ignore the role of congress. It's all of their fault.

    2. Re:Bush is still culpable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realise that the entire banking system is leveraged? Do you realise that it's done with the blessing of your beloved government, in fact, they've reduced the reserve requirements for banks.

      Do you realise that this demands that if banks don't play ball that they can't compete?

      More regulation my arse. Regulation and the Federal Reserve/Treasury creating credit folloing the LTCM crisis and the dotcom bubble bursting are the problem.

    3. Re:Bush is still culpable by onefriedrice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You say that there was no SEC regulation, and that's true. Unfortunately, you have assumed that absence of regulation has been "laissez-faire" (and that it failed), but that is not true.

      What we have had has not been proper regulation, but it has not been "laissez-faire" either because the politicians have been butting in and urging the big boys on Wall Street to make money available to people who couldn't afford their houses! That was the point which I made. As you can see, that's not laissez-faire; that's government meddling with the markets as usual, but this time in a form that isn't regulation.

      So you see, we both agree with each other that there hasn't been proper regulation, but it's unfair to say that "laissez-faire" has failed when it hasn't even really been applied.

      I mean, think about it. It's no coincidence that all of these huge firms which have lasted decades upon decades and have withstood countless trials, including the Great Depression, are now all failing at the same time right now. Under a "laissez-faire" market, that would be one big coincidence.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    4. Re:Bush is still culpable by jelle · · Score: 1

      If that were the case, I would seriously consider bringing my car to the pawn shop, use that money to payoff the mortgage, then bring the house to the pawn shop, maybe repeat that a couple of times, as much as needed to become 'too big to fail'... Then retire, of course...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    5. Re:Bush is still culpable by julesh · · Score: 1

      What we have had has not been proper regulation, but it has not been "laissez-faire" either because the politicians have been butting in and urging the big boys on Wall Street to make money available to people who couldn't afford their houses!

      {{citation needed}}

      AFAIK, the banks have been lending money on sub-prime mortgages because they thought they could make money on it, not because of any government intervention.

      I mean, think about it. It's no coincidence that all of these huge firms which have lasted decades upon decades and have withstood countless trials, including the Great Depression, are now all failing at the same time right now. Under a "laissez-faire" market, that would be one big coincidence.

      You seem to be under the illusion that the stock market is essentially random and that changes in the prices of a stock are independent of each other. That's fair enough; a lot of people spend a lot of their lives under this illusion. But it isn't true. Even (perhaps especially) in absence of any kind of government intervention, changes in the market are correlated, particularly falls. One company failing quite frequently effects the viability of others, particularly if they were (a) interdependent financially (which many banks are) or (b) dealing in essentially the same market and therefore associated in the minds of traders.

      So, no, it clearly isn't coincidence that so many companies are in trouble at the same time. But that's not evidence of government intervention. It's evidence of the failure of a business model and the serious impact that has on all businesses who were either practicing that business model (the banks) or investing heavily in businesses who practiced it (AIG).

  29. Statistical Modeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss the advanced statistical modeling tools that you can find as addons for Excel.

  30. For something as serious as trading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not spend 100 dollars or whatever to get Windows? You can even run it in a VM inside Linux. If you're too cheap to spend this money to get good software and choose to gimp yourself by hacking together scripts instead, you are seriously underestimating the value of your time.

  31. What's your scale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In terms of commercial entities, many of the big banks have some Linux, and the biggest Wall Street firms have huge footprints (tens of thousands of Linux servers). At that scale, it's mostly Linux or mainframe, with some older non-Linux Unix gear hanging around.

    Wall Street was one of the first sections of the corporate world to really dive into Linux (to get x86 with a Unix-like feel) and helped push the industry maturity along.

    In terms of prosumer-grade stuff, any of the raw math libraries you'd want are going to be available on Linux, as will most higher-level analytics, but probably not at the price point you want. GUI stuff? Probably not.

  32. Investment banks are powered by perl and python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Morgan Stanley is a very big user of open source software. Much of their infrastructure is managed by thousands of perl scripts, from daemons to customized distribution systems, sox compliant, infrastructure management tools, and many other things.

    Bloomberg is an open-source python powerhouse.

  33. i use a little java app by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    http://jgnash.sourceforge.net/

    get the jar file and run java -jar jgnash.jar (use the file name)...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  34. doofus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Fed, who are allowed to print up new money on a whim, are seizing them by "loaning" money that was poof created. All the little stockholders at AIG are getting the shaft. Wake up and smell the fascism. This whole collapse is an elaborate charade and part of the big ripoff scam, great depression version two.

    The federal reserve private bank is a clear and present danger to the People of the United States. Go google for what Jefferson said about turning over the currency to private banks, what would eventually happen.(Hint, it has 98% come true, and the last two percent is the really sucky part)

    Your "investments" are soon to be *theirs* and you don't even see it coming yet! After all these clues this year! You think you are special or something? It's the big mass ripoff and they won't leave any stone unturned because they got away with it so far, no mass revolt.

    If you don't have clear title to properties, you ain't got nuthin but promises made by chronic serial liars and master thieves. If you think they are going to allow the little people to game the system against them, you're wallowing in cognizant dissonance. Wake up, this is 2008, not 1998, you are going to get stuck with a pile of worthless paper IOUs except YOUR IOUs that you still owe will bite ya. This stuff isn't even hardly started going down yet, it's just begun.

    1. Re:doofus by Linux_ho · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wake up and smell the fascism ??? How about, wake up and smell the socialism?

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    2. Re:doofus by Firehed · · Score: 1

      In order for it to be socialism, we have to actually get something out of it. This is just the government taking control of something else. We may see an immediate short-term benefit (which is all anyone ever cares about, or we wouldn't have this problem in the first place) but it'll fuck us over long-term.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:doofus by MadMorf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wake up and smell the fascism ??? How about, wake up and smell the socialism?

      Uh, how about, "Wake up and smell the Crony Capitalism"?

    4. Re:doofus by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All the little stockholders at AIG are getting the shaft.

      Uh, I think that was a foregone conclusion when they hired inept management.

      It was essential that every stockholder in AIG lose virtually everything they invested. Otherwise it becomes profitable to mismanage your company and let Uncle Sam buy you out.

      I think that some of these resuces were necessary for the good of the greater economy. Sure, they shouldn't be necessary, but regulators messed up and now for the sake of not collapsing into a depression we need to clean up.

      If I were in charge the only thing I'd do differently when doing bailouts like these would be:

      1. Company is 100% taken over.
      2. Stock is declared void. Stockholders get a 1-time eminent domain payment of (value of company assets)-(cost to taxpayers for bailout)/(# shares outstanding). Frankly the stockholders should be happy they don't end up owing money which is what the math certainly will work out to.
      3. Corporate officers arrested and face heavy criminal penalties. Costing the taxpayers billions of dollars needs to be made a serious crime. It is certainly worse than robbing the corner store.
      4. Government runs company in such a way to preserve the general economy.
      5. Eventually company is either dissolved or IPO'ed - with all proceeds going to taxpayers.

      If this were how bailouts worked you wouldn't see too many executives asking for them.

      Don't get me wrong - the preference is in general to let companies just go bankrupt and not interfere. But, if interference is needed for the greater good than this is how it should be done.

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

      This might be the first time I've seen someone mention criminal charges for these...these...criminals. It is amazing what you can get away with just by saying "We were trying to maximize shareholder profit! Look! It's in our charter!"
      I really want to blame Bush, but I'm smart enough to know he's just a sock puppet and is not really in charge. He's just happy to get to fly in Airforce One.

    6. Re:doofus by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      The 79.9% stake is due to accounting rules requiring the government to put losses on its own books. Look it up, because I don't fully understand why.

    7. Re:doofus by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      I would only change one thing in your plan. (it may not really be a change depending on interpretation) I would have the proceeds go to paying down the national debt. I'm all for less taxes and credits to taxpayers, but I can't in good conscience watch the government continue to mortgage the future to finance the present. Some fat needs to be cut and some loans need to be paid off.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    8. Re:doofus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From an HR perspective, I highly doubt that the government could get good labor to achieve Item 4.

      However, I agree with your sentiment...when can we start with single-payer health care and the insurance companies, HMOs, etc?

    9. Re:doofus by jabithew · · Score: 1

      2. Stock is declared void. Stockholders get a 1-time eminent domain payment of (value of company assets)-(cost to taxpayers for bailout)/(# shares outstanding). Frankly the stockholders should be happy they don't end up owing money which is what the math certainly will work out to.

      Under UK law eminent domain purchases have to be at market value. Since the shares in a failed company are worthless, isn't the market value zero? In other words, I think shareholders should get nothing because if a bank needs a state to bail it out, its shares are worthless.

      Incidentally, I believe your scheme is how it works in Scandinavia now. I vaguely remember something in the Economist about it...

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    10. Re:doofus by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Those companies still have assets - just not very liquid ones. I don't want this to be a simple matter of assets-liabilities - because it needs to take into account the huge liability Uncle Sam is taking on after the buyout to clean things up. Basically, the liabilities on these companies are understated because they're being managed in such a way as to make the stockholders the most money and not in such a way as to prevent a depression.

      Now, in general companies aren't charities and shouldn't be run as charities. However, I don't think it is too much to put some kind of limit on greed. When private citizens can cause this kind of economic damange, either one of two things happen:

      1. We regulate to prevent this kind of damange from happening in the future.
      2. We allow companies to hold this power, but punish those who misuse it.

      I think the solution is some combination of 1 and 2. We do need to reign some things in, but we don't want a command economy so at some point you need to give CEOs a bit of a leash - with an understanding that if they leave a mess on the neighbors lawn they'll have to clean it up and spend 15 years in the doghouse.

    11. Re:doofus by joedoc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In order for it to be socialism, we have to actually get something out of it.

      I'm sorry, maybe I missed something during the past 53 years...you actually get something out of socialism? Can you tell me what that might be? I'm running a list of socialist-based political governments, past and present, through my head, and I'm damned if I can come up with one where the citizens genuinely got something. That is, other than a controlling centralized government, restrictions an all economic activity and commerce, and "government services" that frequently fail to meet even minimum standards.

      Yes, socialist systems always appear to work well at the outset, but they eventually collapse under their own weight, often under the hidden corruption of the leadership that's supposed to be providing everything for the "people."

      I suppose I'll be accused of being a piggish capitalist, but no need for the socialists to get all riled up. You can get free health care in Cuba, the Socialist Worker's Paradise.

      --
      Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
      The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
    12. Re:doofus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way the hell off, dufus.

      Stock price is based on market value, just because the owner of the stock changes doesnt mean you can void it. A company has to purchase its stock back from shareholders to reduce the amount on the market (see treasury stock). Of course stockholders should not owe money for purchasing stock beyond the initial investment. That would be like you buying a new tv, paying for it in full, and then when the company that makes the tv gets sued because some of them explode, you have to pay the hospital bill for the guy watching the exploding tv. Stockholders, by definition, are not held liable for more than their initial investment. Neither are corporations. If they were, no one would invest in any company, and no one would create any company. Bigger company =! different fiduciary responsibility, simple more public.

      Costing taxpayers billions of dollars is not a crime. The events causing the bailout are not caused by management directly, but rather by the system in which leverage and debt were (and still mostly are) allowed. If officers are committing fraud to extend credit lines, then they should go to jail. But taking credit lines backed by illiquid assets is an issue for the lender to deal with. The recent government bailouts just change the lender to the US taxpayer, since it is in the best interests of the US taxpayer for the company to still be in business.

      Our government is running the company in such a way as to preserve the general economy; they own 80% of the stock.

      Your method of a bailout would screw taxpayers, the new shareholders, into paying for the illegal jailing of corporate executives while costing original shareholders more than their investment (also illegal). This is much worse than robbing a corner store, which likely has robbery insurance, or can afford losing one day's worth of sales (in the long run). Lets face it, your idea would make shareholders unable to sell their stock, which if the company continues to lose money, would become a liability instead of worthless.

      Doofus.

    13. Re:doofus by rossjp · · Score: 1

      Regulators messed up? What regulators? The problem with the AIG "bail out" is that it's not a bail out at all. It's just a 2 year bridge, so that it becomes someone else's problem. Bernanke, Paulson, and the rest of them won't be around then to care. In 2 years, when they definitely won't be able to pay back their loan (how many bankrupt companies can you name that could pay back an $85 bln loan @ 11.5% interest in 2 years??), We will give AIG another one. And then again 2 years after that. And so it goes... Financial collapse due to sheer greed and ineptitude should not be bailed out. What lesson is being learned here? Truly free markets are not sustainable, and NEVER have been. Greed always takes over, and leads to poor decison-making and, without fail, financial collapse, which in turn leads us back to more regulation and government oversight. Why not just keep the regulation the whole effing time? Greedy politicians who get big bucks from big business to get rid of all those pesky regulators. That's why. In our lifetimes, I doubt this cycle will change.

    14. Re:doofus by anarxia · · Score: 1

      Socialism != communism.

    15. Re:doofus by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Stock price is based on market value, just because the owner of the stock changes doesnt mean you can void it. A company has to purchase its stock back from shareholders to reduce the amount on the market (see treasury stock)

      Sure - but I did in fact state that the stockholders would be paid for their shares - in accordance with the true company value (which is the assets-liabilities - including the liability owed to the government for fixing everything).

      Of course stockholders should not owe money for purchasing stock beyond the initial investment.

      When did I say otherwise. I said that stockholders should consider themselves fortunate that they don't owe money. I didn't say that they actually would. However, major stockholders might be liable if they in any way conspired in illegal activity - fraud is grounds for piercing the corporate veil.

      Costing taxpayers billions of dollars is not a crime.

      I never said it was. I said that it needs to be MADE a serious crime. That means changing the laws. Then, it is a crime.

      Your method of a bailout would screw taxpayers, the new shareholders, into paying for the illegal jailing of corporate executives while costing original shareholders more than their investment (also illegal).

      I never proposed the illegal jailing of executives, but rather changing the laws so that it is legal to jail them. Sure, maybe it is too late to jail the current execs, but you could at least tie them up in Federal lawsuits so they don't see the outside of a courthouse for 50 years. That would be a tiny expense compared to what those execs caused. And I never proposed costing shareholders more than their investment. I thought it was obvious that if the sum came out negative (a virtual certainty) that simply no dividend would be paid.

      And, I don't agree that just because nobody prevented the execs from running the economy into the ground that they bear no responsibility whatsoever. When you run a country there are two basic philosphies. One is that you can pass a bazillion laws to keep people from taking advantage of each other. The other is that you can have laws that generally accomplish this, but which are broad enough to punish those who fail to use discretion. We need to get away from the "well, technically what I did wasn't illegal even though I know that for personal gain I cost half the country six months pay" excuses.

    16. Re:doofus by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Why not just keep the regulation the whole effing time?

      A lot of people seem to think knowing the right level of regulation is easy. In fact, there are only two levels: too little and too much. And you don't know which you've got until years later.

      The problem with excess regulation is that it's a quiet problem. Things cost more. People start fewer businesses. Business owners spend more time on paperwork. Competitors who are less regulated beat you like a drum. Overall, you get less economic growth.

      That's not to excuse the free-market fundamentalists, the crony capitalists, or the ideologues. They aren't arguing against regulation because they're worried about the greater good. But finding the right level of regulation can be tricky.

  35. There are some free terminals out there by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    Specific places do offer terminals at very low prices. As to whether or not they would like it if you were running your own software instead of using their terminal, eh... Probably not.

    Here's the problem. It takes a significant amount of net capital, not to mention you have to be a brokerage and a FINRA member, etc.

    The market for "do-it-yourselfers" has to be incredibly small. Add in the fact they will be potentially high liability customers (heaven knows what sort of trading these people will do, but experience says they will mostly loose money big time). It doesn't really look like a very sustainable business model, nor even profitable enough for an existing firm to want to go after that market.

    Technologically it is easy. I have a system that can easily do it, take in orders over FIX, sanitize them, do risk analysis, and route them either via a clearing firm system or DMA with a giveup in theory.

    We have considered that the most likely possibility would be to form a coop and essentially just pool resources of small brokers and possibly individuals to provide the capital requirements and supply everyone with basic services like compliance reporting. Then it might be feasible, but don't hold your breath.

    FINRA is TOTALLY corrupt. They're entirely controlled by a few big firms (and just that many fewer and bigger as of the last couple weeks). They're main function right now is to crush anything else. At best it is a real uphill battle.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  36. Re:Interactive Brokers's Java trading platform (TW by Xugumad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you're going the Interactive Brokers approach, JBookTrader and JSystemTrader are both worth a look: http://code.google.com/p/jbooktrader/ and http://groups.google.com/group/jsystemtrader

  37. ThinkOrSwim Seems tech savvy by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this is what you're looking for.

    Think or swim was awarded "best software-based broker by Barrons" and hasd desktop, net and mobile clients.

    But I am looking for a automated trading API for charlesschwab. But if I had to liquidate my holdings and move to another brokerage, I'd do it. I'd prefer an interface in python, php or even (gasp) perl.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:ThinkOrSwim Seems tech savvy by DogDude · · Score: 1

      But if I had to liquidate my holdings and move to another brokerage, I'd do it. I'd prefer an interface in python, php or even (gasp) perl.

      Why would you have to liquidate your holdings just to move to a different brokerage?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  38. Wine, anyone? by corychristison · · Score: 1

    There appears to be absolutely no mention of WINE.

    I'm sure you've tried it, but just sayin'.

    If there is no support, perhaps go do some hacking around yourself? Or use all of those earnings and put a bounty on a Win program to be ported?

  39. E*TRADE runs Gentoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have it on very good authority that E*TRADE at least used to run a customized Hardened Gentoo (circa OSCON006). I don't know if it's still the case.

  40. FOSS 'trading shim' by owlorc · · Score: 1

    We have an actively maintained link farm responsive with a full set of FOSS trading and analytic tools at: link farm

    It is maintained as part of our 'trading-shim' project (GPLv3) which connects to markets and history data farms via the Interactive Brokers TWS socket interface (which has been mentioned by others in this thread). It is a ground up new implementation, socket interface, written in C++, with a MySQL backing store. It compiles and runs on any POSIX capable platform -- Linux, Unix, OS/X; once Cygwin 1.7 releases from beta, we will pick up Windows as well.

    It has been functional for the last couple years (ticker stream and ad hoc price history retrieval; full trading capabilities; symbol lookup; account details; and so forth) -- FOSS designed for commercial application; commercial and community support models.

    trading shim

  41. Resources of Linux/Java trading software... by wintermute42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have not seen any open source projects that you can use as a platform for building a trading system.

    I have built an intraday (within one day) trading system in Java. I'm afraid that this system is not open source either. This system runs one or more models that look for intraday trading signals. The Java software submits buy and sell orders. It is multi-threaded and runs one thread per stock. I have been very happy with the software performance. A long running "server" like this seems to benefit from Sun's HotSpot compiler. The system is web services based (e.g., it runs on Tomcat).

    I used Interactive Brokers for my market data and order infrastructure. I was concerned about the quality of the Interactive Brokers tick data (the trade by trade data). Interactive Brokers consolidates their tick data feed so you get a consolidated tick about ever 250 msec. For my system this has been adequate. If you want to run on Linux or use Java there are few inexpensive options for real time data feeds. Information may way to be free, but market data is expensive.

    I have some web pages on the alternatives that I explored as platforms for a Java/Linux based trading system. These notes can be found on my web page Software for Constructing a Market Trading System

    1. Re:Resources of Linux/Java trading software... by julesh · · Score: 1

      market data is expensive

      Or at least it is for the first minute or two. After that it starts getting cheap quite quickly...

  42. Kmymoney2 ?? by mpapet · · Score: 1

    I'm a "buy and hold on fundamentals" kind of investor, so kymoney2 works great for me. The project could use some work in the reporting section, but it keeps track of our small portfolio just fine.

    http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/index-home.html

    Getting more complicated than that is generally out of range for the average individual investor. Sourceforge lists a bunch. Maybe you can find what you are looking for there? http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=finance

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  43. DIY by Ocean+Consulting · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty much got sucked in the same way. My solution was to write all of my own analysis tools. I've thought many times about open sourcing the goods. I've got 10 years of development into a data warehouse analysis system that pushes the limits of what PostgreSQL will do on modern hardware. The only way to ensure privacy of your analysis and back testing is to run your own data warehouse. I can only imagine the kinds of customer data that is skimmed from stock analysis/filtering "services". In my opinion, it's only worth doing if you can get a view of the whole market. Feeds of just a few stocks is incomplete when you're trying to marry trends of market to sector to individual stock. Finding a good data source can be quite a challenge if you don't have thousands a month to spend. But, it can be done with some compromises. Since I started developing analysis tools, probably the best alternative I've found out there is called quantlib and is C++ centric. If you know of a portfolio manager looking for a risk analysis computer geek then let me know. ;D Or if anyone is serious about getting more serious about financial FOSS and/or SaaS, let me know.

  44. some thoughts by Anonu · · Score: 1

    i work on a quantitative trading desk at one of the big investment banks and i get quite a unique opportunity to straddle both the tech world and the finance world. most trading and risk mgmt systems are built using Java or C++ in linux environments...

    in my world I rely heavily on perl and python. R or Matlab are good tools for doing regressions. R is FOSS. Matlab is not so we end up paying for a few licenses. In return you get good customer service, regular updates and a nice set of toolboxes for doing things like GARCH, etc..

    Now you gotta ask yourself what sort of trading are you going to be doing? Are you looking at day-trading? This entails looking at market order books - bid/ask quotes and trades and working with large datasets. At this pt you may want to start thinking about optimizing your calculations and managing memory. A full days worth of quotes in today's market can be up to 60GB uncompressed (obviously this depends heavily on the formatting, etc... - but thats sorta what you have to deal with). You're better off writing optimized routines in something fast like C++. Pushing that much data through R or Matlab will grind those tools down to a halt.

    Getting your hands on "tick" data is not too cheap if you're an individual. You can look up TAQ data on the NYSE website. They charge about $1000/month for access to their tick data.

    If you're looking at investing (rather than just trading) on a longer time-horizon. Then you're going to need fundamental data. There are plenty of companies that charge hedge funds, etc millions of dollars a year for this type of data - companies like Bloomberg, Factset, Barra, etc... The thing is most fundamental data is freely available in regularly filed reports with the SEC - like 10Ks and !0Qs. What you are paying for is getting this data in 1 place and ensuring its quality which is crucial.

    --
    SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
  45. Because Congress doesn't appoint them by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never reply to AC's but I am making an exception.

    The executive branch appoints people to run institutions like the SEC, FCC, etc. Those people appointed have totally abdicated their responsibility to the people. The entire purpose of the SEC is to make it a "level playing field" with respect to financial disclosure and equity trading. It is not.

    Why? Because nobody in those posts is enforcing ANYTHING. And they haven't for a very long time. Yes, Congress makes the rules. But if nobody enforces them, are they really rules?

    1. Re:Because Congress doesn't appoint them by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      I think AC was trying to point out the congressional oversight of appointments to these posts. The current congress has a documented history of making it VERY hard to appoint anyone, I'm not agreeing that it's all their fault but I don't think AC's point is totally without merit.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
  46. technical analysis FOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want to daytrade, realtime data subscription isn't that important. For short term trading (in a week span) and, of course, longer term trading, free data from Yahoo is enough (about 15 minutes of delay. Google provides NYSE in real time, but not in csv like Yahoo, so it isn't as useful as Yahoo data). There are several FOSS options for technical analysis based on free data. My choice is Qtstalker. It has tons of indicators, a simple script language for rule testing and stock search and a very simple portfolio manager. Some people prefer something fancier, but one of the best advices I've heard about technical analysis is to keep it simple and work with a reduced number of indicators in order to avoid conflicting results (cf. Alexander Elder about that). Another nice technical analysis FOSS is AIOtrade. Looks pretier than Qtstalker and has an interface for "real time" data possibly customizable for receiving paid input. But it seems to me less flexible than the last versions of Qtstalker.
    Another interesting software is Merchant of Venice. It is ugly, has fewer indicator than Qtstalker, but, on the other hand, it has interesting features as genetic algorithms for refining trade rules, neural networks etc. I wouldn't use it as my main analysis platform, but these features may give good advices.

    Good luck!

  47. Well, you're sure enlightened... by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this will be an endless worthless flame war, but I'm sorry you are living in some kind of fantasy land man. The whole Republican Party is rotted to the core. Sure, once maybe it stood for something, now it is just the tool of those who are utterly unprincipled and for whom nothing is unthinkable. No lie is too base, no act unconscionable.

    No politician in 21st century Amerika dares to cross the line of the Corpocrats who effectively run everything. Look where the money flows my friend, the 100 richest families in the US gained $670 BILLION DOLLARS in network in the last 7 years. If you cross them, they just edit you out of the news cycle friend. There's no end to the dirty money and no way you'll stay in office.

    The real estate bubble was caused by the fact that Wall St in its infinite greed simply kept ratcheting up the leverage and lowering its lending standards until the lid popped off the whole house of cards (good mixed metaphore, eh). Where were all the regulators? Oh, I forgot, a 'free market' means we don't actually pay attention to those pesky LAWS anymore! Just buy them lunch and hire them for some cushy jobs when they retire and its no problem.

    Doesn't help that your precious Republicans happily dismantled as much of that oversight as they possibly could. NOW the Corpocrats are using the Republicans to spend MY money to bail out their carelessly run (or looted) companies? Forget it. NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN AS LONG AS YOU LIVE. If John McAncient had 1/10th of the integrity he pretends to he wouldn't even be able to stomach calling himself one.

    But don't worry, they won't have to pay, because they've already probably just ignored the last possible chance they had to even possibly avert an environmental catastrophe so vast that in a few years eating will be a luxury and nobody will even know what the word 'vote' means.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Well, you're sure enlightened... by scotch · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of network.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
  48. And don't forget by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... that the 2 FMs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or whatever they are called) contributed a lot to Obama's campaign.

    1. Re:And don't forget by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Citation please.

      http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.jpg . That's a graphic showing contributions from the officers of Fannie and Freddie.

      And then look at this: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html. Read the comments at the bottom. Several people come up with seemingly plausible and vastly conflicting numbers, using cherry-picked data from the source: http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml.

      This from politico is ubiquitous: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html. From July.

      International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/10/america/lobby.php. Note that several top members of McCain's team were actually real-life lobbyists for Fannie Mae (they've all since found Jesus, of course).

      Even after all that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

      [...] or whatever they are called [...]

      Indeed. You should read about them. It sounds like you aren't even sure about what they are.

      You probably need to know this, too:

      Your credulity is being cynically taken advantage of. Either that, or you're racking up your McCain points.

  49. You seem to want some advice......so by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    Here it is.

    Save your money. The market is being heavily manipulated right now, and I seriously couldn't advise entering at this point.

    1. Re:You seem to want some advice......so by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The market is always being heavily manipulated. The key thing is that there are many good companies out there going for depressed prices. This is an opportunity.

    2. Re:You seem to want some advice......so by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      You're right. There are some real bargains out there at the moment. And they will probably be bigger bargains next week, next month and maybe even next year.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  50. What is FOSS Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free and Open Source Software Software?

    1. Re:What is FOSS Software? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Free and Open Source Software Software?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  51. You are agreeing! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    How do you think they were ABLE to do those stupid things? Because the normal regulations were absent! And why were they absent? They were changed... in Washington!

    Really, you just made the other guy's point for him.

    1. Re:You are agreeing! by bnenning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the normal regulations were absent! And why were they absent? They were changed... in Washington!

      Those would be the "normal regulations" that brought us Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing and friends? The Bush Administration has nothing to be proud of, but the concept of corporate fraud was not invented on their watch.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:You are agreeing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the law that enabled this sort of crap significantly was passed in 1997. Under Clinton. The initial draft was backed by McCain, but not the final version that was a compromise. Biden did the opposite--didn't back the initial version, but backed the final law.

      Then again, some crap is not all crap. The same law also enabled the runup in internet stocks and IPOs that are looked upon favorably by the pharmaceutical industry and internet pre-bubble folks.

    3. Re:You are agreeing! by Oswald · · Score: 1

      The original post claimed that democrats brought this on by insisting that mortgages be offered to people unable to repay them. Are you seriously claiming that the democrats not only did this but that their means toward this end was to strip away most of the regulation of the financial industry? That's laughable. In case you're new here, the democrats generally favor government regulation while the republicans generally favor the unfettered hand of the free market.

      It is true that a massive failure of oversight allowed this debacle to occur, but I hardly think that agreeing with that point is agreeing with the OP.

  52. Why not? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    So, where do you think the money went? (Hint: once printed, money does not just disappear!)

    The corporations might not have the money in their coffers, but somebody does. THOSE are the people we should be looking at.

    1. Re:Why not? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I need to start a corporation. A one-man corporation. And have it assume all responsibility for my speeding tickets, in the event that I ever get any. It'll be great. I'll drive 100mph everywhere, including past schools.

    2. Re:Why not? by emmons · · Score: 1

      True money does not disappear, but value does.

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  53. Attn: twitter sockpuppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
  54. QuantLib by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this is exactly what you wanted, but there's a financial analysis package called QuantLib. I'm not in the field myself, but we used it at my last stint as contractor. Unfortunately, it was a mortgage company, so the contract ended earlier than we'd originally planned. The license is the modified BSD one, so you can download and enjoy. Assuming, of course, that you understand quantitative finance, which I've discovered I don't.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  55. many brokerage tools run on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a discount brokerage and our fat client trading software is written in Java, and Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, and Solaris are all supported platforms (and it will run on anything that has a suitable JVM).

    Now the software isn't open source, and you have to trade with us to use it; but look around as I think you will find that many brokerages' tools are written in Java and should run just fine on Linux. You are going to have to place your trades with a broker either way, so you might as well pick one that has software that runs on your preferred OS.

    Also, all the brokerage tools I've seen from brokers blow Eclipse Trader out of the water in terms of functionality and analysis capabilities (there really is no comparison); additionally they can make automated trades for you as they are tied into your broker.

  56. The reason is simple. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    All of the stock market, without exception, falls under two categories: (1) dependent on inherently illogical factors, or (2) crooked. In fact it has to be one or the other, or else it would be predictable. And if it were that predictable, it would last maybe a week before it collapsed.

    In general, techies don't like either of (1) or (2). Nothing more needs to be explained.

    If some techie ever did come up with a reliable way to predict the market, it would go away very soon thereafter. It would be a total disaster for lots of people.

    1. Re:The reason is simple. by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much the attitude toward the stock market that I find to be the majority view among the technologically inclined.

  57. Did you ever consider... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... how much market data THEY get by analyzing your requests for data?

    What a racket.

  58. I might disagree by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    There is not much barrier to entry for FOSS. The product is put out there and people can try it out. If they like it, they use it.

    Keep in mind that FOSS does not "compete" with proprietary products, in the conventional sense of the term. If it did, then there would be a high barrier. But it doesn't work that way.

    If there were a high barrier for FOSS, then Microsoft would not be in the (slowly but surely) losing position it has found itself in. Do not misunderstand me: I am not predicting the demise of Microsoft. Far from it. But they have lost their stranglehold on the market.

    It could be that we are agreeing. If you meant that it is a high barrier to conventional proprietary products but not for FOSS, then we are on the same channel.

    1. Re:I might disagree by cyberwave · · Score: 1

      The main barrier to entry is that the hedge fund guys would laugh in your face for the comment you just posted.

  59. grism looks promising by kristersaurus · · Score: 1

    check out this article on grism: http://www.linux.com/feature/146313 its written in ruby. been meaning to check it out for a while.

  60. marketcetera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out these dudes: http://www.marketcetera.com/

  61. Predicted in 99 by copponex · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interesting speech from Senator Dorgan when the bill, Financial Services Modernization Act, was being discussed '99. Those who don't know history...

    "I remember a couple of circumstances that existed more recently. I was not around during the bank failures of the 1930s. I was not around for the debate that persuaded a Congress to enact Glass-Steagall and a range of other protections. But I was here when, in the early 1980s, it was decided that we should expand the opportunities for savings and loans to do certain things. And they began to broker deposits and they took off. They would take a sleepy little savings and loan in some town, and they would take off like a Roman candle. Pretty soon they would have a multibillion-dollar organization, and they would decide they would use that organization to park junk bonds in. We had a savings and loan out in California that had over 50 percent of its assets in risky junk bonds.

    Let me describe the ultimate perversion, the hood ornament on stupidity. The U.S. Government owned nonperforming junk bonds in the Taj Mahal Casino. Let me say that again. The U.S. Government ended up owning nonperforming junk bonds in the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. How did that happen? The savings and loans were able to buy junk bonds. The savings and loans went belly up. The junk bonds were not performing. And the U.S. Government ended up with those junk bonds.

    Was that a perversion? Of course it was. But it is an example of what has happened when we decide, under a term called modernization, to forget the lessons of the past, to forget there are certain things that are inherently risky, and they ought not be fused or merged with the enterprise of banking that requires the perception and, of course, the reality--but especially the perception--of safety and soundness.

    Last year, we had a failure of a firm called LTCM, Long-Term Capital Management. It was an organization run by some of the smartest people in the world, I guess, in the area of finance. They had Nobel laureates helping run this place. They had some of the smartest people on Wall Street. They put together a lot of money. They had this hedge fund, unregulated hedge fund. They had invested more than $1 trillion in derivatives in this fund--more than $1 trillion in derivatives value.

    Then, with all of the smartest folks around, and all this money, and an enormous amount of leverage, when it looked as if this firm was going to go belly up, just flat out broke, guess what happened. On a Sunday, Mr. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board decided to convene a meeting of corresponding banks and others who had an interest in this, saying: You have to save Long-Term Capital Management. You have to save this hedge firm. If you don't, there will be catastrophic results in the economy. The hit will be too big.

    You have this unregulated risky activity out there in the economy, and you have one firm that has $1 trillion in derivative values and enormous risk, and, with all their brains, it doesn't work. They are going to go belly up. Who bears the burden of that? The Federal Government, the Federal Reserve Board.

    We have the GAO doing an investigation to find out the circumstances of all that. I am very interested in this no-fault capitalism that exists with respect to Long-Term Capital Management. Who decides what kind of capitalism is no-fault capitalism? And when and how and is there a conflict of interest here?

    The reason I raise this point is, this will be replicated again and again and again, as long as we bring bills to the floor that talk about financial services modernization and refuse to deal with the issue of thoughtful and sensible regulation of things such as hedge funds and derivatives and as long as we bring bills to the floor that say we can connect and couple, we can actually hitch up, inherently risky enterprises with the core banking issues in this country.

    I hear about fire walls and affiliates, all these issues. I probably know less about them than some others;

    1. Re:Predicted in 99 by Oswald · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're probably the victim of "TL;DR", but your post should be modded up. I read it, and it is spot-on relevant and informative. Thanks.

    2. Re:Predicted in 99 by serveto · · Score: 1

      Can I give Senator Dorgan mod points?

  62. True enough... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    it wasn't all Bush. But it is still all recent...

  63. +2 Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We spend enough on military crap to buy everybody in the country a new house every year"

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    average home price * US population:

    $218,000 * 301,139,947 = 6.56 * 10e13

    2007 Defense Budget: $439 * 10e9

    You're wrong by 14954%

    1. Re:+2 Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than one person lives in a house. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    2. Re:+2 Interesting? by scotch · · Score: 1
      6.56 * 10e13 and 439 * 10e9? What kind of system are you using there, shooty? Then you throw in percent, too. Also, I like how your population is precise to the person, but your budget isn't near as precise. High precision more justified for the latter number.

      Yep, GP was off his rocker. The defense budget could buy 1 in 30 family-of-fives a new house every year, though.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    3. Re:+2 Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The defense budget could buy 1 in 30 family-of-fives a new house every year, though.

      Hey, don't houses last about 30 years? So that is enough money to buy everybody a house!

  64. Nextick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was doing some similar research recently, In addition to Eclipse Trader, you might try Nextick.

    http://nextick.sourceforge.net/

    Nextick uses the opentick quote system which provides inexpensive quotes. If you want realtime quotes on any of the major exchanges you are going to end up paying a monthly quote fee in one way or another no matter what software you use, but some pay software includes quotes along with the service, see below.

    Itlocus provides a free as in beer charting program which I have not used:

    http://itlocus.com/charting/

    I used IQchart a long time ago on windows. They charge a monthly fee which also provides you realtime quotes. This was my favorite low cost client years ago when everyone around me was using metastock and the like.

    As for brokers, E-trade provides a linux (java) client for their Power trader along with the montly access fees. They have less expensive options (including free) that use browser based software. PreferredTrade (now NewEdge) used to be the best in getting quick confirmations on trades without having a full SOES. Haven't used them in ages so can't vouch for their recent performance.

  65. Yes, I do realize it by tacokill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Leverage (aka: debt) is key to our economic model. However, that leverage is carefully managed.

    Management of the leverage is what is missing here. NO FIRM should be allowed to leverage up 30:1. (30x your collateral)

    You are comparing apples and oranges.

    And since you went there with LTCM....allow me to quote you a figure, "At the beginning of 1998, the firm had equity of $4.72 billion and had borrowed over $124.5 billion with assets of around $129 billion. It had off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of approximately $1.25 trillion"

    Management of leverage was obviously missing there. 1.25 trillion? That is absolutely totally fucking insane. But because Merriweather was a "smart guy" --- the investment banks let him do this. And it put the entire system at risk.

    That's not supposed to happen. Ever. Yet it did. Do we learn nothing from history?

    1. Re:Yes, I do realize it by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Leverage (aka: debt) is key to our economic model.

      Isn't that the problem. Would it be too much to ask people not to spend money they don't have?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Yes, I do realize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Derivatives are financial instruments whose fundamental value changes based on the underlying asset.Notional value would be the spot price. Without knowing the variace of the underlying assets, it is hard to say that this wasnt just a good (or bad) day for the market.

      Based on having assets of 129 Billion, leverage is just under 10-1.

      Just because the scope is large doesnt mean leverage gets reduced.

      Again, risk isnt based on the size of the bet, but rather on the underlying assets that are allocated to it. Thats why different companies can borrow different amounts.

      It is not impossible that a company could be such a well-rounded, riskless enterprise that leverage of 30-1 isnt out of the question. The interest rates to charge by the lender would certainly be affected, but not only by the ratio of the leverage, but by what the loan is being used for.

      Or did you not realize that a payday loan has a higher interest rate than your car?

  66. Re: Personal Stock Streamer by 2ndRateSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it's not open source you could give Personal Stock Streamer a try:

    http://www.personalstockstreamer.com/

    It's free to use for non-professionals if you use it with your TD AMERITRADE account. There's a VBscript and C++ API for creating your own indicators, reports and extensions.

  67. Everyone wanted the housing bubble. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The honest truth is that both Democrats and Republicans want to put every American into a home. Nobody thinks you can have a stable foundation for life without home ownership, long term, and both parties have and will continue to have policies that encourage and support home ownership. In the go-go days of the 1990s, I remember Fannie Mae announcing, with cheers from both the Democrats and Republicans alike, that they were going to radically expand their operations and put 20 million new people into homes, which they did and then some. Now, probably a few million, maybe 10% of them, are in arrears and are in danger of losing their houses, but overall, the vast majority of people are in homes that they would not have had before, thanks to these policies.

    Even now, with all of the crap in the mortgage sector, I would be willing to bet that home ownership percentage still is at an all time high.
    So yeah, there's a hell of a mess on Wall Street right now, but, all in all, this policy has -worked-.

    As a Republican, I'm not one who believes in tax laws to steal from the rich, but, by the same token, if the rich make a stupid mistake and lose their fortunes lending money to the poor, then, hell, that's all fair and good. Failures of the businesses of the rich, the collapse of banks, with the poor people either in houses whose mortgages they get off for, is yet another way capitalism recycles itself. Most of the time, it is trickle down economics, but other times, it is just a torrent of stupidity from the rich just blowing loads of money to the middle class. I'll take it. I'm going to wind up buying one of these crashed real estate market houses before too long....

    --
    This is my sig.
  68. kinda sorta by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Yea, ok. I understand what you are saying except for one thing: we have tried laissez-faire. And we got the great depression. It is not true to say that those firms "made it through that time". Countless firms were wiped out. As were countless Americans. Just like now. Back then, it took the private industry (JP Morgan) along with FDR's new deal and a large scale war to bring us out of it. ie: there was heavy govt involvement.

    Regulation is a balance. We both acknowledge that. But the balance is so tipped right now that it borders on laissez-faire. With the ever increasing complexity of the financial world, that is clearly the wrong way to go. It didn't work in the 1890's, it didn't work in the 1910's, it didn't work in the late 1920's, and it isn't working right now. Once again, our govt has had to step in to stabilize things. That - by default - tells you laissez-faire doesn't work.

    And I have evidence to back this up: read the front page of any financial newspaper right now. Worst markets we've ever seen since the Depression. Is that a coincidence? No. It's not. History is just repeating itself. We didn't regulate appropriately back then and we aren't regulating appropriately now.

    We let these firms pretty much do whatever they wanted and now you are seeing the results. Only after this crisis, did our govt wake up. Except by then, it was already too late.

    1. Re:kinda sorta by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

      Alright, you say that the economy is in poor shape because of insufficient government involvement.

      Libertarians say that the economy is in poor shape because of too much government involvement.

      Who is right? Is there any scientific way of testing monetary policies?

      I happen to be on the Libertarian side of things, but I recognize it's a matter of faith and intuition rather than deduction.

      --


      -------
      Incite and flee.
    2. Re:kinda sorta by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      the problem with lax regulation is that it allows for corruption.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    3. Re:kinda sorta by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

      that's assuming that the regulators are not corrupt (or incompetent) themselves.

      --


      -------
      Incite and flee.
    4. Re:kinda sorta by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      All else being equal, the libertarian ideal is probably better. But things are not equal. Some people are better positioned (trading desks) to make money on volatility (no one makes huge money on dividends and great fundamentals anymore). Once you have a class of have's and have not's, the libertarian ideal fails. You no longer have equal access.

  69. Is the subprime crisis really a mess? by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Everyone seems to be fixated on all of these big banks going out of business, and somehow, well this proves that the rich are evil. But guess what? These were rich banks for rich people and the rich are just taking a beating because they lent out all of their money either via mortgages or credit cards to people that can't possibly pay it back. So, not only do the poor and middle class get, at a minimum free rent in the form of a mortgage they don't pay, and all the stuff that comes from unpaid loans on credit cards, they now also get the benefit of lower prices on real estate nationwide, and, if they play their cards right, they can get themselves into homes for a song.

    The failure of a giant corporation can be sad and viewed as a failure, but it is a necessary component to the cycle of money that is capitalism. People call capitalism "trickle down economics", and that's true to an extent, but in that trickle down cycle the collapse of a giant banking institution is just an explosion of money from the rich onto the middle class.

    I mean, I'm not going to say that we should tax the rich more or even progressively, because the money is theres and they can do with it what they will. But... if they want to lend me so much of it that if I don't pay it back, I wind up rich and they poor, well, then, that's an entirely different matter either. The rich can keep their loot to do with it what they will, but if they do something stupid with it, well, that's all fair.

    Banks should be deregulated even -more-, I say. Why would you want to regulate banks to keep the rich from screwing up even more?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Is the subprime crisis really a mess? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      1) The rich right the laws; they never pay. Why do you think capital gains is 15%. Why do you pay 25-38% on your income tax?

      2) Banks are corner stones of the economy. We allow the banks to lend 10x what is on deposit. So for every dollar on hand, 10 get lent out. That's why they want you to buy CDs. If a bank fails and it had $85B on hand, then it takes $850B out of the economy. If enough banks fail, we have a credit crisis and deflation.

      So that is why. Now if lending practices only requires 2:1 or 1:1 we'd be in a far better position in terms of stabilty, but we couldn't grow the economy on credit.

      There is of course, the acounting change that could be made that says you can only count the payments that you have received. Currently, when you get a loan to buy a car, it is recorded as one sale-one transaction. But the real situation is you'll be making 1/50th of the total price in payments over 60 months. That would go along way in realistically measuring the finances better.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Is the subprime crisis really a mess? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      1) The rich right the laws; they never pay. Why do you think capital gains is 15%. Why do you pay 25-38% on your income tax?

      Hmmmm... let's see, for me, once I put on the mortgage interest, the allowances for my wife and son, I think my real federal rate is probably much lower, as it is for most people. If there is a regressive part of the federal tax, it would be in social security tax caps, but even then, the disbursements are also capped...

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Is the subprime crisis really a mess? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Well, if you have house (and not in danger of losing it), you're not in the poorest part of the economy. Lets no forget that all taxes are regressive. You can only eat so much food, drive so many places, and buy so many things that the differnce in lifestyle costs between $100k and 200k isn't as large as it is between $25k and $50k. You probably also have a 401 or some kind of deferral which further lowers your tax rate. The poor don't get 401ks.

      Still, I would be surprised if you were lower than 15%. But the rich don't make their money at wages - that's just for petty cash. They make their money (and the vast majority) on investments, which is effortless, and taxed the least. The whole system favors the rich.

      Fortunately, it only takes one thing to go from poor to rich - the ability to have deferred gratification. With that, you can put your money to working for you, and not you for your money.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  70. Lemme Caution is that stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either he's pretending he does not have sock puppets, or he's running into karma problems, or it's someone pretending to be lemme caution.

    Either way, he's an ass. Everyone knows that Wall Street is a big GNU/Linux user, all the way down to the desktop, and that anyone dumb enough to use Windows for the task will have London Stock Exchange sized problems.

  71. GeniusTrader by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1
    This is the thing I do for a living--it's quite fun. We have our own proprietary systems at work, and a boatload of data to run through it.

    I would recommend that you try Genius Trader. It's in Perl, and it's a little rough around the edges, but I think it will get you going where you want to go.

    After you have back tested your trading idea, you'll have to open a brokerage account with someone with a nice API, if you want to trade elecronically. But my guess is that you don't have enough money to do that. Commissions will likely kill you, and there's a whole host of risk related to the technology (oh, you didn't want to trade 100000 shares?). But Genius Trader can give you the trades, and then you can hand trade them (I would highly recommend this route).

    The thing that I would truly recommend to you though is just dump all the money you can in the market right now. Even if it goes a little lower from here, by the time you retire, the money you put in today is going to be worth a lot.

  72. They can laugh all they want by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... it would only mean that they are behind the times and don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. Which is the whole point.

    ALL the cutting-edge stuff today is being done in FOSS. The big-corporate software companies have been struggling to keep up. Yes, even Microsoft. They have invested in FOSS (because they had no choice) and they are even adapting open-source languages into .NET... again, because they have no choice.

    The fact that they might laugh at me is one of the reasons that they are losing their underwear in the market right now. Too bad, but that's the way it goes. If you can't keep up, you get left behind.

    Good luck. From your response, you might be one of those who needs it.

  73. Software by UperPoti · · Score: 1

    Technical analysis is bullshit. If you want proof just look at bear sterns (I remember watching it drop from $30 to $10 in under 7 mins on scottrade), lehman bro. etc. Unless you're on the inside of the next scam (fundamentals all the way), your playing the lotto. Even on the smaller time scales, unless you have a damn fast and dedicated connection which would be for institutionals, you're not going to catch the arbitrage opportunities that come with trading the news - nobody is stupid enough to buy united airlines stock at $30 when they declare bankruptcy. You might think that you could get those last few orders that still appear on the level II screen, but the spread will go up and you'll bitch when your order isn't put through at the price you want because of back-filling orders. See http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=7484 for a description of how the FOREX scams work. The only "open-source" movement that might work at this point would be to create something like an OpenQuant clone or something like using interactive broker's api and mesh it with quantlib. But, all that would do though is speed up the release of new features into OpenQuant, which is a watered down version of the QuantDeveloper which is what the big boys use.

  74. Who said that? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Not me.

    I did state that the regulations were relaxed. They were. That is indisputable. For just one example, there used to be a federal regulation that limited the points that that a credit company could charge beyond the prime interest rate. Where is that regulation now?

    I was not arguing about WHO did it... only stating that it was done.

  75. Grism, Merchant of Venice, Money Bee, Ntropix... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I'm surprized that no-one mentioned Grism yet: http://www.grism.org/

    or Merchant of Venice: http://mov.sourceforge.net/

    or Money Bee: http://uk.moneybee.net/

    or Ntropix: http://www.johncon.com/ntropix/

    There doesn't seem to be a shortage of these things.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  76. Monopoly Money by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    there is no doubt whatsoever that regulation of securities (via the SEC) has been totally and 100% completely absent during all of this.

    Yeah, like Sarbox for instance?

    Do you realize that many firms were allowed to leverage up 30 to 1?

    Oh, I think the fractional reserve lending went higher than 30:1, especially if you count the trading of credit default swaps in a ring. That's exactly what took down Bear Stearns - one of the banks one day just told them they wouldn't buy them anymore, and the bank's entire liquidity disappeared. Brilliant move to take out a competitor, IMHO.

    But when you have an organization like Freddie or Fannie promising to back those mortgages with taxpayer money then who cares what the rules are? If the banks actually had to assume the risk themselves you can be sure they never would have taken on the subprime mortgages. I mean, a $600,000 no-money-down, interest-only, no-income-verification loan at 6%? Only the government could pick up that deal.

    Face it - we're in this mess because government insisted on subprime mortgages, government flooded the market with cheap money, government has been spooking the markets with all of its inflationary spending, and, yes, the ratings agencies are completely worthless. Whichever one gave AIG a great rating last month deserves to go down like Arthur Anderson did for its Enron deals. So now the government is attempting to solve the problem with more inflationary spending. And came damn close to putting out more cheap money last week, or so the insiders say. I wonder who hit them with that cluebat.

    That is totally fucked up and should have never happened. End of story.

    Amen to that, brotha. But who's gonna stop them?

    Quite frankly I couldn't care less if they destroy the Dollar - except I'm forced to use it. It's not like I'm ever going to see any of the future entitlements I'm supposedly paying into. If competition in currencies wasn't illegal I'd just ignore the whole thing and put my money in a responsibly managed currency. Any efforts to create such a currency currently result in men with guns raiding your operation and stealing all of your assets. This ensures that politicians can continue to pay their banker friends and contributors with the future labor of the citizenry. One three line bill could solve many of our current problems. How you think that's gonna work out?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Monopoly Money by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      I've been pitching more IT services to countries in the EU as well as the UK. As a small business, the Dollar I'm not a fan of, and it helps that we're able to be paid in Euros (thanks HSBC for our biz banking account denominated in Euros). Things are gonna get much worse before they get better.

      If you're able, I highly recommend having Euro reserves instead of Dollar reserves.

    2. Re:Monopoly Money by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If you're able, I highly recommend having Euro reserves instead of Dollar reserves.

      I've heard Swiss Francs are even superior to the Euro - any chance you did that research before going Euro? I'm meeting with my financial guy next week about it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Monopoly Money by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I would assume it depends on what you tend to do with your reserves. When I opened the account, based on the bank we wanted to use and our client base in Western Europe, I went with the Euro, although your needs may differ.

  77. Re:Regulation by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

    Say what you want about the origins of the problem but there is no doubt whatsoever that regulation of securities (via the SEC) has been totally and 100% completely absent during all of this.

    Two things, it is demonstrably false that there was no securities regulation going on during all of this. The SEC has been doing plenty of things and the NASD (a self regulating body that handles securities regulation in addition to the SEC) in particular has been very busy wasting everyone's time collecting record fines (and wasting the money on really stupid things) for things that don't matter while ignoring those that do. That's the real problem in securities regulation.

    But where you've really missed the mark and what many people don't realize is that mortgages aren't regulated as securities at the consumer level. So securities regulation was largely out of the picture here. Yes there is some regulation from RESPA etc, but in comparison to the regulation hurdles in order to do retail securities business, mortgages are nearly unregulated. There were huge numbers of unprofessional, untrained, and unethical mortgage brokers chucking mortgages with the maximum fees all too happy to not tell people it was only good for two years. And a large portion of this huge mess is from the subprime mortgages. I'm certainly not exempting the people that were all to happy to get themselves into houses they couldn't afford and didn't ask questions about their mortgage from blame though. It goes both ways.

    Regulation only helps if it is smart regulation. From what I have seen in the industry, the regulators don't know anything about the finance industry or the products they are regulating. As long as that is going on, you can't have successful regulation.

    Now, mortgages can be securitized when bundled, etc, but that part of the equation isn't where the failures have been. Despite other misinformed posts here, that part actually helps consumers and the markets to spread risk and price it appropriately.

  78. What you need, my friend... by PvtVoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... is Firefox and an index fund. Dollar-cost averaging is your friend.

  79. the bloomberg app is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imo

  80. consider using Rmetrics by miked98 · · Score: 1

    Robert,

    I think your first inclination to use R was right. Specifically, consider Diethelm Wuertz's R package called RMetrics, available through either http://cran.r-project.org/package=Rmetrics or http://www.rmetrics.org.

    R has pedigree tracing back several decades at
    Bell Labs, and though its million-plus users are concentrated within academia, it is gaining currency within several high-profile
    quantitative analysis groups, including Barclays Global Investors. It's extensibility
    via user-contributed packages has spawned an active developer community.

    --
    "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things." -R.P.Feynma
  81. To clarify by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I did not mean that if a techie came up with a method to predict the stock market, that the method would go away. I am confident that someone that intelligent would find a way to make it pay off before others got wind of what was going on.

    I meant that if the stock market proved to be reliably predictable -- by anybody -- it would almost instantly cease to be a viable means of doing business. The "predictor" would make a killing fast, then get the hell out.

  82. No good FOSS trading platform (yet) by chemise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what FOSS software do you use for financial analysis, trading, system development, and testing in a Un*x environment?

    I am aware of TA-Lib, QuantLib and libraries implementing the FIX protocol to be used in commercial products and private Un*x trading applications.

    Sadly, most people looking for a solid FOSS trading platform will find that they need to roll up their sleeve to get something decent working.

    I have found that software in this area seems quite sparse.

    Indeed. I closely monitor the FOSS community since 1998 for a trading platform. What I observed was a lot of well intended projects, but even to these days, none did reach satisfying maturity.

    I think it relates to under estimation of the complexity. Most project starts with a lot of energy then goes idle because of unattainable short-term goals.

    A general purpose platform will not emerge until someone put coherently together existing building blocks instead of starting yet another weak trading platform from scratch.

    Example of building block is the FIX protocol. Many FIX libraries have matured. Quantlib is another solid example.

    My contribution to the whole picture is TA-Lib. It is a set of functions for people who care about technical analysis (shameless plug).

    \Mario

  83. I have just the thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My daddy uses this silly OS called "WINDOWS" that has about 95% of the business market all sown up - and there are DOZENS of titles that do exactly what you're looking for...

    Send email to: bill.g.monkeyboi@microsofties.com ... or not.

  84. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having worked on the 'last mile' of data delivery for many years, I can say that the APIs to realtime feeds are simply not there for anything non M$, that I am aware of.

    Times are changing however, and as the Banks and Brokers start demanding that Linux is supported, then you'll start seeing something that can be accessed for more personal use.
    There are no Java apps being used for realtime trading that I am aware of, other than wrappers around lower level and much more efficient (native) APIs

    If you're desperate, I'd try using WINE and see how far you get.

    If you're OK with delayed data, then it gets a bit better for you. eg Eclipse Trader (mentioned above) using Yahoo Finance (which actually uses Reuters data) might be a good fit.

    For your personal enlightment, the reason that Data providers don't create software apps that support Linux is:
    a) Traders know where the price is and hence they don't need to analyze it using TA
    b) It is expensive, because the software is generally given away with the feed
    c) Nearly all financial desks rely upon Excel to function. Without it they can't do anything
    d) The other most important thing about stock prices is the news associated with them. (which is one reason is why TA is not used on a trader's desk)

    Don't give up, because one day, one of the main data vendors will start shipping an API and a product that works on more than just M$, it's just not yet.

  85. Many brokers platforms use java and/or web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ThinkOrSwim (java)
    - great options position analysis software
    - free charts, even custom indicators, kinda like TradeStation Easy Language

    InteractiveBrokers (java)
    - Love the book trader for Eminis,
    - charts aren't so flexible
    - book trader is nice for options too.

    But I still use Esignal (on windows) for most of my charting, with my custom indicators. However Esignal ran (to my amazement) just fine on WINE.

  86. I use all open source software. by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    My favorite investment site stockchase runs on Gnu/Linux, uses Mysql, and apache. I use it to see what stocks are worth while, and which to stay away from. Then I do my purchase using firefox.

  87. One of the first things you learn investing... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    ...is that when a company goes bankrupt, holders of common get squat. Preferably, you learn this before you invest. Even more preferably, you learn not to invest in a company that's going bankrupt (toughest lesson to learn). The 2nd best lesson is learning when to take a loss. I lost $1000 on Worldcom. It was the best $1000 I ever lost, when you consider what would have happened if I had "held on, because I just knoooow it's coming back".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  88. Write your own in C by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    If you are going to trade no more often than daily, Yahoo provides price and volume history for stocks and some indexes. You can write your own programs in the language of your choice to analyse this data and test trading strategies. You'll have to look elsewhere for other historical data like earnings and sales.

    Be aware that with the popularity of computerized analysis things have changed. Simple momentum systems that could have gained 1 million times from 1971 to 2002 have been money losers since 2002.

    Also, all databases have some errors. When test results seem too good to be true, they probably are, and database errors are one potential source of misleading results.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  89. The Problem is Data by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a software engineer, I too share some interest in financial analysis and have researched it off and on over the years with an eye towards developing some of my own analysis tools as a hobby interest. However, I have continually been discouraged by the lack of decent public market data services of the type that would be suitable for feeding to analysis software. The decent market data services all want thousands of dollars per month for their streams so that basically precludes anyone but the trading professionals working for financial services companies or high net worth individuals (HNWI), who have enough at stake to justify the $20,000 per month Bloomberg Terminal, from doing anything more than dabbling. The free services are delayed 20 minutes or more and/or have limits on queries per unit time (usually both and always the query limit) etc that make them unsuited for automated analysis (probably what the companies want, since they are trying to sell you up to their professional streaming services). I stopped after some basic analysis and test programs because I knew that without access to relatively comprehensive streaming data services, much of the value of a more complex automated analysis system would be unrealized. The professional industry is already well served by Bloomberg, Reuters, and other terminal / market data businesses so it really isn't worth trying to compete against them professionally by starting a company (the existing services have a massive head start and are already firmly entrenched and unlikely to be unseated and the company would need millions to get off the ground in any case since exchanges are not going to give a new firm any breaks on prices they charge Bloomberg and other firms for access to the live streams). In the end I learned enough about finance to do my own research and analysis manually with the assistance of some basic tools that I cobbled together for myself and that is basically all there is to be done about it unless you want to get serious and plunk down the big bucks for access to the professional data services (you have $20,000 per month to burn?).

    1. Re:The Problem is Data by mathgenius · · Score: 1

      A bloomberg terminal costs around $2000 a month. Don't know where you got the extra zero from.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal

      As for market data, try this: http://www.opentick.com/

      We do automated trading, but don't use a bloomberg terminal.. I don't think it's particularly essential. But you may need to get creative about how you source info, it depends what you are doing.

      As for "millions to get of the ground" that is total BS also. Check out:
      http://limebrokerage.com/

      (this is the same company that does limewire)

      You could probably get started on 150k. That includes investment capital (minimum 100k), servers, and subscription costs.

    2. Re:The Problem is Data by julesh · · Score: 1

      The decent market data services all want thousands of dollars per month for their streams so that basically precludes anyone but the trading professionals working for financial services companies or high net worth individuals (HNWI), who have enough at stake to justify the $20,000 per month Bloomberg Terminal, from doing anything more than dabbling. The free services are delayed 20 minutes or more and/or have limits on queries per unit time (usually both and always the query limit) etc that make them unsuited for automated analysis (probably what the companies want, since they are trying to sell you up to their professional streaming services).

      There are stages between these two extremes. E*trade (UK), for instance, provide streaming access to live data for their customers for £8/month. OK, so I suspect the data is slightly delayed and possibly not the same depth as you get on these bloomberg terminals (I've never come across them before, so I don't know what's provided there), but it is live market data on a per-sale basis for all UK & US publically traded equities, which seems like it ought to be adequate to me.

    3. Re:The Problem is Data by hguorbray · · Score: 1

      The company I work for -eSignal supports third party apps and can deliver realtime data if you subscribe to it

      the main low end api is based on ActiveX
      http://www.esignal.com/esignal/features/activex/default.aspx
      but people have written java and other wrappers around it.

      there is also a higher-level api, but it requires a pretty large setup fee and if you are redistributing the data you have to become a vendor of record with the exchanges.

      eSignal is a cheaper source of data than Bloomberg/Thompson/Reuters and is targetted at individuals as well as institutions

    4. Re:The Problem is Data by portscan · · Score: 1

      actually, yahoo and google (and i would guess a few others) recently started giving live streaming stock quotes without delay. and as of this summer, bloomberg stock quotes were still delayed 15 minutes.

    5. Re:The Problem is Data by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Does the limebrokerage include the annual and quarterly reports data and balance sheets (I know that those don't change as often, but it would be nice to get all of the relevant data to compute values and compare against prices from one source). Also, they don't quote any prices on their website. I do not have access to large amounts of investment capital and I am not interested in running this as a business (at least not at first) so is there anyway that one could get some level of access on a trial/free basis before subscribing? I would be happy if I could get all of the data that one might get from Yahoo finance pages (ECN, analyst estimates, balance sheet, cash flow, and income statements) from a single source. The trading data and automatic trade features are nice to watch prices and make trades on targets, but I would really need to be able to get all of the information described above to really do a comprehensive automated analysis so that that program(s) could decide what prices it would like to buy or sell at or alert on. Thanks.

  90. I see no problem ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... all the decent brokerages use web access for trading.

    I use an OpenOffice-based spreadsheet that manages my overall financial status, downloading end-of-day quotes, maintaining various financial aggregates and performing charting and record keeping.

    All this is on a Mac, under OS X, but the same (or very similar) software should work under Linux.

    If you want to run a Black-Sholes derivative analysis modeling program, you're in a different realm from me.

    Otherwise, a simple web browser and spreadsheet should handle your needs.

    You will, of course, need to know something about writing spreadsheet macros, and have a command of spreadsheet formulas that goes beyond simple =C2-B2 formulas. That sort of thing can be picked up pretty easily via some googling and a bit of effort on your part.

  91. I would hate to find my non-FOSS progrm has a bug! by jvin248 · · Score: 1

    Just as easy to have a bug in commercial software as in FOSS.... Look at the Windows vs Linux OS debate.

    There are some very bright FOSS programmers out there that code for fun - while some commercial hacks are forced to do it for rent. Who might have more pride in the code that is released?

  92. Not so easy to compare by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Let's hope it turns out to be worth something. AIG's stock price 52 week high was $70.13, and it's now trading for $2.69.

    You can't straightforwardly judge the value of the government's stake in AIG using the current price of the common stock. Yes, AIG's common stock's price is currently that, but that's after the government took an 80% stake in the company--a move which, all other things being equal (which they are not), makes each public share worth 20% of what it was worth before.

    In addition, the government has senior preferred shares, which means that all of the common and preferred shareholders must be wiped out before the government takes a hit. This makes the government's shares more valuable than the common.

  93. Software I use: by jvin248 · · Score: 1

    Stockcharts.com for technical analysis.
    Spreadsheets (with custom macros) Open Office "Calc", or you can use Excel if you're not on Linux.
    Yahoo.com for Fundamental analysis data.
    Some stuff on Edgar, and other misc sites.

    1. Re:Software I use: by snilloc · · Score: 1

      What's the easiest way to get stock data into OO? I figured out how to do it with a GoogleDoc Spreadsheet, but that is darn slow so I don't use it too much.

    2. Re:Software I use: by jvin248 · · Score: 1

      get "cvs" stock data from a site (like yahoo.com), download that to a file (.txt typically) and then open or import into OO Calc. You'll probably be asked by OOCalc to parse the columns where it already selects "," comma as parsing tool.

      Harder though is to use a browser bookmark that grabs the stocks data you want from Yahoo (like just the end of day) for a "dozen" stocks at once that prompts for save to cvs file, then launch Calc and have a macro that pulls in the download file data and pastes it all as a new line. Then I had charts set up to track trends. Been a while since I did this (and it had to be done every day). I just installed grism and it does raw data reviews for stocks, pulling in fresh data so might be a solution (however I saw no technical indicators, may need more testing/review on my part to find it). For the most part I just use StockCharts.com for rough technical analysis.Example:

      http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?c=goog,uu%5Bh,a%5Ddaclyyay%5Bdd%5D%5Bpb50!h.02,.20%5D%5Bvc60%5D%5Biuf!ua12,26,9%5D

      just bookmark the above line in your browser and change the company in the bookmark line and re-bookmark for each security you want to save for daily review (if you use default site you don't get the flexibility of this line option). For most "what's this stock and what has it been doing" type of questions I use the "google" bookmark above and then enter in the new stock id and press enter.

  94. Fundamental _&_ Technical analysis needed! by jvin248 · · Score: 1

    You actually need to use Technical analysis along with fundamentals.

    Fundamentals only measure "the past" (last time a company produced earnings/losses and possibly massaged the numbers one way or the other - "we managed earnings"). You can anticipate how the Fundamental traders will react though.

    Technical analysis does tend to do some predictions of current state and future states (indicates trader trends). But is not always very accurate. However, there are a lot of people who follow the Technical side so you can anticipate what they will do when the "signals" appear.

    End result - you need to analyze both techniques and know when to use one tool or the other.

  95. You're missing the point. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    How is 80% ownership of a failed company good for US Taxpayers ...?

    I don't think that GP meant to imply this is "good" for taxpayers; rather, that it was simply not as outrageously bad as had been suggested. GP was responding to GGP's assertion that AIG had gotten $85 billion with no strings attached. The point is that government's 80% senior preferred stake is a big string attached to the money. It means that the government must be paid before AIG's common and preferred shareholders, and that in a bankruptcy or liquidation, the common and preferred shareholders must be completely wiped out before the government can take a loss in its share.

    In effect, there are three interested parties in this deal, and each one's stake must be wiped out before the next one takes a loss:

    1. AIG's shareholders
    2. The government, and thus indirectly, the taxpayers
    3. AIG's creditors

    The deal is structured this way in order to rescue AIG's creditors without rescuing its shareholders (which you can still call "bad" if you like). This is "good" only in the sense that taxpayers' money doesn't go to help AIG's shareholders, who are still being made to bear the risk of being wiped out by their company's bad deals.

    1. Re:You're missing the point. by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      More legacy-economics theory dogma ....

      In effect, there are three interested parties in this deal, and each one's stake must be wiped out before the next one takes a loss:

            1. AIG's shareholders (All investors, big...small, mom&pop retirements ... kids college funds ... all the first to be liquidated ... if ...).
            2. The government very directly the taxpayers (exploited future generations will pay up)
            3. AIG's creditors (no harm ... no fowl-shit)

      The deal is structured this way in order to rescue creditors (partners in crime ... and failures) without rescuing the private (public/citizen) shareholders (which is in MF-Facts very "bad"). This is "good" only in the sense that taxpayers' money doesn't go to help creditors' shareholders (as corporate-welfare), who are still being made to bear NONE of the risk of being wiped out by their company's bad deals with bad partners.

      Next time I hear anyone say the government ..., we should rememberer the PUBLIC FIRST and fuck the rest as the best way to force wealth distribution from idiots to more responsible capitalist. We have more autocracy than meritocracy in USA economics ... that is the real problem.

      You can follow the economic-dogma, or you can follow the money ... one is fact the other is always BS.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  96. Don't by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Please don't label me a troll, but isn't this the most irrelevant time in the history of Slashdot for this question?

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:Don't by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

      Please don't label me a troll, but isn't this the most irrelevant time in the history of Slashdot for this question?

      Not really. If you're a daytrader who went short on LB or ML a week ago, you'd have made a killing.

      Besides, eventually the markets will pick up again. Hopefully...

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Don't by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Now is absolutely the time to look for a new trading/analysis environment and to develop your skills. You don't want waste valuable concentration and mental effort researching and learning new tools when the market's running, do you?

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    3. Re:Don't by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I've got no idea. I don't understand the stock market. I have a moral objection to gaining money by throwing money around, producing nothing yet receiving funds created by the workers in the industries that you invest in.... but that's not my point. I simply don't understand how one trades stock effectively for their own sake (which is the only sake relevant to stock traders, of course). I didn't intend to make moral arguments here, I just kinda can't help myself sometimes. Please forgive me.

      Back to my original point. I don't understand how stock markets work, but I assume stock traders as a group, on average, know how to benefit their individual selves. Stock traders are staying the hell away from the market right now. Thus, I find it reasonable to stick to my original, GP point in the face of an individual argument that I don't understand any better than any other argument.

      --
      Property is theft.
  97. quantlib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  98. Oanda for Currencies uses a Java applet by LonghornXtreme · · Score: 1

    You can use their limited charting package and place orders on *nix.

  99. Re:Hmmm (Wake up and Snort the coffee grounds) by lazlow · · Score: 1

    WTF? The turn down was caused by a whittling away at banking laws starting in the 80's under Reagan. Sorry, we can't blame him, he was a asleep. Wasn't there some savings and loan scandal that involve two guys named Bush. Neil and Jeb Bush, the moron's who is pretending to in charge brothers. Just because you're Republican does not allow you the right to blame other people for your parties mistakes, because you can not see beyond your nose, and do not anything about critical thinking.

  100. My answers by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    what FOSS software do you use for financial analysis, trading, system development, and testing in a Un*x environment?

    Just Firefox. Used to access a website that runs on some proprietary stuff.

    Are there programs you would like to see written or ported?

    I would like to see cheap/free or AGPL licensed software like Sage - except, unlike Sage, actually would work properly.

    Do any brokerages, data providers, or other services provide good support for we the few?

    Their support is the same as their Windows support - Not very good in other words.

    And finally, what commercial entities do you know of that are using FOSS software in their operation?"

    I don't really get why you're asking.. But here is some big names, Microsoft, IBM, Novell, Sun, Cisco, Nokia, Sony, Apple...

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  101. Etrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Etrade has a pretty good system if you are a power etrade level customer. It is Java based, but surprisingly very fast.

  102. not really by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a complicated public/private structure, and basically anything less than a book-length explanation of it oversimplifies in one way or another. It's the de facto U.S. central bank, and the main federal agency regulating banking, but also has significant private components. Its funding sources are technically ownership and fees by various private banks, but restricted in such ways that it's de facto more like government regulation and bank taxes than ownership and fees between private entities. Its board of governors are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. It's also effectively an operational arm of the U.S. Treasury for everything from tax collection to paper-money supply to treasury-bond issuance and interest payments.

    More to the point, its solvency is implicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government, much like that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were (and those two quasi-private entities were actually de facto considerably more private than the Fed is).

    1. Re:not really by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      As a regulator, it acts on a more public madate but most of the other services operate in the private sector with each of the 12 banks having its own entity--own board of directors, needs to raise its own funds to do business. The employees of the reserve banks are not government employees and are not paid with taxpayer money...the money comes from interest on short-term loans to banks, and fees on services such as check processing (which has many other private competitors).

      There's an article on A3 of thursday's WSJ showing that the fed is out about half of it treasury holdings. It is making these loans out of pocket to ensure financial stability (and really...when you think about it, 85billion is a lot of money but for how much collateral AIG has, they are getting a really high interest rate--the average tax payer could get get a much better loan for a proportionally similar loan).

      --
      Bottles.
    2. Re:not really by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      Bah, you oversimplify.

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  103. The Fundamental Problem with FOSS for Finance by Ben+Fitzgerald · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I did a review of FOSS software with a specific view towards use in trading environments etc. a while back as one of the features in Hedge Fund Technology magazine. Whilst there were a few projects out there, our fundamental conclusion (which in hindsight makes great sense) was this:

    Fundamentally FOSS and financial trading software are incompatible concepts. IE if you develop any software product of tangible use and value then it does not make sense for the author to leave it as a free product - when you can be making money out of it (and generally substantial amounts).

    This was the pattern we saw. Many developers had started projects with good intentions, and as training exercises for themselves etc. but then after that they usually branched off to create a commercial product, or were hired by a financial institution which usually includes confidentiality in the contract.

    Projects like EclipseTrader are a progression, but are quite a way behind the edge in terms of functionality - they are recreating tools which were commercial products some ten years ago - which is not to say it is not a useful tool, which it is.

    It is the same reason that market data (share prices etc) is generally quite expensive in real time, but often free after 15 minutes. It is a bit like knowing who is the winner of a horse race - 5 minutes makes a big difference to the value of the information! For academic purposes, exchanges like Euronext (LIFFE) will provide tic level data all the way back if you ask nicely.

    If you invented a trading system which could be shown to help generate a good income & profits - would you give it away for free?

    - if you do please send me a copy!

    Ben

    1. Re:The Fundamental Problem with FOSS for Finance by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Fundamentally FOSS and financial trading software are incompatible concepts. IE if you develop any software product of tangible use and value then it does not make sense for the author to leave it as a free product - when you can be making money out of it (and generally substantial amounts).

      Surely that should go for any software, not just financial trading software? GNU/Linux is a product of enormous tangible use and value. It's still free - even though commercial UNIX distributions in the early nineties cost a fortune.

      This was the pattern we saw. Many developers had started projects with good intentions, and as training exercises for themselves etc. but then after that they usually branched off to create a commercial product, or were hired by a financial institution which usually includes confidentiality in the contract.

      Isn't this exactly what the GPL is for? So that even if the original author goes commercial, the original software remains free and the community can fork the code at that point?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:The Fundamental Problem with FOSS for Finance by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      I make a modest income from my commercial charting software, and in the 7-8 years I've been selling & supporting it I think only one person asked for the entire source code. I declined politely, and that was that. I have shared small bits and pieces (mainly to do with indicators) with a handful of people but that inevitably leads to a string of emails and requests for clarification which I don't have the time to deal with. (Think along the lines of 'thanks for the code, now how do I make it do X and Y and Z, and ...)

  104. Re:Saving the criminals while the victims perish. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    If all you did was insure the mortgages, that would be the same as a bailout. Now suddenly those risky loans have zero risk, because you essentially just turned them into T-bills.

    Don't get me wrong - I understand the need for relief for the consumers who hold these loans (within reason - they were idiots as well but you can aruge they were misled). What kind of people get conned by con artists? Often, they are greedy people (or sometimes vulnerable people). The senile elderly man who has no family who was misled about loan terms for his modest home is one thing, but the middle-aged couple who wanted to own a McMansion is another.

    In any case, consumers are served by the bailouts. Now the government holds their loans, and can adjust the payment terms in a manner that is in the public interest. Essentially it is the consumers that are being bailed out, but indirectly while keeping the structure of these huge corporations intact. Taxpayers are going to pay out big money no matter what - that was a foregone conclusion when we got into this mess. The important thing isn't to save taxpayer money, but to minimize the losses to the average American, while punishing those responsible in such a way as to prevent a repeat of the problems and adjusting regulations where appropriate.

    Again, don't get me wrong. I dislike socialism - but not as much as I dislike fascism which is what we're fixing here. The guys who ran these companies (and the complicit regulators) need to be on the hook for the consequences of their mismanagement. Putting a bunch of stock and insurance analysts out of work doesn't really help accomplish this. The economy needs reputable insurance companies - so rather than destroy an otherwise functioning corporation, why not just fix it - it will save taxpayers money in the long run.

  105. Attn: fucking stupid idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who go around pointing out twitter sockpuppets with no more proof then willyhill's journal need help.

    No I'm not a twitter sock puppet, posting anon. to avoid the inevitable down karma. (Notice the "twitter sockpuppet" is at -1, and the idiot post I'm replying to is +1 interesting? Some mods are stupid.)

  106. Re: Personal Stock Streamer by rla3rd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ummm, this looks like a windows app. The poster is looking for linux ones.

  107. Spring, Hibernate and elbow grease by Ora*DBA · · Score: 0

    I have worked in brokerages, IB's and, lately, hedge funds. FOSS is definitely in use there, in the form of the Spring and Hibernate frameworks. Databases range from MySQL and Postgres to Oracle and SQL Server. You pays your nickel and takes your choice.

    If you were to publish a project, written in Java using Spring and Hibernate talking to a Postgres back end (and be able to provide a back end to an Oracle or SQL Server), yours would not only be a very welcome addition to the FOSS portfolio but very likely have solid commercial potential.

  108. Stowe Mountain Vermont by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1
  109. If you are looking for a FIX engine trading system by rla3rd · · Score: 1

    You may want to consider marketcetera. I haven't used it myself. But if you are trading professionally, you may want to consider it with an Interactive Brokers FIX account. My bet is that it won't run out of the box, and would need a lot of configuration and testing with whoever you maintain a FIX connection with. http://www.marketcetera.com/

  110. FOSS shops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used FOSS software in Santandare(some), ING(slight more) and Morgan Stanley(even more -but standardised and very well managed). The later is also a FOSS advocate and contributor back into the community.

    Goes without saying, but have you looked at lapack combined with the Numerical Recipies book??

  111. opentick otfeed api by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    opentick (google it) provides an API for getting historical intradaily data

  112. Ameritrade's java platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ameritrade has a java platform that works surprising well on my gentoo box. Been trading with it for nearly a year now.

  113. Very profitable with FOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a small (less than 10 people) high-frequency trading firm as a "connectivity developer". A typical setup for an automatic trading firm is three-tiered: the first is the exchange, over which the trader has virtually no control. The second is the connectivity, which connects the exchange to the third tier, which is the trading logic. So my job is basically to take market data (order book info i.e. quotes i.e. bid/offer prices and quantity), convert it to our internal format, and publish it so it can be consumed by the trading program. Likewise, I take order requests (i.e. buy/sell) from the trading program, convert them and send them to the exchange. I relay the results of the order (execution, cancel, rejection, etc) back to the trading program.

    We trade on many exchanges: BrokerTec, eSpeed, EBS, Reuters, ICE, CME, CBOE, Montreal, etc. We don't trade stocks, but are now getting real-time stock data to analyze. In my experience, all the exchanges either use platform-neutral protocols, or provide a Linux client library. So, for example, the exchanges I'm more familiar with: BrokerTec and eSpeed (for US Treasuries) provide a Linux client library against which I develop our connectivity programs. EBS (currencies) uses an XML protocol: information comes to me in an XML stream; I send requests to the exchange in an XML stream. Obviously you can do this with any platform that speaks TCP/IP. The stock data is by and large pushed out via multicast, and the data formats are documented.

    However, I don't know how well this applies to the individual trader. I don't know know how much it costs to get connected to these exchanges (I'm not privy to that information). I'm guessing the entrance costs are astronomical, though, since our company was founded by a few uber-rich folks.

    Still, the point is, we run entirely on Linux/OSS. We have Windows PCs that we use for email (and Excel), but everything else is developed on Linux. And we've been massively successful. The thing is, though we use open-source tools (Linux, gcc, valgrind, gdb, R, gsl, etc), our actual production software is custom and very proprietary... it is our competitive advantage. My hunch is that this is why you don't see a lot of free and/or open-source market analysis/trading tools---they are tool valuable to give away. If people spend a lot of time and effort making them correct and robust, they can use them to profit. Giving them away will only hurt.

  114. Some possible choices by Quetzo · · Score: 1
    1. Many brokers support FIX, so you can use quickfix to interact with major brokerage firms.
    2. Many data vendors supply APIs that will let you create an adapter in python/C/C++ or Java to pull prices into gnucash if thats your preferred analysis tool.
    3. There are table widgets that you can buy to cobble together a FOSS charting/graphing package using opengl. Just google table widget, chart package etc.

    AFAIK, there is no end-to-end foss solution that will perform like a trader GUI.

  115. Do by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Well actually, the stock market has become quite attractivly priced lately.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  116. Two recommendations by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    Forget EMS and even OMS, but quickfix is definitely a must-have.

    QuantLib is the other.

    Maury

  117. Oanda? by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    If you're into Trading the Forex Market, there's Oanda. Their FXTrade and FXGame platform work amazingly well on Linux :)

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:Oanda? by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      On the Forex front, MetaTrader4 works great under wine - after installing a couple of .dlls.

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  118. Software choices by expat.iain · · Score: 1

    what FOSS software do you use for financial analysis, trading, system development, and testing in a Un*x environment?

    Finding halfway decent FOSS trading packages that run under Linux is tricky enough. you'll then still need to get your data feeds from somewhere and these can cost a fair amount of the beer tokens.

    In the past I had used Swing Tracker which provides a clean Java interface for technical analysis. The support was good too. It's a free package but you have to subscribe to the data feeds. At least they're realtime.

    More recently I've been looking at the forex markets. Once again, finding decent technical analysis software turned out to be slim pickings, but ACM provide a very good Java application called Advanced Trader. The package is free and you can use it on a demo account to get the feel using live prices. It's a very comprehensive piece of software that includes many (but not all) functionality a forex trader might need.

    Are there programs you would like to see written or ported?

    I've heard some good things about eSignal and even tried to run it under Wine. Would be happy to try it again if they did a native Linux version...but not in QT. ;)

    what commercial entities do you know of that are using FOSS software in their operation?

    I would suggest that just about every single one does somewhere in their operations.>/p>

    Regs.

    Iain.

  119. Missing the point. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    If you think the purpose behind writing programs is to make money, then of course FOSS is foolishness, whatever the market.

    However, there are other purposes to writing software, just as there are other purposes to a lot of activities. Take flower gardening for example. Some people spend hours and hours in their yards, pulling weeds, planting bulbs, pruning bushes, etc. Why? They don't earn money from it. They can't eat the flowers. There's no profit in it, and significant costs. So why do it? For the pleasure it brings. For the satisfaction in a job well done, the sense of accomplishment. Maybe to bring a little beauty into the world.

    The same thing goes for writing FOSS software. It satisfies a need. It provides a sense of accomplishment. In certain circles, it can bring fame, and respect. Those things can mean more to a person than money.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Missing the point. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      There's areas where FOSS makes sense, like places where work is done mostly by volunteers, and schools.

      The entire purpose of stock/financial markets is to make money, why on earth would you want to write FOSS to do that ?
      Unless you have a vested interest in the markets the software is for.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:Missing the point. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You're still missing the point. A FOSS programmer writes programs because he WANTS to write programs. Doing so "scratches an itch". It doesn't matter if that program is a kid's drawing program, or a word processor, or a stock market analysis program. They get a sense of satisfaction knowing how the data flows through their procedures.

      Besides, why on Earth would you NOT want FOSS software handling your market transactions? How do you know that the proprietary software isn't pulling some schenanigans in the background? How do you know that it's not doing a French roundoff, or skimming a percentage? How do you know that it isn't sending your trade info to a third party? And if you're interested in making money, why would you pay for a piece software when you could get similar functionality for free?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Missing the point. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the proprietary software isn't pulling some schenanigans in the background?

      You monitor it, and since it's linked to the company who wrote it, you have someone to point a finger at.

      With FOSS, you still have to monitor it. Unless you're a programmer or can read the language it's written in as a hobby.

      FOSS or not you still have to watch out for this in some way, shape, or form.

      Besides, why on Earth would you NOT want FOSS software handling your market transactions?

      Because FOSS developers are notorious for shifting the blame all over the place or flat out denying it with "use at your own risk" wrappers. FOSS developers like to write applications, they just don't like to be held accountable for what happens to the people who use it because they weren't compensated for writing it. Accountability is a major issue with financial transactions.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    4. Re:Missing the point. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I've got news for you. Nobody gets held accountable for what happens to the people who use software. There isn't a piece of software on the planet that doesn't have some sort of "use at your own risk" disclaimer on it. If Borland, or Quicken, or Microsoft wrote a stock trading software and it fouled up a million dollar transaction, they're not going to compensate you. So why would you expect a FOSS program to be any different in this regard?

      As for monitoring, you correctly point out that you'd have to do it with both FOSS and Closed Source programs, but at least with FOSS, you can see (or hire someone to see) the internal workings. You can validate the FOSS program easily. Closed source would require Non-Disclosure agreements and all sorts of legal loopholes. And if you really need to point a finger, well, the programmer's name is right there in the copyright notice.

      The only advantage to closed source software is that the companies have deeper pockets if you choose to sue.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  120. Trading Software by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

    Brokers usually supply the software that you may be looking for. My personal preference is Interactive they are the cheapest and have the widest selection of investment options, also their client operates on any OS and is available via the WEB: http://www.interactivebrokers.ca/en/general/education/highlights.php?p=s&ib_entity=ca As for charting and forecasting well, that depends on what kind of investor you are; some economist friends of mien use adobe frame maker with custom software to model economies (I'm talking nation based GDP estimates used to determine things like CPI). Depending on what and where you are looking you'll need to find good "Charting" software as for the methods you'll need to educate yourself with regards to the methods you wish to use and then implement those theories (including back-testing). Oh and NEVER EVER FORGET to BACK test your ideas, if it made you money in the past i may work in the future. As always IANAL, IANAFA, IANACGA, YMMV, TIRIAI (There's inherent risk in all investing).

  121. Investment isn't effortless. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Still, I would be surprised if you were lower than 15%. But the rich don't make their money at wages - that's just for petty cash. They make their money (and the vast majority) on investments, which is effortless, and taxed the least. The whole system favors the rich.

    I would take exception to the idea that investment is effortless. If investment were effortless, then, the entire middle class that does invest would be billionaires. Remember, Warren Buffett began his investment career by buying and fixing a vending machine and putting it in the right place. He just doubled his money every year and half or so for the rest of his life. If investment is so easy, as you say, why can't you do it? Why can't everyone?

    Good investment requires a lot of research, and that takes work.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Investment isn't effortless. by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. You can never have anything to invest if you don't subscribe to deferred gratification.

      The success of investing is determined by your cost basis subtracted from your income. In Warren's case, he had a low cost basis (a broken machine) invested time (at zero cost basis) and created something that was able to pay him back over time.

      The problem with investing in markets, is markets get to set the value, and the are really, really good at that.

      I routinely make 5% on short-term investments (up to a week). My problem is I have not yet compounded enough capital to make it appreciable.

      Everyone can, to varying degrees of success. Again, the market is the issue. For Warren's case, the markets were for the merchandise o be sold and the value of the broken machine. Had he attacked it from a different angle, where the machine was priced based on is earning potential, it never would have been so successful.

      You need only be creative on how to find the value that the market does not yet see. Sometimes you have to create that value yourself. Sometimes its there, just not realized.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Investment isn't effortless. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. You can never have anything to invest if you don't subscribe to deferred gratification

      I think we are talking about the same thing, but down on different paths. I said that investment is work, and you say that you can't invest if you don't have deferred gratification, and I believe both can be simultaneously true.

      I would say, thought, that the ultimate success in Warren's case too, was that he was able to get a good spot to put the machine to begin with. Having the broken machine and fixing it were means to an end... what he saws and continues to see is where the investment matters, and that requires a certain amount of insight. As applied to stocks, it requires both insight and work to do the research. This is always my achilles heel of investing as I tend to put my time into making things nobody wants!

      I successful CEO used to tell me over and over again, that the difference between being rich and being poor is that poor people try and measure the value of something by how much it costs, rather than how much it is worth. Basically you set your prices as high as its value can go, and work backwards on your costs.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Investment isn't effortless. by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with all of what you said.

      While cliche, for anyone reading this, I recomend "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" for a new perspective on how to handle money.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  122. Re:Saving the criminals while the victims perish. by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    The guys who ran these companies (and the complicit regulators) need to be on the hook for the consequences of their mismanagement.

    I'm not holding my breath.

  123. Job in NY, using python/cython/c on linux by mathgenius · · Score: 1

    Job Description: Help develop real-time, network driven systems, using python/cython/c.

    You will be working with a small team of programmers, network engineers
    and traders, to develop a lightning fast trading platform.

    Experience in one or more of the following is desirable:
      * real-time systems, real-time memory management
      * network programming, network protocols
      * distributed computing
      * gui programming, rpc

    Experience in the following is helpful but not essential:
      * financial protocols
      * experience trading equities, futures or forex products

    Zone Holdings is a proprietary trading firm located at the New York Mercantile Exchange.

    E-mail contact: resumes@zonellc.com

  124. Better-Investing Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was at the InvestEd conference last month and spoke with the developer of software at http://churr.com/. He makes Mac and Windows products that compete with the Better-Investing.org "Toolkit" software which only runs on Windows platforms.

    He had just changed the GUI library to QT, if memory serves me. I did offer to help port to Linux in any way I could, then I showed him my Nokia N800 Linux Internet Tablet (I don't travel with a laptop) and offered to port to Maemo myself. He didn't (and I can't blame him at all) take me up on either offer.

    I haven't attempted to run either of these tools under Wine. I'm doubtful Toolkit will run, it depends on lots of strange VB libraries.

    My XLS files to quickly monitor current prices and perform some trivial calculations are dependent on a plugin from Microsoft, so that doesn't work under OO.

    I have researched a number of cross-platform tools. None of them seemed to do what I wanted. I don't need portfolio management, just technical analysis and some lite scripting to help remind me to follow decisions previously made.

    Oh, and anything using java is simply too slow, IMHO AND too heavy. Why is it that java programs seem to take twice as long and 3x more memory?

  125. .NET trading by FeynmansBastard · · Score: 1

    http://tradelink.googlecode.com/

    is a .NET platform for daytrading futures + equities, open source. I don't think it's been tested on Mono, but it just uses basic Windows.Forms so it should work for the most part. We'd welcome any help from someone with more mono experience than me...

    in terms of broker support, it works with IB... although it's only been tested with IB on windows. It also works with Assent... although assent is windows-only.

    We have a small community of people who develop with it... also there are several firms and traders who use it every day... both for trading black/grey strategies and for some more mundane stuff like quote screens or risk management platforms. It comes with a bunch of applets but the library is multi-purpose and lets you build almost any trading "thingee" pretty quick.

    hit me up on the developers mailing list if you want to help us get it running on mono...

  126. Welcome! by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
    Welcome Comrades! Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics!

    Now do you get what it means?

  127. Re:Now we're talking filmmakers not techies by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Alright -- indifference is not the same as hate. I'm not sure which is really operating, and I'm not sure how much it matters. As for the movie pi -- no this is not an example of techies being interested in finance. That's *filmmakers* being interested in both tech and finance. A techie being interested in finance would be some real person (not an actor) going on and on about 'solving' the stock market in between bouts of criticism over the direction of the LINUX kernel. I have never met this type of person. In my opinion, it barely exists. I think Jane Q. Public has it right -- techies mistrust finance because they tend not to believe it can actually be predicted (there are a lot of good arguments for this, not least among which is the human tendency to see patterns where there are none -- and here is where the movie PI is a great example, because pretty much all of the events in PI can be simply explained as a sick human brain running its pattern-matcher out of control). So techies tend to think that people who think they can game the market non-randomly are fooling themselves. Basically financial analysis as a *predictive* tool, is just junk science to a lot of very serious nerds. It's too much like social science. It isn't 'hard'. They don't like it. They suspect it's bullshit. And they *really* hate bullshit. I was wrong, above. I've discovered that I *can* explain it to you. 8)

  128. Look at my sig! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    "Every time the economy realizes that the share market is imaginary money, we have a crash. But then they forget it again."
    This was proven many many times my economy scientists (or how you call them in the USA).

    I don't believe in imaginary money. And neither should you. :)

    Stock markets trading real goods are another thing.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  129. JBookTrader by nonlinear5 · · Score: 1

    There are actually a number of options available. If you mean automated trading, the list of choices narrows, but there are still dozens of alternatives. If you include only open source automated trading systems (ATS), you'll be left with only a couple. I manage one of the FOSS ATS, JBookTrader (http://code.google.com/p/jbooktrader/). Feel free to join, we need more developers.

  130. Re: try thinkorswim's thinkdesktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it also will run on Linux, but requires Java 1.5 at the moment.

  131. Perfect by dubl-u · · Score: 1

    I'm entirely in favor of that. The only thing I'd add, at least in the current crisis, is confiscation of up to 80% of the endowments of major business schools.

  132. Main culprit? by mi · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly believe that mark to market is the main culprit in the crisis?

    The main? Not sure. One of the main? Definitely. Notice, how the banks like BofA and JPM are sitting pretty — and were even in a position to buy the failing investment banks (Bear Stearns went to JPMorgan earlier this year, Merill Lynch — to BofA last week). They have the same "toxic" securities. But they don't have to account for them in the same way — they are allowed to use certain financial models to come up with a price for the paper the are holding, rather than being forced to price it at today's market prices... In a normal (liquid) market there is little difference. In one spooked (even temporarily) by mortgage-related panic — it is a difference between life and death. Because if nobody wants that paper today (even though its issuer is solvent, and continues to pay dividends, etc.), then, under the "mark to market" requirements, the paper is worth zero and you have no collateral. You lose your credit ratings (automatically). And then, immediately, your counterparties are seizing whatever other collateral you may have put up to guarantee deals, and, whooops, your (ex-)employees are carrying out their stuff out of your (ex-)offices...

    Perhaps, the main culprit were Freddie and Fannie. Created to address a "market inefficiency" — no sane banker would risk giving their own money to anyone, who managed (in this blessed country!) to stay too poor to have any money for a downpayment — they grew up into two disasters. Here is one, somewhat partisan, opinion. You may disagree with person, but some of the facts there (the main beneficiaries of their lobbying efforts, and their accounting irregularities ) are indisputable.

    In fact, the tearing down of the barrier between commercial banking and investment banking allowed multiple conflicts of interest in investment banks, now also involved in brokerage and insurance and other areas.

    These are empty words — and a spin. Here they are restated, spun just as convincingly in the opposite direction: "In fact, the tearing down of the barriers between different financial activities allowed for greater efficiency and the benefits of the economy of scale, thus allowing better-tailored financial products to be offered to clients at lower fees."

    And my spin above is closer to truth than yours. Because yours is similar to arguing against air-travel using air-crashes as an example. Yes, an air-plane can crash — in particular, if it touches the ground however slightly during flight. But it can bring passengers much further, much faster, and for much less, than any previously known method of transportation. This is little consolation, when you picking up bodies from the wreckage, but remains an objective truth.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Main culprit? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      There's no need to restate what you mean. You can repeat it but that doesn't make it right.

      You are basing your argument that mark-to-market is one of the main contributors to the credit crunch. That is absurd. It is a aggravating factor only, because mark to market did not cause the sky high leverage ratios in the first place! If you think it did, please educate me. I'd be very interested to know.

      The only argument I can see is that MtM played a part in perpetrating the bubble by re-pricing these instruments in a positive feedback loop. However, the main problem is still with the nature of these instruments, and their fallibility. MtM only made it worse.

      Just because you can make an argument on your version of the facts, does not mean that it is closer to the truth than any other version.

      The questions are very simple - why were the investment banks able to maintain these absurd leverage ratios with so much from assets that are complex and opaque? Secondly, and probably more importantly, why did this have such a big effect on the credit market?

      Were they so naive to think that high yielding complex financial instruments were a good constituent of your asset base (just because a ratings agency said it was)? Where did due diligence and risk management factor in? Banks should structure their asset base to be resistant to collapse in specific markets.

      It's not that we haven't seen crises due to bad loans before. So what was done to help prevent this and how did it the crisis develop in the end considering this?

      You can keep believing in your alternate reality, but the fact is, if there is no mark-to-market accounting used in the investment banks, they will still sink one way or another due to the structural problems in their business model. The reason why this came to be is up for debate, but it is becoming increasingly clearer by the day.

      Finally, your analogy is *way* off the mark. I'm not saying people shouldn't fly. It's just that the pilot shouldn't be skipping pre-flight checks. That is all.

    2. Re:Main culprit? by mi · · Score: 1

      You are basing your argument that mark-to-market is one of the main contributors to the credit crunch.

      Not to the crunch, but to the failure of the investment banks.

      The only argument I can see is that MtM played a part in perpetrating the bubble by re-pricing these instruments in a positive feedback loop. However, the main problem is still with the nature of these instruments, and their fallibility. MtM only made it worse.

      Well, yes, the positive feedback loop made it so much worse, that it was the difference between prosperity and catastrophe — positive feedback has that ability in other areas: it can destroy bridges and buildings, blow up electronics, and in a nuclear reaction it makes the difference between sustained, electricity-producing heat and a mushroom-cloud explosion... No instrument is infallible — just as no bank can survive a run-on.

      Finally, your analogy is *way* off the mark. I'm not saying people shouldn't fly. It's just that the pilot shouldn't be skipping pre-flight checks.

      Well, higher up in this thread, it was suggested, that it was the CDOs, that are at fault, and the Republicans were blamed for allowing them with their deregulation. Heck, some people are now suggesting even the practice of short selling be banned for good — that's not even planes, that's like banning railroads...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Main culprit? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can see that the short sell ban is a way to distract attention from all the political wrangling.

      This is what modern political discourse has become, and it saddens me. What we should be asking ourselves is this -

      1. Should markets be regulated?

      2. If so, where do we draw the line in the regulation (to make the markets function more effectively)?

      Although the consensus answer for #1 with economists is yes in most cases, I'm sure a significant portion of the populace would say no, even though it doesn't take a lot of historical perspective to see that unregulated markets are a recipe for disaster (due to a variety of reasons, mostly to do with human behavior).

      This is also what is providing the political support for redrawing the line in #2. Because such a big proportion of the population thinks that all regulation is big government and that must be bad, we frequently miss the point (which is the bit in the parenthesis). When we are discussing a bill which changes the dynamics of the market, are we doing that for legitimate reasons, or for ideological reasons? Worse still, is it for political favors? Who's asking these questions and who's paying attention?

      To sum up: the proof of the pudding is in the eating; we've eaten a lot of pudding lately and it's given us diarrhea.

  133. FOSS is irrelevant by NateTech · · Score: 1

    Once you learn how to make money in the market, you have enough money to buy whatever best in breed software is out there to make more. FOSS gets lost in that shuffle, real quick.

    Unless you know any coders who spend about 12 hours a day making money in financials, and another 12 hours a day coding up software to show you how they do it (not likely), just use whatever works to make you money.

    The best money managers out there often use a pencil and paper and just use the computer screen as a way to get real-time data for their analysis. The rest is just a waste of valuable research time.

    --
    +++OK ATH