Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trading the Markets With FOSS Software?

Posted by timothy on from the free-markets-deserve-free-software dept.

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?"

4 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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.