Slashdot Mirror


New "Circuit Breaker" Imposed To Stop Market Crash

Lucas123 writes "The SEC and national securities exchanges announced a new rule that would help curb market volatility and help to prevent 'flash crashes' like the one that took place on May 6, when the Dow dropped almost 1,000 points in a half hour. That crash was blamed in part on automated trading systems, which process buy and sell orders in milliseconds. The new rule would pause trading on individual stocks that fluctuate up or down 10% in a five-minute period. 'I believe that circuit breakers for individual securities across the exchanges would help to limit significant volatility,' the SEC's chairman said. 'They would also increase market transparency, bolster investor protection, and bring uniformity to decisions regarding trading halts in individual securities.'"

70 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. Good Fix... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    What happened on May 6th was that sell orders were present without matching buy orders for an instant, and that allowed some really wacky trades to complete... nearly every Dow and S&P 500 component was affected, and some ETFs even traded for a penny a share for that brief instant. Then when news got out that there was bargains to be had, the buy orders started showing up and things returned to a run-of-the-mill down day.

    Now, the NYSE and NASDAQ have always had this circuit breaker rule that allowed them to call a "time out" where they wouldn't process orders in order to draw attention to the wacky situation and give all involved time to react. The problem is that these new "market centers" allow trades to be completed rapidly, but also without the same oversight rules. While the big exchanges had the time out in effect, orders simply routed around them and the wacky drop continued. So, now the SEC is taking the NYSE/NASDAQ rules and making them their rules, so all the new players have to observe the timeouts. That should fix this problem.

    1. Re:Good Fix... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This sounds like a band-aid solution to a bigger problem. Millisecond trading is exploiting the system; it just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market. Why is it allowed?

    2. Re:Good Fix... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's allowed because the current theory is that anybody who wants to do it, can. I think the best argument against that is it takes real estate close to the market computers in order to have a fast enough ping time to trade by the millisecond.

      My fix for that situation would be to dumb down the market clocks to only timestamp to the second, and anything received in the same second gets the same priority, with randomness as the tiebreaker when needed. That should suck the life out of these vultures.

    3. Re:Good Fix... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it allowed?

      Exactly because "Millisecond trading is exploiting the system; it just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market."

      Oh, you mean why do the American People allow the stock market to exist without taxing the hell out of speculators? I blame a national battered wife syndrome.

    4. Re:Good Fix... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Millisecond trading is exploiting the system

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      It just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market.

      How does one go about "sucking profits"? What does that even mean? If you're going to advocate telling people how, with whom, and when they are allowed to buy or sell items with other willing individuals, you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur.

    5. Re:Good Fix... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Why is it allowed?"

      I think the answer is obvious. We are going to get into a full on depression soon with another economic crises within 2 to 3 years with derivatives, gold, and bonds if someone doesn't stop these guys soon. Crashes were quite common before regulation and our system is turning very 19th century with the new barrons and billionaires. These crashes happened in 1908 and 1873. In 1908 all the bankers forgave each others loans and the problem went away. The 1873 depression was almost as bad as the one in 1929 and we have a veyr large inflated value of derivatives of hundreds of trillions in non existence value that is more than the World's GDP.

      I do not mean to make the fellow slashdotters mad or anything but guess where our tax money went for our bailout? It went to Rand Paul and others to make sure they can screw you over with no reforms and a free pass to play with your money you deposit in your bank.

      Time to join a coffee or tea party. I do not have faith with so much money going to both parties that a solution will be developed before another diasaster appears. Obama looks pretty powerless at this point too to do anything about it.

    6. Re:Good Fix... by feepness · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does one go about "sucking profits"? What does that even mean? If you're going to advocate telling people how, with whom, and when they are allowed to buy or sell items with other willing individuals, you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur.

      I'm pretty libertarian, but I agree these should be stopped. As the other poster said, it gives real estate closer to the market servers an advantage, I'm not quite clear how it works, but it is evident that it does because people are doing it. I assume they can recognize short term patterns and jump in ahead of anyone else who might try to take advantage of them.

      Trading is something where we want to have as level a playing field as possible. It's also something specifically designed to serve humans. The speed of your computer and connection shouldn't give you an advantage. It keeps our market freer.

    7. Re:Good Fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I think the best argument against that is it takes real estate close to the market computers in order to have a fast enough ping time to trade by the millisecond."

      The flash traders have full supercomputers right under the trading floor and analyze all data coming in and out before it reaches the other shareholders.

      Goldman Sachs is making a ton of money off them.

    8. Re:Good Fix... by Jake73 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the term is "arbitrage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage) and it really is "sucking profits". It is exploiting (yes, I mean that) small variations and inefficiencies in market representations. These points are being closed, but they still exist.

    9. Re:Good Fix... by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume they can recognize short term patterns and jump in ahead of anyone else who might try to take advantage of them.

      More than just recognize - the biggest players can manufacture short term patterns because they control large segments of the market. Oddly enough most of them seem to be located in that prime real estate mentioned earlier...

    10. Re:Good Fix... by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's allowed because the current theory is that anybody who wants to do it, can. I think the best argument against that is it takes real estate close to the market computers in order to have a fast enough ping time to trade by the millisecond.

      My fix for that situation would be to dumb down the market clocks to only timestamp to the second, and anything received in the same second gets the same priority, with randomness as the tiebreaker when needed. That should suck the life out of these vultures.

      A second? How about once a day!

      Explain to me just what a multi-billion company could do in under a second that would fundamentally change the value of their stock?

      Think about it this way: there is no way for traders to gain information on the underlying asset of a stock second-to-second. There is no public source of information that fast! No corporation gets updates internally that quickly. Most of them only roll up their accounts for reporting daily, and some only get an internal update of their financial status monthly or even slower. Even if some huge announcement was made that suddenly changes the value of a corporation, what difference does it make if people get to sell their stock a second or a day later?

      The whole concept of the stock market is to create a central point for people to invest in a corporation. How is buying and selling a stock in under a second anything at all like "investing"? It's pure gambling, milking the real investors of cents on every dollar, putting it into the pockets of traders that provide zero value to society. They produce nothing except market crashes.

      Trades faster than a day should be simply outlawed, and it should not be possible to own a stock for a period of less than one day either. Real investors should investigate a company's fundamental value and invest for years, not sit there all day and shuffle money around like it's a game in a casino.

      Consider this: if millisecond trades are possible, and make sense, then why not microsecond trades? Nanoseconds? Why should we stop there? Lets puts the exchange and the trader's computers on the same piece of silicon, and have them buy and sell stocks at gigahertz!

    11. Re:Good Fix... by thrawn_aj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THIS! A million times THIS! Why do you have to write something so sensible when you know it'll never be done? Are you trying to depress us to death =p

      Of course it's gambling, plain and simple. Even worse, because these SOBs don't even have the decency of common gamblers to use their own money for the purpose. The whole profession is based upon extracting stuff out of that little space under your fingernails and calling it gold.

      The worst part of it is that these hucksters can (and do) cause real harm to productive brick and mortar businesses for no earthly reason (but the whim of the big trader).

    12. Re:Good Fix... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Explain to me just what a multi-billion company could do in under a second that would fundamentally change the value of their stock?

      You are begging the question. It isn't what a single company could do in under a second, it is what external events might occur to change the perception of a company's prospects. Given the hundreds of millions of events that occur every second it is no stretch to believe a handful of them are relevant to a single company, even if only minutely so.

      Sure you become more vulnerable to cascade effects, but you also get plenty of benefits like significantly increased liquidity.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Good Fix... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to my link above he was financed by the big banks. Therefore he will fight for their interests and not ours. Why else would they lobby?

    14. Re:Good Fix... by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ">>>Trades faster than a day should be simply outlawed
      You just bought Ford stock an hour ago, and now you just learned that the company is declaring bankruptcy effective 5 o'clock today. Do you really want to be forced to keep that stock until 23 hours from now (when it will be worthless)?"

      Didn't you read? On his account, there's no problem. You will need to wait for 23 hours... but everybody else will have to too!

      Your stocks will be worthless (than any other's) in 23 hours if and only if those said others are allowed to sell sooner than you and *specially* sooner than the buyer's knowledge about the bankrupcy. If everybody *have* to wait for a sane amount of time, the same for everybody, you are just leveraging the field allowing for more competitors and better reasoned actions.

      Now, what do you prefer? To compete with big traders on an equal foot or compete with your morning newspaper against their supercomputers under the trade ring?

      "I agree with your idea of 1 second intervals, but not 24 hours. A lot can change during that time."

      It is not what can change between intervals but how much time is allowed for you to digest it.

    15. Re:Good Fix... by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Obama looks pretty powerless at this point too to do anything about it.

      He could have ended the war and saved ~100 billion per year. He could have pushed through legislation to raise SS and Medicare minimum age from 68 to 78 (gradually over time), and then fixed it to the Life Expectancy. It's supposed to be a last-resort safety net, not an entitlement. ----- He also could have converted these programs to "needs based" systems where only people with life incomes below 10 million would be eligible to receive the checks (rich people can take care of themselves). These simple changes would have saved between 1 and 2 trillion per year.

      If I were president I'd also direct my cabinet to lay-off half the staff in their respective areas of influence. Yeah it sucks, but we have a ~13 trillion dollar debt, the economy is shit, and now's the time to make the tough choices. Besides in my experience with government work, half the staff just surfs the net all day anyway. That's what I did when I worked for the FAA (and then eventually left because it was boring). Lay them off.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    16. Re:Good Fix... by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem is they aren't voluntary transactions because the buyer and seller have no control on the timescale of the transaction.

      Buyer X wants to buy 10,000 shares of a stock at $20.10 per share. Seller Y is trying to sell, will accept $20 and has been waiting for an offer for half a second. Flash trader GS's supercomputer located at the market floor sees the offer and ask and sells 10,000 shares to X at $20.10, then buys Y's shares at $20, quickly pocketing $1000. Y never gets to see X's bid. X never gets the see Y's asking price. That $1000 came out of X and Y's pocket.

      All that has happened is that money was sucked out of the market and into GS's pockets. Now multiply it by every freaking trade. There is no benefit to the market, or to anyone else. Markets work on knowledge and are only efficient if everyone has knowledge. Flash trading is using information before it can be generally made known. That alone makes it a force that doesn't belong in any market.

    17. Re:Good Fix... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Informative

      Arbitrage exploits inefficiencies, but it also reduces them. If there's a buy order in Market A for $50 and there's a seller in Market B who wants $49, then there's really nothing wrong about offering him $49.10 and then turning around and selling it in A and pocketing the $.90. (Real arbitrage usually would involve higher quantities and lower spreads.)

      There are plenty of other people who would be willing to arbitrage the same thing as you are and give the guy on the other end a slightly better deal. So you'd expect that the profits that come from it are reasonable, and in line with the profits you could make by taking the money and effort of building a high-frequency trading system (programmers, fast computers, the risk of losing money on a bad trade, etc) and applying it elsewhere. It's really not a big deal.

      As for a look at an extreme version of what the market would be like without people playing high-frequency trading games and the like, go look up your favorite small- or mid-cap stock on E*Trade during extended hours trading some time. Right now, my company stock can be bought for $12.30, or sold for $11.80. That's like a 4% fee to buying the stock. Yow! (The annualized real rate of return of the stock market is about 4%. That's like a year's profit, just gone, if you have to take those prices.) If big trading outfits can reduce that spread, they're welcome to whatever profits they can make off my money.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    18. Re:Good Fix... by lennier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure you become more vulnerable to cascade effects, but you also get plenty of benefits like significantly increased liquidity.

      Explain how stock trading liquidity is a benefit in and of itself - to human society and the Earth's biosphere - rather than as a benefit only to those wanting to extract wealth from the markets due to volatility.

      Remember that extracting wealth from the markets and transferring it from one account to another is not the same thing as 'profit', because it reduces the wealth available to actual productive investment - the corporate processes which do not and cannot change any faster than the time it takes to gear-up a factory or harvest a crop.

      Remember also that every trade on the market which is not directly linked to the true value of a stock actively destroys information because it introduces noise into the market, polluting the use of that stock's trading symbol as a measure of real wealth (rather than imaginary fantasy wealth).

      Explain clearly how, despite the information-destroying nature of speculation, nevertheless 'providing liquidity' to enable this destruction of information is still a significant human benefit.

      Show all your work.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    19. Re:Good Fix... by mrand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does one go about "sucking profits"? What does that even mean? If you're going to advocate telling people how, with whom, and when they are allowed to buy or sell items with other willing individuals, you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur.

      I'm pretty libertarian, but I agree these should be stopped.

      Me too (on both accounts)

      As the other poster said, it gives real estate closer to the market servers an advantage, I'm not quite clear how it works, but it is evident that it does because people are doing it. I assume they can recognize short term patterns and jump in ahead of anyone else who might try to take advantage of them.

      Trading is something where we want to have as level a playing field as possible. It's also something specifically designed to serve humans. The speed of your computer and connection shouldn't give you an advantage. It keeps our market freer.

      This discussion is more accurate than most of you probably realize... I work for a router equipment vendor. Guess what the main market for ultra-low latency routers is? That's right - they have realized on Wall street that a router with lower latency means a higher chance of getting your trade in before your competitors. If your router has a latency of 500 nsec while your competitors all have 600 nsec routers, you have the advantage. At least until someone ponies up and buys one that is lower than yours.

      Successful trades shouldn't have to be measured in nanoseconds.

            Marc

      --
      -- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
    20. Re:Good Fix... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Explain how stock trading liquidity is a benefit in and of itself -

      Because the alternative is market makers who really rape anyone trying to buy or sell a stock that does not have good liquidity.
      Those thieves are the ones who massively "extract wealth from the markets." Good riddance to those bastards.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:Good Fix... by Eil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you propose a permanent end to day trading. Okay, but keep in mind that day trading isn't just some speculating little wonk sitting in his apartment all day poring over charts and trends. Many major financial companies have automated and manual day trading operations. And if you piss them off, all you're going to do is drive them into building some kind of new over-the-counter network that's loose enough to avoid the most onerous exchange restrictions.

      Short-term volatility doesn't affect long-term investors much, yet they're always the ones complaining the loudest about it. Day traders aren't taking money from long-term investors, they're taking money from other (less skilled) day traders. The only people who should be pissed off about market volatility are the day traders because it makes their job so much riskier. (Although potentially more profitable as well.) A smart mid- to long-term investor with investments in solid companies sees a market crash and says, "Cool! A Sale!" right before calling his broker and ordering as much as he can afford.

    22. Re:Good Fix... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they're not decisions, it's just luck. Whoever happens to hear that a meltdown is happening screws over someone who's taking a nap.

      I make money. Someone else has to lose it.

      The point of the stock market is to invest in the success of a company, not to compete with other investors. If the company flops, all of its investors should lose. It shouldn't be about which investor gets to their laptop first to dump the stock on some poor unwitting buyer.

    23. Re:Good Fix... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

      No you are just limited by your imagination.

      For one thing, I didn't say hundreds of millions of events affect a company, I said that all those occur and out of all of those, a couple of them are likely to affect PERCEPTION of the company.

      Nor am I failing to account for knowledge of those events. One does not even need to be directly aware of the event, it need only be reflected in something that the trading system is aware of - like the change in the value of the shares of another company in a similar market. Same thing on your analysis critique, more failure think it all through.

      And so what if it takes minutes to find out after the fact - it doesn't matter how much time passes between the event happening and your knowledge of it, only the difference in time since you gained knowledge of the previous event. It's a pipeline.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Good Fix... by tukang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember also that every trade on the market which is not directly linked to the true value of a stock actively destroys information because it introduces noise into the market, polluting the use of that stock's trading symbol as a measure of real wealth (rather than imaginary fantasy wealth).

      Not only is a trade "directly" linked to the true value of a stock (or whatever is being traded) but it defines the true value of the thing being traded. The true value is what the buyer and seller agree to.

    25. Re:Good Fix... by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you realize how wide the swings would be in your once-a-day scenario?

      What you are trying to do is add punctuation to the system. Please explain why punctuation is good, and then explain why a 24 hour punctuation is better than 1 hour, or 1 minute.

      The traders skimming the sub-second trading are angling for very small margins... fractions of a percentage point. So if you sell your $100 worth of AT&T, and these guys might be taking a few pennies of it.. and I say might because if they werent doing what they are doing, you have no idea what the price would be. The price would certainly be more volatile, because instead of Mr Sub-Second jumping in when the price moves a penny, its Mr Sub-Week jumping in when the price moves a dollar. Either way, you are selling to people jumping in. These middle-men are buffers that make the system work.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:Good Fix... by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      collect all of those fractions of a cent where the numbers are rounded into other currencies.

      What you're joking about already exists in the form of Forex trading..

    27. Re:Good Fix... by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What exactly is the "true value of the stock"? If your answer has anything to do with the future (future revenue, future earnings, etc.), please explain how you're able to know the "true value" of anything which has yet to happen.

      This is an excellent point. No healthy public companies are trading wholly on their intrinsic value.

      The intrinsic value (this is hardly the proper GAAP term, so I'm defining it briefly here) would be taking all of XYZ Company's assets and receivables and summing them. Then dividing amongst the "float" (number of shares issued).

      So if XYZ has $1M in the bank, and is owed $500k (and we assume it's all collectable debt), then their value would be $1.5M. If they have one million shares issued, those shares are worth $1.50?

      That's hardly how it works.

      Why? The shares don't disappear into thin air at the end of their fiscal year. They'll make more money next year, and the year after that. But they might go bankrupt, or become obsolete in the market. We can't know these things with certainty, so we price the stocks accordingly ("risk"). But wait, what if they sign a big deal and suddenly their receivables go way up for this year? Well that's called speculation.

      So now you have the way modern fixed equities (stocks in companies) are priced on our markets. Actual monetary value if the company was sold, plus or minus speculation/risk on perceived future monetary value. Oh, plus dividends, but those aren't nearly as important as they used to be.

      TL;DR- It's not simple like you want it to be, and it shouldn't be. Speculation drives access to capital.

    28. Re:Good Fix... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, the whole event that we are discussing happened because liquidity (buyers at a market price) disappeared for a few seconds. That sounds like liquidity might be pretty important.

      To see this, consider for a second how you'd feel about your bank account, if you didn't know from day to day how much your $5000 was really worth. That is what liquidity is, and I'll bet your daily behavior suggests you value it highly.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    29. Re:Good Fix... by alexhard · · Score: 4, Informative

      >Explain how stock trading liquidity is a benefit in and of itself

      The higher the liquidity, the lower the bid-ask spread. Illiquid assets have gigantic spreads, to the tune of tens of percentage points on their actual value.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    30. Re:Good Fix... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just bought company X stock and you hear on the news that they're going belly up 10 hours from now. Who the fuck is going to buy it?

      Further up somebody gave an example of an event occurring which bankrupts a company, and everyone appears to have latched onto this as being a description of the typical scenario.

      Much more likely is some news that damages a company. If you think the market has overreacted it would make sense to invest in the company and wait for the bounce.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Good Fix... by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, the whole event that we are discussing happened because liquidity (buyers at a market price) disappeared for a few seconds. That sounds like liquidity might be pretty important.

      To see this, consider for a second how you'd feel about your bank account, if you didn't know from day to day how much your $5000 was really worth. That is what liquidity is, and I'll bet your daily behavior suggests you value it highly.

      It's not as liquid as you think!

      My bank account only allows a maximum of AUD 20K electronic transfers per day, for anything else I'd have to got into a branch,
      which would take me over an hour, and even then, transfers between banks are batch processed once a day, during the night. Some transfers take several days to process.

      Do you see the pattern emerging here?

      Why is it that everybody is perfectly happy doing their banking, the most liquid of the ordinary assets most citizens have, on a daily basis, but for some reason corporations require their investment liquidity to be on a millisecond timescale?

      No business model needs that, except for the day traders that want to generate profits at the expense of ordinary investors that aren't physically housed across the street from the Exchange data centre!

    32. Re:Good Fix... by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In 24 hours everybody's Bankrupt Ford stock will be worth $0.00 (or mere pennies).

      No. The stocks will be worthless immediately as soon as Ford announces the bankruptcy.

      when he has advanced knowledge of Ford's bankruptcy,

      The whole point of 1-day trading is to prevent people from exploiting information asymmetry, and your only excuse is that you want to continue to exploit it? It looks like you kind of didn't get the point of the grandparent at all.

  2. Great idea by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm so saddened by these stories about stock traders getting electrocuted. It was about time they added circuit breakers.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Plumbers telling electricians what to do. by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when people who aren't competent in a field start dictating the activities in it.

    How many legislators are Series 7 licensed? Series 66? 63? 6? Do any of these buffoons know how the market works? No floor also means no ceiling, there is no cap to how much an investor can make/lose.

    1. Re:Plumbers telling electricians what to do. by Monkey_Genius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any buffoon can take a course, cram, and pass the series 7 exam. All you need is a licensed brokerage to sponsor you. Now, if that was done for Microsoft licensing, there would be a hell-of-a-lot less MCSEs out there.

      --
      I've got your sig, right here.
  4. A sad day for free market capitalism by BitHive · · Score: 2, Funny

    This regulation will only strangle growth and innovation, slowing our economic recovery. But I guess it's easier to carry out a regulatory vendetta than it is to appreciate that the simple, universal truths of Austrian economics.

    1. Re:A sad day for free market capitalism by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do not know if sarcasm is intended or not.

      If you are serious I would say its not capitalism as you and I do not have access to these systems with impossible barriers of entry. Fixed oligopolies and monopolists like Goldman Sachs have access to placing the super computers right under the trading floor at Wallstreet. Therefore its no different than communism where only 1 player exists to set supply and demand.

  5. Why? by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly what harm are they trying to mitigate here? Volatility isn't a bad thing in and of itself. If the underlying value of the stock is there, the price will recover. If not, well, it needs to go down.

    1. Re:Why? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The guy who needs protection is the poor sap who wanted to cash out his account at that point in time, who submitted a market order expecting to get $60,000 and having it execute and come back with $2700 for him. Should have used a limit order... but still, this just isn't "fair" and not likely to encourage people to invest in the market. So, that trade gets busted, he gets his stock back and gets to try again. Still, the market doesn't like busted trades either, so we need new rules designed to decrease the likelihood this will happen again.

    2. Re:Why? by dasunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Awhile back I read a book on big boom/busts in history, such at the Dutch tulip fiasco.

      The author's opinion was that some market bubbles had positive effects. One of the examples he cites was the rise of railroads in (IIRC) 19th century England. For awhile, it seems like everyone wanted to put money into making railroad lines. So a ton of lines were created, the market went bust, the individual lines went broke, and the few remaining players were able to snatch up the lines they needed from the bankrupt investors.

      In the short term, the bust was harmful, in the long term, the author stated that it helped create the modern railroad industry in England.

      Don't know if I agree with it, but it was an interesting idea.

      Boom/busts may be the equivalent of the precambrian explosion. Lots of interesting ideas are tried out, and only the fittest survive.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He shouldn't be investing in the market then. Limit orders are not that complicated. If you don't specify a limit, then you are essentially declaring a 'fire sale,' and you shouldn't be surprised if you don't get the price you expect.

      Furthermore, one of the most important rules of investing is "Buy in over time." This means that you shouldn't buy or sell your entire position in one stock in a single trade. If you violate this rule, sooner or later you are going to get screwed. This rule is second only to Rule #1: Diversify.

      The only way anyone got screwed by this is if they violated Rule #1 of investing, violated Rule #2 of investing (BUY IN OVER TIME), and then failed to use a limit order. That's three mistakes. If you make three mistakes, you shouldn't be surprised when you lose money. This is a trading market, not a 'free money for everyone!' market.

      I'll also add that all trades that were over 60% away from the trading price were nullified... meaning your example could not have even happened.

  6. Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by lennier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More and more the markets seem decoupled from reality. Why is it so hyper-urgent for a trade to complete in milliseconds, even if it means selling at rock-bottom price? Isn't that just really dumb programming?

    Imposing a global circuit breaker seems like one way of fixing it... but why is the trading so frenetic in the first place? Why this absolute pressure to trade nownowNOW?

    These are real companies people are betting on. Companies have lives in the years to decades, and at best their profits are measured in quarters - and even that's far too short-term thinking compared to human society, the biosphere and the ecological damage our industrial activities are doing.

    There just isn't any meaningful data that can be generated about the activities of corporations on the millisecond scale. Not really any on less than a yearly scale, if you think about it. The biggest news right now is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and what's the timeline for fixing that? Weeks to months.

    What does society actually gain from ultra-fast gambling on the markets? Other than a cheap thrill and massively increased risk?

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    1. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by lalena · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Some of those automated trades were selling stocks at pennies on the dollar when there was no fundamental reason for that stock to be down at all that day. I would think the fact that these auto trades caused banks to lose millions would be the incentive for the banks to fix the system themselves.

    2. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by hibiki_r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The lowest sells weren't really about high speed traders, but about stop orders. A stop order triggers when a price goes under a specific price, and sells as a market order: It takes the best offer available at the time. That's where the high speed traders really come in: They see a huge drop, with sales still there, and reap a crazy amount of profit by buying the shares for pennies.As the price lowers, more stop orders are hit, and everyone that had one gets taken to the cleaners.

      Now the question is: In a market as volatile as the one we have, why would anyone really want to place a stop order? Something like that, but with a lower bound, would have stopped the dip a whole lot faster than it did.

    3. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There just isn't any meaningful data that can be generated about the activities of corporations on the millisecond scale.

      No, but there is meaningful data to be generated about the supply, demand, and liquidity of their stock on the millisecond scale.

      I think you forget the stock is an asset itself governed by market forces, apart of and independent from the company itself. And valuation of the company and its profits barely effect its valuation at all, over sufficiently short periods of time.

      What does society actually gain from ultra-fast gambling on the markets? Other than a cheap thrill and massively increased risk?

      It's not actually gambling, necessarily. But for every investor, there has to also be a speculator, otherwise, the transaction won't ever get made.

      Increased liquidity has a great advantage for society -- like the ability for businesses to obtain capital, for investors to get their money, for enterprise to thrive and generate more capital.

      The average American's retirement also relies on all this "gambling".

    4. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Informative

      .. but why is the trading so frenetic in the first place? Why this absolute pressure to trade nownowNOW?

      The stock market is a theoretical long term investment. It was before glass-seagul was appealed.

      Here is how flash trading works. Basically a super computer sits below the trading floor watching incoming and outgoing transactions. Lets say you have $300,000 in savings and want to put $100,000 in company A as its stock price looks reasonable. It lists for $16 a share and you put down your $100,000 in shares. The super computer sees this HUGE grab and your transaction. It quickly buys all your shares before your transaction is complete and raises the price to $18 a share before your transaction is complete. Goldman Sachs or the other firm takes $2 from you in the process as you end up with less shares due to it becoming $18 a share within a few hundred milliseconds. Here is an illustration. The same firms do the same when selling so if you decide to dump a stock at $18 you end getting only $16 a share and Megabank makes another $2 a share.

      Its used like this and here are some more details on how it works. SHorting is quite popular and caused Greece some turmoil. The same is true with investors shorting bank stocks and mortgage backed securities in 2007. Flash trading was likely the culprit as it could do this in ways you and I could not imagine.

      The original crooks of the 1929 stock market crash complained after Glass-Seagull that they could not run the stock market with games like they used too and it was no fun anymore. It looks like its returned to just that today.

    5. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imposing a global circuit breaker seems like one way of fixing it... but why is the trading so frenetic in the first place? Why this absolute pressure to trade nownowNOW?

      That's simple to answer. The faster trader gets the good deals. We could put a delay in, but what would be the point? If a trade can complete in milliseconds, then why not do it? These fast mass behavior effects of the market help weed out traders with bad programs (especially variations of "do what everyone else is doing").

    6. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, if you have a stop loss you have agreed to lose (at most) a certain amount on your trade.

      Not even that. You can easily lose more than what you set because of situations like this. If it moves faster than you can sell for that amount, you will sell at below your stop loss number. You can set it at 40% and lose 99% (as some did here, though many of those were rolled back).

    7. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by thrawn_aj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No pressure at all. It's an ecological niche in the business world that had to be filled by someone - and it was.

    8. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But *trading* stocks is a zero sum game.  *Investing* is good for society and investors, as well as the companies themselves.

      Liquidity is important, but parent's notion that there is no benefit to us all to trading on this microscopic scale, is I think a good one.

    9. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the best solution to that is a "make up your mind" rule that gives you an N second lock from buying the same issue after a sell order, and an N second lock from selling the same issue after a buy order. In other words... if your opinion on the item has changed in N seconds, you clearly haven't seen that "I want to sell it... what I just bought!" commercial enough.

    10. Re:Why do traders have such worst-case rules? by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But does our market system value the lives of the African villages above one person's gee whiz' feeling of unboxing an iPod?

      Our market system doesn't "value" iPods over Africans. Certain individuals, as evidenced by their gee-whizery, value their iPod more than your hypothetical African village. "Our market system" didn't compel our one person to buy an iPod - it simply let him. By lamenting the market outcome, you're really lamenting that people are free to make that choice in the first place.

      This presupposes that the iPod-toting hipster is Wrong, that he should have fed Africa instead. But why stop at iPods? You likely have a computer, internet, electricity, utilities, and shelter. You likely have more money in your checking account than they have seen their entire lives.

      Even if you have nothing, a single paycheck at minimum wage is more than billions of the developing world see in an entire year. Why does the market value your luxuries over "the lives of the African villages?"

      The problem isn't that hipsters have iPods, that you're a hypocrite, or even that I'm a prick - we grow more than enough to feed everyone on the planet. Markets are merely choices - our hypothetical hipster can choose to buy an iPod, feed Africa, or do something else entirely because of our market system. The real problem is that, for much of the developing world, there is no choice - they have no such market.

      Large swaths of Africa lack the requisite institutions for a free market - things like a functioning government. Were corruption and genocide to disappear overnight, Africa would still be locked out of the developed world's market because of our government, its tariffs, and its subsidies.

      Not all the iPods in the world, nor even Cupertino, can fix all of that.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
  7. Ban flash trading by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problem solved!

    I do not have that kind of access to get rich off of other investors. The big boys should not be any different.

    I am sick and tired of these guys playing with my own money as well as, pensioners, my grandmas, and my employers money. A single mistake effects me and everyone reading this while the traders get bonuses. Where do you think your money goes when you deposit it? It does not sit in the bank or go to loans to help small businesses anymore. It goes to risky trading where you lose and the CEO of your bank gets rich if they gamble it right.

  8. Perhaps I am "Old School" . . . by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . . . but "circuit breakers" are not what is called for here. The market needs fuses. Not to be funny, but circuit breakers are too easily reset. Most trading is not done on the floor of the NYSE. If you want to stop trading AND get everybody's attention, then somebody needs to get burned. Otherwise, this breaker is going to go off, get reset, go off, get reset until it sounds just like chicken little. Think I am wrong? Well, the NYSE already has circuit breakers, since 1987. Notice that they do not get mentioned.

    Sound the alarm but do not stop trading. Have traders be responsible for all price deviations from the time of the alarm until the 'crisis' is over. If they suddenly have to "cover the spread" then they will stop trading until they figure out what is wrong.

  9. I have a better idea by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just tax the fuck out of those speculative scumbags, that should reduce "volatility" a lot.

  10. The 'stock market' is just another form of gamblin by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want to gamble, thats your business.

    If you invest too much money in stocks, you don't diversify, and you loose your life savings on the stock market ... thats YOUR problem.

    I have a really REALLY simple solution ... don't invest in the stock market if you can't deal with the consequences.

    The stock market has no basis in reality. They like to pretend it does, but it doesn't. There are all sorts of excuses and 'reasons' why it does, but it has no more basis in reality than paper currency.

    And yes, I think paper currency is retarded as well. When you're trading something that can be easily manufactured you are going to loose unless you're the guy who makes it.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  11. No, HFT is a front-running scam by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's allowed because the current theory is that anybody who wants to do it, can. I think the best argument against that is it takes real estate close to the market computers in order to have a fast enough ping time to trade by the millisecond.

    No, the best argument against it is that it allows automated front-running by allowing the high-frequency traders to issue and cancel small orders in quick succession to discover an ordinary buyers or seller's limit price, and then profiting by offering a sale that would have otherwise happened at a price more favorable to the initiator. To quote the link (which is highly recommended):

    Let's say that there is a buyer willing to buy 100,000 shares of BRCM with a limit price of $26.40. That is, the buyer will accept any price up to $26.40. But the market at this particular moment in time is at $26.10, or thirty cents lower.

    So the computers, having detected via their "flash orders" (which ought to be illegal) that there is a desire for Broadcom shares, start to issue tiny (typically 100 share lots) "immediate or cancel" orders - IOCs - to sell at $26.20. If that order is "eaten" the computer then issues an order at $26.25, then $26.30, then $26.35, then $26.40. When it tries $26.45 it gets no bite and the order is immediately canceled.

    Now the flush of supply comes at, big coincidence, $26.39, and the claim is made that the market has become "more efficient." Nonsense; there was no "real seller" at any of these prices! This pattern of offering was intended to do one and only one thing - manipulate the market by discovering what is supposed to be a hidden piece of information - the other side's limit price!

    1. Re:No, HFT is a front-running scam by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the limit price is not hidden, and can't be hidden, as a matter of principle. You can just look at the order book to see the distribution of orders at different prices. The order book is the "instantaneous" supply and demand curve.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  12. It's worse than that. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm pretty libertarian, but I agree these should be stopped. As the other poster said, it gives real estate closer to the market servers an advantage, I'm not quite clear how it works, but it is evident that it does because people are doing it. I assume they can recognize short term patterns and jump in ahead of anyone else who might try to take advantage of them.

    No, it's much worse than this. High frequency trading allows its practicioners to cheat, quite literally, as I pointed out in another comment that linked to this blog post.

    When a buyer or seller places a limit order, their limit price is supposed to be a secret, and the market is supposed to deliver the best possible price for them relative to that limit. Flash trades and "immediate-or-cancel" orders allows high frequency traders to issue a flurry of really quick orders to discover a slower trader's limit price, and then trade at that limit instead of the price that the slower guy would have otherwise gotten.

    So if ACME is trading at $26.10, slow buyer A enters a limit buy order for $26.40, and slow seller B enters a market sell order, the high speed trader is able to use really fast trades to discover A's $26.40 limit, buy B's shares at $26.10, and then sell them right away to A for $26.40, all before A can learn about B's more favorable sell offer and accept it.

  13. Feedback systems don't work that way... by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    there is no way for traders to gain information on the underlying asset of a stock second-to-second. There is no public source of information that fast! No corporation gets updates internally that quickly

    I have a degree in Electronics Engineering and had to go through three courses on feedback systems and servomechanisms. What you are proposing may seem sensible, but that's not how nature works.

    Feedback control systems can become unstable, but inserting delays into the feedback loop is about the *worst* thing you can do to destabilize them. If you want to stabilize a feedback system you should insert a "low pass" filter in the loop, not a delay.

    A delay means that a lot of change will accumulate and suddenly be released. Putting a one day delay would mean that all the buy or sell orders would be stored hidden somewhere and then, all of a sudden, the market would become aware of that trend.

    A low pass filter is, more or less, like a moving average. With a low pass filter, the market would get information on the average of the last X hours or days of transactions. That way everybody would be allowed to update instantly, to a microsecond precision if they wanted to, their estimates of the market trends, but those would not be instantaneous trends, they would be longer range.

    Instead of limiting how fast market transactions can be done, it would be much better to limit the speed of the information on the system. Do not divulge *every* price for every transaction, but only the average of some period. This average can be updated every nanosecond if people want so, it will make no difference.

    1. Re:Feedback systems don't work that way... by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, nobody is suggesting that. People are suggesting:
      -Prices update continuously
      -But you can't trade except in one shot with everyone else at the end of the trading day.

      Prices change only when people trade, hence prices cannot simultaneously "update instantly" AND "can't trade except.. end of the trading day"

      You can't have both.

      These high frequency traders are the liquidity in the market. To put it in geek terms, they are the buffer. The event in question was essentially a buffer overflow.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Feedback systems don't work that way... by Miamicanes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think it's even MORE complicated.

      If you're a brokerage firm, the trading costs involved themselves can vary, depending upon whether your proposed trade increases or decreases the overall liquidity of the market. To individual investors, the transaction cost will always be vastly higher, but if you're someone like Goldman Sachs, the cost to sell a million shares when there aren't a million buyers lined up is higher than the cost to sell a million shares when there are two million buyers lined up, and vice-versa. That's one reason why you have "market-makers", who themselves trade blocks of stock all day that they themselves have no interest in owning, or even holding for more than 5 seconds, but the fact that they bought 3,000 shares 2 seconds ago means they can sell 1,000 shares to each of two buyers who want that many, plus 500 to a third buyer, and 100 shares to each of 5 buyers (grossly oversimplified a bit, but that's the high-level explanation).

      Market makers are the reason why you can put in a buy or sell order for just about any amount of shares someone less wealthy than Warren Buffett is likely to ever own, let alone buy or sell in a single transaction, and if your price is within a cent or so of the last transaction, your own transaction will go through almost instantly. It's also part of the reason why if the last trading price is $x, an order for $x won't likely go through until the last price is either a cent more than you offered to sell at, or a cent less than you offered to buy at (unless you're buying a staggeringly HUGE number of shares).

    3. Re:Feedback systems don't work that way... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taxing buy and sell orders that are too close together would also apply a low pass filter to the market, and will not create moral problems by denying information to the traders.

      A tax that is of 70% - 80% of the price difference for orders that are separated by 1ms or less, reducing linearly to 0 to orders that are 1 minute apart could do the trick ;)

  14. Awful example. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trades faster than a day should be simply outlawed

    You just bought Ford stock an hour ago, and now you just learned that the company is declaring bankruptcy effective 5 o'clock today. Do you really want to be forced to keep that stock until 23 hours from now (when it will be worthless)? Of course not. You want to dump it as fast as possible while the price is still high and you can recover some of your money.

    While I certainly agree that once-a-day is too strict, your example is very flawed. If Ford's 5 o'clock bankruptcy is public knowledge, then its price will be zero-ish now, because nobody's going to want to pay a high price for a company that goes bankrupt in the next few hours. If it's not public knowledge, then you'd be trading on insider information, which is fraud. So being able to trade a second time that day only helps you if crime helps you.

  15. Re:The 'stock market' is just another form of gamb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The stock market has no basis in reality. They like to pretend it does, but it doesn't. There are all sorts of excuses and 'reasons' why it does, but it has no more basis in reality than paper currency.

    The first part of statement was wrong. Then when you said your bit about paper currency you confirmed the fact that you simply don't understand economics. Instead, you're another gold standard guy enthusiast. I'm going to explain to you why that's not a good thing.

    The price of gold is set by the quantity of gold available and the demand for it, as is everything else. Since the total quantity of available gold isn't related at all to the production in any other industry, that's a really poor measure of the economic status of any one nation.

    Paper currency is easily manufactured, but the guy who makes it isn't guaranteed to win anymore than everybody else is guaranteed to lose. It's called supply and demand. If you print too much of it, you have inflation, and the paper will soon be worth nothing. If you take money out of circulation, you have deflation, and the paper is worth more. Consequently, that's exactly the same situation you have with gold. If we start mining a whole lot of gold, the price of gold comes down and you can exchange it for less things. If you start producing less gold, the price goes up, and you can exchange it for more valuable things. The value of everything in relation to everything else is constantly fluctuating, and you don't make it "stable" or more "real" by having a mineral or a very difficult to manufacture thing as your currency. It's all the same. If we suddenly print ten times more money than we currently have available, assuming everything else stays the same, the cost of everything product will go up because the people with that extra money in hand will be willing to spend more, people's salaries will go up, because employees will demand more money to compensate for the increased price of goods, and now everything you could buy with a $1 bill you buy with a $10 bill. But it's ok, because your salary will have gone from $70,000 / year to $700,000 / year. It's exactly equivalent and no actual value was lost anywhere.

  16. Greed. by clawhammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't fix greed with a software patch.

  17. What does that even mean? by jeko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the original poster means is that the brokers are, against fiduciary duty, siphoning money from their customers. Consider the following, very rough, case:

    I'm Mr. Megabroker. A new multibillion dollar marketing campaign hits, and suddenly I have a ton of BUY orders for SLUSHO stock. I hold those orders for a split second and buy up SLUSHO, knowing that the ton of orders I hold will drive up the price. Once I secure my stocks, I submit my ton of buy orders after my own.

    Suddenly, I'm sitting on a bunch of SLUSHO stock that's had a guaranteed jump in price. If I had executed my customer's orders immediately, that increase in price would have been theirs, not mine.

    Baby Cloverfield hits Manhattan, and suddenly SLUSHO is radioactive waste. I get a ton of SELL orders. I dump my SLUSHO holdings before the ton of SELL orders hit, having perfect knowledge this is about to occur because I'm the one who's about to do it. I sell my SLUSHO when prices are still high. My customers bleed out.

    I've made money coming and going for no other reason than I hold the orders in my pocket and therefore have perfect knowledge of the future. The money I make is not reflective of any real productivity, but is instead theft I can get away with by ignoring my fiduciary duties for a brief while.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  18. clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi,

    Normally I would be content to sit by the sidelines but I'm jumping in just to clarify, there is a lot of misinformation swirling around this discussion, a lot of conjecture by smart people who really have little to no experience in high frequency trading which is rapidly becoming the new wall street boogeyman. HFT dramatically improves liquidity and price discovery. It has helped lead the way to more efficient markets, and for the most part helps stocks and various other instruments reach their "true" value faster than ever before.

    There are a lot of whiners out there complaining about how HFT is somehow "not fair", while they continue to get taken to the cleaners by their brokers, the banks, and hundreds of other middle men. Why do you think the spreads are so tight on a lot of these markets? HFT. Believe me, the institutional brokers would like nothing better than to make very wide markets and charge you for the privilege. The vast majority of investors who are taking long term positions in the markets are not effected by intraday moves. If you got burned because you were trying to make a profit intraday then you got what was coming to you, because not only are you not as fast as most of the firms out there, but also not as smart. (sorry) Frankly if NYSE's attempt to "restore order" wasn't so entirely broken the price discrepency would have been even shorter lived. However, because of the steps their market took to restore order most savvy shops immediately routed around them in order to complete and start new transactions (as they should). Attempts to regulate the markets in this way will not work as expected, because they are introducing arbitrary rules which will largely be ignored by the really big players (dark pools anyone?). So far there has been no indication that the recent price drop was the result of an HFT strategy gone awry, but rather a temporary blip made worse because of an outdated mode of operation. I think an interesting experiment would be if all of the HFT shops pulled their liquidity (this would never happen), the results would be fairly disastrous for short term investors, unless you like getting worse prices.

    Anyway, I don't want to rant any more. It is unfortunate that people aren't really looking at this from all angles. Competition is a good thing for everyone. It applies to Microsoft and Linux, but not the markets right? ...

  19. How do you think I found out about it? by jeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I initially read about this in a news story where the SEC employee was bemoaning the fact that they had cases they wanted to pursue, but couldn't due to interference from above. He was screaming that they had caught all the major players pulling exactly this scam, but the best he could get his bosses to sign off on were minor fines that didn't even qualify as "a cost of doing business."

    I don't think anyone of note on Wall Street has been afraid of the SEC for quite some time...

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."