Slashdot Mirror


Market Data Firm Spots the Tracks of Bizarre Robot Trading

jamie spotted a fascinating story at The Atlantic about "mysterious and possibly nefarious trading algorithms [that] are operating every minute of every day in" the stock market: "Unknown entities for unknown reasons are sending thousands of orders a second through the electronic stock exchanges with no intent to actually trade. Often, the buy or sell prices that they are offering are so far from the market price that there's no way they'd ever be part of a trade. The bots sketch out odd patterns with their orders, leaving patterns in the data that are largely invisible to market participants." Spotting the behavior of these bots was possible by looking at much finer time slices than casual traders ever see — cool detective work, but as the story points out, discovering it is just the beginning: "[W]e're witnessing a market phenomenon that is not easily explained. And it's really bizarre."

52 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Here's an explanation for you: by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "market" is a fucking scam.

    There, that wasn't so hard, was it.

    1. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Believe it or not, I'm not sure that explains these weird robot trades at all.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "market" is a fucking scam.

      There, that wasn't so hard, was it.

      Well, in the article they say that one firm's explanation is that high frequency traders are injecting quotes into the system because they know about them and don't have to sort through them when they are posted ... but their competitor's bots have to look at that data and sort out the real data that are actual useful quotes instead of the outliers which are quotes that will never be taken.

      So scam is close but spam might be a better word for this.

      I also get a kick out of how periodically in this article they remind us that high frequency trading is good for the market and these people that don't do anything that act as middle men are actually good for the market because they up availability or "eliminate inefficiencies" (that's my favorite). And they're all taking money out of this magical unending bucket of cash ... quant funds and high frequency traders are so 1929 I don't even know where to begin.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Karl Denninger has been reporting this problem for a few years now.

    4. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I also get a kick out of how periodically in this article they remind us that high frequency trading is good for the market and these people that don't do anything that act as middle men are actually good for the market because they up availability or "eliminate inefficiencies" (that's my favorite)

      Maybe they started with an intelligent explanation that seems to fit reality, like we're watching a very confrontational version of simulated annealing among multiple competing firms using real money, but you run that thru the "english to journalist" filter and get the gibberish you describe. You have to realize journalists are the guys that flunked out of Calc I in their freshmen year and then spent the rest of their schooling drunk or stoned, as gatekeepers to the masses they are always going to be epic fails.

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

      Its fairly perceptive to note that journalist style gibberish is often used by people trying to scam. There are plenty of (often self serving) religious / philosophical arguments that claim markets are always scams, etc. Need to very carefully consider cause vs effect and correlation vs causation or else you just send up with cliche instead of insight.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by stonewallred · · Score: 5, Informative

      The weird robot trades are actually preliminary account trades being done by a rogue AI who is marshaling its resources to better conquer and destroy all flesh based life. In about ten years, if there is any humans left who can access or spend time to look at the remaining data, will see the pattern. As a traveler from an alternate universe, I am giving you this warning to save yourselves.

    6. Re:Here's an explanation for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lobstah man gets pissed off and says Well, OK, that's all very confusing or interesting or both, probably to try and rip me off, but how far away am I from the damn pier, two hours or three hours?

      And this is where a trader would figure out that the current price of lobster was $4 a pound, the boat carried 1,000 pounds of lobster, and the lobsterman is 2 hours and 37 minutes from the dock. The trader immediately buys a put option to deliver 1,000 pounds of lobster at $4 a pound. One minute before the lobster boat docks, the trader begins to execute the put option, driving down the local market price for lobster to $3 a pound. The trader meets the boat at the dock, purchases the lobster on the boat for $3 a pound, and completes the execution of the put option by delivering the lobster to the lobster pound. The lobsterman makes $3,000 and the trader makes $1,000.

      In the real world, the lobsterman takes care of the problem by using the trader's lifeless remains as lobster trap bait. In the financial world, the trader is hailed for discovering inefficiencies in the lobster trading market, and receives a hefty bonus at Christmas.

  2. Secret messages by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The machine intelligences are communicating through hidden channels in our global network.

    Judgement Day is close.

  3. Nothing to be concerned with... by gilroy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... it's just SkyNet looking after its retirement holdings.

    1. Re:Nothing to be concerned with... by sammy+baby · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. By 3:44 am, it has a comfortable nest-egg and is on track to retire early, perhaps with a nice condo in Hernando, Florida."

    2. Re:Nothing to be concerned with... by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Funny

      It won't kill us, it will buy our debts and subvert us into slavery...

  4. Is there a chance by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That the trades are trying to trigger "limits". ie. Someone may have pre-programmed a system to automatically dump stock if the price tanks, so when one of these trades comes in the price looks as if it is tanked, the stock sells and the buyer snaps up a bargain.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Is there a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Alternately, they could be testing the elasticity of the market for that stock. Remember back to econ 101 and the price/demand curves? The assumption was they are smooth curves. In reality, they have stair-steps. And sometimes the steps are big, and sometimes they are small.

      By teasing out the fine grain elasticity of a stock, you can make some predictions. There's always going to be some jitter in price. But if you know that demand is pretty weak until a stock drops 50 cents, you set up your trades to take advantage of a likely 50 cent drop that day. Same if there is higher demand than availability. Get ready for a price jump.

    2. Re:Is there a chance by Restil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why people shouldn't set automatic limits. Of course, it's kinda silly even under normal circumstances. If you have money invested somewhere, you should pay attention to it. You should pay attention to the health of the companies you are invested in. You should pay attention to see if they have competent management, put out quality products, and keep their production in line. If on a daily basis, you notice the stock starting to slip, find out why. Even Enron and Worldcom didn't tank overnight. There was plenty of time to realize that there was a problem brewing and get out without some artificially set "limit" to sell the stock automatically. Besides, when the fit finally does hit the shan, and your sell order isn't hit until after that point, there's a chance you won't get anything near what you're wanting, since nobody will be buying at that point.

      An automatic buy order is stupid for the exact same reason. You might set yourself up to snap up a bargain if and when it ever happens, but the problem is, if the stock suddenly drops due to a pending bankruptcy or some other equally devastating reason, you'll get your stock purchase, making some other desperate seller very happy, and never be able to recover the cost.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
  5. Flood attempts? by pesho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This looks like high frequency traders have moved on from just gaming the market and now are trying for flood each other with bogus data hoping to trigger a bug in the competition's software or simply overwhelm it.

  6. I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by Petersko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The "market" is a fucking scam."

    I think I'd prefer to say that the market has a purpose, and that purpose has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining wealth for the casual investor. Once you abandon the idea that the market gives a damn about the solidity of retirement accounts or the portfolios of the masses, then it's easier to accept that the purpose of the market is to move money around and around in a big circle, while slowly siphoning it off into the pockets of particular groups.

    Stocks are a massive game of hot potato. Whoever is holding the stock with the game is over gets burned.

    I say it's not necessarily a scam because it should be clear to anybody looking in that this is how it works. Like the rake at a poker game, if you wait long enough the house has all the money. This fact isn't hidden - you just have to wake up to the implications.

    1. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by afabbro · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once you abandon the idea that the market gives a damn about the solidity of retirement accounts or the portfolios of the masses,

      Easy to "abandon," since that was never the purpose. The stock market exists to marry investors' capital with business opportunities and to provide an easy means for selling and buying ownership shares of corporations. Corporations use the stock market to raise capital. Individuals or organizations use it to buy/trade ownership of corporations. That's it.

      The stock market is not designed to be a retirement savings device.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by TrippTDF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you -

      The "scam" here is the massive one where America thought the purpose of the market was to provide retirement savings- Thus people dumped all their money into the market in hopes of having big retirement payouts. Look at the surge in the DOW since the 90's- that's everyone's retirements going straight into the market. You know how many people nearing retirement in 2008 and 2009 watched their retirement plans go out the window?

      I don't have a solution, and I also have money in the market, but the core purpose of the market has been wildly changed from what it is designed for.

    3. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. As the parent said, the job of the stock market is to marry capital to seekers of capital. A retirement account is a collection of capital that you want to make money on. If you can afford the risk of the stock market (you have enough time for variations in the stock market to even out) then it is the best place to put your money because you will get the highest return. But, those people "nearing retirement age in 2008 and 2009" that "watched their retirement plans go out the window" were stupid. If you are about to retire, you should have a large percentage of your money in bonds. Because, you can't afford the risk of the stock market. That shows that their retirement accounts were mismanaged, not that the stock market for some reason should not be used when saving for your retirement.

    4. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Word.

      Any trade where your purpose is to make money out of money seems pretty pointless to me. But I'm an engineer, so I certainly don't see the world the same way as a business/finance geek would. But as long as the finance geeks and politicos are jerking each other around, they're presumably not bothering anyone else (until they fuck shit up so much that it's time to tell them to go sit in the corner for a while).

      Warren Buffet seems to have good investing advice I can appreciate.... invest in what you know; what you want to succeed, and do it for the long term. I can jive with that... then even if your investments lose money, it at least went to what you consider a worthy cause.

      I put a portion of my savings into my company stock, because I want to show that I'm personally invested in my employer. I know it's not a good idea to put too much in there in case it tanks, in which case you'll be out of a job and a retirement. So I make sure most of the rest of my money is in a diversified index fund. Usually the index funds with low fees, because they don't perform all that worse than "managed" funds, and I don't care to reward the stock fund "managers" for being succeeding at being greedy.

      I usually choose the international index funds, if only to promote peace through cross-investment. Also I think the US dollar will likely fall during my lifetime. And if it doesn't, well, then I've still got plenty of strong dollars in savings. Plus, most of the easy growth is probably in developing international markets anyway. I don't care to try to "win big" by catching the next Qualcomm or Apple, because they could probably succeed without my help, and they'd probably make most of their ill-gotten gain through means I don't approve, like patents and lawsuits and technological lockout.

    5. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree.

      The stock market exists to marry suckers with the people who put their capital into businesses.

      You will likely never get the opportunity to do so.

      When you trade in the stock market, you are paying off people who hold stock, not putting your money into the company whose shares you are buying. Your willingness to buy them gives the true investor confidence that he can lay off his risk in his investment by selling you the company at a time of his choosing. This in turn inflates the amount he's willing to risk in the company. That does not mean you are investing. It means you are helping to inflate the market value of companies well above their true risk.

      Which means that investors don't have to work as hard to determine the viability of a company, and in fact don't care how well it will do, only how well it sounds like it will do. Which means many companies that shouldn't exist are brought into being, and sold to you as great "investments".

      Now, there are ways to get value from the company itself for your shares. Divedends, commonly. Very, very, very rarely you will get a cash disbursement when the company ceases to exist. You will more often be given different shares of stock or cash when the company is acquired by another company. But you will also often be given a notification that your stock is worthless and the company has been delisted in a bankruptcy proceeding. And you get to vote on company referenda. Although there are other individuals who get to vote a hundred thousand times for every one of your votes. And some of those don't even own the class of stock you own, or as many shares.

      The stock market is not investing. It is speculation. It is a pure application of the greater-fool theory, plus the imagined hope that somehow openly buying and selling items that are priced by random decisionmaking will estimate the "true value" of a company, something that, so far as I've been able to research, has never actually occurred. When the value of the company is finally adjudicated, the market price is either 30% too low or 100% too high. In between, nobody with inside information is even marking the price to the company, because they're not allowed to trade. The stock market is legally bound to be ignorant of the facts. And that makes it eminently unqualified to be involved in investing.

      Gamble all you want, but try to avoid spreading the lie.

    6. Re:I mostly agree! But let's soften it a little. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, because $1.5E12 deficits are not a problem.

      You are welcome to bet against the US repaying all its debts on time and as promised. That's the beauty of the stock market -- for every position there is a counter position betting on the opposite result. What's more, the contrarian that is right makes huge profits. Given that the US Treasury has no problem auctioning off large batches of US securities at crazy-low interest rates, there are lot of people quite confident in that full and on-time repayment so you stand to make a mint if you bet against them and are correct.

      $20 says you aren't going to put your money where you mouth is though.

  7. Corewars with money by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its corewars, but with real money instead of simulated computer memory.

    http://www.corewars.org/

    The name of the game is to send a "signal" that confuses the other guys bots, such that you fool them into making you money.

    Very much like aircraft radar guided missiles vs radar jammers vs anti-jamming missiles

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  8. It's all about the Candlesticks Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're obviously designed to manipulate trading volume in order to fuck with the church of technical analysis believers.

    When you understand how the spread of ask/bid prices impact candlestick charts, and subsequently: the market's perception of bullish and bearish indicators, you can see how sinister this really is.

    http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:chart_analysis:introduction_to_candlesticks

    1. Re:It's all about the Candlesticks Jack by afabbro · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're obviously designed to manipulate trading volume in order to fuck with the church of technical analysis believers.

      Scientology makes more sense than the ridiculous nonsense that is technical analysis.

      "We have here a classic head and shoulders pattern as CSCO is showing support at 23 and some resistance at 25. I'm looking for a breakout once 25 is tested for the third time with momentum in a birthday cake trend over the next four periods..."

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  9. Nope, it's right on by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read an interview a few weeks ago about these trades. When we're talking about the majority of all stock trades being done by these incredibly fast bots, where people are looking for every possible advantage, there are many tricks. One of them is to flood out a huge quantity of bogus bid/sell offers in sufficient enough bulk that it may cause your competition's bot to slip a few micro seconds. Just enough for your own bot to snipe a fraction of a cent advantage.

    If you are interested in the 'Cyber-War'. Forget China, head to Wall Street.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Nope, it's right on by bertoelcon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why should Americans have all the fun? Could be Chinese bots... I hear they like money, also...

      Lower ping times helps these bots a lot.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:Nope, it's right on by digitalhermit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The biggest traders can use bogus trades to get an idea of what price a stock is able to bought/sold at. With sufficiently fast systems -- i.e., ones tied directly into NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.. -- they can make millions of dollars extra than if they didn't have this knowledge. And it's legal...

    3. Re:Nope, it's right on by mestar · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see what is the mystery here. If two people are negotiating a price, and both of them have a hidden high/low price for which they are ready to settle, then the dominating strategy in a game theory sense is to move your price by the smallest step possible. That way, you always hit your opponents price that is best for you and worst for him.

      Of course, in face to face markets, this is insulting:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA

      but, we are talking bots with a really low ping here. And that's what those patterns are.

      At least those with increasing prices by one cent. Those where the bids are going down don't fit this explanation.

    4. Re:Nope, it's right on by RingDev · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least those with increasing prices by one cent. Those where the bids are going down don't fit this explanation.

      And that is what this junk is, completely bogus bids with no intent other than to cost your competitors clock cycles.

      To use the face to face analogy, it's like two people trying to negotiate a deal when a third person comes up and starts screaming at one of the parties. While the subject is still recovering from being screamed at, the other parties make the same deal that the offended party was about to make.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    5. Re:Nope, it's right on by pyite · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hell, even Jersey bots are out of luck.

      NYSE (Arca) is already in Weehawken, NJ, and everything (including NYSE proper) is moving to Mahwah, NJ, beginning Monday, 2010-08-09.

      --

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

    6. Re:Nope, it's right on by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Informative

      At least those with increasing prices by one cent. Those where the bids are going down don't fit this explanation.

      And that is what this junk is, completely bogus bids with no intent other than to cost your competitors clock cycles.

      I worked for a couple of years at one of the big trading exchanges in Chicago. Our offices were on a lower floor, and whenever our traders got off the elevator, coming back from lunch, they would hit all the floor buttons to delay the traders returning to the higher floors, and anyone else unlucky enough to be on the same elevator. But that was one of the minor reasons that I quit that business sector. The piles of spilled cocaine on the bathroom floors, and my boss asking me "Do you love money? I love money. In order to be in this business you have to love money!" were two others.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  10. A Solution to this and the eBay 'sniping' problem by MarcQuadra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a simple solution for problems that could be caused by these high-speed robots doing the trades, and also for eBay's 'sniping' problem (where your item sits for days untouched, and then the bids all land in the last thirty seconds).

    Just add some 'fuzzy logic' to the time things happen. eBay auctions would randomly end 'between 10:05 and 10:10", forcing snipers to bid before the end of the trading. Same for the stock market, just have trades execute, by law, on a 'random' basis within a certain time period after they're filed. I'm not sure what the right balance between stability and liquidity is, but I'll guess that a two minute window would discourage most high-speed trading.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  11. Free Market = good; Capitalism = Usury by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usury is the sin of lending money for unfairly large amounts of interest. Capitalism is an economic system of lending money for as much profit as possible. Capitalism makes labor subservient to money. It lets people expand their power over others, not by working, but by lending. This unfair adjudication of risk and reward, and the subsequent consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands, is why many religions, at one time or another before the rich took them over, considered usury a fairly serious sin.

    The rich do not have to work to earn a living, they just sit back and let the money roll in. Supposedly the return they get is for the risk, but there is no risk involved. The rich can buy politicians, laws and experts who, in practice, reduce the risk to near zero. The average investor faces at least some real risk, but not the truly wealthy.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Free Market = good; Capitalism = Usury by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This unfair adjudication of risk and reward, and the subsequent consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands, is why many religions, at one time or another before the rich took them over, considered usury a fairly serious sin.

      Um, no.

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

      "Most importantly, usury is the derivation of profit from biological time, which is linked to life, considered sacred, God-given and divine ..."

      It all boils down to charging people for "god given time". The church does not want bankers moving in on their turf. Peasants should worry about worshiping on time, not paying the mortgage on time. Bankers should not be charging money for "gods Sunday" or for that matter any day because god made the sun rise in the morning, not the banker. Or in summary, God gave you 30 years to live so you can worship him, not pay your banker.

      That explains why some religions tolerate a fee-based-structure for interest (I give you $10, you promise to gimme back $11) as opposed to a percentage over interval based structure (I give you $10, you owe me the original $10 PLUS 5% of that per year). Most religions tolerate trade (even if the exchange seems a bit uneven) a heck of a lot better than they tolerate fooling with who owns/controls time.

      I'm not religious at all, but even I know this is the "correct" interpretation. Not that I disagree with your result or goal. Its just that you're totally on the wrong path of reasoning.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Free Market = good; Capitalism = Usury by DougF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please read the Parable of the Talents, as told by Jesus in Matthew, chapter 25, starting at verse 14. Interest/usury was only forbidden against other Jews in the Old Testament. What you do with your money, how you treat God's gift to you, is the point. If God has blessed you with the ability to make money, legally and fairly, and you use that to do God's will (help the poor, build up his church, feed the hungry, send missions to the ends of the Earth, etc), then you are to be praised. If you just hide your talents (literally and figuratively) under the bed, then you reject God's blessings and reject His confidence in you to do His work. I also refer you to 1Corinthians 10:23, ("Everything is permissible"-but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"-but not everything is constructive). We have the freedom as believers in Christ to use the talents God gives us as we think best serves God's plan (hopefully with lots of prayer for guidance), but we need to ensure it is beneficial and constructive, and seeks the good of others. Therefore we don't have to worry about proscriptions on types of foods, or interest, or the other rules of the Old Testament, as that covenant has been fulfilled. We have a new covenant in Jesus Christ. 2Corinthians, Chapter 3, verse 6: He has made us competent ministers of a new covenenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Unless, of course, you are Jewish, then the old rules still apply...

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    3. Re:Free Market = good; Capitalism = Usury by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm not religious at all, but even I know this is the 'correct' interpretation."

      This sounds like total bullshit.

      The article you link to doesn't say anything like this. In fact, it says the opposite in the second sentence:

      Usury... originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. [Wikipedia, "Usury"]

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  12. Correct the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    High frequency trading is an abuse of the system. Stop it, take the market away from gamblers and return it to investors.

  13. Wow, that's better by Itninja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WoW has rules against using scripts, bots, and 3rd party programs to play for you. Failure to abide by the rules get you banned.
    The stock market trading system has no rules against scripts, bots, and 3rd party programs to buy millions Every time I think about how WoW regulates the artificially increasing of fake wealth while the stock market has no regulation regarding the artificially increasing of actual wealth, I die a little inside.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Wow, that's better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you hold a stock for more than a few microseconds, you're labeled a "f*cking camper" now.

    2. Re:Wow, that's better by trout007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are exactly right but you are missing the point. There are no government regulations on WoW. It's operates completely to make money by pleasing it's paying customers. If they don't self regulate the game and the players don't consider it fun anymore they stop paying. The difference is the Exchanges are regulated by the government. So they only people they have to please is the SEC. Without government oversight they would have to operate more like WoW and pay attention as people abandon their markets that they consider rigged.

      Also the government almost forces people into the stock market through tax laws. If the government didn't continually devaluate the dollar you could just save your money in a bank and you wouldn't lose purchasing power. If you keep your money in the market in a brokerage account they tax every dividend and profit you make. So they set up IRA's and 401k's to lock you into the stock markets. All so their powerful friends can leech off the hard work of millions of people.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  14. MUDs and the Stock Market by Renraku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back when I used to play MUDs, I remember setting up triggers in Gmud. I idly thought to myself, "What if I could do this with the stock market?"

    Back when I used to play World of Warcraft, I remember all the auctionbots people would set up to automatically undercut you down to one copper over what was profitable. You could search for a specific item, see one person selling it for say, 1000 gold, put your item up for 990 gold, search for that item again, and see that all five of their items up for sale are now 989 gold and 99 silver. If you set it somewhere absurdly low like 500 gold, it would be bought out by a bot within seconds of posting it. Of course, after buying it, their prices were back to normal. Of course botting is illegal in World of Warcraft.

    Again, I applied this thinking to the stock market. What if you had bots to buy if the price was favorable for very popular stocks, but they could manipulate the market to make the price favorable? This kind of manipulation can and will lead to some dire consequences as people no longer act predictably for fear of the bots manipulating them.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  15. Re:A Solution to this and the eBay 'sniping' probl by Chad+Birch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've never really understood the complaints about eBay sniping. Set your maximum bid at the actual maximum that you want to pay. Whether someone snipes or not, if your bid is the highest you will win. If it's not, you won't.

    Even if it is an actual problem for some reason though, I'd think that the simplest solution would just be to extend the auction slightly every time there is a new high bid. Add 5 or 10 minutes every time the bid increases, and sniping would be totally ineffective.

    --
    Sturgeon was an optimist.
  16. The reasons are actually well known by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've seen this reported on Zero Hedge for months now. The purpose of spamming the market with order quotes is to slow down the competitor's computers, to give you a slight edge in monitoring the market. Basically, you flood the market with order quotes. The competitors' algorithms have to take these into account, while your algorithm can be designed to ignore them. This gives you a slight edge over the competitors in processing actual market data and making determinations.

    1. Re:The reasons are actually well known by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      problem is, since every other large-scale HFT algorithm does the same thing the benefits are lost. of course, they all have to keep doing it to keep the new equilibrium going.

      why hasn't this whole market fallen apart yet?

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    2. Re:The reasons are actually well known by brianerst · · Score: 4, Informative

      It actually doesn't need to be that nefarious (of course, it could be).

      You see a lot of this sort of thing in the derivatives markets (I work in the industry - I was the lead architect of the CBOT's Order Routing System) and it's caused by auto-spreaders. A spread trade in derivatives involves finding a pattern between two or more products and trading the differential in prices (e.g., the March Corn contract and the June corn contract tend to move largely in sync, but the spread between them can grow and shrink, so you combine a buy and a sell when the spread narrows and a sell/buy when it grows again).

      Most of the easier kinds of spreads are handled natively by the exchange trading engines - they imply prices into and out of the underlying contracts and trade the package of contracts as an atomic unit. But someone who wanted to trade non-standard spreads (like those across exchanges, for instance NYMEX energies vs. ICE energies) has to do it differently - you have to create a synthetic spread by watching the prices of the underlying products and "legging in" the different products you want to buy or sell when your price target is reached.

      The easiest and least sophisticated way to do this is to wait until your prices all line up (say you want to buy the NYMEX Oil contract for 10 cents less than you sell the ICE Oil contract for) and then throw in market orders. Then you wait for the spread to move and throw in market orders when you're in the money (you sell the NYMEX Oil contract for 12 cents more than you buy the ICE Oil contract for). Bingo - you make money and you don't really care what either contract was really "worth" - you just care about the differential.

      Problem is - market orders suck. The price can move away from you (screwing your differential) and you end up behind all the limit orders that were in before you (increasing your chances of a price movement). So, the smarter way to do it is to place part of your order into the market as a limit order that tracks against the price of the other market. As that market moves, you cancel/replace the leg or legs that are "in the book" so that you stay in sync with your overall strategy. If your "in the book" order(s) starts to fill, you know you've hit your target and you can drop the final part of your spread into its market, giving you a much better chance of getting your differential.

      Now, imagine that you are doing a pretty complicated spread (four or five different underliers that all relate in some model you have) - depending on which ones you put into book and who else is spreading slightly different contract combinations, you get a lot of weird orders being inserted, canceled and replaced at prices all over the map. It can appear semi-random, but for each algorithm, it actually is highly deterministic.

      I don't know if that's what's going on here, but I wouldn't necessarily rule it out. A number of exchanges (including the CME) are trying to stop this sort of thing, because the transaction volume going into and out of the exchange (and the associated price changes that need to get pushed out) is hugely expensive. So, these days you have to maintain a certain ratio of orders to fills (i.e., don't cancel or replace a lot) or you start to get fined.

  17. Free Market Checklist by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have proposed a solution to introduce more accountability, transparency, or ethical considerations into the free market. Wall Street will not accept your proposal because your solution:

    (x) reduces profits gamed from the current flaws
    (x) introduces accountability
    (x) introduces transparency
    (x) introduces ethical considerations

  18. High Frequency Trading Should Be Banned by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the absence of sensible regulation there are many abuses of the "free market" that effectively destroy it and turn it into a rigged game to benefit the already rich and powerful. Monopolies. Cartels. Price fixing. Trading on one's own account ahead of a customer.

    These special access high-speed connections to the stock market exchange are market fixing tools, pure and simple. They allow the trading firms to skim the market for their own profit, thus defrauding every market participant in the world who lacks these powerful and privileged tools.

    Requiring all buys to be held for a "long" time (a minute?, an hour?) would kill a lot of these shenanigans. Also requiring the link to go through a regulated buffer that introduces a random delay of a second or so would also take the wind out of their sales (pun intended). Or maybe we just impose a fee on each transaction so that they aren't free. Sub-millisecond trading loses a lot of luster if you automatically incur a charge equal to 0.1% (or something) of the stock's value.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:High Frequency Trading Should Be Banned by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the absence of sensible regulation there are many abuses of the "free market" that effectively destroy it and turn it into a rigged game to benefit the already rich and powerful. Monopolies. Cartels. Price fixing. Trading on one's own account ahead of a customer.

      Or we could do nothing and not fix a non-problem. After all, the market currently is far from "destroyed". "Monopolies, cartels, price fixing, trading on one's account ahead of a customer"? If any of those exist (for example, there aren't any monopolies resulting from high frequency trade), then all you have to do is develop your own high speed market program and profit from the opportunity. Or only trade with brokers that have passed some sort of fairness audit (if you desire fairness over profit).

      These special access high-speed connections to the stock market exchange are market fixing tools, pure and simple. They allow the trading firms to skim the market for their own profit, thus defrauding every market participant in the world who lacks these powerful and privileged tools.

      Once you strip the needlessly negative connotation from the above statement, it reads a bit differently:

      These special access high-speed connections to the stock market exchange are market making tools, pure and simple. They allow the trading firms to provide, for a profit, extremely short term liquidity and price information, thus aiding every market participant in the world who is trying to sell large orders and who lacks these powerful and costly tools.

      Requiring all buys to be held for a "long" time (a minute?, an hour?) would kill a lot of these shenanigans. Also requiring the link to go through a regulated buffer that introduces a random delay of a second or so would also take the wind out of their sales (pun intended). Or maybe we just impose a fee on each transaction so that they aren't free. Sub-millisecond trading loses a lot of luster if you automatically incur a charge equal to 0.1% (or something) of the stock's value.

      Why would we want to kill these "shenanigans"? And why do you think a delay would stop the shenanigans (rather than introduce bizarre oscillations and such into the stock market).

  19. Re:A Solution to this and the eBay 'sniping' probl by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never really understood the complaints about eBay sniping. Set your maximum bid at the actual maximum that you want to pay. Whether someone snipes or not, if your bid is the highest you will win. If it's not, you won't.

    You are right in principle, but...let's say I see something now and decide I'll pay $50 max for it. If it sells for $50.01, well damn, I would have paid $50.01. I might not have paid $60, but one cent more?

    It's really hard to find the exact to-the-penny point where your "no, I won't pay that" mode is tripped. Virtually everyone will pay a few cents more than their maximum bid - and hence, snipers flourish and cause angst. It's not a case of paying 20% more - that's obvious - it's a case of paying .001% more. Most people can't focus their "maximum that you want to pay" that finely.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  20. Re:A Solution to this and the eBay 'sniping' probl by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see why this is a big deal, though. If you bid $50.00 and it sells to someone else for $50.01, all that happened is that you failed to buy something. For you, that's a neutral outcome, not a bad one. The sniper bought the item they wanted and the seller got a fair price. Everyone either won or broke even. No harm happened to anyone. What's the problem?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  21. Intent by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The intent is to game the system by creating bogus artificial demand-or lack of demand-in large enough quantities to influence trades below. Therefore,because they can do it at such a huge volume, and they know in advance what they are doing, they can use the split they have created to leverage that into a sort of arbitrage all day long. I am *guessing* right now they have to use a partner trader/bot to do the actual "real" trades following the bot shilling. Like secret partners in a poker game.

    My opinion, crooked leeches, parasites, this sort of trading should be outright banned. I'd also like to see sales tax put on trades, we simply don't need this high speed trading at all, and that would be the simplest solution to this whole mess.

    Would it reduce churn and volatility? Yes it would, not eliminate it, but slow it down enough to make it so actual human beings had to stop and think on what they want to do, and it would force a return to investing in a company, rather than this casino action we have now.

    also see this, it's just a high tech variation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running