Slashdot Mirror


Prosecutors Request Closed Courtroom For Goldman HFT Programmer's Trial

dave562 writes "Goldman Sachs' lawyers have asked the Federal judge to seal the court room during the trial of Sergey Aleynikov. Aleynikov was one of the programmers who developed Goldman's High Frequency Trading (HFT) programs. What does this say about the state of the financial industry? Given the problems HFT seems to have caused over the last few years, shouldn't more light be shined into the dark corners of how it works?"

250 comments

  1. Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about money. Goldman Sachs has big dollars and political connections. This is a result of that. Justice? Not for poor people.

    1. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else. Given that you, personally, are more likely to get hit by a meteor and then struck by lightning than you are to accumulate your own vast wealth, and given that you, personally, benefit immensely from living in a democratic civil society, you, personally, should be against vast disparities in wealth. This applies to the 99.99 percent of people who will never accumulate more than a million in assets in their lifetime. Why let that .01 percent make the rules? They are making the rules, but you are the majority, meaning, you are letting them make the rules. You don't have to let them do that.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Money by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Perhaps because the last few times we've seen political action to enforce a relative parity of wealth, we've seen Russia and China become places that nearly no American would want to live. Some of this is due to propaganda (zomg, Socialism!), and some of it is due to the massively authoritarian nightmares and abuses of human rights that we've seen them devolve into.

      It's possible that our belief that it's better here is a delusion. I doubt that, though.

    3. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that you, personally, are more likely to get hit by a meteor and then struck by lightning than you are to accumulate your own vast wealth...

      Does that mean that Mark Cuban will be struck by a meteor and lightning? ( note i said will, we know he should)

    4. Re:Money by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

      Oh I would personally love to take each of the .01 percent of this population you mention and destroy each of them. All their DNA wiped off the face of the Earth forever. But hey, this is the US I am talking about and here in the US we are all cowards and unwilling to stand up for ourselves any more. Soon my fellow citizens slavery will come and we all; white, black, brown, and other colors, be slaves to this group. We will call them our kings and queens. Get use to it! Sorry for such negativity, but I am personally tied of all this greed, corruption, and filth that we let control our lives. Once again sorry about going off a bit.

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    5. Re:Money by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps because the last few times we've seen political action to enforce a relative parity of wealth, we've seen Russia and China

      Hint, Russia and China are doing it wrong. Hell, their income inequality is barely any better than ours. Fact is you can lower income inequality through policy without becoming a totalitarian hell hole. Look at central Europe.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps because the last few times we've seen political action to enforce a relative parity of wealth, we've seen Russia and China become places that nearly no American would want to live.

      Or if you were concerned for honest and accurate discussion rather than panty twisting fear mongering, you might have pointed out America's recent much higher marginal tax rate which created the America of a large middle class which most people today see as what America is.

      Because, you know, there is a vast range of middle ground between the far fringe right of totalitarian rule by the elite where we are now and the far fringe left of Stalinism.. The chunk in the middle of that space is known as "Liberalism' or "the fundamental basis of America".

      So, no you're pretty much as wrong as it's possible to be. A few attempts at enforcing a relative parity of wealth went overboard. Most work well and create far superior societies than those of either extreme and we have the examples from our own country to point to to demonstrate that point absolutely.

      Thanks for playing though. If this were "spout crazy blatantly false reactionary nonsense" you would have done well.
      It's not though, it's we the decent people of this country are sick of you idiotic extremist wack jobs spouting idiotic bullshit that weakens the entire country for the benefit of a few sick fucks.

    7. Re:Money by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      So someone that comes up with a damn good idea that improves lives worldwide shouldn't be allowed to be comfortable in life for his/her work? You will never join that group because you hate them. Not all wealth is accumulated through greed, corruption, and filth; frugality and genuine good ideas can accomplish the same. Personally speaking, I will take great pleasure in joining the millionaire club at some point down the road: you can hate me all you want, I won't care.

    8. Re:Money by hackus · · Score: 1

      What does this say about our financial institutions?

      Well, I know what it says to me:

      1) Convert 401K->Gold, Silver, Commodities.

      2) Wall Street gets a dime of my money when hell freezes over.

      3) Sine they control the courts, to conceal their criminal activies, it suggests the entire government is corrupt beyond the use of simple voting to change _anything_.

      Pretty soon, _anything_ will look like a terrorist.

      4) I keep about $500 in checking to pay bills. The rest of the cash is in my home, which when the whole freaking thing ends up collapsing, I will have access to my money.

      Because when they open the banks up, it will be worth half of what it was afterwards.

      5) It also tells me we no longer live in a Republic but a fascist state. We all know where this is going to go:

      a) It starts with social unrest, and the government declaring the poor, the unemployed and other "undesirables" terrorists because they join together and protest the corruption.

      b) Government staging attacks to divert attention, or play the blame game on the undesirables....like the remaining middle eastern and Asian countries not under IMF monetary control.
      (Essentially if your currency is not controlled by the IMF your an enemy of the state and a terrorist.)

      c) Marshall law as the corruption becomes so rampant, the currency becomes worthless.

      d) Take your pick on this one, either the government historically fires up the ovens to burn all of the bodies as 10's of millions die or it declares war...World War and tries to take the rest of the world down to divert public attention to its corrupt activities.
      (10 Years later, and guys dressed in sandles in caves are somehow going to launch a nuke way over here....Oh...and yeah, they _still_ can't find bin Laden, and never will because the military industrial complex is making way too much dough to find him.)

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    9. Re:Money by Intrinsic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the core reason why nothing will change in this country. If everyone thinks they will get to the top, nobody will want to put any effort into changing the system. We have a majority of the population that is jumping up and down for some of the table scraps, but they will never, ever become part of the stupid-elite. The fact that so many people are delusional enough to assume that money equals happiness proves that we have to many people that have their priorities mixed up. Money isnt going to fix your life its only going to complicate the many problems you already have that you are not dealing with on a personal level and those problems will be transferred to innocent people because you have money and dont know how to use it. I dont hate you for it. I feel sad for you wasting your life for something that matters little in the grand scheme of things. :(

    10. Re:Money by aaandre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't have to let them do that.

      How do I "don't let them do that?"

      What are my legal, efficient means to initiate change and reverse the inertia of corrupt lawmaking?

      (I hope you don't say "voting" and mean it seriously)

    11. Re:Money by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Horse hockey. Your comment really has nothing to do with the original topic, you just took this chance to post a leftist screed knowing how most slashdot readers would mod you up for pandering to their juvenile sense of entitlement.

    12. Re:Money by mangu · · Score: 1

      Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

      You mean that *corruption* is incompatible with democracy and civil society. There's no reason, other than corrupt and greedy public servants, why the wealthy would play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

    13. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that all the schemes to protect me from the aforementioned disparities in wealth always seem to involve giving somebody else disproportionate powers.

    14. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have what you want, ergo, they make the rules.

    15. Re:Money by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      They are prepared to use flamethrowers.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    16. Re:Money by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Russia and China were authoritarian nightmares before their revolutions.

      Socialism does not necessarily involve gulags and show trials, in the UK we managed to introduce a national health service, state pensions and so on without recourse to violence, because the vast majority of people agreed with them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Money by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      So someone that comes up with a damn good idea that improves lives worldwide shouldn't be allowed to be comfortable in life for his/her work?

      There's a big difference between being comfortable and being a billionaire, you utter twat.

      Personally speaking, I will take great pleasure in joining the millionaire club at some point down the road: you can hate me all you want, I won't care

      As Chesterton said, to be clever enough to get all that money, one must be stupid enough to want it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Money by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I keep about $500 in checking to pay bills. The rest of the cash is in my home, which when the whole freaking thing ends up collapsing, I will have access to my money

      What makes you think your money will be worth anything if everything collapses?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Money by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

      You mean that *corruption* is incompatible with democracy and civil society. There's no reason, other than corrupt and greedy public servants, why the wealthy would play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

      Bullshit. If you're a billionaire, and to get into a busy restaurant you tip the owner a thousand dollars, is it just him being corrupt that gets you the preferential treatment?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 1

      They have what you want, ergo, they make the rules.

      What do I want? Equality of opportunity. I don't WANT to make the rules, I want US, all of us, to agree to the rules, together. The same rules for everyone.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 1

      Good question. One requiring creative thought and fearless action. There is no one answer, and it is very unlikely any of the real solutions will yield results in a single human lifetime. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    22. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 1

      Frugality and genuine good ideas make the rich assholes who steal them from you rich. Show me one scientist or engineer, who was not a rich asshole and primarily a 'businessman' rather than a techy, who got rich from their ideas.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notch

    24. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 1

      Uh, color me stupid, but what does "notch" mean?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    25. Re:Money by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Programmer of Minecraft, relatively popular but cheap game.

    26. Re:Money by spun · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks. I know of Minecraft, but I'm currently addicted to Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft just seemed like DF lite to me.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  2. There is a good chance code will be revealed by Stregano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could see the closed doors. If the guy says he didn't, and then they start pulling up source code, then I would personally not be happy if that source code was just shown to the world if I was working on a closed source project

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it is a program, there are assumptions. If those assumptions are false, then the program is exploitable. If the program is exploitable, it will be exploited. If it is exploited, people will lose their shirts while others make a fortune. The rich don't want to be fleeced automatically by computers, they just want to fleece others with computers.

      That is all this is.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They cited a federal law to protect owners of trade secrets and a desire not to cause the investment bank to be “re-victimized” through the release of confidential, proprietary trading secrets.

      “Any public disclosure of a trade secret poses the substantial risk that the trade secret’s value to its owner will be significantly diminished, if not destroyed outright,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Facciponti wrote.

      I don't understand why trade secrets shoud be protected. Wasn't patent law allowed under the Constitution to prevent just this sort of thing?

    3. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The issue here is that trade secrets are *not* protected. If they had a patent, then the open doors wouldn't matter since they had already exposed the inner workings in the patent filing.

      Trade secrets only stay secret if you keep them that way. This is no different than if Coke asked for closed doors when it was going to present its secret formula.

      --
      Bottles.
    4. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand why trade secrets shoud be protected.

      Because it can cause billions of dollars worth of harm to Goldman. It's reasonable to make this request.

      Wasn't patent law allowed under the Constitution to prevent just this sort of thing?

      No. Patent law was designed to encourage companies to reveal their relevant trade secrets in exchange for a temporary monopoly.

    5. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is no different than if Coke asked for closed doors when it was going to present its secret formula.

      True, BUT the courts would be likely to grant Coke's request precisely to help protect their formula from public disclosure.

    6. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If it is a program, there are assumptions. If those assumptions are false, then the program is exploitable. If the program is exploitable, it will be exploited. If it is exploited, people will lose their shirts while others make a fortune. The rich don't want to be fleeced automatically by computers, they just want to fleece others with computers.

      And a desire to avoid getting fleeced is bad because?

      Also you ignore that revealing code opens wide the doors to extensive competition.

    7. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And that is how the justice system works.

      If coke were accusing an employee of something relating to millions of dollars where they needed to present part of the formula as evidence and the court denied their request for closed doors, they might be forced to not present the evidence or not pursue trial at all. The formula is worth far more than one trial so they would probably walk away from having to publicly display it--if the employee was actually guilty of something, he would run free since coke would be unable to present key evidence.

      --
      Bottles.
    8. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      There are two golden rules ...

      Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

      The person with the gold rules.

      Also, you ignore that our court system NEEDS to be open except for very specific reasons. Keeping "source code" secret isn't one of them. Especially if the source code is part of the prosecution for whatever "crime" was committed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by hedwards · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's bullshit. As opposed to the status quo where their HFT platform allows them to fleece individual investors by buying shares that they know will go up. I mean not that they expect to go up, but what what the price will be in the near future.

      Goldman Sachs is the sort of scum that needs to be run out of the country by any means necessary.

    10. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IT will be open eventually, just not until someone is convicted. The court process is not about indirectly punishing someone for being charged, it's about determining innocence or guilt and only then punishing someone if it's appropriate. If there is a conviction, it will all be public. If not, then disclosing the source code and methods does little but harm the programmer.

    11. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before anyone jumps in to argue that patents protect what would be otherwise trade secrets, so there need be no protection for trade secrets, the point is this: you can't force someone to reveal their secrets, so you induce them but guaranteeing them if they reveal the secret, they'll have the full might of the government helping them out.

      If your unpatented trade secret is revealed, you have recourse against the person who leaked it (often an employee with shallow pockets filled with dust, not greenbacks), but not against anyone who uses the trade secret. This is often the case when a mid-level employee leaves a service company and starts poaching the company's clients by using the company's secret client list.

    12. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      that's a complete misrepresentation of HFT - HFT is more about leveling pricing, and it's effect on the individual investor is positive, by providing a more liquid market with tighter spreads to people who do want to bet on the direction of a stock (HFT is not about betting on the movement one way or the other) you may be referring to the 'flash order' issue, where participants try to gain insight into the market by probing so called 'dark pools' where market data is not published, but to caracterize HFT as a whole with this dubious practice is to misunderstand the bulk of HFT

    13. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 2

      Also, you ignore that our court system NEEDS to be open except for very specific reasons. Keeping "source code" secret isn't one of them. Especially if the source code is part of the prosecution for whatever "crime" was committed.

      Preserving trade secrets is one of those "very specific reasons".

    14. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I could see the closed doors. If the guy says he didn't, and then they start pulling up source code, then I would personally not be happy if that source code was just shown to the world if I was working on a closed source project

      Especially if that source code screws over the people it is being hidden from.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    15. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why trade secrets shoud be protected.

      Because it can cause billions of dollars worth of harm to Goldman. It's reasonable to make this request.

      As if Goldman-Sachs didn't make enough money on the first round of TARP

      Wasn't patent law allowed under the Constitution to prevent just this sort of thing?

      No. Patent law was designed to encourage companies to reveal their relevant trade secrets in exchange for a temporary monopoly.

      Patent law gives the government sovereign jurisdiction over the allowing or disallowing of a patentable process or device, considering all the national security clamps on patents in recent years.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    16. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The shill speaks. So much for transparency.

      Well excuse me, but this shill has a little more to say here. You and the rest of the public don't have a right to know private trade secrets. You can bluster all you want about "transparency", but it's just a pathetic excuse to unjustly cause up to billions of dollars of harm to an unpopular business.

      We don't need to see the extremely valuable computer code (and possibly other trade secrets) to have transparency in this court case, hence, we don't get to see it.

    17. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As if Goldman-Sachs didn't make enough money on the first round of TARP

      Too bad. If the US public didn't want to be chumps, they should have elected someone competent for president either in 2004 or 2008.

      Patent law gives the government sovereign jurisdiction over the allowing or disallowing of a patentable process or device, considering all the national security clamps on patents in recent years.

      And why would you think that? I don't see a valid argument here to rebut, just a big non sequitur.

    18. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about: maybe trade secrets should not exist?
      I'm not a chemist, but I understand that consuming two (or more) different molecules at the same time may be dangerous, while consuming the same molecules separately is not (which is why you can't take some meds at the same time, or mix meds with alcohol). And then I don't know if Coca-Cola disclose all the ingredients in their soda (even if they don't disclose how they prepare them), but preparation can also be good or bad.

      So when a recipe is kept secret, you don't really know what you're eating/drinking. In the case of Coca-Cola, it's been around long enough to believe it's safe, but for other foods the fact is that in principle we don't know what we are swallowing.

      Maybe Coca-Cola had to disclose it's recipe to experts tasked with checking that the recipe was not toxic... I don't know. But if so, the public still does not know what they eat/drink, so the problem is pretty much the same.

      And it really sounds like trade-secrets are a loophole to avoid using patents. There is a reason why patents must be paid for, why they expire after a period of time, etc... Trade-secrets are cheating the system, it seems. I don't mind a company keeping their recipe secret instead of going for a patent, but the government and the law should not help them! I don't mind companies deciding they'll risk keeping the recipe secret instead of going for a patent, but then they should not be given the advantages of a patent while not having the downsides of it.

    19. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, I can't quite understand you. Could you try explaining that one more time WITHOUT putting your mouth around Goldman's Sack?

    20. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Mysteray · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You and the rest of the public don't have a right to know private trade secrets

      Says who? There's no inherent right to prevent "the public" from learning arbitrary information either. Does that mean I have some inherent right to prevent Google from learning every URL I type into a web browser? If they find themselves at risk of public disclosure of this data should courts protect their "right" to keep it as their "secret", even though I was the one who typed every character of it? The term "secret" is descriptive. If you know something, it's not a secret to you. You may want others not to know it, but once they do it's not a secret any more is it? "Trade secret" is a legal term of art, but even that term sounds to me more descriptive.

      You can bluster all you want about "transparency", but it's just a pathetic excuse to unjustly cause up to billions of dollars of harm to an unpopular business.

      You're not going to convince anyone if you don't give them at least a little credibility. Anyone who would agree that their own point of view is "just a pathetic excuse" is probably not worth convincing, in the rhetorical sense.

      We don't need to see the extremely valuable computer code (and possibly other trade secrets) to have transparency in this court case, hence, we don't get to see it.

      So you seem to be saying of "transparency"...
      The talk of it is "bluster"
      The talk of it is "just a pathetic excuse to cause harm"
      The minimum amount of information to "have transparency" should be disclosed, at least in this case, and
      We can "have transparency" in this case without disclosing the program source text

      Your arguments here are poorly thought out and backed up only by an angry tone.

      It seems to me that the best argument for an exception in this case (to the general rule of fully-public government) is that disclosure of the (formerly) trade secrets would be a big disincentive for any future victims to come forward and cooperate with prosecutors. This is hardly a new concept.

      But you haven't made that argument. Assuming that an actual shill would have at least know the common talking points, my guess is you're not really a shill.

    21. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Says who? There's no inherent right to prevent "the public" from learning arbitrary information either. Does that mean I have some inherent right to prevent Google from learning every URL I type into a web browser? If they find themselves at risk of public disclosure of this data should courts protect their "right" to keep it as their "secret", even though I was the one who typed every character of it? The term "secret" is descriptive. If you know something, it's not a secret to you. You may want others not to know it, but once they do it's not a secret any more is it? "Trade secret" is a legal term of art, but even that term sounds to me more descriptive.

      So it's ok, for example, if I post your medical records? The Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy and has extended that right to corporations. I think it's a wise decision.

      It seems to me that the best argument for an exception in this case (to the general rule of fully-public government) is that disclosure of the (formerly) trade secrets would be a big disincentive for any future victims to come forward and cooperate with prosecutors. This is hardly a new concept.

      I shouldn't have to make that argument either since my argument was more than sufficient.

    22. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping trade secrets is good for a company. Giving them up is good for society.

      If a company wants to use the patent system to get a temporary monopoly, they give up their trade secrets. They give something, and they get something.

      In this case, a company wants to use the justice system. In order to do that, without compromising public oversight of the trial, they may need to give up their trade secrets. They give something, and they get something.

    23. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, the employee is entitled to a public trial. Not mostly public or sorta public. One of our legal principles is that it's better that the guilty go free than to risk infringing on those rights.

    24. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Flash orders are just one way exchanges expose traditionally secret data to HFT to court their business. The relationships between HFT and exchanges is inherently corrupting ... and at the moment the relationship is corrupt and they are getting away with it.

      Also the emperor has no clothes ... the whole clown parade to try to claim HFT doesn't cause flash crashes is a fucking embarrassment. How stupid do they think people are? As you say, HFT doesn't bet ... and if you get caught out with a large position in a down trending market as a non better there is only one strategy, with 75% of liquidity choosing that strategy the results are obvious. Worst thing, the exchanges again showing how corrupt they are, add moral hazard to the mix by simply protecting the HFT traders from their own algorithms.

      Get rid of flash orders, get rid of trade invalidations, get rid of naked shorting (ie. close out trades immediately, perfectly possible on a computerized exchange, fuck market maker privilege as well in this regard). After that you can try to persuade me HFT is a good idea, at the moment it's just something which makes a bad clusterfuck worse.

    25. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      I believe that computer driven high frequency trading has been illegal for quite a few years. If it was an illegal practice then the brokerage house is liable for all of the damage done by their programs failure even if an outsider altered the program. Let the light shine in and let's see what was going on.

    26. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy and has extended that right to corporations.

      and herein lies the problems, why should corporations have the right to privacy? Corporations should have no expectation of privacy, and using the analogy above, if you are taken to court and your medical history is relevant to the investigation (IE, mental illness etc) do you think they would close the doors for your case? the code may also be worth millions, but try and steal any valuable information from the court logs. i hate how people treat information as sacred.. its an unlimited resource and we are trying to control it like a limited resource, like somehow only those who have enough money should be entitled to "know" things... i think its fair if you charge people who are willing to pay for that information.. but are you entitled to money for someone else knowing that information? of course not.

    27. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by dintech · · Score: 1

      Colonel Sanders would ask for a closed court room too. But only so the public doesn't see him white with rage, beating the shit out of secret recipe thiefs.

    28. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why trade secrets shoud be protected.

      What are you talking about? The company with the trade secret obviously wants to protect its secrecy, or else it wouldn't be a fucking secret would it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by khallow · · Score: 1

      and herein lies the problems, why should corporations have the right to privacy?

      You need to show there is a problem first before complaining about it.

    30. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If they're not protected, why are the courts protecting them?

    31. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      tighter spreads to people who do want to bet on the direction of a stock

      If people want to bet, shouldn't they go to a casino? Buying stock is is supposed to be about investment, not gambling. And stock futures? The furures market shouldn't exist; that should be illegal.

    32. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If the US public didn't want to be chumps, they should have elected someone competent for president either in 2004 or 2008.

      And how were we supposed to do that, when all five parties' candidates on enough ballots to win the election were incompetent?

    33. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I mean, why should THE GOVERNMENT help a company protect its secrets?

    34. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      Right, futures should be illegal, so people cant do things like hedge future exposure against adverse events? Farmers cant lock in prices at the beginning of the season - airlines can't lock in fuel prices as a hedge against rising prices, etc, etc. Futures have a great many useful and very legitimate trading scenarios - traders who just gamble without hedges are not going to survive for long. In my prior statement, I was referring to investors, who buy a stock, hoping it will rise on the long term, so I do admit my poor choice of words distorted my meaning somewhat, but otherwise I couldn't disagree more with your other statements

    35. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about locking in prices, that shouldn't be illegal, no.

    36. Re:There is a good chance code will be revealed by suutar · · Score: 1

      Trade secrets are protected as long as they're still secret: if someone learns the secret through illegitimate means, they can't use it or reveal it.
      But once they become publicly known, you're hosed. You don't get 17 years of monopoly, because you didn't patent it (if you had, it wouldn't be secret, it would be in the patent application). You don't get copyright protection because the kind of thing that is typically a "trade secret" is like a recipe, and recipes aren't copyrightable (individually. A collection can be, e.g. cookbooks. But a list of ingredients and an order for mixing? Not so much.)
      So until it's revealed, it gets some protections and one of those is that the court isn't going to be the one to make the secret public.

  3. Trade Secrets? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that I approve of HFT in any way shape or form. But this guy is going to be talking about the system that allows the to have an edge over their competitors. If I were in that company's position, I'd very much like that testimony to remain sealed as well.

    -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:Trade Secrets? by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      True.. But skynet was also a secret until judgment day..

    2. Re:Trade Secrets? by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 0, Interesting

      There is a point of view, however, that questions the legitimacy of HFT to begin with (that appears to be an agreement with parent). HFT contributes to a system which affects salaries, wages, retirement funds, mortgage rates, interest rates, insurance premiums, and a host of other factors important to people who have no control over the profit margin retained by stock market manipulators. Honestly that rationale can likely be applied to the whole of the stock market: aside from a few quarterly reports or year-end summaries the market value of a company has little or nothing to do with the success or failure of its real world products. A particularly good example is that of the grocery store. Why should those people work for near minimum wage, why should you pay more for a bag of corn chips and a jar of salsa, just because somebody wanted to gain an edge in HFT?

      If I were the judge I would refuse the request and leave the courtroom open. Industry trade secrets mean nothing if the American public deserves to know how it is being swindled en masse.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    3. Re:Trade Secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do not approve of it in any way, then you think it should be illegal. That is why it should not be sealed.

    4. Re:Trade Secrets? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, if I were manipulating markets I wouldn't want that to get out either.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Trade Secrets? by JonySuede · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah but the fishy thing here is that it is not the Goldsack lawyer that requested the secretly but the federal prosecutor...

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    6. Re:Trade Secrets? by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1

      Which Goldman Sachs lawyer? Since Aleynikov is being prosecuted criminally, not sued, it's the federal prosecutor in court claiming wrong-doing; Goldman Sachs' lawyers aren't representing either side.

      --
      --Matthew
    7. Re:Trade Secrets? by khallow · · Score: 1

      yeah but the fishy thing here is that it is not the Goldsack lawyer that requested the secretly but the federal prosecutor...

      It's common sense. By making the request, you avoid having the opposition use it as a means to delay progress of the trial. Expediting the trial is a good, short term prosecutor move.

    8. Re:Trade Secrets? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      GS has long been rumored to be front-running the market (as legendary poster 'Anonymous Coward' said below, they see trades milliseconds before others). Yeah, I wouldn't want that to be confirmed as fact either.

    9. Re:Trade Secrets? by Benfea · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This software didn't allow Goldman Sachs to have a competitive edge over their competitors, it contributed to a massive financial collapse that resulted in taxpayers being robbed trillions of dollars. If this were a murder trial, should we make the trial secret because the gun manufacture doesn't want his competitors to know what kinds of springs he used?

      This isn't about protecting intellectual property, it's about reminding we mere peasants that don't have as much influence over our government as our lords and ladies do.

    10. Re:Trade Secrets? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      If I were in that company's position, I'd very much like that testimony to remain sealed as well.

      And it's the courts' job to keep rich people happy.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:Trade Secrets? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      OK, I did not thought about this that way, thanks you for the insight

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    12. Re:Trade Secrets? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure Goldman have some lawyers there as they are an interested party.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    13. Re:Trade Secrets? by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it were just the HFT source to be protected, then the judge can seal a few documents or clear the court for a few witnesses. That's not a good enough reason to close the entire trial.

    14. Re:Trade Secrets? by Ear+Phantom · · Score: 2, Informative

      And their "big secret" is... ...the emperor has no clothes and their balance sheet is entirely made up. They simply make up the number they want and use alchemy, I mean, custom derivatives traded over the counter with SPVs (special purpose vehicles).

      Their technology is 100% proprietary and in house, at the programming language (Slang), database (SecDB) and networking levels (yep, even custom screen editors, no IDEs for Goldman) for added obfuscation. They brag internally about how much they spend on technology, the bulk of which is spent on training people just out of school on their proprietary system. It is almost impossible to audit.

    15. Re:Trade Secrets? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      There is a point of view, however, that questions the legitimacy of HFT to begin with (that appears to be an agreement with parent). HFT contributes to a system which affects salaries, wages, retirement funds, mortgage rates, interest rates, insurance premiums, and a host of other factors important to people who have no control over the profit margin retained by stock market manipulators.

      Even if true, that is all completely irrelevant to this trial. A former employee is accused of stealing his employer's code on his last day. That's what the trial is about.

    16. Re:Trade Secrets? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure Goldman have some lawyers there as they are an interested party.

      So is the government. Time to jump into the kangaroo car on the railroad express. This trial will over and done with before any side issues can even be raised.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    17. Re:Trade Secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. But why should that be of any concern to the court system?

    18. Re:Trade Secrets? by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that doesn't mean that they have standing on their own to request that portions of the trial be closed.

      --
      --Matthew
    19. Re:Trade Secrets? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The difference in a murder trial is that the inner workings of the gun dont matter.

      All that matters is whether the prossecution can prove that the gun in question DID fire the bullets used to kill the victim (something that can generally be done these days by balistic comparison of the bullets from the victim and bullets test-fired from the gun) and who was the one who fired the gun.

    20. Re:Trade Secrets? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It is almost impossible to audit.

      Then your Stocvk Exchange regulators should fine them 100% of their profits each year until it becomes possible.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Trade Secrets? by Ear+Phantom · · Score: 1

      What Stock Exchange regulators? And just how, exactly?

      Normally a company has a simple profit and loss summary. With banks, it's an entirely different matter. Banks have the power to move things off their balance sheet completely--poof! That's the whole point of most structured products, including credit derivatives.

      Until the Wall Street reform bill got passed, nobody had the power to do anything about the situation at all. Now it's ostensibly fixed, but that takes time before the new regulators can even get a handle on what's been going on for the last 2-3 years. It's still easy peasy when most financial instruments can be traded over the counter (i.e., not through an exchange), without rules (especially for the big banks, who have special immunity) and don't have to be recorded.

      It's only a matter of time before Goldman is the next Enron, only far, far worse. They may even get away with it.

  4. No. by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does this say about the state of the financial industry? Given the problems HFT seems to have caused over the last few years, shouldn't more light be shined into the dark corners of how it works?

    No... then they’d actually have to fix it...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  5. Here is a Google analogy...(sorry no cars) by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    I see this in the same light as google. What if google was asked to present their "secret algorithm" in open court so that counsel could better understand what they have been doing with private information? I know a lot of people who would love to hear that testimony.

    1. Re:Here is a Google analogy...(sorry no cars) by Amouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if i remember correctly the Judge can seal trade secret documents - they are openly reviewed by both sides and the Judge under contempt to repeat/reuse out side of the court & case. The documents would be put into record as sealed evidence for the case.

      in that way - the actual proceedings do not need to be closed only the content of a few documents.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Here is a Google analogy...(sorry no cars) by RegTooLate · · Score: 1

      Umm, I think they already told us, search for The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine

    3. Re:Here is a Google analogy...(sorry no cars) by drewshaver · · Score: 1

      yes, this has indeed been known for a while, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank . There is certainly more to it than is on that page. But that is the crux

  6. Can't quite put my finger on it.... by jcrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but something seems unexpected about this level of concern by the Justice Department.

    Obviously they know that "pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain" isn''t going to cut it. One suspects that the government is less interested in protecting Goldman's trade secrets than in making sure the public doesn't find out just how badly computerized trading has made it impossible for normal people to compete in todays stock market.

    Or maybe the massive drop off in political contributions from Wall Street following all the tar and feathering they have been getting from the current administration (far beyond the taring and feathering that they DO deserve) has gotten some peoples attention and they really are concerned with their ability to fund raise, I mean the ability of companies not to be unjustifiably victimized just because they happen to be *gasp* profitable.

    --
    -jon
    1. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      tar and feathering they have been getting from the current administration

      Is that secret code for bailout? The current administration (and the last, and the next) is Wall street and no amount of rhetoric changes that.

    2. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or maybe the massive drop off in political contributions from Wall Street following all the tar and feathering they have been getting from the current administration (far beyond the taring and feathering that they DO deserve) has gotten some peoples attention and they really are concerned with their ability to fund raise, I mean the ability of companies not to be unjustifiably victimized just because they happen to be *gasp* profitable.

      Do your lips get chapped from smoking Wall Street pole all day long, or have you gotten used to it? The "justified" response to the clusterfuck caused by the investment banks would have been to nationalize them and put the execs in JAIL. The fact that they're STILL whining despite record profits demonstrates that they're just bitches.

    3. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      but something seems unexpected about this level of concern by the Justice Department.

      I don't know why you'd think that. The DoJ has an interest in removing obstacles to progress of the trial. The defense could use this issue to delay the trial significantly.

    4. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Sure they did. Who else was it that was dealing in the derivatives market? The market for which dwarfed the entirety of the US economy for the next 40 years or so. If it wasn't the investment bankers, then who the fuck was orchestrating the whole thing?

      600,000,000,000,000?

    5. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, that's not true either.

      The biggest problem with the "current clusterfuck" was not so much bad loans per se. Bad loans are and were not unexpected with the sort of lower-quality loans that were being made, even though the extent of the defaults has been unexpectedly high. A major problem that allowed this to spread from the sub-sector of the financial industry that deals with housing to the wider market was the financial engineering that was supposed to generate safe AAA assets out of a pool of crap, and the financial and non-financial institutions who stacked their balance sheets with this pseudo-AAA stuff with no back-up plans because, after all, 'it's top rated'. If it was just about a bunch of people who invested directly in a crappy market the problems would be restricted to those directly involved, and nobody would really care.

      How can I make a car analogy? A crappy old used-car with obvious rust that makes a horrible rattling noise when you start it both is and isn't dangerous - it has obvious flaws, but because these flaws are obvious it is possible to give it a wide berth if you don't know what you are doing. A car that looks new and doesn't make any obvious nasty sounds but has a flawed brake design can be more dangerous because you can't see that it is a death trap until you either do an implausible amount of inspection or ... until someone dies.

      Oh - and your blame for Fannie and Freddie fails to explain how there can also have been a housing bubble in the UK, where FNMC and FNMA don't operate and there is no UK equivalent. Possibly economics is more complicated that a simple morality tale? If we look at WHY there was such a large demand for AAA-rated USD assets we then get on to macroeconomics, behavioral psychology and regulatory matters.

      I have an elegant explanation for the events of 2008, but it is too long to fit in a /. comment...

    6. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your also forgetting that they have an interest in prosecuting without issues that could cause a verdict to be over turned.

      With all the political fevoring out there and general distaste for wall-street right now, releasing this information or making this public could raise a number of legal and ethics challenges causing something to be overturned or vacated on appeal.

      Suppose releasing this information caused a public outcry which tainted the jury or worse yet, caused protests on the court house steps that is later claimed to influence the trial disproportionately against the defense. The bottom line is that keeping it quiet, at least until the verdict is in, will avoid a lot of that. The constitution guarantees a fair trial, not having one is grounds for appeal, not being able to have one at all, can be grounds to avoid prosecution at all. It will make it extremely more difficult to get a conviction to stick if it's in the open before the trial is concluded.

    7. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by jcrb · · Score: 1

      Oh - and your blame for Fannie and Freddie fails to explain how there can also have been a housing bubble in the UK, where FNMC and FNMA don't operate and there is no UK equivalent.

      Your logic is flawed, I did not say that "the ONLY thing that can cause a housing bubble is..X", I said that "the primary cause of THIS the bubble and financial crisis was X", that somewhere else there can also be a bubble and crisis for different reasons has no bearing on the validity of my statement.

      --
      -jon
    8. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh - and your blame for Fannie and Freddie fails to explain how there can also have been a housing bubble in the UK, where FNMC and FNMA don't operate and there is no UK equivalent.

      Your logic is flawed, I did not say that "the ONLY thing that can cause a housing bubble is..X", I said that "the primary cause of THIS the bubble and financial crisis was X", that somewhere else there can also be a bubble and crisis for different reasons has no bearing on the validity of my statement.

      Technically speaking, you are right. There is nothing that is logically self-contradictory about the proposition that there were simultaneous crises in the US housing market, US Muni ARS, AIG, the Primary Reserve Fund, MAGIC and the monolines, Ireland, Iceland, the UK, the Netherlands and a bunch of other countries besides that all were created and collapsed coincident in time but for different reasons. To me, however, "FNMC and FNMA were abused to promote a political agenda" may well be part of the answer, but it can't be the whole thing.

      One of the big problems about this mess is that it has to be sorted out by politicians, and politicians need to have simple solutions to simple questions. That's not because they are inherently evil, or because civilisation has declined from some sort of goldern age where the populace used to sit around in salons debating political philosophy. That's just the way it is. And that means that the "one sentence" answers to the question "what caused the fuck-up in 2008?" are always going to be more popular, and more prone to bias from the political inclinations of the respondent than the truth, which is probably very long and too convoluted to make a good 30 second political ad.

    9. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      but something seems unexpected about this level of concern by the Justice Department.

      I don't know why you'd think that. The DoJ has an interest in removing obstacles to progress of the trial. The defense could use this issue to delay the trial significantly.

      It can also speed up the trial thereby allowing importyant, though minute issues to be overlooked.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    10. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It can also speed up the trial thereby allowing importyant, though minute issues to be overlooked.

      Which generally works to the prosecutor's advantage.

    11. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the massive drop off in political contributions...

      What are you? Nuts? Over 2 billion went through the campaign laundromat... Best season ever.

      Tar and feathering? Have you seen the bills that passed over the last two years? I would say they got showered with pure gold.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    12. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Until actual tar and feathers gets involved, they aren't getting nearly the tarring and feathering they so richly deserve.

    13. Re:Can't quite put my finger on it.... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > I have an elegant explanation for the events of 2008, but it is too long to fit in a /. comment...

      I have a copy of Arithmetica that I can spare, if you'd care to use the margins...

  7. Which problems have HFT created? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that Slashdot just absolutely abhors urban myths and legends that veer into religion, so I would like to be informed which problems HFT have created.

    For example, one urban myth based on prejudice (it is experience or prejudice, pick one) is that the August 2010 'flash crash' was caused by HFTs. Luckily we have always informative Wikipedia to correct that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_crash

    -1000 Troll, for who knows which reason.

    1. Re:Which problems have HFT created? by robot256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not -1000 troll, just 0 Anonymous Coward. According to the final SEC report (read pages 5-6), you are right, it was a poorly written automated sell-order script that caused the crash, and high frequency trading algorithms helped the market *recover* as fast as it did.

    2. Re:Which problems have HFT created? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Oops, I should have read farther. What the report actually says that the HFT algorithms caused increase market volume and started a positive-feedback loop with the sell-order script. This caused a "liquidity crisis" (all the algorithms were trying to sell and nobody was buying) so the price crashed. As the price went down, the various HFTs were swapping shorts back and forth to take advantage of the falling prices, but couldn't offload the total amount of sell orders, so the exchange circuit breaker kicked in. After trading resumed, the prices went back to normal, but the stupid sell script kept going and there was a second liquidity crisis as the humans in the loop said WTF and stopped trading.

      So their official conclusion was that HFT both helped cause and helped solve the crisis and it was the stupid sell script that started the whole thing.

    3. Re:Which problems have HFT created? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1
      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    4. Re:Which problems have HFT created? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they (SEC) got it completely wrong. We obtained the Waddell & Reed trades that the SEC report says were from the stupid sell script. Hardly stupid -- quite sophisticated. Here's a page with a few images showing how that script turned itself off when the market dropped:

      http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrashFinal/FlashCrashAnalysis_W&R.html

      We also kept track of who visited our site when we first published our analysis of the flash crash. The most frequent visitor, by a wide margin (more than our visits in posting/editing the material + visits from SEC + CFTC) was...

      Goldman.

      Coincidence? Maybe.

  8. Goldman's Lawyers by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Normally, I'd nitpick about how the Federal Prosecutors asked for this and not Goldman's lawyers. However, with the political and economic landscape being what they are, federal prosecutors have really become Goldman's lawyers.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Goldman's Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, seriously? On the assumption that this trial result isn't simply bought and paid for already, what do the Feds possibly gain from this?

    2. Re:Goldman's Lawyers by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      They don't call it Government Sachs for nothing. Take a look at who is at GS that used to be in the Federal Govt, and visa versa. This just stinks. And that which smells like shit usually is the Bull Shit they're trying to pass off to the public.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Goldman's Lawyers by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd nitpick about how the Federal Prosecutors asked for this and not Goldman's lawyers. However, with the political and economic landscape being what they are, federal prosecutors have really become Goldman's lawyers.

      The proper term is "bought dogs".

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  9. Unfair advantage by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this type of computer system that trades before anyone else even CAN considered fair or even legal? You get to control and possibly even direct the market with this tool.

    This is a monopoly on the stock market, WAY too much power in the hands of one company.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Unfair advantage by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      They aren’t legal, but they do indicate that the system is broken. It’s susceptible to what amounts to a denial of service attack.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Unfair advantage by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Disregard that. High-frequency trading is legal. I must be thinking of something else.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Unfair advantage by BabyDuckHat · · Score: 4, Funny

      High-frequency trading supports a very important function of providing liquidity that allows the free flowing of, um, high-frequency trading and uh, high-risk prop-desk front running, and hmmm, other important and productive economic activities that benefit everyone and not just the rich elite. Seriously, stop asking questions about it.

    4. Re:Unfair advantage by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can create a HFT system to automate buying and selling. All one needs is the skill and money to set up the system.

      It is not a monopoly on the stock market because every medium to large trading house has its own HFT system. It does put individuals and smaller trading houses at a disadvantage but HFT generally takes advantage of small changes in price by volume. We wouldn't make much if we bought 100 shares of a stock that dipped by $.01 for one second, but Goldmans and the like can make a return on it by buying hundreds of thousand shares.

    5. Re:Unfair advantage by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      How on earth is this a monopoly on the stock market? If Sachs can legally employ this system, then so can you. If you think you have a better system and you can convince enough people with enough money to let you build it then you can compete with Sachs. This is called a level playing field.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    6. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only reason these systems work is because they have special access to the data. They can see trade data a couple hundred milliseconds before anyone else and can place their trades a couple hundred milliseconds faster than anyone else. If you can't see the tactical advantage of effectively seeing the near future and be able to react faster than would-be competitors... well then I guess I really don't know what is left to say.

    7. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an investor who does not trade HFT is advantageous. HFT increases market volatility (combined with relaxed trading rules, less regulation) and creates discrepancy between price and value which can be exploited by an intelligent investor. HFT algorithms don't consider qualitative factors and are based on mathematical and statistical models only.
      On the other hand, if you are a speculator who daytrades you are probably not going to beat big financial institutions which have large resources.

    8. Re:Unfair advantage by khallow · · Score: 1

      How is this type of computer system that trades before anyone else even CAN considered fair or even legal?

      Well, the HFT system itself is obviously legal. But why would I care if it is "fair"? You could always spend a few tens of millions of dollars to get your own HFT system and code monkeys.

      This is a monopoly on the stock market, WAY too much power in the hands of one company.

      Is it? The whole point of the trial was that a programmer is accused of stealing the code for a competitor. Presence of a competitor implies absence of a monopoly.

    9. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

      (for the lameness filter, this is a bash.org reference. Hell, it's still probably lame, but it should at least pass the filter by now)

    10. Re:Unfair advantage by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      There is no "special" data. You can get it too.

    11. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone with reasonably deep pockets can build one. Speed advantages in the stock market have always existed. Why do you think the floor brokers are there? They wanted to be able to trade on information first. People are just going all OMG about it because its on computers, and therefore somehow scarier to them (and you even see this on Slashdot, which is strange).

      You can't control or direct the market with these systems any more than a guy in the pit that can yell BUY faster than everyone else. You need to shift demand to move the market.

      Monopoly on the stock market? Now you are kind of out in left field. How do they in any, way, shape, or form... have a monopoly... on the stock market? I am not even sure what a monopoly on the stock market would look like.

      Yet somehow you are marked insightful... blind groupthink strikes again.

    12. Re:Unfair advantage by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I’m quite familiar with the saying, but I didn’t know where it came from. Linky please?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:Unfair advantage by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I keep hearing that "anyone" can do this. Please point me to where I can sign up to collocate my server with the market computers - because that is actually necessary to set up an effective HFT system.

      The ability of an elite few to buy access to information about the value of an item, when that information is unavailable to others with whom they will buy and sell that item, is a violation of free market premises.

      Much of what the SEC regulations do is to produce a free market. This is what many political pundits fail to understand - the "free" in free market does not mean "unregulated". The best regulatory approach in the world would never create a 100% ideal free market - money will always be able to buy research - but there's a difference between "not being able to produce a perfectly flat playing field" vs. "allowing people to artificially create an information assymetry, with the express purpose of taking profits from those on the other side of the field, with an insanely high barrier to entry for those who want to join you". HFT is the latter.

      HFT is a practice that should be regulated out of existence.

    14. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      This "special" access is available to anyone willing to pay for it. If you choose not to pay the higher price for faster market data, then I don't think you can blame the other guy for being faster. For what its worth, the really cutting edge market data solutions are all third party and available to anyone who will write a check. The costs of these things quickly skyrocketed past the point where it made sense for each firm to build their own system.

    15. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bash.org/?5775

    16. Re:Unfair advantage by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not a monopoly, but it is a form of insider trading. Why the SEC isn't all over them for it is beyond me. They use the HFT in order to place trades during the window of time after they find out what the next price is and before the public does. Allowing them to place these very fast trades which guarantee them profit each time.

    17. Re:Unfair advantage by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not really, by the time you get it it's already obsolete. And good luck actually using the information as you have to be pretty much across the street using a computerized platform to make any use of it.

      It's basically just a fancy form of insider trading which the SEC hasn't felt like cracking down on yet. Back in the 20s they had a similar scam going. The price for tomorrows stocks would be provided to select brokers the day before. It's just now that the time interval is smaller than what it used to be. It's also not something which all exchanges allow.

    18. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the NYSE sells early access to the data.

    19. Re:Unfair advantage by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it? The whole point of the trial was that a programmer is accused of stealing the code for a competitor. Presence of a competitor implies absence of a monopoly.

      No it doesn't. It implies that somebody wants to compete, it does not imply that they're already in the market.

    20. Re:Unfair advantage by compro01 · · Score: 1

      The special part of the data is that you have it a some milliseconds before anyone else does, by dint of having your servers physically right next to the exchange.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    21. Re:Unfair advantage by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      No, you can get access to the same information that Goldmans and the rest have access to, you just have to do what they do and buy the access. And, to be honest, even if you had the same access for free and an HFT system, you probably couldn't by enough stock using HFT to matter. Most individual traders buy less than 1000 shares. HFT systems buy hundreds of thousands if not millions of shares at a time.

    22. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I'd posted this, but perhaps it also fell victim to the lameness filter.... :(

      The, uh, citation is: http://www.bash.org/?5775

    23. Re:Unfair advantage by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Nothing is stopping you from buying the access besides not having the money.

    24. Re:Unfair advantage by HiddenL · · Score: 5, Informative

      I keep hearing that "anyone" can do this. Please point me to where I can sign up to collocate my server with the market computers - because that is actually necessary to set up an effective HFT system.

      http://www.lightspeed.com/?page_id=5068
      http://www.limebrokerage.com/contact_us.shtml
      http://www.ften.com/buy-side-products/vx-velocityxpress.html

      They all offer colocation services.

    25. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You don't need to co-locate for HFT. I personally have built/configured several datafeeds for these systems, and co-location was almost never a financially viable option. Most banks don't co-locate all of their HFT.

    26. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "People are just going all OMG about it because its on computers, and therefore somehow scarier to them (and you even see this on Slashdot, which is strange)."

      People on Slashdot object BECAUSE they understand the computer technology (reduced latency due to proximity to the central data sources etc), and how it's being used by the big players.

    27. Re:Unfair advantage by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Maybe I’m being naïve here, but I’m assuming that anyone can go to New York with a couple of hockey bags full of money, lease some space as close as physically possible to the Exchange and then get MCI or Verizon or Sprint or whoever has the fastest ping time to the NYSE servers to get you a data connection. I didn't realize that Goldman Sachs servers were actually collocated with the NYSE servers. Even so, with a local fiber connection your hypothetical system should be fast enough to compete.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    28. Re:Unfair advantage by sycorob · · Score: 1

      I want this for my .sig now.

    29. Re:Unfair advantage by rgviza · · Score: 1

      eTrade and everyone else has the same shit for consumers to do their own HFT trading. You set your margins up on a stock and when it hits a target price, the system does something (usually buy or sell) automagically. HFT is just Goldman's trademark on the Same Shit Everyone Else Does(TM). It's nothing special. All you need to do to get it is sign up for an electronic trading account. They have the same thing for equity, bond, and currency trading. A lot of them are programmable and you can write your own scripts to control the behavior. I work with another programmer that does this extensively for currency trading. His scripts do trending and predict currency behavior on a lot more factors than just the current price. He's using subscription based service that provides the software environment that his scripts run in. His script will define a trend when it sees it and he's got functions that determine if (for example) a downward trend has hit bottom. Over time they are getting quite sophisticated and considerably better at predicting trends.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    30. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can create a HFT system to automate buying and selling.

      Nope. To be successful, you need to convince the stock exchange to co-locate your server with theirs. Otherwise it's not fast enough. That kind of access is not available to the 'average Joe'.

    31. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This "special" access is available to anyone willing to pay for it.

      We're not talking about paying a few extra bucks on your ETrade account to remove the 15 minute embargo.

      Goldman arranged for their servers to be co-located with the stock exchange's servers. Which means they get data faster and can place trades faster than anyone who is not located in the exchange's data center. That kind of access is not available to anyone but the largest investment banks.

    32. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Even so, with a local fiber connection your hypothetical system should be fast enough to compete.

      Nope. While you'd get data faster than the 'average Joe' on ETrade, a local fiber connection is not fast enough to compete with the large investment banks which are co-located. They get the data in nanoseconds, you get the data in tens of milliseconds.

    33. Re:Unfair advantage by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I keep hearing that "anyone" can do this. Please point me to where I can sign up to collocate my server with the market computers - because that is actually necessary to set up an effective HFT system.

      I haven't done this, but contact the major stock exchanges. I imagine all the major ones and a few minor ones offer collocation services.

      Much of what the SEC regulations do is to produce a free market. This is what many political pundits fail to understand - the "free" in free market does not mean "unregulated". The best regulatory approach in the world would never create a 100% ideal free market - money will always be able to buy research - but there's a difference between "not being able to produce a perfectly flat playing field" vs. "allowing people to artificially create an information assymetry, with the express purpose of taking profits from those on the other side of the field, with an insanely high barrier to entry for those who want to join you". HFT is the latter.

      I don't know. Paying to get an information asymmetry sounds very natural to me. And I doubt the barriers are "insanely high" else the stock market would be losing money.

      HFT is a practice that should be regulated out of existence.

      You need to come up with a reason first. Whining that someone spent gobs of money to get a nonexclusive trade advantage is not a legitimate reason.

    34. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      eTrade and everyone else has the same shit for consumers to do their own HFT trading.

      Nope. You are talking about limit orders. Completely different thing than HFT. In Goldman's case, they're really talking about what Wikipedia calls "ultra-low-latency direct market access (ULLDMA)", which is only available if you are a very large investment bank and can convince the stock exchange to put your server in their data center. That kind of access is not available to everyone.

    35. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said special access, not special data. Anyone can get the data, not anyone can get the data with a low enough latency.

    36. Re:Unfair advantage by firewrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no "special" data. You can get it too.

      Yep... anybody can just saunter into NYSE, plug their laptop into the same colocation racks as G. Sachs, et. al, and immediately being making money the ULLDMA way.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    37. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You don't know what you are talking about. There I said it.

      No really, don't take it as a flame. Start a company, inject some capital, and start co locating. There are plenty of organizations that allow you to just run software local to the exchanges if you can't go through the whole hassle of building out an entire trading infrastructure yourself. If you are complaining that all markets should have the same barrier of entry... I would argue that you are not playing the same game as an HFT shop. If you have the capital and can meet the risk requirements, by all means, please, start trading at the exchanges. They will all let you do it. I know it might come as a surprise but tons of people have more capital then you which they use in all kinds of ways, as an individual you don't have that leverage. Sounds to me like you are not free market at all.

      Now that we got that out of the way, understand that HFT is actually creating much tighter markets. When you as an individual or institutional trader go to the market you are getting better prices because of the constant price pressure created by competing hft shops. Somehow people don't believe this, but the markets are much more liquid, the spreads are tighter. So as an individual you are not being 'scammed' out of a penny, you are getting a better price than you would be otherwise. Look at the tick in equities, notice how its been getting smaller over the past 20 years. People who think HFT is somehow causing them to get a worse deal on their trades, or that they are being front runned fundamentally do not understand how modern markets work. You should be very careful calling for regulation of something that you clearly do not understand.

    38. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, HFT is largely a small firm game. Some big banks do it, but not all, and they are usually small operations.

      The typical profile of an HFT firm is 20 guys in a smallish but nice office, kind of like a startup's, but a bit more grown up. It's not that hard to get your box in a colo w/ NYSE, you just have to pay them. They recently built a huge new datacenter for this very purpose.

      I haven't personally made the call to ask about requirements, but I worked at an 8 man startup firm and we threw around the idea of colocating. Being able to was never an issue, it was the cost that deterred us.

    39. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is stopping you from buying the access besides not having the money.

      Do even read what you post?

    40. Re:Unfair advantage by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Disregard that. High-frequency trading is legal. I must be thinking of something else.

      So was Enron's book keeping, too bad we disregarded that too.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    41. Re:Unfair advantage by khallow · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. It implies that somebody wants to compete, it does not imply that they're already in the market.

      I suppose so, but given that the barrier of entry is relatively low compared to the profit available, I simply don't buy that there's a monopoly here.

    42. Re:Unfair advantage by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Nothing is stopping you from buying the access besides not having the money.

      If my angel was printing money 24/7/365 I'd have access too.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    43. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      How about right on the NYSE website- they even have a phone number you can call- http://www.nyse.com/technologies/sfti/1228187874506.html Btw... all I did was google "NYSE colocation" and this was the first link.

      High speed market data? Call up 29West or Exegy.

      And its not necessary to colocate to have a profitable HFT system. A guy I know has a strategy running on the side, not colocated at all, and he says he makes a decent chunk off of it.

    44. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability of an elite few to buy access to information about the value of an item, when that information is unavailable to others with whom they will buy and sell that item, is a violation of free market premises.

      If you buy a car, the company selling it to you has blueprints, results of internal crash safety tests, and a million other data points on the car that you do not. Do you believe there can be no free market for cars?

      There is not, and has never been, a market where all players have perfect information. Banning all trade because it violates some principle you made up is not a practical solution.

    45. Re:Unfair advantage by bertok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I keep hearing that "anyone" can do this. Please point me to where I can sign up to collocate my server with the market computers - because that is actually necessary to set up an effective HFT system.

      The ability of an elite few to buy access to information about the value of an item, when that information is unavailable to others with whom they will buy and sell that item, is a violation of free market premises.

      Much of what the SEC regulations do is to produce a free market. This is what many political pundits fail to understand - the "free" in free market does not mean "unregulated". The best regulatory approach in the world would never create a 100% ideal free market - money will always be able to buy research - but there's a difference between "not being able to produce a perfectly flat playing field" vs. "allowing people to artificially create an information assymetry, with the express purpose of taking profits from those on the other side of the field, with an insanely high barrier to entry for those who want to join you". HFT is the latter.

      HFT is a practice that should be regulated out of existence.

      This came up before on Slashdot, and the regulation to introduce is simple: Change trading from a "first come, first served" system into something like a "turned based" game. The exchange should disseminate information and accept trades only at widely spaced "ticks", say, once a minute, or even further apart.

      Nothing of value is lost, but the ability to gain an unfair advantage through high-speed trading vanishes.

    46. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is a completely false statement. Small firms are a lot more likely to use colos than the big banks. As I posted before, there is information on how to get colocated with NYSE right on their website:
      http://www.nyse.com/technologies/sfti/1228187874506.html

      The costs run about $10k/month/rack if I remember right.

      There is no spooky back-room stuff going on here.

    47. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying to get an information asymmetry sounds very natural to me.

      Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
      For those of us who dislike being that ignorant, it's important to understand that information symmetry is one of the defining requirements for a free market. So *by definition* allowing this necessarily regulates an inherently unfree market and a substantially skewed playing field.

      You need to come up with a reason first

      The reason is right there. It's a direct application of the definitions without any actual thought even required. That you could miss something *that* clear and obvious is pretty damning.

    48. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah they make that $0.01 off of me. they are not producing anything,
      they are taking money other people would fairly get for their stock

    49. Re:Unfair advantage by khallow · · Score: 1, Informative

      For those of us who dislike being that ignorant, it's important to understand that information symmetry is one of the defining requirements for a free market. So *by definition* allowing this necessarily regulates an inherently unfree market and a substantially skewed playing field.

      No, you are wrong here. Information symmetry is not a requirement of a free market. For example, here's the Wikipedia definition:

      A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

      The definition happens to be consistent with the other definitions I googled up.

      That's it. Nothing about information symmetry. And there's a very good reason why. In a market, you almost never have anything close to information symmetry. The only real world example I can think of is poker with no hidden or common cards (I think it's a stud poker variant) and betting after dealing out another card (well, assuming you consider money-based betting games where all money changes hands between players a kind of market, which I do).

    50. Re:Unfair advantage by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Volume is lost. Which you might not consider being "of value" but to the exchange it's the very valuable.

    51. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll point you to a few places where you can sign up to co-locate your computers with the exchanges... http://www.equinix.com/industries/financial-exchange, http://www.savvis.net, http://www.essexradez.com, probably others. Nasdaq will be offering co-lo at a new data center next year. If you want to be a high-frequency trader, there's nothing stopping you.

      A small-time investor (which I have a sneaking suspicion you are) is not going to benefit by spending big bucks to colocate at the exchange. You would have to be making gazillions of trades to make it worthwhile. Just pay your $7.95 per trade to ScottTrade or whatever and enjoy the best markets on the planet. Let the HFT guys fight with each other over pennies and fractions of pennies. How would that benefit your investing strategy?

    52. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Your link is for the wrong data center.

      It is indeed run by NYSE, and it does have a pretty fast link to the NYSE servers. But the NYSE servers aren't located there.

      The way you can tell? From your link: "US Liquidity Center located outside of New York"

    53. Re:Unfair advantage by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That's not the arragement Goldman has. Sure, NYSE does offer a data center for co-location, and it's got a pretty good link to their network. But it's not where the NYSE servers are located. And a small firm is not getting into that data center.

    54. Re:Unfair advantage by bertok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Volume is lost. Which you might not consider being "of value" but to the exchange it's the very valuable.

      That's a good thing -- the exchange can save money by not having to have server infrastructure capable of handling a huge, real-time load. They can perform trades using a much more efficient and cheaper batch processing system.

      They can make their 'cut' either way, it's not like they suddenly have to give up their primary source of income.

      Anybody that needed to make a legitimate trade can still trade exactly as they would have done otherwise. The number of real trades will not change. The volume of *real* trades will not change, and that is all that matters.

      Trades by HST systems are just shuffling things around. Shuffling things around, say, 20 times a second instead of once a minute doesn't increase liquidity for anyone who wants to sell a million shares "today". The number of buyers who want to purchase a million shares "today" is the same either way. That transaction can occur either way.

    55. Re:Unfair advantage by idlewire · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing that "anyone" can do this. Please point me to where I can sign up to collocate my server with the market computers

      You don't have to! You see Goldman Sachs is itself a publicly traded company. What that means is that you can own a piece of it at any time you want. If you think Goldman is going to rule the world via its HFT trading, just grab some shares now, and reap the benefits of their profits via share value.

    56. Re:Unfair advantage by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Shuffling things around 20 times a second instead of once minute means 1200x the fees for the exchange.

      HFT systems means the exchange gets to make more money charging for both rackspace and data feeds.

      Yes a much larger tick size would benefit everyone except the exchange and the big players who exploit the current system.

    57. Re:Unfair advantage by u38cg · · Score: 1

      And how do you propose to stop other people forming their own exchanges with their own rules, off-shore if need be?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    58. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFT has nothing to do with prop trading, just as neither have any economic impact at all. Indeed HFT does provide liquidity but it's not speculative as trades are invariably executed +/- delta around the prevalent price. The average holding periods are of seconds, if not less. And the algos invariably come with triggers that pull the plug when the market behaves erratically. Which is why HFT is vastly preferable to day-trading.

    59. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYSE’s main servers are located in NJ already (when they rationalised their centre estate down from 10 after the Eurobase merger they ended up with two primary facilities, one in NJ and one in IL). The lease on their current facility expires early next year and they have been testing their new infrastructure in Mahwah since March. The DR facility is also not located in NYC. One of the reasons for the move is that demand for co-lo at the old facility was vastly outstripping supply. In terms of accessibility they are only letting space by the cabinet and that costs up to $100000 PA before installation, lines and other costs.

    60. Re:Unfair advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright sir, now you are in tin-foil hat territory. It clearly states on the site that you will be right next to their matching engines. I am pretty sure you are trolling at this point.

    61. Re:Unfair advantage by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I sent the NYSE an e-mail asking for their prices for co-location services. No response. They aren't talking to the likes of me about this.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    62. Re:Unfair advantage by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      forward me a copy of the email, or paste the contents here.

    63. Re:Unfair advantage by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Here is my query. As I mentioned, I received no response.

      -----

      Subject: Exchange_Adapter_Query
      Date: July 30, 2010, 1:23:07 PM PDT
      To: Sales_US_Technologies@nyx.com

      Hello, NYSE.

      Slashdot.org has a discussion on a Forbes.com article on high-frequency trading. We were wondering, how much it costs to sign up for your co-location services? I am just asking for a general range here.

      Thanks!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  10. No big surprise by davev2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    HFT algorithms are considered trade secrets and there is big money behind each one. A firm whose HFT algorithm were made public would be at a serious disadvantage in competing with other firms. It might even be possible to game the algorithm and cost the firm big money.

    1. Re:No big surprise by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      It might even be possible to game the algorithm and cost the firm big money.

      As opposed to the current situation, with the algos gaming the stock market and costing everyone not HFTing big money?

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:No big surprise by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      It might even be possible to game the algorithm and cost the firm big money.

      They can and they have, but it was deemed illegal: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/security/3244186/norwegian-traders-convicted-for-outsmarting-us-stock-broker-algorithm/

      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    3. Re:No big surprise by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      And to avoid revealing this, only some documents would need to be blocked. You don't blackout an ENTIRE TRIAL. On what grounds?

      --

      Liberty.

    4. Re:No big surprise by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, you think making something illegal will stop all people from doing it if they think they can get away with it? Some people maybe, but there will always be people trying to get away shit.

    5. Re:No big surprise by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      Trouble is, I do not think this was illegal. The whole market is built around guessing the response of others to actions, so this should not be any different.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  11. Easy fix by whiteboy86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just do not allow those firms to act as a market maker, broker, banker and a trader at the same time.

    Those firms should only be allowed to act as one part of the system and be restricted from taking advantage of acting as a multi-role entity by the law.

    1. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or, allow them to do whatever they want but have clocked-synchronous trades so that no one can gain a disproportionate advantage by trading faster than others are capable of.

    2. Re:Easy fix by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or don't do anything and avoid "fixing" a non-problem.

    3. Re:Easy fix by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's a problem. They make money on the system by buying with knowledge of what the price will be in the future. Knowledge which isn't freely available or exploitable by others. And when they screw it up it hurts everybody else as well.

      Not sure how exactly that isn't a problem.

    4. Re:Easy fix by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's a problem. They make money on the system by buying with knowledge of what the price will be in the future. Knowledge which isn't freely available or exploitable by others. And when they screw it up it hurts everybody else as well.

      That's not HFT. Clock synchronous trading doesn't keep the stock exchanges from creating that sort of information asymmetry.

    5. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when they screw it up it hurts everybody else as well.

      How are others hurt?

      Perhaps you mean that, on average, people who trade without the information will loose money. But everyone knows that. People choose to buy and sell stocks anyway.

      Perhaps you mean the economic state of the US right now is causing pain to the unemployed. I don't see why HFT is the cause of that, but many people in this thread seem to be stating it as if everyone knows it is true. If this is your argument, please explain the connection.

    6. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the stock market crash of 2008 is so two years ago.

    7. Re:Easy fix by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, because the stock market crash of 2008 is so two years ago.

      Any industry at 35 to 1 (Bear Stearns) or 50 to 1 (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) leverage is going to crash sooner or later. I give an example with pizza makers. It had nothing to do with HFT.

  12. Trade secrets are worse than patents by Animats · · Score: 1

    OK, for all you whiners about the evils of software patents, this is what you get - secret algorithms.

    US law used to disfavor trade secrets, encouraging patents. Patents have a limited life, and disclose the technology. Trade secrets have a potentially unlimited life, and no disclosure requirement.

    Note that in dealing with Microsoft's technology, patents were a minor headache for interoperability, but secret APIs have been a huge obstacle to interoperability.

    1. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, for all you whiners about the evils of software patents, this is what you get - secret algorithms.

      And this is a problem because?

      'Secret algorithms' are far less painful than patents, because anyone can produce their own algorithm, whereas no-one can use tech covered by even the stupidest and most absurdly obvious patent without risking a long and expensive court battle.

      Of course no sane legal system would close a sourt just because someone's 'secret algorithm' might be mentioned.

    2. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting point, but it disregards the notion that I can patent portions of (for example) High Frequency Trading, so that no one else can do it (without infringing) until my patent expires.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Of course they would, or they would open themselves up to a possible lawsuit asking for damages in the amount of possible profits (+ penalty, interest, legal fees) lost because of it.

    4. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if they were allowed to patent it, then it would become a 'broadest patent takes all' competition and everyone else would have to risk lawsuits for infringement or beg to license the algorithms...

    5. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Of course they would, or they would open themselves up to a possible lawsuit asking for damages in the amount of possible profits (+ penalty, interest, legal fees) lost because of it.

      So you're going to sue the government because your 'secret algorithm' was important evidence in a criminal case?

      How can anyone determine whether a court case was legitimate if they're not allowed to see the evidence? Closed courts in all but the most extreme cases go completely against the very basis of the anglo legal system.

    6. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Of course, if they were allowed to patent it, then it would become a 'broadest patent takes all' competition and everyone else would have to risk lawsuits for infringement or beg to license the algorithms...

      But the major players in most industries will already have patent licensing deals with each other because they can't operate without access to each others' patents.

      Patents exist to keep everyone else out of the market, not to gain more than a minor temporary advantage over your competitors.

    7. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Of course no sane legal system would close a [c]ourt just because someone's 'secret algorithm' might be mentioned.

      Please defend this assertion, Mister Conclusorystatement.

    8. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by mea37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HFT is already pretty exclusionary, so I'm not sure that's the real issue.

      Also, barring a screw-up at the PTO, you'd have to actually be ahead of the curve on HFT techniques and would only get a monopoly on those advances - not on anything necessary to doing HFT today.

      And given the short expected lifetime of an HFT algorithm (particularly if one is optimistic enough to hope that the practice might become illegal in the near future) I'm not sure you'd want to invest in a patent, whereas protecting a trade secret is actually made easier if the time horizon is short.

    9. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by mea37 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between software that one company is using in-house, vs. software that a company is selling for others to use. Preserving trade secret protection on, say, the GIF encoding algorithms would've been pretty much impossible.

    10. Re:Trade secrets are worse than patents by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Of course no sane legal system would close a sourt just because someone's 'secret algorithm' might be mentioned.

      I fail to see what is "insane" about closing the court for the part of the case that involves trade secrets that, if revealed, would have a huge financial impact on a very large company.

  13. Not Unheard Of by al3k · · Score: 5, Informative

    Courtrooms have been closed several times before to protect trade secrets. The Supreme Court case Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto opinion points out that once secrecy is lost, the property interest is forever destroyed and that it should be protected during the process. There are many other ways to preserve secrecy so closing the courtroom may not be necessary in all cases but that may be the only way to protect the trade secret in this situation.

  14. Useless by wervr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Re:Useless by davev2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, this is part of why they want to protect the algorithms. The Norwegians figured out the system, but if the HFT algorithms are made public, it will be a lot easier for people to game the whole system.

    2. Re:Useless by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Because they are not one in the same.

      The HFT is supposed to only be an action only to reaction to the market, the news article you linked to is where they manipulated the market for their gain which is illegal even though it primarily exploited a HFT program. Now, this court case is similar only in that it revolves around a HFT program. It's about someone taking the code and transporting it somewhere to use to their benefit/whatever (stealing trade secrets).

      You can do whatever you want to gain an edge in the markets. Unless you actually manipulate the markets or break an existing law/rule in order to do that.

    3. Re:Useless by wervr · · Score: 1

      Yes, stealing trade secrets is boring and open and shut so lets talk about HFT like everyone else.

      Every trade changes the market, and HFT systems spamming a market with thousands of trade requests they never intend to make is far more market manipulating than taking advantage of a bug in a robot someone stupidly turned loose with their money. The whole purpose of HFT is manipulating everything in a very small way where these Norwegians manipulated 1 trader in a big way. All of the HFT systems manipulate each other in exactly the same way and if they find a way to take advantage of each other, you better believe that they will be milking it until it gets fixed.

    4. Re:Useless by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, stealing trade secrets is boring and open and shut so lets talk about HFT like everyone else.

      Well, you did ask why is HFT legal and gaming the system isn't. I showed the distinct differences between the two that you presented.

      Every trade changes the market,

      That's true. However, there is a difference between changing the market by participating in it, and changing the market to manipulate the outcome. One is a legal side effect of legally being involved, the other is an illegal tactic attempting to take advantage of how people are legally participating.

      HFT systems spamming a market with thousands of trade requests they never intend to make is far more market manipulating than taking advantage of a bug in a robot someone stupidly turned loose with their money.

      Well no, it isn't. You see, one is only participating in the market the way it was designed, the other is manipulating it to your advantage. It's no different then insider trading.

      The whole purpose of HFT is manipulating everything in a very small way where these Norwegians manipulated 1 trader in a big way.

      No, the whole purpose of HFT is to benefit from slight changes in prices which is legal. The Norwegians manipulated prices in order to take advantage of someone else' stupidity which is illegal with or without HFT.

      All of the HFT systems manipulate each other in exactly the same way and if they find a way to take advantage of each other, you better believe that they will be milking it until it gets fixed.

      And if they do, they will be facing the same actions that the Norwegians did. You see, that's illegal even if it did happen with HFT systems. If you have proof of it outside of you just saying so, then report them to the proper authorities and they will be punished.

      HFT is no different then a floor trader offering to buy or sell as a certain price and no one taking them up on it. Well, no different outside of it being a computer doing it instead of a live person. Manipulating the value of the stock in order to take advantage of that floor traders offer is illegal in every sense of the legitimacy of the markets. It's like all the appraisers who inflated the values of homes in order to make the selling price seem reasonable (hence the banks would loan the money) then getting a commission on the sale.

  15. It's the Wall Street Tax, Baby by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Hyperfast trading is a window into the future (a few milliseconds into the future, but a window into the future nonetheless). Imagine you could go back in time and pick stocks . . .. That's what those sons of bitches are doing--completely lawfully thanks to elected officials who believe in "deregulation" . . .

    The effect is a tax--a Wall Street tax--on every transaction they involve themselves in. They get to drive the price up before you buy--and take a little slice for themselves.

    Yeah, small government is going to protect us from predatory monsters like Goldman Sachs. Yeah, whatever.

    1. Re:It's the Wall Street Tax, Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A solution to this is to place only limit buy and limit sell orders. You may or may not execute a transaction, but if you do the price is set. Another way is to watch the bid/ask price feed and press the button just after it ticks in the way you wanted. A tool like QuoteTracker gives you access to the feed for a stock within milliseconds. At the end of each day, you can see the automated systems moving the bid/ask price in cycles.

    2. Re:It's the Wall Street Tax, Baby by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Humans will find a way to exploit any system. Look at any online RPG out there. They all start with the most level playing field imaginable and strive to ensure equality. And yet eventually you end with haves and have-nots.

      What we need is regulation that is flexible and able to respond to a changing environment. We also need regulation that doesn't favor special interests and don't compromise. Perhaps a true free market would eventually work through any problem, but I think it's likely that most problems wouldn't be addressed on a short enough timescale to be of any use to most people.

      But regulation doesn't imply a bloated, ponderous government. Is there any reason why we can't have a small government AND efficient, proper regulation?

    3. Re:It's the Wall Street Tax, Baby by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      So, you put deregulation in quotes. So...it's not deregulation? It's a problem with elected officials that believe in regulation?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  16. the stock market needs a "heartbeat" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    pick a frequency, any frequency: 100 millseconds, 3 seconds, 1 second... all trades are queued and batched in those intervals, nothing faster. so it is not possible to game the system with more hardware with crazier algorithms and faster connections to wall street

    otherwise you simply have domination of the entire stock market by a few wealthy players. small investors will leave, or continually suffer an invisible tax on every one of their trades

    its a classic case of the largest players in a marketplace abusing natural imperfections in the market to their advantage. the big lie of libertarianism is that markets, left to themselves, are egalitarian and self-regulating. bullshit: markplaces, left to themselves, are stories of abuse by its largest players at the expense of smaller players, in dozens of ways: collusion, price fixing, flooding, etc...

    this is a simple truth you need to understand: for the sake of fair and free and equal marketplaces in this world, you need continual "intrusive" (defined as intrusive bureaucracy by potential abusers) government regulation. in the case of the stock market, the solution is simple: a "heartbeat"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the stock market needs a "heartbeat" by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      No. The simple truth that you need to understand is that we are living in a society where markets are interfered with in immense ways on a routine basis by private parties and most certainly governments.

      You don't live in a free market society. You live in a society with various government granted monopolies and pockets of free market behaviors sprouting up and being squashed. While they are around they work quite well.

      The illusion that you live with, thinking that the free market is full of people trying to take your lunch and you're not safe without your Uncle Sam mommy caregiver and protector is nothing but a propaganda, distorting the reality of the government granted monopolies that continually take advantage of you. The world is not a dangerous place. The vast majority of people are not evil boogeymen, they are generous happy friendly and caring. We outnumber the others. You are intelligent enough to decide your future, make your own destiny, live safely and live happily.

      Their propaganda persists, black is white, right is wrong, up is down. Not enough regulation is the cause of the economic woes.... No my friend. Not enough transparency together with government granted monopolies and non competitive environments where the elite get bailed out to the tune of several trillion dollars of your money is the real problem.

      A fictitious paper currency that is printed at will and handed to the elite by an entity not in any way shape or form accountable to the people is your problem. How many dollars did we bring into creation last year? The year before? What did the private federal reserve do to the currency we use? Oh wait they don't release any data anymore... A market system that is so fiddled with and manipulated that certain companies are given rule of law and propped up in plain sight is your problem.

      Companies NEED TO FAIL and TURNOVER and make room for better initiatives. Progress, ingenuity, hard work, entrepreneurship and the freedom to create your own destiny need to be nurtured, not squashed. None of the great companies we have today would have existed if companies like the East India Company from the 1700's had been propped up over and over to this day.

      Let us take this current market preferential treatment example. Why do traders continue to frequent markets that unfairly give wealthy firms first choice on trades, and even trade reversal privileges on occasion? Because there are no alternatives.

      But why are there no alternatives? Is it because there is some rule of greed that prevents new markets from stating and implementing a simple heartbeat fix as you suggest? No. It is because there is government intervention and regulation up the arse that prevents new markets from starting up. Granting de facto monopolies and cartel status to the government protected markets.

      If alternative markets with less regulation were set up in such a way where the small traders could chose the markets of their choice, the markets with the heartbeat would get all the business and those without would shrivel and die. Give the power of freedom of choice to the majority and they will pick the system that's fair to them, not the current monstrosity...

      This happens everywhere where the government intervenes to raise the barrier to entry or grants outright monopolies.

      Do free markets have dangers to watch for other than government derived ones? yes.
      Cant they break down on their own, or with intervention from private parties? yes.
      In the vast majority of cases government, beurocracy, favoritism and horrible regulation seem to be causing the problems.

      People need their voice back. 99% of people were against the multi trillion bailouts. How many are against foreign wars? Foreign occupations? Foreign bases?
      Military spending 'officially' was almost $800 billion last year. Which btw is 40% of all the Worlds spending on defense by a country with only 4.52% of the worlds popul

      --

      Liberty.

    2. Re:the stock market needs a "heartbeat" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      a market without any regulation is dominated by its largest players. who proceed to do everything unfair you complain the government does, and more

      a government is theoretically accountable to its people. it will never be perfect, but no government is worse than an imperfect one. so you want to FIX government, not DESTROY government, because if you destroy government, everything you complain about GETS WORSE, and you've destroyed the only means of addressing the unfairness that bothers you. large corporations are not accountable to you. government IS. that's the big piece you are missing in your understanding of reality

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. accused of improperly downloading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aleynikov is accused of improperly downloading Goldman code to an outside server on June 5, 2009, his last day working at the company.

    you mean, he didn't use rsync?

  18. It's not ABOUT High Frequency Trading by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is about the fact that Goldman Sachs had, and continues to have, network taps that are closer to the exchange computers than anybody else. They have latency advantages of up to .2ms on trades, which is a gigantic window if they can cache other orders and jam theirs into the front.

    Others have pointed out that Goldman Sachs record is statistically IMPOSSIBLE. See Seeking Alpha here:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/154083-goldman-is-its-trading-performance-statistically-reasonable?source=commenter

    Also, the exchanges have seen rashes of NOP orders placed. Fake trades designed to jam the queues to create artificial windows of opportunity to front-run big market movements. Goldman Sachs is probably (fuck probably, they are certainly) gaming NBBO and pocketing the difference millions of times a day.

    For the less market knowledgeable out there (basically, most of Slashdot), they are running the scam Richard Pryor did in Superman, or in Office Space. They are skimming pennies off the market by seeing a trade ahead of it hitting the exchange, then jamming NOP orders in while they calculate and move a trade ahead of that to piggyback on the effect of the larger trade on share price.

    Denninger has been all over this story:
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2139302


    Sergey's code probably contains stuff in it that jams NOP orders into the system, or shows how it using something simple like the dragon tools or plain ol' tcpdump to inspect orders as they fly-by on the tap. In fact, Sergey's code may PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Goldman Sachs is tapping the NYSE Exchange computers ethernet feeds. That would be a bombshell of the first order.

    Like I said, look beyond the technical press and look at the financial press. Goldman Sachs is coming to the poker table with a marked deck and it can be statistically proven.

    HFT is a smoke screen. The frequency of trading is moot. if I can look at the world's trades before they hit the exchange and process and effect NBBO, I now have a license to print money. Doing it high frequency just makes the printing press run faster.

    1. Re:It's not ABOUT High Frequency Trading by LordNacho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first article you're referring to is about Goldman's aggregate trading PnL, not just the part from HFT. Across the whole trading floor, it isn't so hard for them to make money so much, mainly because

      1) GS is a big broker who sees lots of flow. The franchise traders can thus use their knowledge of the flow to get their own positions on.
      2) They market make some high margin derivatives, where they can charge big spreads against their fair value calculation. So, for instance, they can make a market in a correlation (which by definition varies from -1 to 1) and make a market something like 0.2-0.4, where they think it's worth 0.3. Thing is, each tick (0.01) can be worth millions. Book a few of those a week, and you make money.

      I hadn't heard about the network taps though. Would be interesting, have you got a link? 2ms seems like a lot, considering everyone in the HFT game is colocated. It would hardly take that long to send some messages back and forth within a building.

    2. Re:It's not ABOUT High Frequency Trading by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      This is the best comment in this entire thread.

    3. Re:It's not ABOUT High Frequency Trading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. GS doesn't have "network taps closer...than anybody else". They're colocated in the same facilities as everyone else. As others have pointed out, it's not particularly difficult or expensive to colocate.

      As for the the "statistically IMPOSSIBLE" trading record you must have a) failed your statistics course at college and b) missed the other banks such as BofA and JPMorgan who've also had perfect quarters.

  19. All about PR and nothing about trade secrets? by swb · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this is all about PR and has nothing to do with trade secrets. "Government" Sachs isn't terribly popular right now and they really would like to maintain a low profile.

    And I'm sure part of the defendant's strategy is to shine particularly bright lights on directives from Goldman management about HFT and how they wanted to control/manipulate markets.

    This kind of testimony in open court would be a PR disaster for Goldman and they know it. The last thing they want these days is another "Evil" tag.

  20. A speedy and public trial? by swm · · Score: 1
    The United States Constitution, amendment 6, provides that

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

    however,

    In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), trials can be closed at the behest of the government on account of there being "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

    I guess Goldman Sachs' trade secrets are a higher value...

    1. Re:A speedy and public trial? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's because the accused would not enjoy a public trial in this particular instance?

  21. Nobody can predict the future by imaginieus · · Score: 1

    There is no window to the future. If high FREQUENCY trading was like looking into the future, the algorithm would be worthless because anyone could easily do it with the right hardware.

    The truth is, it's very difficult to predict the future with any degree of certainty at even the smallest time intervals. Imagine this scenario:

    GOOG, BID: 649 ASK: 650

    Now, someone puts an order to sell at 649.5, the HFT sees it, and buys, and puts the stock back on the market for 650. Now, someone sells a large amount of shares at a 645 limit, and all of the 645-649 bids go through. Now stock is at:

    GOOG, BID: 645, ASK:650

    Now, selling to the highest bidder would mean taking a $5/share loss. What should the HFT do?

    Now, you might be thinking an HFT would have just sold before all of those trades went through, and it would have only lost 1 or 2 dollars. You would probably be right, but the real question is where do you draw the line. If you sold every time the bid dropped at all, you would end up losing more money than you make. The truth is, with all the competing HFT's out there, It's a lot easier to lose money than it is to make money.

    A good HFT is effective at turning many small gains into big profits. The trick is making sure those are small gains adding up, not small losses. If another company were to see Goldman's algorithm, they could not only steal their strategies, but they could engineer situations that would trick the Goldman bot into selling at a loss, netting a huge profit for the competitor.

  22. electronic insider trading by slick7 · · Score: 1

    This sure sounds like electronic insider trading. As soon as the numbers are posted on the exchange computers, Goldman-Sachs buys,sells or whatever before anyone else can. It will remain legal until it isn't.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:electronic insider trading by germansausage · · Score: 1

      "Goldman-Sachs buys,sells or whatever before anyone else can" - completely wrong. Read some of the posts up the page. Everyone who has the same high speed low latency feed as Goldman-Sachs, (and apparently there are all sorts of other banks, investment companies and HFT Specialists out there) are competing in the same market. Other than a lack of capital what is preventing you from doing the same?

    2. Re:electronic insider trading by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Other than a lack of capital what is preventing you from doing the same?

      I have morals and integrity, two of the most endangered species in the world. I do not plan on giving them up anytime soon. As for the users of HFT, a majority of them crashed with Enron and then were bailed out with taxpayer money, in decisions made by people I have/had no control over. These decision makers are the same people that have/had their hands in the pockets of those bailed out. Talk about tax dollars at work.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  23. Well that's nice by LordNacho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't think they deserve due process? You don't think any of them might have legitimately acquired their wealth?

  24. Hold on a sec by LordNacho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else. Given that you, personally, are more likely to get hit by a meteor and then struck by lightning than you are to accumulate your own vast wealth, and given that you, personally, benefit immensely from living in a democratic civil society, you, personally, should be against vast disparities in wealth. This applies to the 99.99 percent of people who will never accumulate more than a million in assets in their lifetime. Why let that .01 percent make the rules? They are making the rules, but you are the majority, meaning, you are letting them make the rules. You don't have to let them do that.

    Most people who accumulate a million bucks are fairly ordinary, not the type you tend to hear about on television. Middle aged people who've worked their whole lives and spent frugally.

    You're right that people ought to be under the same law, but what makes you think some people are above the law? We regularly hear about CEOs and other types who end up in jail. Apparently really nice jails, but jails nonetheless. Sure, money makes some people more powerful than others, but mostly you have to stay within the law to make a bunch of money.

    The real danger is that by trying to right the wrongs, you create a socialist dystopia that's meant to be fair, but isn't. Hand out welfare payments meant for people who can't find a job, and find that suddenly the working poor are worse off than the nonworking. You also end up relying on the state to plan everything, make every decision. Guess what, people who work for the government are fallible too.

    1. Re:Hold on a sec by witherstaff · · Score: 2

      Offhand I can think of 2 cases of the rich getting away with things. Kennedy crashed a car, hooker killed, and didn't report it for a day. No problem. Cheney shot a guy in the face, not reported for a day, no problem. Maybe exceptions to the rules but the perks of the very wealthy or connected do exist.

    2. Re:Hold on a sec by LordNacho · · Score: 2

      These are not perks of being rich, but perks of being well-connected, especially to the apparatus of state. And your well-connectedness becomes a bigger perk in societies where the state is powerful.

    3. Re:Hold on a sec by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The real danger is that by trying to right the wrongs, you create a socialist dystopia that's meant to be fair, but isn't.

      Or, just possibly, you create a socialist utopia that is fair to almost everyone, but unfair on the poor ultra-rich who suddenly just become ordinary citizens.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Hold on a sec by spun · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, the apparatus of the state serves the rich. The state is not the problem, wealth and power disparity are. The state is the only mechanism for doing away with hose wealth and power disparities. The rich and powerful like the Koch brothers fund libertarian causes, to get rid of the state, because, while they can partially corrupt the state apparatus, they will never have total control over it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Hold on a sec by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      Whether the state serves the rich depends on which state you're talking about. Also, note that equating the rich with the powerful creates a tautology, because the powerful ARE the state.

    6. Re:Hold on a sec by spun · · Score: 1

      Money is power. The state need not confer excess power on anyone, if it does, you will find the root cause is money, not the state.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  25. Move along folks... by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    Judging by what I've read about what this code does, I don't think it's actually that clever. GS are cleverly disguising their lack of cleverness, in order to keep the aura that surrounds the firm.

    -This code is meant to be super-fast. There's only so many financial strategies that make sense when you have hardly any time to think about what to do.
    -If he was working on something really profitable, they would not have left him on a compensation scheme that he would voluntarily leave. Once you've made a few accumulated bucks, they'll promise you more, with the proviso that you're forfeiting it if you go. I know guys in the industry who are stuck in a job they no longer enjoy basically because they're waiting for a bigger and bigger payout.
    -It's useful having source code, but if you're a competent coder, you know what you wrote, and how you wrote it. It might save you some time to have the code, but you basically have it in your head.
    -Obviously, he might have been sneaking a peek at someone else's code that was meant to work together with his. If it was really so important to keep it secret, there would have been ways to keep it secret. Segregate the guys, only letting them connect each other's code via an interface. Various other security methods that other people know better than me...
    -GS most likely were not the only people to think of whatever financial strategy was behind this. The people in this field all come from similar backgrounds, both academic and professional. They think so alike it caused the Global Alpha blip (along with the rest of the statarbs that tanked in 07/08). They don't need to talk to each other to have the same idea.

  26. Here you go by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    You can sign up with Equinix, who run a number of datacentres at which various exchanges are colocated. They'll do the racking and cabling, but you have to buy the machines and write the software yourself.

  27. nonsense by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    Two carpenters are at work, one has a manual hammer, the other a nail gun. Which one finishes first and gets to go on to the next job?

  28. billions of dollars of taxpayer's money by hildi · · Score: 0

    please stop saying that goldman, morgan stanley, boa, jpm chase, etc, somehow have 'their own money'. without TARP, none of those companies would exist. they all took money either directly, or one-degree of separation, from the government to keep themselves alive, and living in nice walled communities, and going to nice restaurants for lunch, and having their nice careers and their nice cars and their nice little lives, while millions of other people are moving back with their parents, learning to love ramen, giving up on college, losing their savings, moving to low-rent ghetto apartments full of drug dealers and criminals, etc etc etc.

    1. Re:billions of dollars of taxpayer's money by khallow · · Score: 1

      please stop saying that goldman, morgan stanley, boa, jpm chase, etc, somehow have 'their own money'. without TARP, none of those companies would exist. they all took money either directly, or one-degree of separation, from the government to keep themselves alive, and living in nice walled communities, and going to nice restaurants for lunch, and having their nice careers and their nice cars and their nice little lives, while millions of other people are moving back with their parents, learning to love ramen, giving up on college, losing their savings, moving to low-rent ghetto apartments full of drug dealers and criminals, etc etc etc.

      Yea, must be nice. Still I can't help but wonder how many of those millions of people voted for either Bush or Obama. Sometimes you got to get personally screwed before you see the connection between cause and effect.

  29. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Neither Russia nor China had any interest in enforcing a relative parity of wealth. This is absurdly obvious with even a cursory look at rich party members vs. the average person. But of course, both Russia and China are trotted out by the existing ruling class to scare the masses against change.

    Mind you, I am vehemently opposed to forcing wealth parity. Achievement and accompanying reward must be driven by an individual's own merits and drive, and nothing more. I do realize that sadly, in today's society, that's just as much of a fantasy as a free market, or forced wealth parity, but I digress. :p

  30. Naah .. that must be bad math by dindi · · Score: 1

    Since in the fractional reserve money system (standard in our society) everything comes in the form of a loan that carries an interest and it immediately creates debt, $1!=$1...

    Based on this, any large corporation's books must have equations where 1=1+x, where x>0 ...
    In other words, the world should see what calculates what and how in their system. And why we are at it, let's bring in a few banks for fun, let them explain how their software crunches the numbers ...

    This message has been approved by the pinkie-swear guild.

  31. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  32. Shined is not the right word by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    Should be shone.

    Or is this another US-only usage?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. Abusing Trade Secret by quatin · · Score: 1

    The whole point of patents is to encourage companies to share their inventions and methods with an ensured monopoly for a period of time and then EVERYONE else can benefit from it. If you keep a trade secret, you are not entitled to any form of protection. If an employee steals Cokes formula then someone else can make Coke. That's the whole point of trade secret vs patent. There should be NO leeway or any special consideration given to those not wanting to reveal trade secrets.

  34. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever modded the parent up should be banned from Slashdot. Homelessinlajolla is a known troll. Regardless, his post doesn't have anything to do with the trial at hand.

  35. HFT is a continuation of seats on the exchange ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the old days...before electronic trading as we know it today....these same big investment houses bought "seats" on the exchange.

    These guys always got the information first and had an opportunity to act on it before anyone else....a privilege that buying that seat on the exchange gave them.

    The execution, methods, players may change over time....but the game is still the same...Pre-market information and access makes the money.