Slashdot Mirror


How To Profit From Planetary-Scale Computing

An anonymous reader writes "MIT physicist Alex Wissner-Gross and mathematician Cameron Freer have devised a technique for exploiting geographic location in high-frequency trading, reports FastCompany. From the article: 'We view this work as one of the first serious, credible justifications for covering the planet's surface with computers. [...] We've perhaps identified a new type of natural resources that sovereignties might take advantage of.' Physicist and hedge-fund manager Jean-Philippe Bouchaud says, 'This shows that the technological arms race to extract every penny from high-frequency mechanical arbitrage will soon reach its ultimate limits.'"

25 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. FIRST!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Due to geographical locality!!!!!

  2. Wow! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, just when you thought HFT couldn't get any worse of a rep, now its going to turn our world into a dystopian matrix/terminator/cleopatra2525 place.
    At least there's a chance of hot babes in leather and armored bikinis though! That's gotta count for something.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. Another way to look at this: by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    To what extent is so called high speed trading actually turning into electronic non-shooting warfare? Some of the techniques described are essentially variations on DDOS and spam. The recent Scandinavian case throws into question the point at which the techniques shade into illegality - is it just that if you or I do it, it is illegal, whereas if a bank does it, it's business as usual?

    And to what extent is this latest proposal, while apparently to do with the distance between exchanges, also actually about putting resources into jurisdictions which have perhaps more elastic definitions of what constitutes legal trading?

    On previous form, this will probably get moderated troll or flamebait. But it's actually two questions that I have never had adequately answered, except for the usual "you wouldn't understand" from the traders. If I, a graduate systems developer with further education in economics, can't understand them, what's the betting that our elected representatives can?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Another way to look at this: by entotre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what's the betting that our elected representatives can?

      Don't worry, they have lobbyists to help them.

  4. Increases liquidity at what cost? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of the more involved trading strategies exploit price fluctuations between separate exchanges: traders construct complex automated financial instruments designed to seek out and exploit price differences between a range of different shares or commodities on these exchanges. The uncertainty of price movements means that individual transactions cannot guarantee a profit, but firms can make steady profits by making millions of transactions each day.

    Maybe we should be exploring cheaper ways to create market liquidity without allowing firms to siphon off profits through pure arbitrage.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Increases liquidity at what cost? by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about this as a backup...

      Investment doesn't, in and of itself, create wealth. Investment is putting money in the hands of people who CAN create wealth, but don't have enough money to do so on their own. The idea is that the investers should be rewarded for taking the financial gamble, and the people they invested in should be rewarded for having created something valuable.

      High Frequency Trading screws them both.
      High Frequency Trading is anathema to the very concept of investment - and the stock market.
      We'd all be better off if the HFT people simply went to the races, instead.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Increases liquidity at what cost? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A) Require 1/2 hour averaging for all trades. This will stop most arbitraging on two accounts: 1) it stops exploiting split second inefficiencies that can only be spotted by computers, 2) creates doubt to which price one is actually paying.

      B) Tax all automated computer trades at 1%. Takes the profit motive out of computerized trading.

      C) Charge all revocations of unused (non-expired) puts and calls a flat fee. This is to prevent flooding the market with option trades that people have no expectation of completing.

      D) Tax profits made by short term traders at a higher rate than long term holder. I propose having several rates for capital gains based on how long a person holds a stock. Example (illustrative only) Less than two weeks @ 50%, less than six months@35%, 1 year @ 33%, 5years @25%, 10 years @10%, greater than 10 years @0%.

      The problem isn't liquidity. Never was. Market is plenty liquid at 1/2 hour intervals. Low volume stocks need lower liquidity than high volume stock. The problem is exploitation of timing at split second intervals which can only be accomplished by computers, and has no basis in fundamental market principles. The goal should be to limit trades to people who actually hold stocks as investments, not in people making money off market fluctuations.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Increases liquidity at what cost? by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't get why we can't even just have one-day ticks. Every day an order book accumulates, and at 5PM the exchange executes everything at the price that generates the most volume. Priority is given to sellers who offer the lowest price and buyers who offer the highest price. Within a price orders are executed in random order.

      The book is kept secret until after all trades are settled. So, you can't see if the price is trending towards a price you like and then put in a bunch of sells for 0.01 to get ahead of the line - if you put in that price you might just find your trades executing at that price.

      With such a system ordinary investors can compete with investing houses. Bad news means that everybody loses out at the same time, and the insiders don't have nearly the same advantage (getting news 15 minutes early can make a HUGE difference today). You could even make the trade settlement time midnight or something like that so that it is well after the business day so that last-minute news has more time to get around.

      You wouldn't need so many market-makers and other forms of arbitrage since the total daily volume of a stock will tend to guarantee that there will always be buyers and sellers. Market makers could still fill a niche in low-volume stocks making sure that there are always buy and sell orders in the book.

      You could even go a step further and execute trades once per week/month/etc - that would start to make investing more of a long-term thing and less of exploiting market psychology..

    4. Re:Increases liquidity at what cost? by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I don't get why we can't even just have one-day ticks."

      I used to think the same, but now I feel some things are still untied.

      "Every day an order book accumulates, and at 5PM the exchange executes everything at the price that generates the most volume."

      It still would make it worth waiting to 4PM to order in case there are interesting late news. And then waiting till 4:50, 4:59, 4:59:59...

      "Within a price orders are executed in random order."

      Then I'd make sure not to issue a 10 million dollars order but 10 million orders for one dollar (or a cent, or a millicent or whatever is the lowest order).

      "the insiders don't have nearly the same advantage (getting news 15 minutes early can make a HUGE difference today)"

      But insiders still could take advantage of news produced at 4:59 that, depending on the system other couldn't take advantage of.

      "You could even make the trade settlement time midnight or something like that so that it is well after the business day so that last-minute news has more time to get around."

      You know the world is round and economy is global, don't you?

    5. Re:Increases liquidity at what cost? by bertok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All of the potential issues you have raised could be fixed using just two minor tweaks to the grandparent's suggestion:

      - Trade every hour, on the hour (this is unaffected by timezones)
      - Trade 24/7 (it's done by computers, after all, so it makes zero sense for an exchange to be "open" at only certain times of day)
      - Every trade is logically split into some small unit (share, dollar, whatever), and randomized, or an algorithm is used that effectively trades simultaneously in a completely fair way.

      Done.

      Problem solved.

      The current situation is not necessary and the alternative proposed by the gp has no real issues except that a bunch of HFT traders would lose their jobs. Boo-friggin-hoo.

  5. Re:Why the snow by sirrunsalot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The traveller who has never before experienced an arctic summer, and who has been accustomed to think of Siberia as a land of eternal snow and ice, cannot help being astonished at the sudden and wonderful development of animal and vegetable life throughout that country in the month of June, and the rapidity of the transition from winter to summer in the course of a few short weeks. In the early part of June it is frequently possible to travel in 'the vicinity of Gizhiga upon dog-sledges, while by the last of the same month the trees are all in full leaf, primroses, cowslips, buttercups, valerian, cinquefoil, and labrador tea, blossom everywhere upon the higher plains and river banks, and the thermometer at noon frequently reaches 70 deg. Fahr. in the shade. There is no spring, in the usual acceptation of the word, at all. The disappearance of snow and the appearance of vegetation are almost simultaneous; and although the tundras or moss steppes, continue for some time to hold water like a saturated sponge, they are covered with flowers and blossoming blueberry bushes, and show no traces of the long, cold winter which has so recently ended.

    George Kennan, Tent Life in Siberia

  6. Silly flat-earthers! by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're thinking too two-dimensionally. Think carefully: what location minimizes the average distance to every spot on the Earth's surface? I'll tell you right now it's not in Siberia! But you should probably spend some extra money on the air conditioning system for your server farm if you want to set up shop there.

  7. Highly Amoral by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    HFT is done by the greediest scum of the earth. It is an approach that is highly instable and can do tremendous damage. It is high time this practice is outlawed. Considering that fast stock trading does not produce anything, but only serves to shuffle money around, tolerating such a destabilization risk is completely unacceptable.

    Personally, I would add a mandatory random delay in the 15-30 minute range to each stock transaction. Or maybe even a few hours. This would curb speculation, while at the same time beneficial effects, like a company getting money to invest from an IPO would still work.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Highly Amoral by peter+hoffman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If HFT were to be legislatively controlled, it seems to me the most obvious way to do it would be by modifying the long and short term capital gains taxes to create a progressive system: the longer you hold the asset before taking the capital gain, the less tax you pay. If you had to pay 99% tax on a gain resulting from possessing an asset for less than 1 minute things would be a lot different.

      This is not to say that I favor that solution, it's just one that occurs to me. I think there's a solution that doesn't require the use of force. If I were the CEO of a publicly company, I would not want to be listed on an exchange that allows HFT. If I were an amateur investor in stocks, I would not want to invest in companies listed on an exchange that allows HFT. As a result, there's clearly a market for a 'natural' exchange as opposed to one that is 'on steroids'.

  8. Wont work in Dark Pools by xquark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This technqiue wont work with orders processed in dark pools. And as the trends are showing larger and larger proportions of ADV are being done in dark pools. I would think gaming dark-pools would be the primary objective and not going after some boring 80s movie plot.... (Can anyone remember "Fair Game" with Cindy Crawford).

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  9. Time for a rant... by brxndxn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    God dammit! I'm pissed off again.. I'm pissed off because everyone wants to 'study' HFT or 'discuss' HFT.. and no one seems to understand the big picture! HFT is ruining the fucking stock market. HFT is destroying the opportunities for the middle class.. destroying their retirements.. and ruining the confidence in the market. HFT is making the criminally rich even richer! Everyone likes to talk about HFT and bitch about it - and the people that benefit most from total stupidity that is HFT are the ones that get to enact the policy through lobbying and backroom revolving-door politics.

    HFT does one thing... It exploits the gaps in bid and ask price during execution to make money off the actual market orders. But, if the market is no longer correctly offering 'market' prices because of instantly-changing outside influences, how the fuck is it still a market and not a scam? The only people saying HFT is a good thing are the people benefiting from HFT.

    There's tons of easy ways to fix the problems created by HFT exploiting.. Here's a few ideas:

    1. random delay.. Issue an 'instantaneous' delay in ALL trade execution from all firms. In essence.. make the delay long enough to completely ruin HFT but short enough that no human executing a trade would ever be affected.

    2. trading tax.. Tax all trades by a negligible amount. Firms that actually invest will not be affected.

    IMO, this article is yet another example of solutions for a problem by exacerbating the problem.. So, fuck you, MIT physicist Alex Wissner-Gross and mathematician Cameron Freer.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Time for a rant... by christoofar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hear hear.

      I pulled out 100K out of the markets because I can't just put up with HFT anymore. So Buy and Hold was a bad idea. Now investing is a bad idea.

      You can't put in a stop-loss order anymore on anything you own because every day you have to worry if a mini-flash crash hit one of your issues and triggered it, then the SX won't unwind YOUR trade but they are glad to unwind the fuck-up trades the HFT guys caused.

  10. Re:Limits? by camperslo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These guys go too far. One of these days we'll have botnets doing trading with funds from sniffed credit/debit info. They could even pay back what they took... then profits get dumped anonymously to campaign funds. Botnets do get free-speech rights don't they?? (they may have an opinion on capital gains taxes, or want to own broadcast stations)

    If it makes anyone feel better, call that pile of computers a bank and lend it some "government" money

    Trading in those strange mortgage death futures is too risky, botnet futures are the new thing.

    Cylons and Skynet Terminators will have their own electronic religion making them tax exempt.

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

    These guys go too far. One of these days we'll have botnets doing trading with funds from sniffed credit/debit info. They could even pay back what they took... then profits get dumped anonymously to campaign funds. Botnets do get free-speech rights don't they?? (they may have an opinion on capital gains taxes, or want to own broadcast stations)

    If it makes anyone feel better, call that pile of computers a bank and lend it some "government" money

    Trading in those strange mortgage death futures is too risky, botnet futures are the new thing.

    Cylons and Skynet Terminators will have their own electronic religion making them tax exempt.

    That people are doing this is a sign of a broken fiancial system (as if fiat currency based on debt didn't already establish that). They are not producing anything. They are buying low and selling high units of wealth that others have produced. They are not creating wealth, they are redistributing it.

    This is the kind of shit that has madmen and economists thinking you can forever grow an economy in a finite world with finite resources. It's also the kind of shit that encourages people to view stocks as a way to gamble and not as investments. You know how you can avoid ever having a huge national housing market crash? Easy. Limit the purchasing of non-commercial residential homes to people who actually intend to live in them. Do that and DON'T make "securities" out of them. Then you can't have a bubble in the first place -- no bubble, no burst.

    Anyone else find that line in the summary amusing:

    We've perhaps identified a new type of natural resources that sovereignties might take advantage of.

    Yeah, computers and networks are a "natural resource". In fact I have a few growing in my backyard. I just have to water them from time to time. Really, WTF?

  12. Re:HFT is Not a Sin by christoofar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes it IS a sin.

    It's a SIN because the heads of NYSE and NASDAQ continue to spread this lie that HFT shops contribute liquidity to the system. THEY DO ANYTHING BUT!

    Have you seen the offices these HFT shops rent out in New Jersey and CT? They're cheap Class B space, warehouse loft and other low-rent space. They don't have the capital it takes to be a market maker. They just have capital---and they aren't going to sit in the market when it is hurting and make trades no sane person would make to keep liquidity flowing.

    That is the job of a REAL market-maker. A market-maker will step in and be the counterparty to keep the issues they are responsible on the exchange moving.

    What the fuck do you think happened on the May 6 flash crash? Almost all the HFT shops ran to their server rooms and SIGSEGV their software and pulled out to avoid taking more pain. The bids all dried up on the NYSE which is why the first crazy market order for $0.01 a share came to the exchanges, NASDAQ cleared it so for a while, several stocks were at zero print... like Accenture.

    When you have the most top companies on your exchange printing zero in the flash of an eye... YOUR MARKET IS BROKEN. How is this even debatable?

    Why would I want to put the kids college fund money in this fucking disaster?

    HFT sucks.

  13. Re:HFT is Not a Sin by christoofar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another lie the chairs of NASDAQ and NYSE love to tell the world is that HFT speeds up price discovery.

    How is this even POSSIBLY true??? They are algos. Those algos don't have any clue what the future performance of a company is. The algos are not going to tell you how successful AAPL's iPhone 5 will be, or when the next class action lawsuit is coming.

    And algos break ALL THE TIME. It has been happening more often these days because stocks are breaking 120DMA more often, and most of these algos are doing nothing but backtracing trends on top of their arbitrage schemes. When a big investor comes in the room, they jump on him like nervous poodles.

    That's why the May 6 event was such an eye opener. Waddle and Reed didn't cause the flash crash. They executed a normal transaction that wasn't even a Big Fish transaction, and all the algos went haywire.

    So much for the quants and their MIT-smartness.

  14. Re:HFT is Not a Sin by metrometro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uh, no. The goal of all trade is to allocate capital to the institutions most likely to create value. HFTs don't give a shit who creates value. They don't allocate capital based on which companies are useful. They are a transactional cost paid by everyone else. They are best approximated not as a trade, but as a tax, albeit one that does absolutely nothing for the public good. The value removed from the markets by HFT is value extraction, not creation. This is a fundamental difference from everyone else playing.

  15. Re:Limits? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know how you can avoid ever having a huge national housing market crash? Easy. Limit the purchasing of non-commercial residential homes to people who actually intend to live in them. Do that and DON'T make "securities" out of them. Then you can't have a bubble in the first place -- no bubble, no burst.

    What do you do with all the people renting investment properties now because they are not in a position to buy a home? If it wasn't for people investing in property there would be no rental market. I agree with you in principle but adjusting one thing has an effect on others. Solving the next problem then becomes the issue.

  16. Trading is competitive by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A) Require 1/2 hour averaging for all trades.

    B) Tax all automated computer trades at 1%.

    Result - trading moves to another exchange where this is not required. Your solutions depend on international cooperation between government and exchanges, all of which compete with each other. Good freaking luck getting policies like that instituted.

  17. Re:Limits? by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the kind of shit that has madmen and economists thinking you can forever grow an economy in a finite world with finite resources

    Umm, you can. Sure, there are far too many people getting paid well for completely non-productive work, but if I spend two weeks creating a compiler that makes me and my team twice as efficient I have not detracted from anyone else, but have grown the productive capacity of the world by a small amount. Economics is not a zero sum game.

    Additionally, those "finite resources" you mention include the 120-odd petawatts of solar energy slamming into the Earth, and the massive tidal energies caused by the Moon's influence. Whilst both those are technically finite, they are not so in the context of this conversation. Any of that energy used for productive use is completely additive, taking away nothing.

    I know I'm focusing on just one small aspect of your post, but this idea that economics is zero-sum and that there isn't real productive growth going on needs to be stomped.