Slashdot Mirror


Contemplating Financial Trading At Picosecond Resolution

pbahra writes "One complaint made of the modern stock market is that it is concerned too much on the short term. A second is a long time in cash-equities trading. Four or five years ago, trading firms started to talk of trading speeds in terms of milliseconds. But in recent weeks trading geeks have started to talk about picoseconds, in what is a truly mind-boggling concept: a picosecond is one trillionth of a second. Put another way, a picosecond is to one second what one second is to 31,700 years."

24 of 448 comments (clear)

  1. Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These people are parasites. They provide nothing of value to the world; they just take. This crap should be illegal.

    1. Re:Worthless by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The money they take out of the system is real, it has an effect and their actions have consequences. What's more, the changes in the market that they are betting on and influencing have nothing to do with the real world. It amounts to influenceable gambling where the act of betting effects the outcome of the bet.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Worthless by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Goldman Sachs has colocated at the NYSE, and is front running the stock market to the tune of 13.4 billion dollars in profit every year, simply because of their location. And they also sell self destructing financial instruments to their own clients while betting against them. Here, it's been in the news. But I doubt you watch the news.

      So, they're fucking cheating shits who do nothing but game algorithms and lie to people to steal their money, and you're a stupid cunt for having such blind faith in an opaque market.

    3. Re:Worthless by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nothing that crazy is needed just add a 10c per trade tax, the only problem is all the major trading countries would need to do it simultaneously or else the market would just move. I thought we were close a few years ago when the central banks and regulators started moving in lock step on policy but that only lasted until the first European debt crisis hit and China and the US got in the spat about currency valuations.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's one of the arguments used by HF traders to justify their trade: they claim to provide liquidity to the market. Yes, this is true; however, HF trading violates one fundamental precept of the stock market that makes it work: that market forces determines the actual value of stock, based on an assessment of the value a company provides. There is no such valuation in HF algorithms (the concept of "value" is meaningless to a computer), only arbitrage. HF trading can and often does distort true market values. They can also cause a huge mess very quickly (as witnessed in recent years i.e. the Dow dropping a 1000 points in a very short time due to a chain reaction caused by algorithmic trades).

      The ideal function of a stock market in an economy is primarily to raise capital so that wealth creation activities can occur. But because of human greed, a part of it will always merely function as a wealth distribution scheme. This is okay so long as the wealth creation activities are not impeded by the wealth distribution activities. HF trading shifts the balance toward the latter, and at some point, it can actually become a detriment to the economy.

    5. Re:Worthless by kaizokuace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yo dawg I heard you like gambling, so we put a bet on your bet so you can bet while you bet.

      --
      Balderdash!
    6. Re:Worthless by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that's not even the worst of it. I don't mind so much if Goldman Sachs rips off other banks and their rich customers who should be able to make choices on their own. I don't mind so much if they make money on dangerous (or even stupid) trades. I also don't care if they go broke, or their customers go broke doing stupid trades.

      But then when they lose all their money, and ask me, through the federal government to bail them out, that's when I really get steamed. I want a lot of people to go to jail, both politicians and bankers. Or at a very minimum, rewrite banking law so they never get my money like that again. Is that too much to ask?

      This should be the law (and I am quoting Paul Volcker on this, so it isn't economically unreasonable):
      ANYTHING THAT IS TOO BIG TO FAIL, IS ALSO TOO BIG TO EXIST. Break them up and sell off the pieces. And sorry for the yelling. This gets me really upset.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Worthless by ExploHD · · Score: 4, Funny

      oh, you mean insurance

    8. Re:Worthless by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh the problems are:
      1) When stuff goes fine they pocket all the profits, but when stuff goes bad, they keep their profits and everyone else pays for it.
      2) When they win the bet they keep the money, when they have bugs in their fancy programs and lose money, they rollback the transactions and/or even sue/jail the people who benefited from their bugs (yes this has happened). Note: I'm not talking about bugs in the "casino"'s software but bugs in the software the "gamblers" use to decide on what to bet on.
      3) The well connected ones also get to "cheat" - they get to see and do stuff 30 milliseconds before everyone else does. This is a big advantage. Google for that if you don't believe me. This is unfair.

      There is really no benefit to society from picosecond trading. All it produces is more fancy excuses the intelligent sociopaths can use to take money from us.

      They can talk about liquidity and creating markets but it is all bullshit - just look at what has actually happened.

      All that they've created are systems where gamblers can play fancy millisecond[1] games to gamble with OTHER people's money and collect big fees, salaries and bonuses for doing so. When they win big they keep the big profits. When they lose big, they keep their "normal profits" and we have to pay for the losses.

      If I didn't have a conscience I'd be happy to do that too - it's free money.

      [1] In fact to make the trading fair, transactions should be valid for a second or more otherwise the speed of light makes location matter. Currently they can issue transactions and cancel them within milliseconds before the other traders can act on them.

      --
    9. Re:Worthless by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing that crazy is needed just add a 10c per trade tax, the only problem is all the major trading countries would need to do it simultaneously or else the market would just move.

      Everyone says that, but is it true? Look at who is saying it. Mostly the people we know for being in bed with the stock market exploiters. The same people who bailed out the big banks with our tax money, while before and after telling us that they need to cut this and cut that because they don't have enough money.

      It's a strawman.

      Here's a much more likely scenario:

      Imagine one large country or region (the US, or the EU) starts to introduce a trade tax. Say, 0.01% - irrelevant to any real trades, destructive to margin trading. So real trade won't move, because moving would be more expensive. Some high-volume and all margin traders would move. Say the EU starts the tax. So they move to the US, to Asia, etc.

      But now the US and Asia and everyone else are in an interesting position. Instead of elaborating on it, let's play it through: The US also introduces a trade tax, but at 0.005% - half of the EU, mostly same effect. Real traders couldn't care less and stay put. Some high-volume traders stay, most margin traders go out of business or move to Asia.

      Now Asia's in the same position. A bit of quick thinking reveals that they can make billions in taxes by introducing a 0.001% trade tax. So they do. Real trades stay put, as before. High-volume trades move to Asia, though some move back to the US and EU since operating costs and other factors start being more important than the tax difference. Margin trading stops being profitable unless the margin is considerable enough to be worth it.

      Saying that you can't be the first because everyone else doesn't do it ignores the fact that "everyone else" is not a static entity. There are many, many cases throughout history where "everyone else" was just waiting for someone to make the first move.

      It's a strawman. Don't fall for it. Anyone saying "we would love to, but we can't, it needs to be introduced simultaneously world-wide." really means "I don't want to".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Worthless by nhaehnle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Market makers and providing liquidity is important. However, high-frequency trading simply isn't necessary for that. To be more precise, the problem with your line of reasoning is that if you can change your prices only once per minute, then there will be no volatility during that minute, and hence there is no need to change the prices. So your argument regarding spreads is invalid.

      The whole millisecond trading thing is just a way to raise the barrier of entry to the market: The people who are big enough that they can afford close proximity and fast connections to the trading system benefit, everybody else is left out. So competition is reduced, which makes the market less efficient.

      What should happen is that all those trading systems operate on a heartbeat with a fixed frequency of e.g. one minute. Basically, everybody gets to make their offers, and once per minute all those offers are matched against each other and the outcome, i.e. the transactions that take place as a result, are computed using one of the standard auction mechanisms. After receiving the outcome, traders then have time until the next heartbeat to adjust their offers. This way, the insane barriers of entry are removed, and the functionality of the system remains essentially the same.

  2. light travels .3mm in a picosecond by PJ6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So unless they've found a way to break the light barrier, this is a load of bull.

    1. Re:light travels .3mm in a picosecond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moore's Law fixed that. Light can now travel 300 m in a picosecond. By the time this product is developed it should be able to travel a few km.

    2. Re:light travels .3mm in a picosecond by slyborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't get it. The next step is Market On A Chip technology. The NASDAQ, NYSE, etc. will be condensed onto an integrated circuit in Lloyd Blankfein's office. But don't be concerned, the Market will still be FULLY FAIR AND TRANSPARENT for all...

    3. Re:light travels .3mm in a picosecond by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, this isn't a case of time-lag so much as it's a recognition that interactions with stock trading is actually a control system. The traders are trying to use feed-forward control to predict when and where the market is going to move and apply the right 'control action' (ie. buy or sell) at the appropriate time. Unlike most dynamic systems, however, you are not the only controller - you are trying to predict and exploit the behaviour of other controllers in the system.

      With multiple players, the aggregate dynamics are something akin to a dog-fight as each trading algorithm circles and dodges, trying to exploit weaknesses and failures in its adversaries so as to make fractional gains in the time available. If you can control on a tighter time-scale than your opponents, then you can achieve more finely-grained dynamic buy-sell strategies that maximise your profit.

      The fixed time-lag between you and the actual market is actually largely irrelevant because of the way the fast dynamic control strategy is being employed. To extend the metaphor, think of them like a attack formation flying to the enemy. If your aircraft can make their attack and withdraw before the enemy can reposition defenses, you will be more successful. The fact that it took an hour for your formation to reach the enemy in the first place is irrelevant.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:light travels .3mm in a picosecond by mirix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nine orders of magnitude. 1ps is a billionth of a millisecond. (you forgot micro...). I know, brainfart, but 10^9 makes it that much more ridiculous.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  3. Wonderful by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for fucking up the market for the rest of the world. This image comes to mind..

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2907411559_117ac480b5.jpg

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  4. Hocus Pocus by bigmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Kurt Vonnegut's 1997 novel Hocus Pocus, the United States is brought to its knees financially by a company called Microsecond Arbitrage. Everyone invests through them and makes lots of money until a glitch happens and someone else's computer is faster that day. Then the entire country loses its shirt.

    Word to the wise.....

  5. Not good for the market: need synchronous clocking by Richard_J_N · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, this is really a bad idea for overall market stability. What we really need is a much slower, yet fairer system.

    What I'd suggest is something similar to synchronous clocking:
          Every second, on the second, prices are published.
          500 ms later, orders are placed and fulfilled.
          500 ms later, the updated prices are published.

    Benefit #1: fairness - those who are closest to the exchange or have stupidly fast hardware can't get in front of the rest.
    Benefit #2: slower responses. If the clock can only "tick" 60 times a minute, there is a chance for human intervention before disasters happen.
    Benefit #3: markets are more able to serve the rest of society, rather than being used purely for "gambling". imho, the existence of "high frequency trading" is a kind of tragedy of the commons: nobody really "wins", but if everyone else does it, and you don't, you lose.

  6. Re:Not good for the market: need synchronous clock by Nazlfrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd suggest every minute and 30 seconds respectively so human beings can also participate.

  7. Worse than you think :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And you also don't understand how deep this goes. This is not about trading fast. They are actually trading ahead of trade execution.

    Flash trading is a practice in which some equity exchanges hold orders to buy and sell shares for a split second before making that information public (available to other exchanges). The exchanges' customers can view these prices ahead of other traders for a fee. High-speed computer software can take advantage of that brief period between when an order is placed and when it's executed to allow those members to potentially get better prices and profits by slipping in and making the trade themselves.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZwoslIGa5JQ
    http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Flash_trade

    Now, the time window is about 50-300ms that the orders to be executed are posted and the automated systems can intervene. Basically, if you have orders like following coming in within 200ms (1/5 of a second),

    PUT 1000@31
    PUT 500@30
    PUT 500@30.1
    CALL 1000@market
    CALL 100@29.5

    the flash orders will come in, buy the two sell orders and sell it @ 31 to the market order and you end up with,

    PUT 1000@31
    CALL 100@29.5

    This effectively stole $950 from the market order. But then they will pay 2x the trade fees to the exchange to split in their trades ahead of the others. This isn't about "testing" the market, but simply going right in the middle between transactions and milking them for the most they can. It is not trading - it is stealing.

  8. One thing MUST change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agree with those who say these guys are essentially parasites. But, it's worse.
                The one thing that MUST change -- these high frequency trading systems have malfunctioned, so they end up dumping ~$30-40 a share stock for $1 a share. Did the company running it lose money (and, consequently, everyone else make a bit by getting stock at a substantial discount)? Oh no. The stock exchange *CANCELLED* their trades. If you, I, or some regular trader, accidentally put up stock for $1 instead of $41, would anyone "fix" it for us? Of course not. These true parasites benefit from their high frequency trades, but when that would lose them money at high frequency the exchange "fixes" it for them.

  9. It's microseconds now by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although the picosecond thing is silly, the New York Stock Exchange now operates a co-location facility in which each trading platform gets a uniform 35 microsecond latency for the incoming trade data. Some systems can turn around that data and do a trade within 12 microseconds.

    Computers aren't fast enough for this. The latest thing is writing trading algorithms in Verilog and compiling them into an FPGA.

    This worries me.

  10. Re:They steal the difference between buyer and sel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Man, there is so much misinformation in this thread, I could spend the whole day here.

    HFT guys aren't stealing money from you- they are actually stealing money from the guys who have been ripping you off for decades- the exchanges, the market makers, the brokers, and everyone else in between.

    Think about it- E-Trade and the like have brought down the cost of trading to about $9 a share (there is also the cost of the bid/ask spread, but we will leave that out for now, especially since these days its almost disappeared). How many other businesses do you know that can get away with a $9 transaction fee? Can you imagine going to a garage sale, buying a box of books, and having the seller say "ok that will be $5 + a $9 transaction fee?" That $9 fee is going to all the guys I mentioned above. Not too long ago, that fee was more like $50. But what's even worse is, and this is where HFT comes in, is that when you saw the stock ticker, and saw IBM trading at $80, you could neither buy nor sell that stock for $80. At best, you could buy that stock for $80.08 and sell it for $79.92, though it was just as likely to be 80.25 and 79.75. That "spread" went to a guy called the market maker. The market maker is the guy you actually buy and sell to, you don't directly buy and sell with other people (in our garage sale example, the seller would just bring his stuff to market, and the market maker would buy it off him, and then sell the stuff to you). When you watch movies showing the stock exchange, and everyone is yelling buy and sell, they are actually yelling at the guys in the middle of the floor- the market makers. The market maker collected that spread. In exchange for that privilege, he had some responsibilities- to always buy your stock, no matter if no one else wanted it.

    Anyway, for decades this was a very lucrative business. Partially because market structure made the spreads so wide, and partially because it was so easy for these guys to front run, and also the chummy nature of these groups lead to a lot of gentleman's agreements where everyone kind of agreed to not step on each other's toes too often. Then came electronic trading, and subsequently decimalization. The HFT guys came in and just started spiking the volume in the markets, and also acting as market makers themselves to an extent. This has tightened spreads to the point where if you see an $80 print on IBM, you can almost certainly buy it for $80.01 and sell it for $79.99. The result of this means that any "manual" (not electronic) market maker has been wiped out or moved to automated quoting systems. They are tightening the spreads and taking money from the MM's and in some cases side stepping the brokers, and keeping the profit for themselves.

    So no, they aren't stealing from Joe Retail trader in any way. If anything, they are helping you- you don't get ripped off when you sell your 50 shares of IBM anymore. Your broker and the market makers are the ones who are being stolen from- market making is now a highly competitive difficult business, and brokers are staying alive mostly by internalizing flow (and the smaller guys who can't do that are scrambling right now, and will have to consolidate).