Slashdot Mirror


More Warnings About High-Frequency Trading

bfwebster writes "From The Big Picture (a great finance/econ blog) comes a link to this New York Times article on some of the risks and problems of high-frequency trading on financial markets and a couple of 'gadflies' who are pushing hard to get some changes and reforms in how Wall Street handles HFT. Key question: when is fast trading too fast?"

11 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Trading's Too Fast When It Ceases to Mean Anything by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Key question: when is fast trading too fast?

    Trading is too fast when it ceases to mean anything. The rate at which these decisions are being made indicates that it is not going through a human mind. The stock market is about people being able to buy and sell securities that allows businesses to raise additional capital. It was originally a very social thing so much so that it could reflect the mood of the populace's strength and development.

    Many ordinary Americans have grown wary of the stock market ...

    Right you are! It's no longer about humans making decisions. It no longer reflects social aspects of a sector or country or world market. It's more and more about what algorithms your "opponents" are using and what your algorithms are set at. And that's where it ceases to make sense. I'm okay with some guy waking up at 3am and reading every newspaper in the world and beating me at stock trading. I'm not okay when the name of the game today is who can pay tons of money to have their own servers set up across the street from a major exchange with a special dedicated fiber going straight to them as they pay off said exchange. That's starting to become so abstracted from the initial concept of a stock exchange that these big firms have walled everyone else out.

    ... which they see as the playground of Google-esque algorithms, powerful banks and secretive, fast-money trading firms.

    If only they were Google-esque algorithms, they'd at least be innovative. SNAFUs have shown they're far from complex and often so stupid they loose hundreds of millions. But, yeah, who in their right mind would play a game like that?

    What the algorithms are buying and selling no longer make any sense, the turn around is so insanely quick on these trades that there is no point at which a normal human can say "Oh, that algorithm thinks that Microsoft stock is going up and will hold it for some amount of time." No, instead what's going on is someone put out a big pre-order for Microsoft stock and so the HFT guys are buying stocks at a lower price than that only to turn over and dump them almost instantly as the order actually comes through netting fractions of a penny.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. it's too fast by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when your average investor is having an unseen tax applied to his transactions

    which is what HFT is: an unfair tax by those who can afford the screamiest servers, the closest fibre optic connection, and the scariest code. it renders the idea of a fair marketplace a lie

    the solution is easy: queue all trades on a heart beat

    once every second, once ever three seconds, once a millisecond... whatever is agreed upon, all trades are queued up and then released on this schedule, and no one or nothing can surpass it

    there are many complex unfair problems in life. but this is one with an easy solution. the problem is no finding the willpower to enact the change. as with many problems in american civil and political life, the will to do the right thing is polluted by the plutocrat's money

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it's too fast by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Liquidity" as the argument for allowing HFT doesn't really prove anything, either.

      Okay, so it grants near-perfect liquidity. Great. So what? Is that more important than market stability and sane trading practices?

      That is the real problem: that traders on Wall Street think the system should be set up exactly how they want it so they can make as much money as possible, but taxpayers will be there to bail them out when the shit hits the fan. Well, fuck that. The economy is too important to just let it run wild in this way. No one is guaranteed a completely free and open market. We have rules for a reason. Ending the HFT shell game won't drive anyone out of the market who was making a genuine contribution in the first place.

    2. Re:it's too fast by tobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "the solution is easy: queue all trades on a heart beat"

      That's exactly the conclusion I came to after a recent tour of a bunch of HFT shops here in London.

      Right now the fastest responder wins. This leads to co-location (putting your hardware physically in the exchange) and something called Flash Trading where, for a fee, you get access to bids fractions of a seconds before they enter the market.

      This clearly isn't a fair, transparent market.

      Put a heartbeat, 1ms or even as high as 5s, on the market. Market state only updates, in it's entirety, on that edge. And get rid of Flash Trading. That stuff is clearly not fair or even ethical.

      The smooths out the unequal access to the best prices that currently exist for those that can afford it and even gives the algo shops time to more sophisticated analytics.

      It's pretty shocking that, contrary to what you might think, the models that are driving the algorithms are pretty-simple minded and stuffed full of magic numbers. A senior guy at UBS admitted to me that there's absolutely no science involved in their construction. Verification is done on a monte-carlo type simulation with historical data and the model must continually be updated as trading conditions change. The quants are generally just looking for a new set of magic numbers that make the simulations profitable. Literally no-one understands how the models work and they bear absolutely no relation to the kind of 'Frost in Florida, Orange Juice futures up' kind of market conditions the man in the street might expect.

      It's kind of frightening really that our pensions are changing in value based on the execution of these algorithms

    3. Re:it's too fast by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Market inefficiency?

      I stand outside a supermarket asking people what they plan to buy. After they walk in, I radio my friend inside who immediately buys every last one of those items off the shelves. As the person leaves the store empty handed, I offer to sell them what they wanted at a slightly increased price.

      Not a perfect analogy but that's pretty much what my understanding of what HFT is; buy it before the other guy can, then sell it to him yourself for a razor-thin profit. Repeat thousands of times per day and you end up with a pile of cash.

      Where is the market inefficiency that's being corrected here?
      =Smidge=

  3. Speed doesn't matter by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The speed of trading is irrelevant to the serious investor. Speculators will always make trades as quickly as possible to make a quick buck regardless of the fundamentals; investors will buy and hold based on the fundamentals, buying and selling after months, not fractions of a second. Prices will always revert to a more "intrinsic" value, regardless of any skewing by speculators.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  4. key by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Key question: when is fast trading too fast?

    When it ceases to be trading and becomes gambling instead.

    Basically, if you are looking at numbers and not meaning, you aren't trading anymore. Here's a suggestion for a totally impractical test: If you call up the trader in question and ask him what the company behind the shares does (i.e. which business it is in) and he has no clue, then he's not a trader, he's a gambler.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  5. Re:How fast should it go? by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The function of the stock market is not to make you able to buy and sell stocks based on what other people might pay for them. That is an unfortunate side effect.

    Some people like you have long since abandoned stocks as a way to distribute risk and capital investment among more than one investor. Instead you view it as a game where its all about tricking some poor sod out of their money. Where the fuck do this contribute in any way to anything? Personally i would be all over a stock market that was regulated back to what it was first meant to be, somewhere i could invest in good ideas and ventures based on how much they would pay off in dividends, not inflated stock prices.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  6. sorry but a queue actually does solve the problem by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    pause. think. then post

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  7. Re:The system worked ... by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nonsense. No one is against technology here. What is being decried is the unregulated use of technology to enable profit-taking by an elite class of investors who contribute nothing through their market manipulation, and instead have caused multiple "flash crashes" through their incompetence.

    Just because we have the technology to do something, doesn't mean we should just do it, or allow it because it is possible. That our laws haven't caught up to this sort of thing doesn't mean it's perfectly fine.

  8. Re:Trading's Too Fast When It Ceases to Mean Anyth by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never understood why they needed a response time faster than a day. Seriously, set it up so you can only trade shares once a day. It wouldn't change a thing for normal investors but it would obliterate this algorithmic crap.