Slashdot Mirror


Tweet From Hacked AP Account Causes High Freq. Traders To Drop DOW 150 Points

New submitter Mike Lape writes "Stocks plunged and recovered within minutes after the hacked AP Twitter account sent out a tweet that indicated that the White House had been the victim of an explosion and that President Obama had been injured. '...the Dow Jones Industrial Average took a quick 143-point plunge, before recovering most of its losses within minutes. The three-minute plunge triggered by the tweet briefly wiped out $136.5 billion of the S&P 500 index's value, according to Reuters data. Interestingly, Tuesday has been the best day of the week for the blue-chip this year with an average return of 0.46 percent. If the index closes in the black today, it will have been up for the 15th consecutive Tuesday. The last time the Dow rose for 15 straight Tuesdays was in 1927.' An analyst said, 'That goes to show you how algorithms read headlines and create these automatic orders – you don't even have time to react as a human being.'"

36 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. First for banning HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It serves no purpose.

    1. Re:First for banning HFT by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      internet prank with stock market side effects, or intentional market disruption and subsequent gain? btw this is why I don't read tweets.

    2. Re:First for banning HFT by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about we emphasize that it hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy, rather than just say it serves no purpose. We don't want to discourage it simply because it doesn't help anyone but a few people, we want to discourage it because it HARMS the rest of us.

    3. Re:First for banning HFT by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And it probably does do that... but the stabilization is probably offset entirely by the strategies that the HFT algorithms use. In short, many of them are playing a meta-game of "this line will do that because lines usually do these things", as opposed to: "this looks like a good investment because it has good revenue and solid assets".

    4. Re:First for banning HFT by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, they aren't pissing on your leg- they're adding to your leg's liquidity.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:First for banning HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But in this case, the HFT lost money while everyone else made money (those who bought at the cheaper prices). This may be a reason not to use HFT, but it's no reason to ban it.

    6. Re:First for banning HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That goes to show you how algorithms read headlines and create these automatic orders

      No they don't. That would be the most stupid trading strategy ever imagined, you would loose your shirt in less time than you can say "Goolge translate".

      What happened is that actual people reacted to the news and the trading algorithms (not necessarily HFT, but trading bots) thought they hit a pattern and amplified the movement. Nobody lost anything except the bot herders that sold at -150 because they trusted their bots. I really can't see how that "hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy" as you say.

    7. Re:First for banning HFT by llZENll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We need a new exchange that only executes trades once per month. If a company is on this exchange it is not allowed to be on any other exchanges. Problem solved. If you need your money out early there is a small fee. No more flash crashes, much less speculation, invest in a company due to dividends and growth and not emotionally fabricated stock appreciation.

    8. Re:First for banning HFT by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem isn't more regulations vs. less regulations. The problem is coherent system vs. incoherent system. You can have less regulation, but then you can't have bailouts. You can have bailouts but then you need more regulation. The problem of the recent financial collapse was that the system wasn't coherent. There was less regulation and bailouts, That's a recipe for disaster. The authoritarians blame the lack of regulations and the libertarians blame the bailouts. Neither is right or wrong. They just prefer moving to different coherent systems.

    9. Re:First for banning HFT by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      internet prank with stock market side effects, or intentional market disruption and subsequent gain? btw this is why I don't read tweets.

      It's very revealing in what sort of morons do and base their trading upon it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:First for banning HFT by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Headline algorithms exist and make a lot of money. They only have to be right 51% of the time to work.

      Mind you, most of the algorithms work off expected vs. actual earnings, revenue, or some other such number rather than the headlines. Of course, those numbers are released first and then humans write the headlines, but still

    11. Re:First for banning HFT by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My uncle-in-law retired early, and well off, by writing scripts that key off certain reports & keywords. Trades in before actual people can, then trades out after ~1/4% change.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:First for banning HFT by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Informative

      What happened is that actual people reacted to the news and the trading algorithms (not necessarily HFT, but trading bots) thought they hit a pattern and amplified the movement. Nobody lost anything except the bot herders that sold at -150 because they trusted their bots. I really can't see how that "hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy" as you say.

      I'll just leave this here. http://247wallst.com/2012/12/04/high-frequency-trading-a-grave-threat-to-the-markets-and-the-economy/

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:First for banning HFT by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let’s see, when France enacted their Tobin Tax, prices went down, liquidity went down, and volatility increased. And I have seen studies that argue the opposite.

      I don’t think a Tobin Tax is the answer. It is often put forward by people who are suspicious of the chaotic energy of the market and of wealthy people – suspecting it is just a game of no real value. I would say that you were treating the symptoms and not the disease – expect that I am not even sure what the symptom or disease they are trying to cure.

      Why not tackle the issue from the other end? For example, index long term capital gains to inflation. This would encourage investors to hold their positions for longer.

    14. Re:First for banning HFT by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coherence is, I'm afraid, not really an option in a democracy. Every decision is a compromise, and it's not even the same people hammering out the compromise from year to year. The best way to get coherence is to put one person in charge, but the downsides of that are well known.

      We can try to design our system to be robust to the failures of democracy, though these days even that seems beyond our reach. We've grown so adept at blaming each other that even the flawed process of hammering out a compromise has become secondary to trying to get a brief moment in which to impose our will on our political enemies while they are down.

    15. Re:First for banning HFT by BrentNewland · · Score: 3

      >suspecting it is just a game of no real value A game in the way that pyramid schemes are games. The root purpose for stocks is to be paid dividends. You pay the company some money for a portion of ownership, and when they pay out to the owners, you get your cut. However, it seems that many companies don't do dividends, and that people buy stocks in the hope that they can sell them to someone else at a better price - eventually, that price drops, and someone loses money. Just like a pyramid scheme, someone is left eventually holding the bag. The article summary says "the tweet briefly wiped out $136.5 billion of the S&P 500 index's value", except that stocks have no inherent dollar value. When I buy $10 worth of stock from Google, Google has $10 and I have an IOU which may or may not be redeemable at face value. When I sell it to someone else, now I have money and they have an IOU. You can't buy anything with stocks, you can only trade them, and no one is required to buy them. So yes, the Stock Market is a game with no real value, only perceived value. You alter people's perceptions, those stocks are worthless. If you have $10 million in the bank and $1 billion in stocks, you are worth $10 million, not $1.01 billion, because other people have the $1 billion you spent on those stocks. Eventually, the market will completely collapse, as it needs constant care and attention to stay afloat. Also, just came up with a great analogy: A share of stock is like a raffle ticket. You might get a prize for it (the "dividend"), you might be able to sell it to someone else, or it may just become completely worthless.

  2. Wow! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, twenty five years ago, everyone was convinced it would be computers built by the military-industrial complex that would become self-aware and take out the human race. Now I'm beginning to wonder if HFT algorithms will be the ones that do it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Wow! by Hentes · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they are this easy to fool then we have little to fear.

    2. Re:Wow! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the rub. For someone like me, I couldn't care less about HFT. I am in it for the long haul. I've invested for almost all of my adult life. I don't invest on hunches, instead I buy broadly and then hold for a long time. My investments do about as well as the broad market and I have almost no trading costs. Even if some doofus thinks he can beat the market (no, they can't), he'll eat up 1-2% of his money on fees.

      So let folks be stupid and market time and talk about dead cat bounces and triple witching hours and other mumbo jumbo. In the long-run I will beat the vast majority and I will do so with very little effort on my part.

      The reality is the only investors who can beat my strategy are active investors who are involved in the management of the assets they own (like Buffett) and those with insider information (real insidr info, not what your brother in law told you at the cocktail party). So, let the market tank for a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple years. I couldn't care less.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Wow! by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Informative
      You couldn't care less...

      Maybe you should know that the big banks who do HFT also co-locate inside the exchanges and front run orders making hundreds of billions per year.

      Also, you might want to know that if the market crashes and restarts like today the big banks can get their losing trades reversed and you can't.

      All the profit they're making has to come from somewhere. Are you so certain it doesn't come out of your pocket?

      --

      Liberty.

    4. Re:Wow! by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I will point out something to buy and hold investors

      The Bid / Ask spread has dropped by 90% in the past 30 years. You used to pay .5% to 2% for each trade – not it basically nothing. Moving to decimalization helped, but it is the HFT that really collapsed the spread. This is even truer for ETFs then for normal stock.

      The fees that mutual funds and ETFs (which a lot of buy and hold investors hold) have also collapsed the past 30 years. Specifically for index funds, they have fallen by 90%. There are a lot of reasons for this, but about a quarter to a third is lower trading costs, which can be traced backed to HFT.

      So, you save about 1% to get into a investment, and about .25% each year if that investment is a mutual fund.

    5. Re:Wow! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here ya go. That wasn't hard.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/computerized-front-running-and-financial-fraud/18809

      http://247wallst.com/2012/12/04/high-frequency-trading-a-grave-threat-to-the-markets-and-the-economy/

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:Wow! by Algae_94 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I follow similar investment strategies, and here's my take:

      Maybe you should know that the big banks who do HFT also co-locate inside the exchanges and front run orders making hundreds of billions per year.

      That's very nice that those banks are making money. Front running is illegal already. This practice may affect my purchase prices by a couple pennies if true. That is miniscule compared to the gains realized over holding a good investment long term.

      Also, you might want to know that if the market crashes and restarts like today the big banks can get their losing trades reversed and you can't.

      If I'm a long term investor, I generally have no trades on a given day, therefore, I have no trading loses to reverse. If I were going to trade an investment, I would have established what I believe the value to be. If the market went awry like today and the prices where not what I thought the values were, I WOULD NOT TRADE DURING A PANIC.

      All the profit they're making has to come from somewhere. Are you so certain it doesn't come out of your pocket?

      The profit of every company and individual has to come from somewhere. Why would I assume it's at my expense with no evidence that it is?

    7. Re:Wow! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The money might be coming out of the pockets of other investors. It also might be coming from efficiency that HFT enables"

      I don't know that I'd call it "efficiency". Ease, maybe. Not the same thing.

      "Efficient allocation of resources leads to less waste and more total wealth."

      Show me where HFT leads to efficient of allocation of resources. I do not agree at all.

      Trading in goods leads to efficient allocation of resources. But HFT today happens FAR too fast to have much impact on physical goods or manufacturing. It's only "efficient allocation of resources" if you consider numbers in a computer to be resources.

      And in exchange, as this event demonstrates, we have to contend with dangerous and unhealthy volatility.

      The Stock Market was intended to "efficiently allocate resources" when stocks represented actual investment in actual goods and services. Today, as often as not they are just derivatives being shuffled around, which don't much affect "resources" other than cash in somebody's pocketbook.

      It's hardly anything anymore but a big casino. And even worse, with HFT it isn't successful companies that gain or lose, it's whoever can place his bet first. People who think that makes for a healthy market are off their nut.

  3. Get rich quick scheme? by almitydave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I almost wonder if it was deliberately done to make a quick buck off a short sell. Sell high, make everyone panic, buy low.

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  4. Massive potential for fraud and abuse by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everything that we're taught is illegal and unethical, the del boys in the City of London and Wall Street will do anyway.

    Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, if the same sort of self-entitled white collar criminals who brought us Liborgate, arranged for the AP Twitter feed to be hacked, and then primed their HFT bots to start shorting like mad?

  5. Gosh! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I sure am glad that, unlike crazy neckbeard stuff like bitcoins, Serious Professional economic instruments don't suffer hilariously baseless volatility because some goofy website got hacked...

    That would, like, reduce my confidence in the rationality of the market.

  6. 1927 + 2 = 1929 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The last time the Dow rose for 15 straight Tuesdays was in 1927."

    And two years later it crashed.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. Thanks. by Fuzzums · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want to thank the stock market, once again, for fucking, I mean speculating with my, no, our economy.
    Traders don't give a shit. The man in the street gets fired because stock prices need to go up and up and up and then - oh surprise - they crash.
    My world can do without stock market.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  8. Here's the thing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bitcoin moves like a stock (a thinly traded one at that), not like a currency. You are making false equivalence here. This caused a 1% drop in stocks for a couple minutes. Bitcoin has a bid-ask spread higher than 1%. The US Dollar didn't move at all based on this, and indeed changes in value around 2-3% per year.

    The criticism of Bitcoin's volatility is highly valid when it wants to be a currency. I wouldn't use stocks as a currency due to their volatility either.

  9. Re:What they don't mention... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    You sound like a programmer who wants to get some pat on the back for spending his weekend fixing the dumb error he made that nixed a week of work.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Easy come easy go... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Funny

    sell sell sell

    NASA reports asteroid on collision course for earth expected to "obliterate" housing market.

    sell sell sell

    Gold prices expected to reach a 20 year low as Lord Ganesh spotted on Indian TV favoring peanuts over gold.

    sell sell sell

    Acme Toothpick Company announces it will be laying off 1 million workers as the last tree in the amazon rain forest is cut down.

    sell sell sell

    North Korea launches devastating nuclear attack against giant sea turtles invading its territorial waters. Fears of radioactive fish expected to have catastrophic effects on east Asian seafood markets.

    sell sell sell

  11. Exactly, put a gambling tax on it by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't ban it, tax it as gambling. 50% of profits go to government, losses aren't deductible. If you buy a stock and sell it again within a week, it's considered speculation and subject to gambling tax. This will make high volume trading not impossible, but much harder to actually make a profit with, while actual investors in stock that think companies will make money by honest profits are protected. This is for stocks. Any derivatives are by nature all speculation and should be taxed regardless of how long they are held before being sold, bought or exchanged for actual stock or product.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Exactly, put a gambling tax on it by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, basically, what your saying is "I don't understand most of how the market works, so please ban everything I don't understand." Your post reminds me strongly of a senator writing about copyright on the Internet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Re:Our idiot overlords by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    If they didn't respond to the drop, they weren't affected. The market dropped and rose again within a few minutes.

    You probably know that mutual fund movements happen at the end of trading.

    Someone who saw the precipitous drop and hit the panic button on their mutual fund (say, a retiree or soon-to-be retiree) would have lost, but good.

    A lot is made of the notion that mom and pop should be in the market. It's been a hallmark of the past decades that the market is where retirees should put their money, and current Fed policy almost forces it. Fact is, small investors are shark food in today's environment. The days of being able to see who's doing the buying and selling are over.

    I wonder if we'll ever find out what kind of trades were made by whomever manipulated the market today. The person who hacked the account and tweeted out that story could easily have netted 7-8 figures, unless it was not an individual, but a larger entity, in which case it could have easily been ten figures- on the dip and again on the rip.

    It doesn't help that while the Boston Marathon bombings were dominating the news, congress saw fit to gut that bill they passed around the election that outlawed congressional insider trading. Suddenly, on "security grounds" lawmakers and their staff can again trade on the knowledge of bills that are about to be passed (or not).

    I'm old enough to have heard Milton Friedman speak in person, on the campus where I used to teach (not business or economics, don't worry). I remember him saying that insider trading should be completely allowed, but only because back then you could actually see who was on both ends of a trade. Today, it is no longer possible to know who's trading what. All transparency is out of the market. That one fact does more damage to the so-called "free market" than any "socialist" policies coming from the administration.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:Where do we start? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has been dropping since 2009. Some would say this is why the current recovery is so anemic. This issue is being addressed.

    2. Arbitrage does not suck money from slower traders. It sucks money out of price differences across exchanges thereby reducing spreads. For an average Joe trader it's much more likely that having good arbitrage is going to be a benefit. Strong markets must have efficient price discovery and arbitrage.

    3. The bulk of the people in the current system who do not pay income taxes are either retired or have incomes in the lower quintile. If you want to get people to have more skin in the game the way to do it is by having a broader income distribution; not by making the tax system more regressive. The US has a horrible income distribution pattern, one of the worst in the world, and it is getting worse. To get an idea of how severe this problem is, in 1980 the top 1% in the US collected 10% of the income. In 2010 the top 1% collected 24% of the income. The general population cannot possibly have skin in the game with this atrocious economic structure.