Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Turns To High-Speed Traders To Fortify Markets Against Cyberattack (wsj.com)

Slashdot reader Templer421 quotes the Wall Street Journal's report [non-paywalled version here] on DARPA's "Financial Markets Vulnerabilities Project": Dozens of high-speed traders and others from Wall Street are helping the Pentagon study how hackers could unleash chaos in the U.S. financial system. The Department of Defense's research arm over the past year and a half has consulted executives at high-frequency trading firms and quantitative hedge funds, and people from exchanges and other financial companies, participants in the discussions said. Officials described the effort as an early-stage pilot project aimed at identifying market vulnerabilities... Participants described meetings as informal sessions in which attendees brainstorm about how hackers might try to bring down U.S. markets, then rank the ideas by feasibility.

Among the potential scenarios: Hackers could cripple a widely used payroll system; they could inject false information into stock-data feeds, sending trading algorithms out of whack; or they could flood the stock market with fake sell orders and trigger a market crash... "We started thinking a couple years ago what it would be like if a malicious actor wanted to cause havoc on our financial markets," said Wade Shen, who researched artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before joining Darpa as a program manager in 2014.

78 comments

  1. In Other News.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Pentagon Turns To NASCAR Drivers To Fortify Roads Against Drunk Drivers.

  2. Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dedicated backend links with DoS mitigation, elimination of high frequency trading, moving instead to an x second or x minute tick with all incoming orders either randomly assigned service order, or organized by buy/sell price, to help mitigate timing based attacks?

    The current system seems built for cheating/gaming the system, so rather than trying to solve a social/legal problem with a technical solution, how about solving the underlying cause and scale back trade timing to human accessable values?

    1. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If people actually understood the stock market from the game theoretic point of view that it is designed as, they would see that no order can be placed to the detriment of any other actor's orders, and that in fact, every order either increases the value of the market to *some* set of actors in that market or at worse has no effect at all.

      There is no such thing as a market order that can unfairly affect anyone else's position in the market (with the exceptions of insider trading and front running, both of them are rightly illegal).

      The "fixes" people propose to the market actually tend to make it worse. For example the, "best execution" laws have made the system worse, as they have attempted to implement the physically impossible by force of law, where simple arbitrage already provided the mechanisms and market incentives to do this. (As a result of this "fix", something like front running becomes possible for the select few).

      Slowing down the market like you suggest is another unnecessary and actually harmful solution to a system that is specifically designed and intended to provide instantly up to date prices that reflect all known information about a stock, in the limit (the efficient market hypothesis).

      Actually allowing the stock market to operate as it is intended, with all the price volatility that involves, is actually the best available option. Those who correctly act against that volatility will profit.

      One more example, there is a law that states an order cannot be placed that you do not intend to fill. A couple of uni students saw patterns and vulnerabilities in HFT bots, that reacted to large orders that were taken down after the uni student's own bots ate up the orders the HFT bots placed in response to them. The market moved wealth from the inefficient HFT bots into the hands of the more efficient uni students just as it is designed to do. However, this upset the HFT bot owners (Goldman Sachs and co)... so the uni students were arrested, charged and imprisoned, instead of being rewarded with the millions they rightfully earned. The IRONY of all this is that the HFT bots place and cancel many thousands of orders per second... but they are owned by ultra rich people and this is not a free market, but crony capitalism.

      The correct answer to this, although highly unlikely, is for people like you to learn how these things are meant to operate and understand them before you suggest ideas that actually cause harm instead of solve problems... I guarantee you that a "solution" like this will result in even more money for the likes of GS and co at the cost of everyone else.

      TLDR; Learn microeconomics.

    2. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by infolation · · Score: 1

      The current system seems built for cheating/gaming the system

      The current system is built for cheating/gaming the system. Haim Bodek (ex-Trading Machines whistleblower) already established this, as a matter of fact, way back in 2013. The NYT reported it. For a non-technical breakdown of what is going on, see the vpro docu 'The Wall Street Code'. The larger trading houses can use order types to push their orders to the front of the queue in a way that's invisible to the other, smaller traders. It doesn't matter how many meters of fibre optic there is between your HFT hardware and Paternoster Square in London, or how line-of-sight your microwave link is to the exchange in New Jersey, the actual system favours the larger players. This is almost undetectable front-running. And that's on top of their ridiculous capacity for back-testing algos by purchasing entire data centres to do their testing on tick data, which allows them to virtually reverse engineer the algos of their smaller competitors and play them at their own game.

      As a side-note, this cheating is on markets regulated by the SEC/FSA. Imagine the kind of algo market manipulation that's being carried out right now on unregulated cryptocurrency markets, anonymously, by the same organisations.

    3. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ii hear rumor trump puts stuff up his bumhole when the rest arent looking

    4. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current system is built for cheating/gaming the system.

      No. It's not.

      The larger trading houses can use order types to push their orders to the front of the queue in a way that's invisible to the other, smaller traders.

      Uhmm... market makers have the bid/ask advantage -- that's why they are market makers. There is nothing "invisible" nor sneaky about it. At the same time, market makers have a lot less flexibility than smaller traders.

      It doesn't matter how many meters of fibre optic there is between your HFT hardware and Paternoster Square in London, or how line-of-sight your microwave link is to the exchange in New Jersey, the actual system favours the larger players. This is almost undetectable front-running.

      That's not anything like front-running. Front-running is the unethical practice of a broker trading an equity in his personal account based on advanced knowledge of pending orders from the brokerage firm or from clients, allowing him to profit from the knowledge. Your scenario doesn't even involve a Party A having any advance knowledge of Party B. Front running is illegal, and rightfully so.

      And that's on top of their ridiculous capacity for back-testing algos by purchasing entire data centres to do their testing on tick data, which allows them to virtually reverse engineer the algos of their smaller competitors and play them at their own game.

      There is nothing wrong nor illegal with one party having more resources and knowledge than another party. That's the way of the world and the way of free markets. Furthermore, there is no monopoly on such resources and knowledge -- anyone can have access to the same exchange information as it is for sale (and much of it is available for free).

      When someone wants to play the HFT game, one (now) needs huge, expensive resources -- there is no getting around that fact. In addition, those competing in the HFT arena are seeing dwindling profits as competition increases.

      If you are implying that HFT trading somehow hurts (or even affects) small, mom-&-pop traders, you are woefully mistaken. HFT trades might move a stock price up/down by one or two ticks at most -- not even a whole point. At the end of the day in which stock has moved up and down in a range of 2 two 10 points, that miniscule HFT move is an unperceptible blip. HFT trades only affect those who play the HFT game -- not the small mom-&-pop traders, and not even the large, institutional non-HFT traders (those are the big market movers).

      HFT actually benefits the market for the small players, because it increases liquidity. As a small trader, I really wish that there was a lot more HFT action making more instruments liquid enough for me to consider. Alas, it doesn't look like there will be much expansion in HFT activity, as its becoming less attractive.

    5. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people actually understood the stock market from the game theoretic point of view that it is designed as, they would see that no order can be placed to the detriment of any other actor's orders, and that in fact, every order either increases the value of the market to *some* set of actors in that market or at worse has no effect at all.

      Here's a cut and paste from someone that has not heard of the 1987 Black Monday crash.

    6. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Slowing down the market like you suggest is another unnecessary and actually harmful solution to a system that is specifically designed and intended to provide instantly up to date prices that reflect all known information about a stock, in the limit (the efficient market hypothesis).

      They would realize that gambling for fun, and fraud, are critical parts of the complete system. I'm afraid that the "efficient market hypothesis" is as valid in economic models as a "frictionless surface" is in physics. It allows some useful model creation, but it's not a complete model. It especially founders on phase delay: different information channels about prices have different transmission delays to different locations. It also founders very badly in terms of "chaos theory", where small, even unmeasurable changes in state cause systemwide and difficult to predict changes in the whole system.

      There are things that high speed trading does well. It relies on what is effectively insider trading, the milliseconds advantage of having their FPGA circuitry on the fiber optics leaving the stock exchanges, to commit arbitrage before the rest of the stock market can see the information. The high speed response of such systems might, in theory, be tunable to detect cyber attacks and lock out suspicious traffic at the beginning of external cyber attacks and especially to block various denial-of-service attacks. But from what I've seen of high frequency trading, there is profound deceit at every level of it: I'd be very concerned about trusting the work from any company involved in it.

    7. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Here's a cut and paste from someone that has not heard of the 1987 Black Monday crash.

      Quite the contrary. Crashes are GOOD things for some people as it provides the opportunity to get stocks at very low prices. Especially transient crashes... Similarly with bubbles. Volatility rewards those who act against it... As the market SHOULD.

      The big problem is that everyone wants the stock market to only go UP... This looks good for politicians and everyone thinks that helps their retirement plan and stuff... The purpose of the market is not to always go up, but to provide information and allocate resources efficiently.

    8. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... who correctly act against that volatility will profit.

      How many markets, particularly, those selling second-hand assets, have 'wait for the price to change' as their primary purpose? While one can't stop buyers seeking the best price, their actions (eg. HFT) create barriers to entry and thus result in a cartel of buyers who control the rules to their benefit: See your own example, where players seeking the best sell-price were punished.

      ... increases the value of the market ...

      As long as the market is informed and efficient: For the large players, that will ALWAYS be true but for players either small, or facing corrupt actors (WorldCom, Enron, Bernie Madoff), it will be a game of life: A zero-sum outcome which has two participants; someone winning and someone guaranteed to lose.

      ...are meant to operate and understand them ...

      Every uni student learns that: Shares are meant to aggregate capital and reward the gamblers; not be a means of arbitraging a company's shares via its quarterly growth. (That is, a different market is created by changes in the whole stock market.)

      ... even more money for the likes of GS ...

      Since the system is the large players using priority-queued buy orders to steal profits away from the small players; either changes will not affect that (thus confirming your own model), or will collapse the current rent-seeking model. We all know which outcome is more probable.

    9. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 2

      The efficient market hypothesis is how the market should operate IN THE LIMIT! The market provides INCENTIVES for people to provide TIMELY and ACCURATE **INFORMATION** to the markets.

      I wasn't addressing cyber attacks, I was addressing mechanisms to deliberately slow down HFT trading and the like. HFT trading *MUST* increase liquidity. Volatility is *natural* in markets (including chaos), and rewards those who reduce it.

      HFT is good actually for markets, and good for everyone, because, if you actually examine the operation of markets (as double opposing queues), you will see that it is NEVER possible to harm another trader by placing trades, because you only provide (at least) BETTER opportunities for other traders, or match other traders SOONER than they OTHERWISE would have been.

      The problem with HFT is that if you use their tactics against them you go to jail. Where you should be allowed to place and cancel orders and the profits go to the MOST efficient provider of information to a market.

    10. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > I was addressing mechanisms to deliberately slow down HFT trading and the like.

      This is not difficult. Force the "high speed traders" to actually make the purchases, or sales, and pay transaction fees. As it stands they actually _discard_ most of their orders and pay no transaction fees, nor do the stocks ever actually transfer to their cofferes. They're engaging in pure arbitrage, at very little sirk. The largest risk is that they won't profit enough to pay for the infrastructure required for HFT.

      The HFT system does not "provide information to the market", It intercepts information before other traders can csee it. I'm afraid that the idea that it "promotes liquidity" is a self-serving fraud by the traders that can afford HFT systems.

    11. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The current system is built for cheating/gaming the system,

      FTFY

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a market order that can unfairly affect anyone else's position in the market (with the exceptions of insider trading and front running, both of them are rightly illegal).

      Problem is, insider trading is how the market runs today. And when we want to show how to punish insiders, we send Martha Stewart to jail.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Here's a cut and paste from someone that has not heard of the 1987 Black Monday crash.

      Quite the contrary. Crashes are GOOD things for some people as it provides the opportunity to get stocks at very low prices. Especially transient crashes... Similarly with bubbles. Volatility rewards those who act against it... As the market SHOULD.

      Saying that crashes are a good thing because some people benefit is a variant of the "broken windows" concept in economics, and you're taking the side of the glazier. No. Just No.

      There are more people involved than just traders: The corporation represented by the stock, the pension funds that provide income for retirees, the ordinary people who are trying to invest some money to provide for themselves. Regular people are supposed to buy and hold. I honestly don't give a shit about the welfare of some lucky traders especially because they're likely the ones that caused the crash.
      And the idea that it provides opportunity to get stocks at low prices is meaningless if you're a regular joe that just had the valuation of his account plunge. Buy stocks with what money?

    14. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Here's a cut and paste from someone that has not heard of the 1987 Black Monday crash.

      Quite the contrary. Crashes are GOOD things for some people as it provides the opportunity to get stocks at very low prices. Especially transient crashes... Similarly with bubbles. Volatility rewards those who act against it... As the market SHOULD.

      The big problem is that everyone wants the stock market to only go UP... This looks good for politicians and everyone thinks that helps their retirement plan and stuff... The purpose of the market is not to always go up, but to provide information and allocate resources efficiently.

      The other problem is that the Black Monday crash, the 2010 crash, and other similar crashes were solely due to trading practices and had nothing to do with the direction the economy was taking, the valuation of the underlying stocks, world events or anything other than the simple fact that the exchanges screwed up, and they large excursions were largely due to algorithmic trading and HFT screwing up.

      Yes, we need market corrections, and yes, the market should go down as well as up.
      Volatility is absolutely necessary in a functioning market.
      But NO we don't need crashes that are due to solely to trading practices.

      And you claim that HFT offers volatility is true only when the market is stable. It has been clearly shown that with large movements in the market that the HFT traders stop trading and remove all that supposed liquidity just when it is most needed.

    15. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      HFT actually benefits the market for the small players, because it increases liquidity.

      For the record, this is complete horseshit.

      The idea that the market should be designed for the benefit of "small players" is exactly counter to history. Once open-outcry bidding disappeared, there was no longer anything connecting the financial markets with the real world. It's nothing more than a method for siphoning money from people who work for a living and giving it to those who do not.

      As a small trader, I really wish that there was a lot more HFT action

      If your trading is limited by the number of "instruments liquid enough", then that's just more evidence that the system is terribly broken and has completely become disconnected from the very purpose of financial markets.

      We'd be better off if "small traders" like you found something productive to do.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary Clinton likes to fuck a donkey in the ass while spitting on working people.

    17. Re: Wouldn't the real solution be: by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      You don't actually *believe* the Efficient Market Lie, do you?

    18. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know that market makers (the HFT traders that pulled out of the market) trade with their own money. They also are not allowed to build up too high a position because of risk.

      If they would stay in the market and keep on trading then their position and risk would go up and up, until the whole financial system would completely collapse, where all market makers would be bankrupt. Also the market makers didn't actually drop out of the market, they stayed in with one sided quotes to get rid of their position.

    19. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFTs are not the market makers.

    20. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you really have no clue as to what your are talking about.

      As another poster mentioned, some of the naive people here who object to a free market should do some active trading themselves, to open their eyes to how the markets actually work.

      You have no concept of what liquidity is nor how trading affects it..

    21. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Regular people are supposed to buy and hold.

      Oh boy...

      > I honestly don't give a shit about the welfare of some lucky traders especially because they're likely the ones that caused the crash.

      Well, that conclusion is just as valid as stating, "Regular people are supposed to buy and hold."

      > And the idea that it provides opportunity to get stocks at low prices is meaningless if you're a regular joe that just had the valuation of his account plunge. Buy stocks with what money?

      Learn how to invest. Trade small and trade actively. Then you will understand the free market and why its important.

    22. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > HFT is good actually for markets, and good for everyone, because, if you actually examine the operation of markets (as double opposing queues), you will see that it is NEVER possible to harm another trader by placing trades, because you only provide (at least) BETTER opportunities for other traders, or match other traders SOONER than they OTHERWISE would have been.

      I'm afraid it's not "good for markets". The extensive arbitrage saps the profit from those who offer stock, or those who do longer term investment or cannot afford HFT systems, and leaves the stock profits in the hands of those committing arbitrage and providing no direct service to the economy or to the system itself. They do not provide "BETTER" opportunities, they've already tapped the profits out of the system before most other traders were even aware of pending market changes. Much like insider trading, it's information that is not available to the market at large, despite the extensive work by the stock markets to make the information available simultaneously to all traders.

      The idea that they "provide information to the market" is a very strange one. Waiting a few hundred milliseconds for light speed delays to allow the signals to travel the globe and reach actual investors would provide very much the same information, without the HFT systems pre-sampling and effectively insider trading that information before it can reach less technologically invested traders. Speed of information transfer does not _increase_ the quality of the information.

      > you will see that it is NEVER possible to harm another trader by placing trades,

      I'm afraid this is nonsense. If you use what is effectively insider information to make a trade that profits you, based on information not available to other traders, that can be a form of theft. Trades can also be used to pump and dump, effectively lying to other traders about the value of investments to mislead them and crash the stock value to one's own profit. Less commonly described, trades can be used for the _opposite_ of pump and dump. where a spate of short orders can trigger other investors to sell off stock immediately, one buys up the stock at its predicted lowest price, and sells it off during the recovery.

      This is coupled with the dangerous feedback loops of multiple HFT companies operating at speeds so fast that they cannot possibly track the simultaneous negative feedback of other HFT systems. Large scale negative feedback loops, out of phase, almost inevitably lead to destructive positive feedback loops unless they are damped. Damping them would eliminate the _purpose_ of HFT, and the result is quite dangerous. This played out destructively in the "flash crash" of 2010.

    23. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nothing more than a method for siphoning money from people who work for a living and giving it to those who do not.

      Which is why I don't bother investing in stock markets.

    24. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing you said is a response to my assertions.
      I'm not going to dox myself, but I'm doing just fine in the stock market and my investments presently produce about 30% of my income.
      If you want to be taken seriously then you need to respond to my post with facts, and "oh boy" and "learn to invest" are neither facts nor arguments.
      I'm calling bullshit on everything you said. I suspect you are a beginning trader that wasn't even in the market in 2010 or before.

      And yes, regular people are supposed to buy and hold.
      There are multiple reasons for this. Regular people have jobs and families, and they simply do not have time to research and plan their trades in the stock market (or bonds). What happens is that during downward movements, they tend to sell, and they buy when the market "feels safe", which means buying high, thus locking in losses rather than gains. It's just a basic fact that the average joe does not have the time and resources to dedicate to research investment strategies.
      And recommending the such people trade actively is stupid and evil.

    25. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Dedicated backend links with DoS mitigation,
      >elimination of high frequency trading

      This will make JPM-Chase, Goldman & etc. to make billions. Currently there is no "minimal time scale" on the market and HFT is actually a very risky business. If you introduce, say 1-min "minimal time", then the organizations with large client base (brokerages) can easily frontrun their clients (no minimal time-scale) against the market (exchange trading with, say 1-min time scale).

      What you proposed is actually a "dream of any large brokerage".

    26. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As another poster mentioned, some of the naive people here who object to a free market should do some active trading themselves, to open their eyes to how the markets actually work.

      You believe the financial markets are "free markets"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know that market makers (the HFT traders that pulled out of the market) trade with their own money.

      False statement. HFT traders are not market makers.

      They also are not allowed to build up too high a position because of risk.

      False statement. There is no entity restricting how high a position trader can have.

      If they would stay in the market and keep on trading then their position and risk would go up and up, until the whole financial system would completely collapse, where all market makers would be bankrupt.

      False statement. HFT traders can stay in the market and change their position to match changing conditions. This is the very essence of the algorithmic part of HFT trading. No one forces them to continue "trading their position".

      Also the market makers didn't actually drop out of the market, they stayed in with one sided quotes to get rid of their position.

      False statement. HFT traders usually do drop out during large market changes and have in fact done so. Market makers do not because that is part of the definition of a market maker - they stay in the market.

    28. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a source for this? I have my doubts....

    29. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing you said is a response to my assertions.
      I'm not going to dox myself, but I'm doing just fine in the stock market and my investments presently produce about 30% of my income.
      If you want to be taken seriously then you need to respond to my post with facts, and "oh boy" and "learn to invest" are neither facts nor arguments.
      I'm calling bullshit on everything you said. I suspect you are a beginning trader that wasn't even in the market in 2010 or before.

      Every statement that you made is merely your opinion (and an extremely uniformed opinion at that) -- not fact.

      I said "oh boy" because your notion of the way things "should be" is all too common and misguided. The worst thing that one can do coming into trading is to buy stock and sit on it for the long term.

      I have been trading since the 1980s, and for most of that time, I was in the "fundamental analysis" camp. I would research all kinds of company numbers and then buy and hold. I barely showed a profit after decades, and I was actually lucky not to have losses. Except for the short term with earnings reports, a company's fundamentals has less influence in driving its stock price than other factors. One should be aware of such influential factors and know that price movement is largely chaotic.

      Regardless, there are things that happen statistically that can be played, and, to be successful, one does not need too much more knowledge than a few common statistics and a basic market awareness. This probabilistic method differs dramatically from the well established "technical analysis" technique, in that decisions are based on actual statistical fact. With such simple insight, I now do much better than I did when I was using the time consuming "fundamental" method.

       

      And yes, regular people are supposed to buy and hold.

      Is that a fact? Most who buy-&-hold long tend to show losses or miniscule profits, which is why you see a lot of posts in this thread complaining that the "system is rigged."

       

      Regular people have jobs and families, and they simply do not have time to research and plan their trades in the stock market (or bonds).

      "Regular" people don't need to do "research." They just need to learn a few basic principles and statistical trends of the markets. If someone is not cognizant of such basic market principles, they probably should not be trading.

       

      What happens is that during downward movements, they tend to sell, and they buy when the market "feels safe", which means buying high, thus locking in losses rather than gains.

      Stop the presses! We have earth-shattering news here!

      Actually, this reaction of fear/greed is much more prominent in institutional investors, which is why the markets move instantly on news. The mom-&-pop "buy-&-holders" don't move so quickly.

      Nevertheless, such reactions are all too common to those who buy-&-hold, which is why such traders usually don't profit -- the reactions are predictable and active traders are more nimble.

       

      It's just a basic fact that the average joe does not have the time and resources to dedicate to research investment strategies.

      That notion has been put forth countless times, yet there is a growing number of "average joes" who can spare 15 minutes a day and who are successful, active traders.

       

      And recommending the such people trade actively is stupid and evil.

      It might be good for you to start drinking Sanka.

    30. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least this time you made some actual statement of position instead of "learn how to invest". Thank you for that.

      Umm, if you stated in the 1980's and were flat for decades, then you're a textbook example of someone who should have done "buy and hold".
      From 1980 to 1999, the Dow went from ~2800 to ~15,000. That's a 500% gain in valuation, and you would have averaged ~2% dividends every year on top to re-invest. And that's just tracking the Dow, for crying out loud. How hard is that?

      That's why I say "regular people are supposed to buy and hold". It's not just my opinion, it's the advice of people that are worth listening to like:
      Bogleheads
      https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads®_investment_philosophy#Never_try_to_time_the_market
      Warren Buffett.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/03/01/warren-buffets-single-best-piece-of-advice/#6ea296b941b9

      BTW, I started in the 1970's and have done just fine in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Not always fine all the time, but mostly.
      But I wasn't smarter than anyone. I just took the advice of my uncle (yes, actually uncle) who later became the head of a $60 billion hedge fund. He said to me "for you, just diversify and do buy and hold. Don't try to be clever, the game is not fair and it is rigged against you".

    31. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with you on "Speed of information transfer does not _increase_ the quality of the information."
      HFT traders remove information from the market. Their constant flood of high-speed canceled orders hides actual orders from view and buries the real information in trash.

    32. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it. With digital technology, the market is more free and efficient than it has ever been.

      Of course, there are some unfortunate exceptions -- old, remaining legacy rules that limit retail traders such as the arbitrary prohibitions on IRA accounts, and punishing those with limited funds who want to close a trade (profitable or not) on the same day that it is opened.

    33. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I know it. With digital technology, the market is more free and efficient than it has ever been.

      That's crazy. Open-outcry trading was much more transparent. At least you could tell when something wasn't kosher. Digital trading puts everything in a black box. You don't know what's happening, or with whom. The financial markets have never been less "free and efficient" since the 19th century. Do you even remember 2008?

      Like digital voting machines, digital technology has been implemented because the people at the top don't believe you can be trusted.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From 1980 to 1999, the Dow went from ~2800 to ~15,000. That's a 500% gain in valuation, and you would have averaged ~2% dividends every year on top to re-invest.

      Actually, that's a 400% gain in 19 years.

      From 1999 to the present, the Dow went from 15,000 to 23,000 -- that's only a 53% increase in 18 years. And that's not considering all of the long mom-&-pops who cashed-out losers in 2009-2011 after the 2008 crash!

      You can make anything look good if you cherry-pick in hindsight.

       

      That's why I say "regular people are supposed to buy and hold"

      Obviously, such a method would have been very bad for those who started investing long buy-&-hold in the 2000s.

       

      It's not just my opinion, it's the advice of people that are worth listening to like:
      Bogleheads
      https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads®_investment_philosophy#Never_try_to_time_the_market
      Warren Buffett.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/03/01/warren-buffets-single-best-piece-of-advice/#6ea296b941b9

      You can't take the advice of Buffett and expect it to work for you in the way it did for him, no more than you could do so with Mark Zuckerberg, John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, etc. Buffett and the other tycoons are outlier scenarios -- there's much more to their success than the actions that they recommend.

       

      BTW, I started in the 1970's and have done just fine in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Not always fine all the time, but mostly.

      An active. nimble portfolio diversified in both product AND strategy will profit in (and adapt to) almost any situation.

       

      I just took the advice of my uncle (yes, actually uncle) who later became the head of a $60 billion hedge fund. He said to me "for you, just diversify and do buy and hold. Don't try to be clever, the game is not fair and it is rigged against you".

      Hedge fund managers often do worse than the market:
      https://seekingalpha.com/article/4107853-warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-decade-ago-s-and-p-500-stock-index-outperform-hedge-funds

      If a hedge fund manager shows a 5% profit over a year, they erect a statue to him/her -- that's how low the standard/expectation is for their performance. Meanwhile, there are plenty of active, diversified retail traders who are getting 30%-50% annually.

      A lot has changed since the 1970s. Digital trading and higher liquidity has leveled the playing field considerably. Retail traders can now do just as good (and better, due to their flexibility) percentage-wise than most of the big players.

    35. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make anything look good if you cherry-pick in hindsight.

      I picked the 1980-1999 period because YOU said "I have been trading since the 1980s, and for most of that time, I was in the "fundamental analysis" camp. I would research all kinds of company numbers and then buy and hold. I barely showed a profit after decades, and I was actually lucky not to have losses. "

    36. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's crazy. Open-outcry trading was much more transparent. At least you could tell when something wasn't kosher. Digital trading puts everything in a black box. The financial markets have never been less "free and efficient" since the 19th century.

      Almost every ex-floor trader interviewed is much happier with digital trading -- liquidity is much higher, market is more efficient, moves by the big players are easier to discern.

      With an order-book (order ladder) set-up, not only can one see every single order, but one can distinguish limit orders from market orders -- not possible on the floor. Such a GUI makes strategies such as iceberg plays and muscle plays immediately apparent to everyone (also, not possible with floor trading). Even the retail traders can witness theses strategies play out in immediate real time.

      So, I don't know why open-outcry is better or more transparent.

      Do you even remember 2008?

      Yes. I was actively trading then. Everyone was warned about the credit bubble in advance. You could see it coming.

      What does 2008 have to do with open-outcry vs. digital trading?

      Like digital voting machines, digital technology has been implemented because the people at the top don't believe you can be trusted.

      No. Digital trading has actually given retail traders a lot more freedom, because it has allowed them to make trades themselves in real time and see real time action and stats.

      Digital trading is also the reason why we see a lot more liquidity than we did just a couple of decades ago.

    37. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out 18 years from 1999 to the present.

    38. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      > It intercepts information before other traders can csee it

      Information is a commodity.

      They do take risk (except that they *arrest* their competitors).

      We should encourage HFT, but accept that people and bots might place trades they do not necessarily intend to be filled, even though they in fact might be.

      Please learn how markets work.

    39. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that exchange markets are the ultimate expression of "Free Market" (from microeconomics) trade. Nobody is forced to trade, and by definition, every time a trade occurs it is because two traders *wanted* to make that trade.

      Instead of thinking that HFT takes money away from people, you can think of it as making *more* money available, at *better* prices, and more *often* than without them.

      The *only* way to have a trade on an exchange is by offering a better opposing trade to *everyone* else in the market at the time of the trade. By definition, the more players, include HFT players, the more *efficient* the market.

      They aren't taking away anything from anybody else, because no one else was offering a better deal at the time.

      So, the best thing we can do, actually, is let the BEST traders take the most money, because they provide the most "information" to the market in the form of MONEY! MONEY is MARKET INFORMATION... and the market allocates money exponentially to those who provide the best information... HFT's earn their profits, except when they are locking up their competitors (because they actually provide better estimates of the true price to the market).

    40. Re: Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      It's true in the limit... but it can never be *exactly* true, because information can not travel faster than the speed of light.

      Markets use money as information signals. This information allows markets to allocate resources that maximise social welfare surplus (utility) (aka first fundamental theorem of microeconomics). Therefore the closer to the limit, the more efficient the market, the better.

      Thus we should allow trading bots of all kinds to place and cancel orders as fast as our systems allow, and the market will allocate money to them in proportion to the value of information they bring to the market. As long as they are not *front running* orders, they must be a positive on the market.

    41. Re: Wouldn't the real solution be: by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      So you do believe the Efficient Market Lie. Any particular reason? It seems fairly obviously false to me and to most unindoctrinated observers - so I'm wondering what's the basis of your faith?

    42. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The "better deal" was intercepted by the HFT, who insert themselves as middle men between the original stock owner or traders and the possible clients before either of them can possibly be aware of the market changes. They also prevent possible competitors by ordering or selling stock at such scale that ordinary traders have no shares available with which to offer competitive deals. That's not "the best deal". That is monopoly power, and it's anti-competitive at its core.

      I'm afraid you've also not accounted for HFT order cancellation. They make orders that have risks. Then they cancel all but the profitable orders, at little to no risk to themselves. These canceled orders _themselves_ manipulate the stock prices in their desired directions for profitability. It encourages "spoofing", where large volumes of orders create illusory market demands. The HFT systems are _designed_ to encourage changes in the market, calculate the results of the positive feedback of their large scale transactions, and reverse their ordering just as the market rebounds. They're tapping the profits when fluctuations occur either way, which is how traders work. But they're doing it on a massive scale and _generating their own exaggerated market fluctuations_ by the scale of their orders.

      The result is destructive. It's anti-competitive because the presumption of equal prices for all customers is broken: the HFT's have a price preview unavailable to other potential stock traders or stockholders due to signal transmission delays, limited by the speed of light between the stock exchanges and other potential dealers and their clients, and limited by the transaction speed of the computers tied to those signals.

      > So, the best thing we can do, actually, is let the BEST traders take the most money, because they provide the most "information"

      Except that the HFT traders do not "provide information". They tap the information before others can receive it. This is normally called "insider trading", and that is illegal for very good reasons.

      Ordinary traders do not require microsecond response times. The microsecond response times are in fact quite dangerous because the HFT's create positive feedback: as a price changes, their orders push that change further, faster, than anyone else can respond, and they can drive the market straight into a crash. They've already done so. The 2010 "flash crash" is an infamous example of HFT run wild and destroying billions of dollars of market value. Similar HFT problems though smaller scale, led to the "Peet's Coffee" incident in 2012.

    43. Re: Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      I believe that it is a very close approximation to the truth.

      All the EMH says is that the price of a stock reflects all available knowledge about the value of that stock. When it doesn't, it means that people have information about the stock that is NOT currently reflected in the price, which means there is an opportunity for them to provide that information and profit. So markets provide the incentive to provide them with information, and should therefore tend towards efficiency. The further from the EMH the price is, the more incentive there is for traders to make it efficient.

      So, while a market cannot ever be *perfectly* efficient, it will tend towards greater efficiency, assuming it is regulated inline with the assumptions of the free market (not always true), because there are incentives, in the forms of profit, to provide that information.

      An example might be the price of bitcoin. Currently at about $6000/coin. Will the price go up or down in the future? We can't tell, because the current price reflects all the beliefs about its future value too. It might be worth $1M/btc or zero in a decade's time. All we can say is what the market believes the value of it is right now. So, an efficient market price is just as likely to increase as it is to decrease!

      I think, rather, as someone who hasn't actually studied the field, why you think it is (grossly) false, when you can find out why economists generally believe it (approximately) for yourself.

    44. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      > The "better deal" was intercepted by the HFT

      NO THEY DO NOT! I stopped reading here, because HFTs DO NOT FRONT RUN! They have much faster access to the market than everyone else, but they do not have access to privileged (illegal) information (orders BEFORE they hit the queue). They cannot see a trade before it is on the market, only a tiny fraction of a second after it is on the market, and this makes all the difference.

      What I skimmed of your post just shows you are totally clueless on this topic and should stfu because you are embarrassing yourself.

      For example:

      > This is normally called "insider trading"

      Is more proof that you are ignorant on this matter. It's not insider trading. That again is where you have privileged information.

      The truth of the matter is that we should be able to put in billions of trades per nanosecond and cancel each of them half a nanosecond later, and this at worst has no negative effect on the operation of the market (technical considerations aside) but can only have positive effects for other traders.

      Anyone should be able to put up trades and cancel them as they wish... They are normally charged with "price manipulation" actually, but you really shouldn't let unmatched orders have too much influence on your pricing... Ironically, it is the HFT bots, that can be most easily gamed this way, and we should allow that!

      Please learn how actually markets operate. There are two opposing queues full of orders, and a trade only occurs when two opposing orders disagree on the price in opposite directions (one wants to buy at a higher price than the other wants to sell at). Millions of placed and cancelled trades have no effect on that mechanism... And when they match, it was always because they were the BEST available option for the trader who was opposing them. Without them, BY DEFINITION, the opposing trade either would not get matched or would get matched at a worse price! They are poorer without the HFT "in the middle" as you might say.

    45. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > NO THEY DO NOT! I stopped reading here, because HFTs DO NOT FRONT RUN!

      I'm afraid they do. Predicting how their own early trading will boost or lower a stock price is built into HFT, and it's a major source of their profits. it's critical to managing their arbitrage, to predict precisely when to reverse their tactics an individual stock or the whole market rebounds from their leading trades. If they didn't factor in the results of their own trade, _and deliberately game the system_, it would cause even larger oscillations.

      > Is more proof that you are ignorant on this matter. It's not insider trading. That again is where you have privileged information.

      In this case, the "privileged information" is the microseconds or milliseconds of advance knowledge. Others can't afford the technological advantage, or in fact are blocked by exclusive contract from tapping the fiber optic closer to the stock exchanges. It's currently legal, but it's definitely privileged. The idea that "it's not harmful" is, I'm afraid to say, based in self serving fraud.

      > it was always because they were the BEST available option for the trader who was opposing them.

      This is blatant nonsense. In an HFT brokered transaction, the HFT trader has intercepted the "best trade" before the other dealers, businesses, or stock owner could possibly have been aware of that "BEST" available option. Also, I'm afraid that the concept that all trades are the "BEST" option is impossible. If they each chose the "BEST" option, they would each know the complete results of the transaction to have perfect knowledge of the results of the trade. They do not, and they cannot: information is limited, and the stock market is a chaotic system. They may be able to make well informed guesses, but there is no more way to predict it perfectly than there are means to perfectly predict the weather.

      Sadly, the HFT companies are effectively reading the weather reports before anyone else can see the report and gambling with that information before anyone else gets the data. It's unfair competition.

    46. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Front running is placing an order BEFORE the other order hits the queue because you know the order ahead of time.

      HFT bots KNOW about an order before anyone else AFTER it has hit the queue.

      One is illegal, the other is efficient.

      ARBITRAGE IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

      NOW FUCK OFF WITH YOUR IGNORANCE.

      For example, let's say you did all your trading based on last years prices with no knowledge of the current state of the market? Are you efficient? No!!! HFT is that in the limit.

    47. Re:Wouldn't the real solution be: by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Front running is placing an order BEFORE the other order hits the queue because you know the order ahead of time.

      And many, if not all HFT practicioners, do exactly this. See:

      http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

      Quoting the article:

      “Electronic front running,” which involves a HFT firm racing ahead of a large client order on an exchange, scooping up all the shares on offer at various other exchanges (if it is a buy order) or hitting all the bids (if it is a sell order), and then turning around and selling them to (or buying them from) the client and pocketing the difference.

      > ARBITRAGE IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

      I'm afraid that you keep saying that as if it were true. It's not. Arbitrage has limited benefits, and for modern stock markets HFT inserts an entirely unnecessary and undesirable layer of arbitrage. The same transactions would be available directly to most traders a few seconds later, with profits and risks more directly accessible to them, without any high frequency trading whatsoever. given lightspeed delays, the delay before they can receive the same starting information is no approximate 100 msec, even on the other side of the world. Given analysis delays, the ability of other algorithmic orders to make their trades is no more than 1 second. But the HFT traders have already bought and sold and bought and sold the same stock a dozen times before the ordinary trader can respond, shaving most of the available profit right out of the transaction.

      Unnecessary middle men are a bane of many markets. The HFT systems insert themselves not as a single middle man, but as many middle men transactions shaving off profits in numerous thin slices as a stock price shifts rather than in the manageable segments available to ordinary traders without their size and their tools.

  3. Flaws in the algorithm by bitchtits · · Score: 1

    They should be looking for flaws in the algorithms. Impossible with neural nets.

    1. Re: Flaws in the algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is impossible when you use blockchain technology! BTC hits $6000 this week or apk trades in his hosts file for a Kaspersky subscription.

  4. Crash Trigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The biggest weakness is a foreign entity gaining access to the brokerage accounts of a large trader and either:

    a) executing a liquidate (sell everything NOW) order where billions of dollars of assets are suddenly flooded onto the market, resulting in algorithms at other trading houses doing the same (they all move in lock step with each other)
    or
    b) naked shorting a big stock like Apple or Google and thus causing Lehman Brothers type of events, whereby the assets are lost.

    Once that money is lost, it doesn't come back. There is no insurance for a bank to be bailed out by in a bad trade.

    The entire reason insurance companies like Geico exist is because they are backed by trading houses that have investments in a many other businesses. Like it's damn near impossible for Berkshire Hathaway to go bankrupt, because it doesn't merely own shares in a business, it owns large businesses. Thus it can pay out property insurance (it's mostly known for car insurance) without even blinking, as it makes as much money as writing off a new car every few seconds.

  5. Unleash SJWs on the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the time Harvey Weinstein recovers from the attack, it'll be too late.

  6. Isn't that unethical or some kind of legal fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when the civilization depends so much on a toy economy, also, aren't speed traders supposed the culprits of warping the real market?

  7. Idetifying the REAL threat. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the parties involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, the irony and stupidity of looking to those on the inside to help "fortify markets", fucking kills me.

    Congress hasn't done much to prevent another meltdown, so perhaps we should focus on the real threat. Greed N. Corruption is still in charge of Wall Street.

    1. Re:Idetifying the REAL threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greed N. Corruption is still in charge of Wall Street.

      It's also in charge of Pennsylvania and Delaware Avenue.

  8. Bogus analysis by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    If people actually understood the stock market from the game theoretic point of view that it is designed as, they would see that no order can be placed to the detriment of any other actor's orders, and that in fact, every order either increases the value of the market to *some* set of actors in that market or at worse has no effect at all.

    This, and the resulting analysis, is completely bogus.

    For an analogy, consider a town with a market in the center. Farmers come from far away to sell their wares at the market.

    There is risk in farming: a farmer might decide to plant corn one year, or some other crop. If everyone plants the same crop, there will be a glut and the prices will be low, but if the farmer plants one crop and no one else does, his reward will be very high.

    There is need in buying. Someone who is hungry for goods will pay more than the asking price. "Hunger" here only means a general need, and not physical hunger: a father purchasing flowers for his daughter's wedding might be willing to spend more money to outbid other people who want flowers for a lesser need.

    A farmer takes risks, and sometimes those risks pay off. The buyer has needs, and sometimes is willing to pay more to satisfy them. The buyer also sometimes gets a good deal.

    We've all done that - found a motivated seller (or buyer) on eBay and gotten a good deal, right?

    Now suppose there are runners who can ask the farmer what his selling price is when they reach the edge of town, and the father what his buying price for the goods are. The runners are very fast and can get a sense of what the prices are before either party gets to the center market.

    Here's the outcome: the runners will put themselves in the middle of the transaction *only* if the buying price is higher than the selling price. If the selling price is too high, the runners won't bother.

    The end result is farmer never gets an occasional boon from his risks, and the buyer never gets a sweet deal on his purchases.

    The seller is forced to take risks, but will only ever see the average return. The purchaser will always pay full price, and will never see a random good deal. The end result is that both the buyer and the seller are discouraged from entering the market.

    This is completely analogous to the principle of unequal knowledge, which is why used cars have no value: A buyer cannot easily tell whether a used car is any good (it's difficult to tell whether the engine or transmission will need repair, for instance) so will only pay average price for a used car. A seller with a good car won't sell it for average price, which brings down the average, which means owners won't sell mediocre cars for the (lower) average, and the cycle continues. The end result is that used cars have almost no value.

    It's the same for high-speed trading, using risk instead of knowledge. If making a product takes risk but you can't recoup any value from taking the risk - then you won't take the risk.

    For both the seller and the purchaser, the market has reduced in value because of the runners.

    Don't buy into the hype - it's only people making a lot of money off of "a good thing" trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    1. Re:Bogus analysis by Procrasti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you are simply wrong.

      What you describe is only possible with "front running" where an actor can intercept orders before they are placed on the queue and made publicly available.

      If everyone only has access to orders after they are on the queue, and publicly available, then the (let's use) HFT operators can only either improve the buyer's opportunities by placing a sell order at a lower price than the existing orders, improve the seller's opportunities by placing a buy order at a higher price than the existing orders, or have no effect at all.

      You don't trade.

    2. Re: Bogus analysis by Procrasti · · Score: 0

      You don't actually trade!

      I've built bots that trade on markets... you are ignorant of their fundamental operation as well as microeconomics.

    3. Re:Bogus analysis by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No, you are simply wrong.

      What you describe is only possible with "front running" where an actor can intercept orders before they are placed on the queue and made publicly available.

      You don't trade.

      Of course. You seem to understand how it works, but want to deny it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Bogus analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually trade!

      Yup, this is the conclusion I reached long ago when reading /. comments about the stock markets.

      Most have no idea how the stock market works, it became obvious that most comments were from people who had never traded any stocks.

    5. Re:Bogus analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you are simply wrong.

      What you describe is only possible with "front running" where an actor can intercept orders before they are placed on the queue and made publicly available.

      If everyone only has access to orders after they are on the queue, and publicly available, then the (let's use) HFT operators can only either improve the buyer's opportunities by placing a sell order at a lower price than the existing orders, improve the seller's opportunities by placing a buy order at a higher price than the existing orders, or have no effect at all.

      You don't trade.

      You are correct in describing the Okain Warriors story as "front running" which is not how HFT trading works.
      However, HFT's price discovery mechanism of placing and cancelling numerous orders to discover the range of buy and sell order prices before that knowledge reaches the other investors, and then to arbitrage that knowledge is what bothers people. It results in the HFT people having special knowledge that the actual buyers and sellers do not have, and due to their arbitrage, it result in the seller NOT getting the optimal price, and it result in the buyer NOT getting their optimal price. Sure, it brings the prices closer together, but that is NOT what actual buyer and seller wants, nor does anyone else who is trading based on fundamental values of stocks.

      What we most object to is the placement and cancelling of orders to do price discovery. To my eyes and many others, although it is not actually quote stuffing because it is seeking to do arbitrage within actual buy/sell orders, it so very much looks like quote stuffing behavior.
      Furthermore it is way too easy to do quote stuffing while disguised as price discovery, and the people have been caught doing that.

      I'm not objecting to HFT per se - there's much more to HFT than just price discovery and arbitrage, but I do claim that a business model that depends upon placing orders that are intended to be cancelled is unethical and should be outlawed.
      If you did this in person with another person it would be considered to be deceptive to offer to buy and to offer to sell the product knowing that you intend to not fill these orders. This is why people are uncomfortable with the practice.

      Consider what would happen if, in the pre-computer days, people sat next to the brokers desk (without actually seeing the brokers orders) and placed a constant stream of buy and sell orders, watched the ticker tape, but cancelled them all before they were executed except for the most favorable one. They could do that if they sat next to the broker.
      The broker would not put up with that because it would be unfair to his other clients, and the specialist surely would not be happy to be part of it. Historically people have tried to do variants of this and no one thought it was OK.
      But for some reason it's OK if you do it with a computer.

    6. Re: Bogus analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every gain for traders is a loss for investors.

    7. Re:Bogus analysis by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think the answer is to *allow* placing orders that you might not *want* to be filled.

      Cancelling orders is normal even for manual trading. Normally the price moves against you and you have to place another order at a worse price for yourself. Sometimes you are at the front of the queue, but you can see your side dropping off, so you cancel to place a better price for you (but this happens less often).

      Given that you almost always must be able to cancel your orders, and given that your orders *may* get taken even if your don't *intend* for them to be taken, let's just drop the shenanigans and allow people (and bots) to place and cancel orders as fast as they possibly can given that we now have the technology, and that they are always at risk of having their orders matched.

      Then smart uni students can compete with the HFT bots and take their money when the uni students provide more efficient pricing than the HFT bots (by definition, that's how the market is supposed to work).

    8. Re: Bogus analysis by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      No.

      This is not how it works.

      If I provide a more competitive price or product than you, you will not make a sale, and you will see that as a 'loss' to your business. You don't have a right to profit, and *should* lose to the more competitive supplier.

      Traders increase liquidity and decrease market spread. These are good things.

  9. Isnâ(TM)t this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Henhouse, meet fox.

  10. Defensive use only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...right? Couldn't imagine the DoD wanting to weaponized this knowledge of vulnerabilities in countries' financial systems.

  11. Why do I not feel the tiniest bit safer? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    We have bureaucracies designed to fuck us over without regard to our civil rights, turning to bureaucracies designed to fuck us over financially, to "protect us".

    Color me impressed. No, color me scared, cuz I see no way this is A Good Thing (TM) for me.

  12. Who needs an attacker? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Who needs an attacker? The system already has high speed trading to poison itself.

  13. House of Cards by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    Vulnerability is a fundamental property of houses built of cards. It's probably fair enough to expect those sitting atop the house of cards to know where some vulnerable cards are but you must equally expect that they will only identify those cards that do not affect their position in the house (This may be out of malice toward others atop the house... but you should not attribute malice to that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity). I would be willing to wager that none of the high-speed traders consulted suggested that for a house to withstand a shock you don't build it with cards.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  14. thats putting the thieves in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of your bank vault.

  15. Pentagon needs ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... real time monitoring of trading systems. Purportedly to defend them. But in actuality to do some insider trading. They want the same loophole that Congress already has.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. The Plans. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    The US and presumably EVERY country have people that war game unlikely scenarios just to have a plan available.

    How likely is it that the US would need to invade the UK? But there IS a plan for that.

    Makes sense to have plans for computer attack scenarios AND to harden against them before that scenario happens.

    1. Re:The Plans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This indicates there's too much money being funneled at Department of Defense. If ``the government'' really cared about such a scenario, they'd throw billions at the SEC to do exactly this kind of analysis that the article claims they're doing... The DoD is the wrong place for this. What's next, the DoD supplementing the local police for "safety" purposes?

  17. Jeez, stupidity never ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having the the folks who work on Wall Street help to "strengthen" the markets against attack is like have the fox guard the hen house.