Except that they tried it with Clipper. That was a failure because is was publicly known to have a backdoor. Who's to say they successor wasn't a success?
I've never been afraid of terrorists. And I grew up in London at a time the IRA were very active. They bombed London several times - my local underground station (Barking station) was bombed. Terrorists were considered something the police could handle. If you're afraid of terrorists you're probably both bad at judging risk and subject to careful manipulation.
The intel compiler puts code in the compiled binary that does the checking. It doesn't matter whether you compile on Intel, the resulting binary is crippled and runs slower than necessary on AMD. I worked with a guy that wrote a program to patch said binaries to remove the checking - this resulted in a nice speedup on all our boxes, since it was an AMD shop. GP is absolutely right.
Actually, studies show that increased volumes lead to higher prices, and smaller spreads lead to lower costs and increased volumes. HFT is like walmart - lower per unit profit, made up in volume. Microseconds are important to any arbitrage or hedge. Trying to impose some quantum will only add inefficiency and lead to higher cost of trading. I'm not sure what benefit you think society will get.
That's the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. Exchanges have message and fill percentage limitations. Market makers have to constantly adjust their orders or be stomped into oblivion. Yet the exchanges, most traders, anyone who has done serious research, and even regulators recognize that market makers improve markets. make them more efficient and reduce costs to trading. That's why France's transaction tax EXEMPTED market makers. (Which actually *IS* unfair)
If these are the experts then we're in trouble. Market makers don't suddenly rebalance large positions as described. In truth, market makers actually keep any positions they accrue hedged so that price changes don't lose them money. They do this all through trading - they don't build up a significant position and then suddenly dump it. They would suffer repeated losses and would soon be out of business. Evidence? Consider this: market makers are almost always on the wrong side of the deal: when aggressors are buying it's because they think the price will go up - enough traders doing this is pretty good evidence that they are correct - it could be because another related instrument has already moved. Not only that, but enough sentiment can CAUSE the price to move. Whatever the reason, the market maker now has the wrong side of the trade - if they don't hedge it quickly it'll likely turn into a loss. If they just built up positions those positions would lose more money than the money made in the spreads. Market making is hard. Other independent studies have concluded that market makers have been significantly helpful during falling markets, and helped prevent worse scenarios.
No - it actually is between different exchanges. It's impossible to do arbitrage in one symbol on one exchange. If you're buying and selling a stock at different times, that's not risk free and it isn't arbitrage. It's also hard to see how it's bad.
You can. There isn't any restriction saying you can't sell to another party. You can even do it at an exchange - submit a limit order instead of a market order at the inside market. Then you're in the role of a market maker. HFT can't force you to trade with them. There is just a high probability because they are VERY good at providing liquidity.
There are no do-overs... this is crap. Broken trades occur when the trade prices occur outside the NBBO, which is outside regulations. In other words, the trades weren't legal trades. The HFT company often loses money on these, and they always increase risk.
Not true. Because of HFT arbitrage, the prices are always very close to where they should be, such that there isn't much money to be made in arbitrage. You have to have very low costs to make any money at it. As a result, the two traders you are talking about are actually much closer to actual value than they would be without the overall influence of HFT.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a waste of time - you're the target.
You don't agree with the government.
So long as that includes Dictator Keith Alexander, absolutely.
And try for perjury, please.
Where are the defenders of our constitution?
Wanted to go see a freer society?
Yes?
Except that they tried it with Clipper.
That was a failure because is was publicly known to have a backdoor.
Who's to say they successor wasn't a success?
Bipartisan is such an Orwellian term...
I've never been afraid of terrorists.
And I grew up in London at a time the IRA were very active. They bombed London several times - my local underground station (Barking station) was bombed.
Terrorists were considered something the police could handle.
If you're afraid of terrorists you're probably both bad at judging risk and subject to careful manipulation.
...
FTFY
Give some examples of changes you would make.
Jimmy Carter is much maligned. But he is one of the most honest, intelligent and respected statesmen in history.
He is still relevant.
Nope. If you remove the checks in the resulting compiled binary, the intel-optimized version of the code runs faster.
I'd call that shady.
The intel compiler puts code in the compiled binary that does the checking. It doesn't matter whether you compile on Intel, the resulting binary is crippled and runs slower than necessary on AMD.
I worked with a guy that wrote a program to patch said binaries to remove the checking - this resulted in a nice speedup on all our boxes, since it was an AMD shop.
GP is absolutely right.
You can't do what I do in Haskell.
And I'd argue that a good programmer can program well in almost any language. I'd probably have to exclude brainfuck.
Perhaps *you* can't program well in Java.
This is aboit the tech. Making an actual product involves looking at those issues... which are at least approachable.
Actually, studies show that increased volumes lead to higher prices, and smaller spreads lead to lower costs and increased volumes.
HFT is like walmart - lower per unit profit, made up in volume.
Microseconds are important to any arbitrage or hedge. Trying to impose some quantum will only add inefficiency and lead to higher cost of trading. I'm not sure what benefit you think society will get.
That's the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. Exchanges have message and fill percentage limitations. Market makers have to constantly adjust their orders or be stomped into oblivion. Yet the exchanges, most traders, anyone who has done serious research, and even regulators recognize that market makers improve markets. make them more efficient and reduce costs to trading. That's why France's transaction tax EXEMPTED market makers. (Which actually *IS* unfair)
You might think it outlandish. But remember Nixon?
You'd have a point if the claims were outlandish and if the US govt weren't already known for persecuting whistleblowers.
If these are the experts then we're in trouble. Market makers don't suddenly rebalance large positions as described. In truth, market makers actually keep any positions they accrue hedged so that price changes don't lose them money. They do this all through trading - they don't build up a significant position and then suddenly dump it. They would suffer repeated losses and would soon be out of business.
Evidence? Consider this: market makers are almost always on the wrong side of the deal: when aggressors are buying it's because they think the price will go up - enough traders doing this is pretty good evidence that they are correct - it could be because another related instrument has already moved. Not only that, but enough sentiment can CAUSE the price to move. Whatever the reason, the market maker now has the wrong side of the trade - if they don't hedge it quickly it'll likely turn into a loss. If they just built up positions those positions would lose more money than the money made in the spreads. Market making is hard.
Other independent studies have concluded that market makers have been significantly helpful during falling markets, and helped prevent worse scenarios.
No - it actually is between different exchanges. It's impossible to do arbitrage in one symbol on one exchange.
If you're buying and selling a stock at different times, that's not risk free and it isn't arbitrage. It's also hard to see how it's bad.
You can. There isn't any restriction saying you can't sell to another party.
You can even do it at an exchange - submit a limit order instead of a market order at the inside market. Then you're in the role of a market maker.
HFT can't force you to trade with them. There is just a high probability because they are VERY good at providing liquidity.
This is bullshit too. All trades are regulated the same.
There are no do-overs... this is crap. Broken trades occur when the trade prices occur outside the NBBO, which is outside regulations. In other words, the trades weren't legal trades. The HFT company often loses money on these, and they always increase risk.
OK, here's the technical low-down:
REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED fast servers REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED co-located REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED high performance REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED
Not true.
Because of HFT arbitrage, the prices are always very close to where they should be, such that there isn't much money to be made in arbitrage. You have to have very low costs to make any money at it. As a result, the two traders you are talking about are actually much closer to actual value than they would be without the overall influence of HFT.