@contradevian Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 That's part of my point. It's the giant corporations who run these pensions that are looking to have the laws passed. (and pushing this drivel into the press to generate the necessary angry rabble required to do so) Makes your head spin doesn't it. One lot of thieves, steal from other lot of thieves. Who would have thunk it. Maybe "ordinary joe's" could get a club together and buy their own supercomputers, and join in the general larceny. Aah then the laws would be changed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 In fact continuing down this most silly of walks, let's regulate the duration of all transactions - you know, because those at the back can't keep up any more. ATM's these days dispense far too quickly - let's shoot for a law requiring a five minute pause between keypad presses, and a minimum hour delay between logging on, and dispensing cash. Sliding doors on the tube shut far too quickly too - let's have at least a five minute delay on that (to make it fair for the least able). Half an hour between payment and cuppa arriving seems bang on - it's terrible tricky trying to operate one of those things when you've got the DT's. And maybe three or four hours if it includes a meal. Bank payments clear far too quickly for my taste - let's add a week on there as well, we weren't all born numerate. How about those forecourts and their self serving ways? That's really on the nose, it's gotta go. We should probably chop the population there, and sort them into blocks - one 12th gets to fuel up in any given month. There's probably more. Machines? I rage against 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 In fact continuing down this most silly of walks, let's regulate the duration of all transactions - you know, because those at the back can't keep up any more. ATM's these days dispense far too quickly - let's shoot for a law requiring a five minute pause between keypad presses, and a minimum hour delay between logging on, and dispensing cash. Sliding doors on the tube shut far too quickly too - let's have at least a five minute delay on that (to make it fair for the least able). Half an hour between payment and cuppa arriving seems bang on - it's terrible tricky trying to operate one of those things when you've got the DT's. And maybe three or four hours if it includes a meal. Bank payments clear far too quickly for my taste - let's add a week on there as well, we weren't all born numerate. How about those forecourts and their self serving ways? That's really on the nose, it's gotta go. We should probably chop the population there, and sort them into blocks - one 12th gets to fuel up in any given month. There's probably more. Machines? I rage against 'em. Im sorry, this is irrelevant. the fact that a human can put up some shares for sale, in the time it takes to key in the entry, look at the offers and sell, an HFT machine has bought and sold the shares, or other peoples shares and Stuffed the price so it can profit before the human can even react. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) the fact that a human can put up some shares for sale, in the time it takes to key in the entry, look at the offers and sell, an HFT machine has bought and sold the shares, or other peoples shares and Stuffed the price so it can profit before the human can even react. My old man can't keep up with those newfangled paint mixin' machines either. And his old man just couldn't compete with those robotic lathes. Burn the books, and break the machines that made 'em. Edited October 24, 2010 by ParticleMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 If you really want to lurch off the deep end, consider that some out there reckon' they're trading predictive strategies. As in anticipating the decision to buy or sell - rather than getting between the seller and buyer, per se. On this metric, that'd give you a negative duration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 In fact continuing down this most silly of walks, let's regulate the duration of all transactions - you know, because those at the back can't keep up any more. ATM's these days dispense far too quickly - let's shoot for a law requiring a five minute pause between keypad presses, and a minimum hour delay between logging on, and dispensing cash. Sliding doors on the tube shut far too quickly too - let's have at least a five minute delay on that (to make it fair for the least able). Half an hour between payment and cuppa arriving seems bang on - it's terrible tricky trying to operate one of those things when you've got the DT's. And maybe three or four hours if it includes a meal. Bank payments clear far too quickly for my taste - let's add a week on there as well, we weren't all born numerate. How about those forecourts and their self serving ways? That's really on the nose, it's gotta go. We should probably chop the population there, and sort them into blocks - one 12th gets to fuel up in any given month. There's probably more. Machines? I rage against 'em. but PM my dear boy - extend your perfectly reasonable sarcasm (I agree with it BTW) to its self recursive endpoint and you get to: We should probably arbitraily control interest rates to restarin the velocity of money so as to maintain the purchasing power of money I mean, FFS! Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 We should probably arbitraily control interest rates to restarin the velocity of money so as to maintain the purchasing power of money I'll give you a G20 goodie bag for that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 I can't be bothered reading through 10 pages of bullsh1t and fancy-sounding self-justification by a bunch of spivs. As I see it, the problem is trivial to explain. Person A wants to sell 5 shares. Person B wants to buy 5 shares. They get together, negotiate, agree on a price X, end of story. The automated trading companies come along. Where do they fit in? Obviously, I guess, it must be between A and B. Due to their automated nature, they can snap up A's shares before B has even started to move his finger towards to keyboard. So the process is now A sell to RoboTrader1 who sells to RoboTrader2 who sells to Robotrader3 who sells to person B. These traders are now acting as middlemen in the transaction between person A and person B. They are in it to make a profit, so obviously - again - they are taking their cut, which means that person B now has to pay more for his shares. So what value do they add to the transaction? I keep reading about "liquidity", which would make a lot of sense if they were keeping shares for a week or a month, until the buyer comes along. However, they only hold shares for 11 seconds. What kind of seller would not wait 11 seconds anyway to see if a buyer turns up? So the "liquidity" argument is a load of bovine excrement. So if they're not adding value to the transaction, they are just parasites, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 I can't be bothered reading through 10 pages of bullsh1t and fancy-sounding self-justification by a bunch of spivs. This is why you are doomed never to understand anything and therefore remain angry and irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) I can't be bothered reading through 10 pages of bullsh1t and fancy-sounding self-justification by a bunch of spivs. As I see it, the problem is trivial to explain. Ignorance is indeed bliss. Person A wants to sell 5 shares.Person B wants to buy 5 shares. They get together, negotiate, agree on a price X, end of story. Fail. Person A wants to buy yield (they're swapping cash for equity which will deliver a dividend). Person B wants to buy volatility (they're swapping equity for cash which will move in some direction in relation to the underlying). Person B in all likelyhood is obliged to display both a buying AND a selling price for the same instrument at some spread above (and below) the last cleared price - the whole time the market's in session. Try again. Edited October 24, 2010 by ParticleMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 This is why you are doomed never to understand anything and therefore remain angry and irrelevant. smackdown central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 This is why you are doomed never to understand anything and therefore remain angry and irrelevant. Funny, I was just thinking you had a lot of knowledge, but little wisdom. Then, helpfully, you post the above to confirm it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 This is why you are doomed never to understand anything and therefore remain angry and irrelevant. Much better to be calm, idd. Also, did you just pull a han solo for particleman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Also, did you just pull a han solo for particleman? PM was on a collision course with the deathstar. Just a warning to pull up, pull up, thats all it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Fail. Person A wants to buy yield (they're swapping cash for equity which will deliver a dividend). Person B wants to buy volatility (they're swapping equity for cash which will move in some direction in relation to the underlying). Person B in all likelyhood is obliged to display both a buying AND a selling price for the same instrument at some spread above (and below) the last cleared price - the whole time the market's in session. Try again. Can you try writing in English please? I have been told that in the Japanese language there is no difference between the concepts of "experienced" and "teacher". Now that could be a load of bull - but it's an interesting idea. Certainly, I always laugh at any person who claims to be an "expert" in any subject, but cannot explain himself to someone who is a self-avowed non-expert (i.e., me). The fancy words above might impress some people, but to me they just prove that you don't master the subject. Fail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 This is why you are doomed never to understand anything and therefore remain angry and irrelevant. I try to summarise a debate in a few simple words. In response, you insult me. Who's the angry one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 The only obvious argument against high frequency trading that I can think of is that it might reduce the returns achieved by long term investors thus discouraging them from buying equities and making it harder for companies to raise permanent funding. If that could be proved to be the case then it would be clear that HF trading damaged the wider economy. The problem is that no-one has been able to show that to be true. As volumes have gone up so transaction costs and spreads have fallen - both of these things are good for investors. As far as can be told, all HF trading has done is relocate some of the profits made in equity markets by people other than real investors from the brokerages to hedge funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 The fancy words above might impress some people, but to me they just prove that you don't master the subject. I'll see your Chewbacca and raise you a Humpty. (I've never felt the need to entertain wilful ignorance, and don't intend to start) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Im sorry, this is irrelevant. the fact that a human can put up some shares for sale, in the time it takes to key in the entry, look at the offers and sell, an HFT machine has bought and sold the shares, or other peoples shares and Stuffed the price so it can profit before the human can even react. You're basing your argument on the incorrect assumption that the profits in equity trading once made by real investors are now being made by HF hedge funds. In fact, what's happened is that hedge funds are now taking the profits that used to be made by brokerages and market makers. Real live end-punters have seen reduced transaction costs, lower spreads and better liquidity. Think back to twenty years ago when, if you wanted to buy or sell the shares of some the more obscure companies, you could wait weeks and be charged hundreds of pounds commission as well as a thick spread. Now you can do it in minutes at worst and pay 10 quid max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwestsmith2 Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) They spend a lot on overclocking and watercooling to get those times down. If they were real men they'd set up an exchange , remove the human and shorten the fiber. Edited October 24, 2010 by northwestsmith2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 They spend a lot on overclocking and watercooling to get those times down. If they were real men they'd set up an exchange , remove the human and shorten the fiber. There are a number of chip and software startups developing technology right now specifically for these HFT markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 There are a number of chip and software startups developing technology right now specifically for these HFT markets. As outlined earlier, the only reason this is a problem is because owning shares is largely responsibility free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 If they were real men they'd set up an exchange , remove the human and shorten the fiber. It's been done! Think of all those ECNs in the US, they're super-fast and were mostly created by consortiums of banks for just the reasons you state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 You're basing your argument on the incorrect assumption that the profits in equity trading once made by real investors are now being made by HF hedge funds. In fact, what's happened is that hedge funds are now taking the profits that used to be made by brokerages and market makers. Real live end-punters have seen reduced transaction costs, lower spreads and better liquidity. Think back to twenty years ago when, if you wanted to buy or sell the shares of some the more obscure companies, you could wait weeks and be charged hundreds of pounds commission as well as a thick spread. Now you can do it in minutes at worst and pay 10 quid max. indeed, that seems to be good progress. What concerns me are the allegations that HF programs are allowed, and do indeed, stuff offers and orders into the microsecond market, thereby giving a FALSE demand, a demand that was never meant to be fulfilled, and its sole prupose is to move the market in a desired direction to the advantage of those that have the equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 They spend a lot on overclocking and watercooling to get those times down. If they were real men they'd set up an exchange , remove the human and shorten the fiber. Its a shame we can't use all these talents and resources that go into HFT systems, into producing something worthwhile and productive. Oh well, I suppose we are amongst the world leaders in high tech spiv tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.