Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Currency exchange broker threatens high frequency traders with low pass filter   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, high-frequency traders, ICAP, HFT, exchange rates  
•       •       •

2986 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2013 at 12:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-30 12:44:16 PM  
Gee, speed hacks & spawn campers aren't appreciated IRL, either? What a friggin' surprise!
 
2013-04-30 01:12:15 PM  
Crafty headline, subby. Makes me want to twiddle my mic pre.
 
2013-04-30 01:22:17 PM  
 
2013-04-30 01:35:50 PM  

G. Gordon Libbie: Crafty headline, subby. Makes me want to twiddle my mic pre.


This. As far as I am concerned this is HOW material.
 
2013-04-30 01:44:08 PM  
 It sounds like they are trying hard to make a good gain...
 
2013-04-30 02:00:58 PM  
It's just a phase they're going through.  Must be on their period or something.
 
2013-04-30 02:03:17 PM  
Make sure their ALC and squelch are adjusted.  Might not hurt to check their SWR while they're at it.
 
2013-04-30 02:15:07 PM  
Tax transactions.
 
2013-04-30 03:05:37 PM  

Kuta: Tax transactions.


This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...
 
2013-04-30 03:19:33 PM  
Good.   Day trading is bullsh*t.   just a bunch of thugs trying to skim off the top when no one is looking.  buy something and then sell it seconds later?   what is wrong with that picture?
 
2013-04-30 03:21:08 PM  
day trading makes the market more unstable.  it hurts those who are actually doing real trading and investing in the market.

it should be against the law.  except, on the stock exchange, there is no law. only what you can get away with.
 
2013-04-30 03:56:22 PM  
Hell with this. Let them micro-trade as fast as they want. Just put a tenth-cent tax per transaction.
 
2013-04-30 04:01:06 PM  

liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...


The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.
 
2013-04-30 04:53:54 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.


Now list the disadvantages....
 
2013-04-30 06:40:33 PM  
Wow, it's almost as if the big firms want to make HFT illegal because they are afraid of losing their 99.999% share of the trading marketplace, and are just creating this bogeyman that "HFT equals teh debbil!!!" because it's easier than adapting and evolving.


Oh well.  I didn't think they'd ever be able to make online poker illegal, and then they went and attached that as a rider to a farm bill that passes on procedure every year.  So I fully expect HFT to be illegal within five years.
 
2013-04-30 06:48:38 PM  

Why Would I Read the Article: Wow, it's almost as if the big firms want to make HFT illegal because they are afraid of losing their 99.999% share of the trading marketplace, and are just creating this bogeyman that "HFT equals teh debbil!!!" because it's easier than adapting and evolving.


Oh well.  I didn't think they'd ever be able to make online poker illegal, and then they went and attached that as a rider to a farm bill that passes on procedure every year.  So I fully expect HFT to be illegal within five years.


Doesn't HFT give the big guys an advantage?
 
2013-04-30 06:54:05 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.


Um, how?
 
2013-04-30 07:09:03 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.


How does HFT do this?
 
2013-04-30 07:39:24 PM  

TyrantII: You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.

Now list the disadvantages....


I don't feel like that is a fruitful debate for this medium, there are clearly  in depth discussions to be had but if your solution is to tax transactions you are hurting the entire market when you could simply ban HFT.
 
2013-04-30 07:48:56 PM  

enemy of the state: You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.

Um, how?


Assuming you know the difference between flash trading and HFT, it should be fairly obvious by providing significant volume of activity near previous sale points they should lower the bid-ask spread.

There is legitimate debate about the real effect, but the two goals are increased liquidity and lower overall costs. If you tax trades you are hurting the whole market in these two respects rather than just banning it (or having other technical solutions)
 
2013-04-30 07:49:43 PM  
Meh, become a congressman and be the man!
 
2013-04-30 07:56:42 PM  

Brontes: You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.

How does HFT do this?


In theory (note the "theory" part) most HFT boxes post bids and offers into the market and wait for the market to come to their order as opposed to removing liquidity by executing at market.  Exchanges promote this with fee incentives.  More bid and orders = more liquidity.  In my experience HFT boxes tend to post more for their entry as opposed their exit.  Posting an order for an entry and exiting at market has a net 0 affect on liquidity but posting for both an entry and exit adds liquidity.

Also, this article is about EBS.  The spot currency market is exponentially larger than all stock and futures exchanges and is very different as there is no centralized exchange.  Hence, there is a lot more arbitrage going on as market participants trade between different ECNs.  I.E. A trader can post a bid on EBS and an offer on a different ECN like GAIN GTX to set up a hedged position and take advantage or price discrepancies.  Many currency ECNs have a requested minimum daily liquidity requirement and ask that you post X amount in volume to add liquidity to their platforms.
 
2013-04-30 08:06:39 PM  

efficientscheme: More bid and orders = more liquidity.


Stupid brain -> keyboard interface.  How does it work ?

More bids* and offers* = more liquidity.
 
2013-04-30 08:08:16 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.


because when the market goes into freefall over a hacked twitter account, what we need is "more liquidity"
 
2013-04-30 08:49:45 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: if your solution is to tax transactions you are hurting the entire market when you could simply ban HFT.


I'm okay with it. The most I will ever do is sell stocks once a year, and generally I don't sell at all for about 3 years running. Plus, eventually most of my income will be dividends, not stock sales.

/this goes after the short-term traders, not the ones who want to park their money and make a retirement of it
 
2013-04-30 09:37:36 PM  
Tax, one penny a trade, proceeds go to the SEC enforcement budget.

for the average invester, that's less than 5 bucks a year...
 
2013-04-30 10:56:01 PM  

dforkus: Tax, one penny a trade, proceeds go to the SEC enforcement budget.

for the average invester, that's less than 5 bucks a year...


A tenth of a penny would accomplish the same thing, and be less of a burden on normal investors.
 
2013-04-30 11:03:28 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.


Can you show that increased liquidity and lower market costs are actually good things? I mean, for the country as a whole, not just the investor class.

You're the jerk... jerk: If you tax trades you are hurting the whole market in these two respects rather than just banning it (or having other technical solutions)


If the tax is a tenth or a hundredth of a penny, it wouldn't hurt anybody but the people who are (in my opinion) abusing the system by trading multiple times per second. Again, in my opinion, the country would be better off if the vast majority of stocks were bought and held for an average of five or ten years. This would severely reduce the corporate culture of short-term gains over the long-term health of their companies. It would also push companies to focus a little more on dividends, providing disincentives to hoard cash.
 
2013-05-01 05:12:11 AM  

Man On Fire: because when the market goes into freefall over a hacked twitter account, what we need is "more liquidity"


ummmm...yeah. Duh!

/not to good at this whole econ thing are ya?
 
2013-05-01 05:13:48 AM  
"too good"
arggggh
 
2013-05-01 06:11:01 AM  

TopoGigo: If the tax is a tenth or a hundredth of a penny, it wouldn't hurt anybody but the people who are (in my opinion) abusing the system by trading multiple times per second. Again, in my opinion, the country would be better off if the vast majority of stocks were bought and held for an average of five or ten years. This would severely reduce the corporate culture of short-term gains over the long-term health of their companies. It would also push companies to focus a little more on dividends, providing disincentives to hoard cash


Once again, call me a dirty lib, but this is the kind of investment we should be encouraging.  Not hundreds of trades a day trying to take advantage of market flux and weaknesses.
 
2013-05-01 06:37:02 AM  

liam76: Not hundreds of trades a day trying to take advantage of market flux and weaknesses.


market flux and weaknesses IS BAD!
law of large numbers

Correct pricing requires large volumes of trades.

/provided that the dissimulation of important asymmetrical information regarding the commodity is transparent to all parties of a transaction.
 
2013-05-01 07:03:50 AM  

TopoGigo: Hell with this. Let them micro-trade as fast as they want. Just put a tenth-cent tax per transaction.


Which presumably would tend to make them leverage more and make bigger transactions to make the tax hit as small as possible. That seems like a bad idea.
 
2013-05-01 07:17:35 AM  
Despite all the valid concerns about HFT, I'm impressed at the technical capability.  It seems like they'd end up with a lot of phantom gains.
 
2013-05-01 09:03:19 AM  

Linux_Yes: Good.   Day trading is bullsh*t.   just a bunch of thugs trying to skim off the top when no one is looking.  buy something and then sell it seconds later?   what is wrong with that picture?


 The problem with this is that large institutions are the ones doing this, not regular people.
Large institutions have the resources to do this. They also have the capital to put in millions of
dollars in, for one pip or two, and then close. They minimize their exposure and get a nice payoff.
 
2013-05-01 09:36:41 AM  

mr lawson: liam76: Not hundreds of trades a day trying to take advantage of market flux and weaknesses.

market flux and weaknesses IS BAD!
law of large numbers
Correct pricing requires large volumes of trades.

/provided that the dissimulation of important asymmetrical information regarding the commodity is transparent to all parties of a transaction.


I don't think that is happening, is it?

And I realize market flux and weakness are bad but can't HFT contribute to market flux?
 
2013-05-01 10:01:15 AM  

TopoGigo: You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.

Can you show that increased liquidity and lower market costs are actually good things? I mean, for the country as a whole, not just the investor class.

You're the jerk... jerk: If you tax trades you are hurting the whole market in these two respects rather than just banning it (or having other technical solutions)

If the tax is a tenth or a hundredth of a penny, it wouldn't hurt anybody but the people who are (in my opinion) abusing the system by trading multiple times per second. Again, in my opinion, the country would be better off if the vast majority of stocks were bought and held for an average of five or ten years. This would severely reduce the corporate culture of short-term gains over the long-term health of their companies. It would also push companies to focus a little more on dividends, providing disincentives to hoard cash.


Increased liquidity and lower market costs mean that you are better able to save (for retirement or whatever you want) as you can get a price that is much closer to the actual value of the asset when you decide to exit it. If all we allowed were long term holdings, it would take a strange incidence of mutual coincidence of wants for you to actually sell any real volume of stock and not take a significant discount.

The volume of HFT as a percentage of overall volume has fallen recently to about 50%, over time I would expect this to continue. If that happens, any tax you levy will be paid primarily by those who are not HFTs
 
2013-05-01 11:01:37 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: TopoGigo: You're the jerk... jerk: liam76: Kuta: Tax transactions.

This seems like a no brainer to me.

When did I become a dirty lib...

The big advantage of allowing HFT is that it increases liquidity and lowers overall market costs, this will get rid of both advantages.

Can you show that increased liquidity and lower market costs are actually good things? I mean, for the country as a whole, not just the investor class.

You're the jerk... jerk: If you tax trades you are hurting the whole market in these two respects rather than just banning it (or having other technical solutions)

If the tax is a tenth or a hundredth of a penny, it wouldn't hurt anybody but the people who are (in my opinion) abusing the system by trading multiple times per second. Again, in my opinion, the country would be better off if the vast majority of stocks were bought and held for an average of five or ten years. This would severely reduce the corporate culture of short-term gains over the long-term health of their companies. It would also push companies to focus a little more on dividends, providing disincentives to hoard cash.

Increased liquidity and lower market costs mean that you are better able to save (for retirement or whatever you want) as you can get a price that is much closer to the actual value of the asset when you decide to exit it. If all we allowed were long term holdings, it would take a strange incidence of mutual coincidence of wants for you to actually sell any real volume of stock and not take a significant discount.

The volume of HFT as a percentage of overall volume has fallen recently to about 50%, over time I would expect this to continue. If that happens, any tax you levy will be paid primarily by those who are not HFTs


If the market were based more on long term holding, stock prices would be more accurate. We still pretend that the price of a stock is a function of profit, earnings, and dividends, right? Yes, that should be modified by what's in the news, but the current volatility based on speculation and the 24 hour news cycle benefits nobody but professional investors.
Again, I'm talking a fraction of a cent per transaction, not per individual stock. If you traded 1000 shares at a time, you'd pay .1 or .01 cent. It would only affect people who count on ultra-high frequency trades for fractions of pennies profit per trade, and they can suck it as far as I care.
 
2013-05-01 11:16:55 AM  
TopoGigo:
If the market were based more on long term holding, stock prices would be more accurate. We still pretend that the price of a stock is a function of profit, earnings, and dividends, right? Yes, that should be modified by what's in the news, but the current volatility based on speculation and the 24 hour news cycle benefits nobody but professional investors.
Again, I'm talking a fraction of a cent per transaction, not per individual stock. If you traded 1000 shares at a time, you'd pay .1 or .01 cent. It would only affect people who count on ultra-high frequency trades for fractions of pennies profit per trade, and they can suck it as far as I care.


There is already is a built in incentive for holding for greater than a year.
If you think that this only benefits professional investors, use them (mutual funds are easy and can have lower fees than trading on your own)

Your tax would impact small investors at a greater rate than larger investors.
 
2013-05-01 12:16:29 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: TopoGigo:
If the market were based more on long term holding, stock prices would be more accurate. We still pretend that the price of a stock is a function of profit, earnings, and dividends, right? Yes, that should be modified by what's in the news, but the current volatility based on speculation and the 24 hour news cycle benefits nobody but professional investors.
Again, I'm talking a fraction of a cent per transaction, not per individual stock. If you traded 1000 shares at a time, you'd pay .1 or .01 cent. It would only affect people who count on ultra-high frequency trades for fractions of pennies profit per trade, and they can suck it as far as I care.

There is already is a built in incentive for holding for greater than a year.


Really? How many stocks pay good dividends these days? How can you build up a retirement package like in the old days without at least monthly trading? I understand that the days of parking your money in Westinghouse and leaving it there for 50 years are gone, but how many people can make money trading at five and ten year intervals?

If you think that this only benefits professional investors, use them (mutual funds are easy and can have lower fees than trading on your own)

I consider it a personal rule that any time someone (or some company) offers to use my money to make me rich, I grab my wallet and run. Most mutual funds narrowly meet that definition for me. Granted, if I had a big retirement package, I'd probably put 20% in managed funds, 20% in basic index funds, 20% in long-term stock purchases, 30% in bonds, 5% in risky new companies, and 5% in metals, commodities, or some nonsense like that. That's at my age of 35. If I were younger, I'd be a little more risk-tolerant, but I'm not. If I were older, of course, I'd be even more conservative. (I've seen too many people I know lose most of their theoretical net worth three times over the last twenty years. And, because we're told we can't lose in the long term, they keep buying high and selling low.) As it is, I'm outside the world of office buildings, so my "retirement" is being pumped into my mortgage, and soon into a rental property or two. As soon as I can afford a real lawyer to shield my assets (and my asses) from disaster. Seeing as I'll get something from SS, and the wife has a defined benefit retirement that she's only likely to get screwed out of 30% of, I can be more non-traditional with my retirement.

Your tax would impact small investors at a greater rate than larger investors.

Somewhere, there's a disconnect here. I legitimately do not understand how you could say that. I'm not trolling you or being argumentative, I just literally don't see how you could think that. Small investors already pay exorbitant fees per trade to their broker or e*trade or whatever. Those who invest in managed mutual or index funds wouldn't be trading, and the fund they're in wouldn't be trading thousands of times per day,; maybe they trade dozens of times, or even hundreds of times, but at $.0001 per trade, there's really not much additional load imposed. A small fraction of a penny won't change anything. The only people who would be affected is those whose bottom line depends on the aggregation of tens of thousands of fractions of pennies multiple times per day. They don't help anyone but themselves and the telcom companies.
 
2013-05-01 12:54:05 PM  
HOW condenser.

/we should use the John Glens mic technique and send them into space
 
2013-05-01 03:28:24 PM  
*contender

/slashy
 
2013-05-01 04:22:50 PM  

TopoGigo: Really? How many stocks pay good dividends these days?


Depends on what you define as "good." Dividends for me are free money that are reinvested; most of the money I make is in growth, so as far as dividends go, I'm really just looking to beat inflation. CapitalOne360 has a cool little research tool where you can search for stocks based on their dividend yield.

How can you build up a retirement package like in the old days without at least monthly trading? I understand that the days of parking your money in Westinghouse and leaving it there for 50 years are gone, but how many people can make money trading at five and ten year intervals?

As if there's no middle ground? I don't sell stocks more than once a year, and most of my stocks I keep for more than one year, average right now seems to be about 3 years. Buying depends on when I can sock away $100, and then I wait for a correction day (today, for example, versus the last two days).

The thing is, there's a difference between investing in the stock market and investing in a company. When I invest, I have certain criteria the company has to pass before I'll invest in it. If all you are doing is throwing darts at a board, or listening to someone who gets paid to tell you what to buy, then yeah, I can see how you would be nervous about the holding the stock for a couple years. Figure out the story, and suddenly the company looks much more like a good long-term hold.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report