6 ms·
Certainly electronic trading. I've found this to be an excellent article deflating HFT benefit myths: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/4594.html http://www.nanex.net/
by justinjlynn 11y ago
Certainly electronic trading. I've found this to be an excellent article deflating HFT benefit myths: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/4594.html http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/4594.html
- MichaelGG 11y agoThe article is a bit suspicious. It talks about Thor, which timed orders to different exchanges so they'd arrive simultaneously. This is because a market maker would notice a large order on one exchange, and raise his price. This is totally and utterly expected - why should a market maker take undue risk? Increase the latency - suppose a user submitted a large buy order to Exchange1, waited an hour, then sent it to Exchange2. Is it not reasonable that the price would go up? So why is it suddenly so controversial when it happens on shorter timeframes? Why should RBC be able to make big trades and not have to deal with price impact? Why should market makers be left holding the bag? Now whether or not HFT adds more value seems debatable. But it seems to be a fairly harmless result that naturally arises.
- mrchicity 11y agoHFT has been around for a while longer than Reg NMS: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/01/17/smallb1.html http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/01/17/sma... describes an major player doing something that sounds similar to modern HFT in Jan 2005, presumably they'd been trading that way for a while.