3 ms·
I don't think it's that good of an idea. If the allocation is random, participants will counter by sending in more orders than they want, to increase their chan
by harmegido 11y ago
I don't think it's that good of an idea. If the allocation is random, participants will counter by sending in more orders than they want, to increase their chance of getting a fill. The microstructure will look similar to a market with a pro-rata matching algo. This article has a good discussion of some of the downsides of pro-rata http://www.advantagefutures.com/is-pro-rata-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/ http://www.advantagefutures.com/is-pro-rata-an-accident-wait....
But it's unclear to me how the random component would work that you all are talking about. Is my resting order subject to a random cancel delay as well? If it's not, then we still have a requirement for speed, as cancelling soon-to-be bad orders is arguably more important than placing soon-to-be good aggressive orders. And if it is subject to a delay, spreads are going to be MUCH wider, losing individual investors more money than they currently are to the current system.
- msellout 11y agoThe way I imagined the randomness aspect is the same way it's handled now for two orders received at the same time according to the machine's precision of time perception. Unfortunately, a loss of efficiency (increased spreads) is the price we will pay for less frequent crashes/spikes.