4 ms·

It's possible that popularist media such as (Lewis etc) have put forward alternative ideas on what the term means, but if we are to have meaningful discussion,

It's possible that popularist media such as (Lewis etc) have put forward alternative ideas on what the term means, but if we are to have meaningful discussion, we must agree on what we mean in the context of this discussion. Hence attempting to add a little clarity to discussion before it gets derailed. For the moment at least, wikipedia still mostly agrees with me (whatever that is worth) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running If you disagree with my (technical definition) then I challenge you to provide a sound definition from which we can work. I would suggest that simply processing and executing orders quickly on the basis of public information is not sufficient.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
I challenge you to provide a sound definition I'm certainly not up to that task. But I think that lay people are using the term more generally than you are. The Wiki you cite has multiple, expanded, definitions in the section titled "other uses of the term". For example: One common practice of high-frequency traders (HFT) is a form of front running, where they peer into various exchanges and try to detect orders as they propagate from a broker's order router. That's not front running by its traditional definition. But that's probably one way that Virtu makes money. The English language (or is it the American language?) is not static. Words change meaning all the time. E.g. take the word "gay". Once it meant happy, then it became a pejorative, and most recently it has been embraced by the LGBT community. That word sure has changed meanings over the years. Rather, it probably has retained all of those meanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay Edit: forgot to add this: I would suggest that simply processing and executing orders quickly on the basis of public information is not sufficient. Here's an example of using what should be non-public information. Various exchanges, who investors reasonably thought were working on behalf of investors, in the public interest, were instead working for HFTs (from whom they made the most money). Hence "flash" orders, where an exchange would take an order it received from the public and "flash" or show it to its HFT buddies.[1] I don't know if the SEC finally banned that. How did receipt of my order at an exchange turn into "public" information ahead of its execution? [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124940289965505053 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124940289965505053
- deadgrey19 11y ago
  The English language (or is it the American language?) is not static. Words change meaning all the time. Naturally, but in a technical discussion about the technicalities of trading technology, we must agree on the meaning, whatever that happens to be.
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    Yup. I see your point. We especially must agree if we're going to vilify people or claim they're breaking the law.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

I challenge you to provide a sound definition I'm certainly not up to that task. But I think that lay people are using the term more generally than you are. The Wiki you cite has multiple, expanded, definitions in the section titled "other uses of the term". For example: One common practice of high-frequency traders (HFT) is a form of front running, where they peer into various exchanges and try to detect orders as they propagate from a broker's order router. That's not front running by its traditional definition. But that's probably one way that Virtu makes money. The English language (or is it the American language?) is not static. Words change meaning all the time. E.g. take the word "gay". Once it meant happy, then it became a pejorative, and most recently it has been embraced by the LGBT community. That word sure has changed meanings over the years. Rather, it probably has retained all of those meanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay Edit: forgot to add this: I would suggest that simply processing and executing orders quickly on the basis of public information is not sufficient. Here's an example of using what should be non-public information. Various exchanges, who investors reasonably thought were working on behalf of investors, in the public interest, were instead working for HFTs (from whom they made the most money). Hence "flash" orders, where an exchange would take an order it received from the public and "flash" or show it to its HFT buddies.[1] I don't know if the SEC finally banned that. How did receipt of my order at an exchange turn into "public" information ahead of its execution? [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124940289965505053 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124940289965505053

deadgrey19 11y ago
The English language (or is it the American language?) is not static. Words change meaning all the time. Naturally, but in a technical discussion about the technicalities of trading technology, we must agree on the meaning, whatever that happens to be.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  Yup. I see your point. We especially must agree if we're going to vilify people or claim they're breaking the law.