4 ms·

but you don't really give any specific counter points. if Flash Boys is dreadful, i would think you would have specific points to counter it

tptacek 11y ago
If there was a way you could have worded this comment without implying that Kasey was just making things up, it would have been a better comment. As it stands, I think you can take the time to use the search bar at the bottom of the page to find what he's written about the book on the site before.
- toddmatthews 11y ago
  in no way was i implying he was "making things up" but he has said that Flash Boys did a "bad job of explaining HFT" and on that website he links to it says its "dreadful". He also says he "answers this question so often" he made that site. but the site just lists books, but doesn't really answer any questions. Just pointing to other peoples books is not really answering a question. and i think if Flash Boys is "dreadful" he could point to a few concrete examples
Nimitz14 11y ago
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/michael-lewis-shilling-for-the-buyside/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/michael-lewis-... Quote: > I think this is the crux of this story: according to Michael Lewis and Katsuyama, we’re supposed to trust people like Einhorn who have been convicted of insider trading, people who are suspected of insider trading (buy side is by definition rife with this; particularly firms that do merger arb and special events), J.P. Morgan, Goldman and Morgan Stanley: we’re supposed to trust these guys more than we’re supposed to trust a bunch of tiny little market making firms who had been inconveniencing them by taking away some of their flow. Lewis tries to make this seem like a battle between the underdog “good guys” and the evil establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe that Goldman Sachs and people like Einhorn are underdogs, rather than the actual establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe the tiny industry of HFT traders actually rules the world and buys off congressmen and the SEC more than … J.P. Morgan and Goldman. [...] Yeah, I might believe that. I might believe that if I were a dribbling retard.
- toddmatthews 11y ago
  Still this is all just Ad-Hominem attack on the characters in Flash Boys and seems a bit over the top "Yeah, I might believe that. I might believe that if I were a dribbling retard." doesn't really answer why Flash Boys does such a terrible job of explaining HFT
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Yes, it does. You didn't read it carefully enough. The whole premise of the David and Goliath story Lewis wants to tell is that HFT is a device used by the Wall Street establishment to screw over the rest of the market. But in fact it's more the opposite: HFT firms are upstart prop trading and market making shops that are pissing off giant banks like Goldman and JPMC by making it harder for them to skim profits off block trades for pension and hedge funds. Also: the use of rhetoric like "dribbling retard" isn't what makes an argument "ad hominem". An ad hominem argument is one whose logic rests on a claim about its opponent and doesn't account for its opponent's argument. The logic behind the quote you're commenting on doesn't do that.
    - toddmatthews 11y ago
      i said that comment is a bit over the top. i was talking about "either Lewis is a credulous idiot who is not competent as a journalist, or Katsuyama is an idiot who was not competent as a trader" it seems Locklin's goal is to say Michael Lewis is an idiot, which is ad-hominem attack. The need to call him an idiot, combined with the "retard" comment is really not needed and doesn't add anything. i do appreciate your explanation for how the goal of Lewis's book is based on a fallacy
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You're missing an important piece of context. The argument being made here is about Katsuyama's complaint that the prices he'd see in his terminal would suddenly move away from him if he tried to trade large blocks of stock at that price. What makes Katsuyama sound incompetent is his apparent lack of understanding of the price pressure his own large block trades put on the market. Lewis makes Katsuyama out to sound as if he can reasonably expect that if FCOJ is quoted 29.78-29.80, he can sell 100,000 shares at the quoted price. Of course, not only can he not expect to do that, but the influence that large trade has on the market is the whole reason Katsuyama is paid by RBC to trade for its clients. Hence: either Lewis doesn't understand his subject well enough to report on it, or Katsuyama doesn't understand the basic function of his job. In any case: not an ad-hominem, sorry. There's a popular Internet fallacy that says any argument that uses insulting language must be an ad-hominem. Insults aren't usually productive, but they don't automatically produce flawed arguments.
kasey_junk 11y ago
I think that is a fair criticism. You can read my blog post to be "Flash Boys, Not So Fast is the rebuttal I would have written if I had the time and was a good writer". Maybe I should change the post to be more explicit about that.
- toddmatthews 11y ago
  Fair enough

tptacek 11y ago

If there was a way you could have worded this comment without implying that Kasey was just making things up, it would have been a better comment. As it stands, I think you can take the time to use the search bar at the bottom of the page to find what he's written about the book on the site before.

toddmatthews 11y ago
in no way was i implying he was "making things up" but he has said that Flash Boys did a "bad job of explaining HFT" and on that website he links to it says its "dreadful". He also says he "answers this question so often" he made that site. but the site just lists books, but doesn't really answer any questions. Just pointing to other peoples books is not really answering a question. and i think if Flash Boys is "dreadful" he could point to a few concrete examples

Nimitz14 11y ago

https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/michael-lewis-shilling-for-the-buyside/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/michael-lewis-... Quote: > I think this is the crux of this story: according to Michael Lewis and Katsuyama, we’re supposed to trust people like Einhorn who have been convicted of insider trading, people who are suspected of insider trading (buy side is by definition rife with this; particularly firms that do merger arb and special events), J.P. Morgan, Goldman and Morgan Stanley: we’re supposed to trust these guys more than we’re supposed to trust a bunch of tiny little market making firms who had been inconveniencing them by taking away some of their flow. Lewis tries to make this seem like a battle between the underdog “good guys” and the evil establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe that Goldman Sachs and people like Einhorn are underdogs, rather than the actual establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe the tiny industry of HFT traders actually rules the world and buys off congressmen and the SEC more than … J.P. Morgan and Goldman. [...] Yeah, I might believe that. I might believe that if I were a dribbling retard.

toddmatthews 11y ago
Still this is all just Ad-Hominem attack on the characters in Flash Boys and seems a bit over the top "Yeah, I might believe that. I might believe that if I were a dribbling retard." doesn't really answer why Flash Boys does such a terrible job of explaining HFT
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yes, it does. You didn't read it carefully enough. The whole premise of the David and Goliath story Lewis wants to tell is that HFT is a device used by the Wall Street establishment to screw over the rest of the market. But in fact it's more the opposite: HFT firms are upstart prop trading and market making shops that are pissing off giant banks like Goldman and JPMC by making it harder for them to skim profits off block trades for pension and hedge funds. Also: the use of rhetoric like "dribbling retard" isn't what makes an argument "ad hominem". An ad hominem argument is one whose logic rests on a claim about its opponent and doesn't account for its opponent's argument. The logic behind the quote you're commenting on doesn't do that.
  - toddmatthews 11y ago
    i said that comment is a bit over the top. i was talking about "either Lewis is a credulous idiot who is not competent as a journalist, or Katsuyama is an idiot who was not competent as a trader" it seems Locklin's goal is to say Michael Lewis is an idiot, which is ad-hominem attack. The need to call him an idiot, combined with the "retard" comment is really not needed and doesn't add anything. i do appreciate your explanation for how the goal of Lewis's book is based on a fallacy
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You're missing an important piece of context. The argument being made here is about Katsuyama's complaint that the prices he'd see in his terminal would suddenly move away from him if he tried to trade large blocks of stock at that price. What makes Katsuyama sound incompetent is his apparent lack of understanding of the price pressure his own large block trades put on the market. Lewis makes Katsuyama out to sound as if he can reasonably expect that if FCOJ is quoted 29.78-29.80, he can sell 100,000 shares at the quoted price. Of course, not only can he not expect to do that, but the influence that large trade has on the market is the whole reason Katsuyama is paid by RBC to trade for its clients. Hence: either Lewis doesn't understand his subject well enough to report on it, or Katsuyama doesn't understand the basic function of his job. In any case: not an ad-hominem, sorry. There's a popular Internet fallacy that says any argument that uses insulting language must be an ad-hominem. Insults aren't usually productive, but they don't automatically produce flawed arguments.

kasey_junk 11y ago

I think that is a fair criticism. You can read my blog post to be "Flash Boys, Not So Fast is the rebuttal I would have written if I had the time and was a good writer". Maybe I should change the post to be more explicit about that.

toddmatthews 11y ago
Fair enough