3 ms·
While it looks like an interesting book, there's no content here.
by ojbyrne 17y ago
While it looks like an interesting book, there's no content here.
- xal 17y agoAlso stuff like this only works in simulations, the actual trading fees make this totally unpractical.
- Imprecate 17y agoLiquidity providers get paid to trade on most exchanges (maker-taker model). ETA: That's not to say this is a good book. It's not. I'd recommend Vidyamurthy's Pairs Trading and Harris's Trading and Exchanges, but there really aren't many good books on this style of trading--anyone who knows how to do it well has no incentive to write a book on it.
- jbooth 17y agoNot if you're a giant broker with servers co-located in the same DC with the actual exchange. The rest of us can go pound sand though.
- Imprecate 17y agoGiant broker = small privately held company? The biggest players in this game are not massive NYC investment banks.
- jbooth 17y agoWell.. the biggest player in the game is Goldman. But, you're right in that there are a bunch of small hedge funds that are operating in this market, too. Still doesn't make it very accessible for those of us without a boatload of money up front to get access.
- Imprecate 17y agohttp://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?ID=topliquidity http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?ID=topliquidity GS isn't even top-5 on NASDAQ. Professional trading was never cheap. The barrier to entry for becoming a high-frequency trading firm is much, much lower than becoming a NYSE specialist was a decade ago. You could co-locate there for a few million dollars, which is small money all things considered.
- joe-mccann 17y agoTop-5 in LIQUIDITY PROVIDERS, not necessarily the same as in programatiC/algo trading. Goldman tops the list and anyone that's traded on a prop desk knows how much influence they have on the domestic equities market: http://subprint.com/u/28 http://subprint.com/u/28