5 ms·
Or we can just ban anything insufficiently transparent and be done with it. After all, the point of a market transaction for pricing is its ability to convey t
by eli_gottlieb 9y ago
Or we can just ban anything insufficiently transparent and be done with it. After all, the point of a market transaction for pricing is its ability to convey transparent, accurate information to other market participants -- right?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> After all, the point of a market transaction for pricing is its ability to convey transparent, accurate information to other market participants Arguably, the transparency for pricing that matters is only the final trade price, but I'd argue, in any case, that providing liquidity and actually pricing trades that occur is the more important function of markets, not providing pricing information. OTOH, transparent pricing information brings some participants to the market, which increases liquidity; conversely, though, so does providing various dark trading vehicles. So, in the liquidity-focussed view, there is a trade-off and a balance to be struck.
- rosser 9y agoIn theory, sure. How's that working out for us? EDIT: Meta, I will never tire of hearing people be all, "But markets!" as if they aren't just as corruptible as any other human institution — if not more so.
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoWell, I agree that it's not working out very ideally for us. This is why I think all those hyper-complicated trades don't necessarily have much real economic value, and banning them is unlikely to be very harmful.
- Brockenstein 9y ago"But but the regulations impeding economic growth... "