5 ms·

Sorry, but rules need to scale. What is acceptable for a small trader can not always be acceptable for a massive Corp.

hueving 9y ago
Your statement is backwards though. The massive corp is being granted much more leeway for acceptable behavior than that of a small trader.
- wastedhours 9y ago
  Not so much leeways as "huge company has a massive amount of context to use as evidence this was out of the ordinary". A smaller trader has proportionally less history in the market to use as a evidence something is wrong and the rollback rules should apply.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    You're not contradicting the objection, you're just outlining another mechanic by which it happens. "The New England Patriots reached ten Super Bowls, therefore the foot out of bounds just before scoring a touchdown was clearly a mistake and out of the ordinary. Therefore, award the Patriots the point, on the grounds that they usually don't make mistakes like that. And don't check the pressure in the football please, there have been ten Super Bowls where that wasn't apparently a problem…" (I wonder who I'm insulting more, the Pats or Goldman Sachs :D )
    - wastedhours 9y ago
      Loving the analogy :D but (and excuse my ignorance), but in NFL those rules don't allow that, where as it appears the markets do have these mechanisms to allow it?
      - hueving 9y ago
        They do allow it, but that's precisely what people are complaining is unfair. They are literally too big to follow the same rules as the small traders.
jfoutz 9y ago
Yes, and that's a good scaling rule. the person with $50 dollars is likely clueless and stumbling around trying to figure out what the rules are. The person with $50 billion can do serious damage when they screw up. The rules in place are exactly backwards. the $50 dollar team is held to a high standard, with no affordances. the $50 billion dollar team is part of the club, so enforcers look the other way when they screw up.
- enervate 9y ago
  but a $50 trade has a much smaller effect on everyone than a $50 billion trade
  - TheAlchemist 9y ago
    For instance, the effect was that Goldman lost money, while some other guys made money - what's the harm here ? Moreover, the trade being busted, the guy that initially made the money, probably found himself in a very uncomfortable position, since chances are he already covered his risk and hedged the lucky trades. So overall, he lost money just because Goldman was able to force the rules in their favor. Unfortunately, markets are rigged, just as most things -> the bigger you are, the more influence on the rules and how they are applied you have.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      If the little guy makes a mistake Goldman will happily take the money. If they make a mistake the rules need to be changed. This simply is not right.
- matte_black 9y ago
  It is not backwards at all. Corporations are made up of a ton of people, there's no one person you can lay blame on. Some guy fucks up and costs a firm half a bil with a computer error, that's not something you want to just allow to happen. A dude losing $50? Give me a break, his risk is his own. Consider his $50 a small price to pay for learning how things work. And let me remind you, it is a very small price.

Your statement is backwards though. The massive corp is being granted much more leeway for acceptable behavior than that of a small trader.

wastedhours 9y ago
Not so much leeways as "huge company has a massive amount of context to use as evidence this was out of the ordinary". A smaller trader has proportionally less history in the market to use as a evidence something is wrong and the rollback rules should apply.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  You're not contradicting the objection, you're just outlining another mechanic by which it happens. "The New England Patriots reached ten Super Bowls, therefore the foot out of bounds just before scoring a touchdown was clearly a mistake and out of the ordinary. Therefore, award the Patriots the point, on the grounds that they usually don't make mistakes like that. And don't check the pressure in the football please, there have been ten Super Bowls where that wasn't apparently a problem…" (I wonder who I'm insulting more, the Pats or Goldman Sachs :D )
  - wastedhours 9y ago
    Loving the analogy :D but (and excuse my ignorance), but in NFL those rules don't allow that, where as it appears the markets do have these mechanisms to allow it?
    - hueving 9y ago
      They do allow it, but that's precisely what people are complaining is unfair. They are literally too big to follow the same rules as the small traders.

jfoutz 9y ago

Yes, and that's a good scaling rule. the person with $50 dollars is likely clueless and stumbling around trying to figure out what the rules are. The person with $50 billion can do serious damage when they screw up. The rules in place are exactly backwards. the $50 dollar team is held to a high standard, with no affordances. the $50 billion dollar team is part of the club, so enforcers look the other way when they screw up.

enervate 9y ago
but a $50 trade has a much smaller effect on everyone than a $50 billion trade
- TheAlchemist 9y ago
  For instance, the effect was that Goldman lost money, while some other guys made money - what's the harm here ? Moreover, the trade being busted, the guy that initially made the money, probably found himself in a very uncomfortable position, since chances are he already covered his risk and hedged the lucky trades. So overall, he lost money just because Goldman was able to force the rules in their favor. Unfortunately, markets are rigged, just as most things -> the bigger you are, the more influence on the rules and how they are applied you have.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    If the little guy makes a mistake Goldman will happily take the money. If they make a mistake the rules need to be changed. This simply is not right.
matte_black 9y ago
It is not backwards at all. Corporations are made up of a ton of people, there's no one person you can lay blame on. Some guy fucks up and costs a firm half a bil with a computer error, that's not something you want to just allow to happen. A dude losing $50? Give me a break, his risk is his own. Consider his $50 a small price to pay for learning how things work. And let me remind you, it is a very small price.