4 ms·
> just getting the fiber to each exchange likely costs many many millions. I've never worked in US financial markets, but that's def not true in many countries
by pid-1 3y ago
> just getting the fiber to each exchange likely costs many many millions.
I've never worked in US financial markets, but that's def not true in many countries.
< 400 USD / month can set you a server + connection within a B3 datacenter (Brazil's largest and only exchange).
- fnordpiglet 3y agoWorse fiber is a terrible choice over what’s typically used in low latency trading (which is different than but related than high frequency) - typically microwave networks are used because you get good line of sight advantages and latencies are better. HRT, stryker, and others are heavily dependent on their microwave advantage.
- tonyarkles 3y agoJust to clarify this for people who don't know the EE details of this. Even direct point-to-point fiber suffers compared to microwave because of the velocity factor of the cables. What?! Inside a glass fiber, the speed of light is only about 70% the speed of light in free-space! Microwave in air, though, travels very very close to the free-space velocity of light.
- kasey_junk 3y agoI assume from the comment they mean from one exchange location to another, but even then it’s not true. Those routes are _overbuilt_ precisely because of HFT so getting on dark fiber for that is cheaper than other backhaul fiber. I’ve been out of HFT for a long time but when I was in it you could get onto the state of the art microwave networks between Chicago and the east coast for ~25k a month, which isn’t cheap but also not the biggest expense an HFT firm would have.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nonameiguess 3y agoI think some US firms may have dug tunnels beneath the Hudson river to be able to locate in Jersey City rather than Manhattan. That probably cost millions.
- hiatus 3y agoThey would probably use microwave vs tunneled fiber.