3 ms·

While I also agree that there are downsides to keeping the exchange constantly churning, I worry that it's hard to align the open moments with the times when ma

While I also agree that there are downsides to keeping the exchange constantly churning, I worry that it's hard to align the open moments with the times when market-shifting news arrives. We can't expect the Bhopal plant to explode just in the 15 minutes when Dow Chemical is active. Still, I agree that we need to think again about the focus on hyper liquidity. When I see high speed trading, I feel like it's just an endless competition to steal the bid-ask spread from the suckers who are actually trading.

pavlov 3y ago
> “I worry that it's hard to align the open moments with the times when market-shifting news arrives. We can't expect the Bhopal plant to explode just in the 15 minutes when Dow Chemical is active.” With the current system there’s only a 27% chance that global news arrives when the world’s most important market is open. It’s practically a completely arbitrary number. So it might be more fair to everyone to either reduce the number to a minimum, or expand it to as close to 100% as possible.
crazygringo 3y ago
But that's the whole point -- that most news doesn't happen during trading. That you have ample time to digest the news from overnight to trade in the morning, and ample time to digest the news from the day to trade at the end of the day. There's definitely importance for prices to change daily in response to news. I'm questioning any economic or societal need for prices to change by the second/minute, or even hour, in response to news. All it does is funnel some extra profits to professional traders who watch the markets and are subscribed to every news alert, and disadvantage everyone else who just stays on top of industry/market news like a normal person.