3 ms·

That wasn't my point. Countering HFT with "well you can still pick stocks the old-fashioned way!" is borderline moronic. Over 95% of trade volume is HFT; retail

That wasn't my point. Countering HFT with "well you can still pick stocks the old-fashioned way!" is borderline moronic. Over 95% of trade volume is HFT; retail investors can't compete. I think HFT is ridiculous and the epitome of capitalism. If you outlaw'd it, a new form of lightning fast arbitrage would arrive. My point was that if you call apple increasing over the course of 1 year, you might double your money if you're lucky. It's much more likely that the HFT operators will outperform you, as they have over the past decade.

twoodfin 13y ago
Over 95% of trade volume is HFT; retail investors can't compete. Why do they need to? Winning isn't getting more trades in, winning is making money! According to the Times[1], HFT firms' profit topped out at less than $5B in 2009. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, peanuts. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/business/with-profits-dropping-high-speed-trading-cools-down.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/business/with-profits-drop...
aeturnum 13y ago
>My point was that if you call apple increasing over the course of 1 year, you might double your money if you're lucky. It's much more likely that the HFT operators will outperform you, as they have over the past decade. These results don't seem related at all. You buy stock at price A and sell and price B (B = A+X, hopefully). What does it matter to you that other parties made money (perhaps more than X) while the stock was going to B? Institutional investors have always been more savvy about the market than retail ones. I don't see how them making money around the edges changes the calculus for "the rest of us."