4 ms·

Because of course "real investment" is saintly like the Dalai Lama, and is certainly not looking for a profit.

pasbesoin 13y ago
I take your point, and I didn't downvote you. From my perspective, there is an important difference between taking a position in / with respect to a product (or its organization) and taking a position for the position's sake. Perhaps it is something of a continuum, not a strict either/or. If so, I find that currently we've gone too far towards the latter. I'm also concerned that current constructs exhibit chaotic tendencies that put real people and essential systems at risk. I view stepped trading intervals as a potential damper to some of these negative and out-of-control tendencies. Ultimately, I view investment as backing and furthering production. And I don't see how micro-second based investment appreciatively, substantially furthers this. P.S. Admittedly, it has been an important factor in pushing computer and network systems development, which may well have had knock-on effects. E.g. is one substantially aiding the other, or the other way around: Trading versus CERN data processing and distribution?
- theorique 13y ago
  My comment was a bit snippy. Not intended to be rude (but perhaps pointed). I suppose I get concerned when I see forces applying moral judgment to investment techniques and timescales (as distinct from companies actions, where I think it's easier to judge - e.g. not wanting to invest in tobacco, for example). The long term investor is not necessarily more moral than the short term investor, though he may be. But part of the long-term investor's confidence in his investment emerges from the fact that he can exit his investment if he judges that long term trends make it less valuable to hold it. That liquidity is, in large part, created by the churn of short-term speculators operating in the zero-sum game of the short term. Spare no tears for the short term-speculators - they operate in a tough game, and the ones who actually thrive and stay around for the long haul do provide a valuable service - reduced trading costs, narrowed bid-ask spreads, and faster order execution as a commodity. Similarly, products such as ETFs (held by millions of small investors and 401(k) accounts) owe their existence to the ability to rapidly rebalance portfolios in response to changing prices of the underlying products that the ETFs are trying to replicate. Prohibiting rapid trading eliminates the possibility of the various affordable products that track indexes, commodities, sectors, and so forth.

I take your point, and I didn't downvote you. From my perspective, there is an important difference between taking a position in / with respect to a product (or its organization) and taking a position for the position's sake. Perhaps it is something of a continuum, not a strict either/or. If so, I find that currently we've gone too far towards the latter. I'm also concerned that current constructs exhibit chaotic tendencies that put real people and essential systems at risk. I view stepped trading intervals as a potential damper to some of these negative and out-of-control tendencies. Ultimately, I view investment as backing and furthering production. And I don't see how micro-second based investment appreciatively, substantially furthers this. P.S. Admittedly, it has been an important factor in pushing computer and network systems development, which may well have had knock-on effects. E.g. is one substantially aiding the other, or the other way around: Trading versus CERN data processing and distribution?

theorique 13y ago
My comment was a bit snippy. Not intended to be rude (but perhaps pointed). I suppose I get concerned when I see forces applying moral judgment to investment techniques and timescales (as distinct from companies actions, where I think it's easier to judge - e.g. not wanting to invest in tobacco, for example). The long term investor is not necessarily more moral than the short term investor, though he may be. But part of the long-term investor's confidence in his investment emerges from the fact that he can exit his investment if he judges that long term trends make it less valuable to hold it. That liquidity is, in large part, created by the churn of short-term speculators operating in the zero-sum game of the short term. Spare no tears for the short term-speculators - they operate in a tough game, and the ones who actually thrive and stay around for the long haul do provide a valuable service - reduced trading costs, narrowed bid-ask spreads, and faster order execution as a commodity. Similarly, products such as ETFs (held by millions of small investors and 401(k) accounts) owe their existence to the ability to rapidly rebalance portfolios in response to changing prices of the underlying products that the ETFs are trying to replicate. Prohibiting rapid trading eliminates the possibility of the various affordable products that track indexes, commodities, sectors, and so forth.