2 ms·
>My entire point is that HFT is valuable for reducing risk for this kind of work, you say "risk-averse" like it's a bad thing... Er.. One of the fundamental re
by ksk 13y ago
>My entire point is that HFT is valuable for reducing risk for this kind of work, you say "risk-averse" like it's a bad thing...
Er.. One of the fundamental reasons that HFT exists is increased market liquidity. Re-read what you wrote. You imply HFTs reduce risk and at the same time seem to accept that they are risk-averse - ergo unable to reduce risk as they shutdown when the markets risk profile increases. So which is it?
Oh and btw, since no humans trade securities at such a high frequency, The HFT trading that takes up such a sizeable portion of the total pie, is just an electronic game being played between two competing firms. So, even if they did reduce risk, it would not help human participants.
- gaius 13y agoYou are conflating market risk with counterparty/exchange risk there. Wikipaedia is your friend...
- ksk 13y agoOK, we're arguing two different things. My one and only point is HFTs shut-shop at the slightest sign of risk, leaving you to trade at massive losses - precisely because there are no HFT like counterparties ready to buy/sell inventory. IIUC Your position seems to be that HFTs amongst themselves can allow for an order execution strategy of breaking up the order into chunks to discount for the price change that occurs when you increase supply of a security while selling it. If that is your position then I withdraw my protest because I agree with it.