3 ms·

I haven't read the paper, but I would guess that the one-second-worth of orders in each batch are secret until the batch executes

sseveran 13y ago
Doesn't matter. There is still the incentive for low latency.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  A much smaller and less exploitable incentive. A few milliseconds of info from other news sources is not abusive as far as I know. Unlike the ability to react to pending trades before they happen.
  - sseveran 13y ago
    You are obviously not involved in the trading. A few milliseconds definitely matters. And how would you react to a "pending" trade before it happens?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - omonra 13y ago
      I think you are conflating two types of information that can be taken advantage of: 1) Information about other orders coming into the system 2) Information about world events that may affect stock prices The whole point of HFT is extracting maximum information from (1) and using it to make money (supposedly from slower market participants). That is what batch auctions would remove. Nobody minds if people make money from the second type of information - but it is many orders of magnitude less frequent (ie how many times a day are there economic releases or earnings posted)?
      - randomfool 13y ago
        Then why are people investing massive amounts of money to shave milliseconds in communication times between trading markets (London, Tokyo, NY, Chicago)? They are all attempting to gain an edge on correlated inter market differences.
        saalweachter 13y ago
        That only matters because both exchanges have the same problem. I think it is definitely true that if both exchanges ran on a synchronized 1 second schedule the advantage would go away, because the information from the previous round would be uniformly available early in the next. It is less clear to me whether fixing just one exchange fixes both or neither.
        omonra 13y ago
        The ONLY reason HFT companies invest money to shave milliseconds is to have quicker access to orders that come into the system (this article elaborates: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/09/20/collocation-the-root-of-all-high-frequency-trading-evil/ http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/09/20/collocation-the-r...) It absolutely has nothing to do with reacting to real-world events. So if all activity were to take place at 1 second intervals (kind of like microprocessor clock) - their main advantage would go away.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

sseveran 13y ago

Doesn't matter. There is still the incentive for low latency.

Dylan16807 13y ago
A much smaller and less exploitable incentive. A few milliseconds of info from other news sources is not abusive as far as I know. Unlike the ability to react to pending trades before they happen.
- sseveran 13y ago
  You are obviously not involved in the trading. A few milliseconds definitely matters. And how would you react to a "pending" trade before it happens?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - omonra 13y ago
    I think you are conflating two types of information that can be taken advantage of: 1) Information about other orders coming into the system 2) Information about world events that may affect stock prices The whole point of HFT is extracting maximum information from (1) and using it to make money (supposedly from slower market participants). That is what batch auctions would remove. Nobody minds if people make money from the second type of information - but it is many orders of magnitude less frequent (ie how many times a day are there economic releases or earnings posted)?
    - randomfool 13y ago
      Then why are people investing massive amounts of money to shave milliseconds in communication times between trading markets (London, Tokyo, NY, Chicago)? They are all attempting to gain an edge on correlated inter market differences.
      - saalweachter 13y ago
        That only matters because both exchanges have the same problem. I think it is definitely true that if both exchanges ran on a synchronized 1 second schedule the advantage would go away, because the information from the previous round would be uniformly available early in the next. It is less clear to me whether fixing just one exchange fixes both or neither.
      - omonra 13y ago
        The ONLY reason HFT companies invest money to shave milliseconds is to have quicker access to orders that come into the system (this article elaborates: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/09/20/collocation-the-root-of-all-high-frequency-trading-evil/ http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/09/20/collocation-the-r...) It absolutely has nothing to do with reacting to real-world events. So if all activity were to take place at 1 second intervals (kind of like microprocessor clock) - their main advantage would go away.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]