4 ms·
You are right, I responded to my interpretation. That being said, the trading desks on the buy side are, for the most part, not very sophisticated at all. They
by scrumper 12y ago
You are right, I responded to my interpretation.
That being said, the trading desks on the buy side are, for the most part, not very sophisticated at all. They are dealing with the same evaporating liquidity as the sell side, but they have far less ability to manage it. They are utterly reliant on the tools their brokers offer - tools which are generally very good (algos, and dark pools). In this case they are guilty of naivety perhaps, but it's nativity born of desperation. Barclays did directly say, "no predatory flow." At some point, even on the street, you have to believe direct statements made by your counter parties.
Later I'm enjoying this; I have to run to a meeting unfortunately. Sorry :)
- kasey_junk 12y agoThe idea that the buy side is less sophisticated than the sell side (or the new breed of participant the HFTs) is plain false. Their whole value proposition (how they justify that 2 & 20 they charge) is that they are sophisticated players in the market that can deal with these complexities. For instance, I've written HFT software for a buy side firm. To put this into prospective, there are single buy side firms that are bigger than the entire HFT market making industry.
- scrumper 12y ago2 & 20 is exclusively the preserve of hedge funds, an entirely different animal to large-scale institutional asset managers who make up the bulk of the buy side. There's no arguing with the sophistication of the portfolio management side of institutional AM's - these are smart, well-compensated people with excellent tools and first-class support from their own companies and the street's research. Once you get to the buy side trading desk - the people responsible for implementing the decisions of the PMs, and the people who are dealing with this rapidly-changing, fragmented market - things become different.