4 ms·

That doesn't really put Barclay's actions in a much better light. Is it any better to promise something impossible* and not deliver it than to promise something

That doesn't really put Barclay's actions in a much better light. Is it any better to promise something impossible* and not deliver it than to promise something possible and not deliver it? Either way you are engaging in fraud. *Although per footnote six it looks like at least some trading along those lines is possible and Liquidnet is in that business.

tptacek 12y ago
Nobody is trying to put Barclays in a better light! They did something bad. But that bad thing probably wasn't "selling out their dark pool to the HFTs".
OrwellianChild 12y ago
I have a hard time feeling bad for companies who choose to be "taken in" by a pitch like Barclays'. The complexity that exists in this small corner of the active financial markets defies simple explanation even by some of the most articulate translators of this sort of stuff (I'm talking about Michael Lewis, who wrote Flash Boys, which reads like an advertisement for IEX, one of the "dark pools" talked about here who has to let in HFTs to make markets). This level of complexity exists across all corners of the market, whether you're talking about derivatives contracts, shorts, HFTs, or any other niche. Working in this field is not like doing your taxes, where you can hire a professional accountant, and they'll reliably produce a close-to-optimal output given clearly stated IRS rules. It is also not like doing physics or math within bounded contexts with repeatable, testable, and measurable outputs. The closest thing I can think of to doing business in high finance is building a scalable, adaptable model of a human brain - one that can predict what you'll say or think before you do so. Anyone who presumes to know how the market moves, or promises to hedge against all risk, is just blowing smoke. If you're not ready to "read the fine print" in this industry, you're just putting yourself at risk.
smsm42 12y ago
Virtually every ad you see on TV promises something impossible (like scantly clad beautiful women instantly falling in love with you as soon as you consume particular product or you solving all your life's problem, becoming rich , healthy and content with your life by making one phone call). They can't all be crazy there - maybe there's a reason why promising something impossible and giving something possible works better than brutal uncompromising honesty of "if you use our product you probably won't smell as bad as you do now but otherwise your chances for attracting a mate and living a happy life wouldn't change much whether you buy it or not, and you probably are wasting money as there's much cheaper product that does exactly the same".
- lsc 12y ago
  Yes, truthful marketing is often less effective than deceptive marketing. I don't think that is a new or controversial point. I think that the issue at hand is that being effective does not make it ethical.

tptacek 12y ago

Nobody is trying to put Barclays in a better light! They did something bad. But that bad thing probably wasn't "selling out their dark pool to the HFTs".

OrwellianChild 12y ago

I have a hard time feeling bad for companies who choose to be "taken in" by a pitch like Barclays'. The complexity that exists in this small corner of the active financial markets defies simple explanation even by some of the most articulate translators of this sort of stuff (I'm talking about Michael Lewis, who wrote Flash Boys, which reads like an advertisement for IEX, one of the "dark pools" talked about here who has to let in HFTs to make markets). This level of complexity exists across all corners of the market, whether you're talking about derivatives contracts, shorts, HFTs, or any other niche. Working in this field is not like doing your taxes, where you can hire a professional accountant, and they'll reliably produce a close-to-optimal output given clearly stated IRS rules. It is also not like doing physics or math within bounded contexts with repeatable, testable, and measurable outputs. The closest thing I can think of to doing business in high finance is building a scalable, adaptable model of a human brain - one that can predict what you'll say or think before you do so. Anyone who presumes to know how the market moves, or promises to hedge against all risk, is just blowing smoke. If you're not ready to "read the fine print" in this industry, you're just putting yourself at risk.

smsm42 12y ago

Virtually every ad you see on TV promises something impossible (like scantly clad beautiful women instantly falling in love with you as soon as you consume particular product or you solving all your life's problem, becoming rich , healthy and content with your life by making one phone call). They can't all be crazy there - maybe there's a reason why promising something impossible and giving something possible works better than brutal uncompromising honesty of "if you use our product you probably won't smell as bad as you do now but otherwise your chances for attracting a mate and living a happy life wouldn't change much whether you buy it or not, and you probably are wasting money as there's much cheaper product that does exactly the same".

lsc 12y ago
Yes, truthful marketing is often less effective than deceptive marketing. I don't think that is a new or controversial point. I think that the issue at hand is that being effective does not make it ethical.