7 ms·

The few larger players who came out against it have done so only relatively recently, and in Goldman's case, only subsequent to being under investigation by the

The few larger players who came out against it have done so only relatively recently, and in Goldman's case, only subsequent to being under investigation by the AG for its own HFT practices.

kasey_junk 12y ago
This is simply untrue. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/02/us-highfrequency-idUSN173583920091202 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/02/us-highfrequency-i... A Senator quoted against high frequency trading at least 5 years ago. Principal Financial is also quoted.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  One Senator, huh?
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    Found in a 2 minute google search. Your position is false, that no one was against HFT until recently. Large participants have been actively against it for a very long time, further pointing out how incorrect your position is on regulatory capture. You have an ax to grind and an incomplete understanding of how the market and HFT work. It makes you look foolish.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >Found in a 2 minute google search. Your position is false, that no one was against HFT until recently. My position was that no large banks or hedge funds or other concentrations of political power were against it until relatively recently. Which is completely true. An individual senator is not capable of making vast changes to the law by themselves. Your belief that this IS possible is completely absurd. >You have an ax to grind and an incomplete understanding of how the market and HFT work. It makes you look foolish. Frankly I don't know how you're still defending barclays for selling an service promising freedom from HFT predators and then introducing HFT traders to it so they can collect additional fees. Your belief that these traders were dumb and did not know what they were buying and therefore deserved to be lied to by Barclays is beyond retarded. They knew exactly what they were doing. You do not.
      - kasey_junk 12y ago
        "My position was that no large banks or hedge funds or other concentrations of political power were against it until relatively recently. Which is completely true." I mentioned several giant hedge funds (orders of magnitude bigger than the entire HFT industry) that have been arguing against HFT for a very long time. Further, the first article I found on a 2 minute google search, mentions a large fund that was speaking out against HFT in 2009. This is as simple of proof as I can provide that your position that HFT is not opposed by large finance groups as untrue. "Frankly I don't know how you're still defending barclays for selling an service promising freedom from HFT " Not once in this whole thread have I defended Barclay's and trying to paint me with that brush is either a sign of extreme obtuseness or terrible rhetoric. What I argue is that the reason Barclay's needed to defraud their customers is that their claim (and all other dark pool's) claim that they could provide a better trading environment by excluding HFTs has been historically proven as false. Traders are not dumb, they move to the venues that provide them with the best trading environment and that has continued to be venues that allow market makers EVEN IN THE FACE OF FRAUD. No matter how many times you paint HFT as "predators" or "sharks" or as "spearing whales" you've yet to describe a single behavior attributed to HFTs that is in any way unethical or illegal. [edit: having to work around HN reply rules, I apologize] To the reply below about BlackRock. Do you really think it is a realistic comparison to compare BlackRocks recent profit (2013) to one of HFTs best year (2009)? At the very least you should have mentioned that it was different years. "Were this true, dark pools would not exist in the first place" Except that there are all manner of product offerings that don't make sense for their clients. The easiest analogy in this case is extended warranties. "If extended warranties were so bad why do so many people buy them?" Of course this is a ridiculous argument. People buy extended warranties to hedge risk that is over rated due to warranty salespersons. The exact same way dark pools are. " There is a link I posted below in response to you that describes such a strategy" It does no such thing. It hand waves a lot of semi-technical non specific jargon around an idea that is easy for people to get upset about. I could just as easily write an article about how multicast networks were dangerous. It wouldn't make it so.
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        >I mentioned several giant hedge funds (orders of magnitude bigger than the entire HFT industry) You mentioned Blackrock, whose net income last year was $3 billion. http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/trading-technology/the-real-story-of-trading-software-espionage/a/d-id/1262125 http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/trading-technology/the-real...? "TABB Group estimates that annual aggregate profits of low-latency arbitrage strategies exceed $21 billion, spread out among the few hundred firms that deploy them." >What I argue is that the reason Barclay's needed to defraud their customers is that their claim (and all other dark pool's) claim that they could provide a better trading environment by excluding HFTs has been historically proven as false. Were this true, dark pools would not exist in the first place. Traders would have stuck to the public exchanges and paid their (lower) fees. >No matter how many times you paint HFT as "predators" or "sharks" or as "spearing whales" you've yet to describe a single behavior attributed to HFTs that is in any way unethical or illegal. False. There is a link I posted below in response to you that describes such a strategy (spearing the whale) in precise detail.

The few larger players who came out against it have done so only relatively recently, and in Goldman's case, only subsequent to being under investigation by the AG for its own HFT practices.

kasey_junk 12y ago

This is simply untrue. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/02/us-highfrequency-idUSN173583920091202 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/02/us-highfrequency-i... A Senator quoted against high frequency trading at least 5 years ago. Principal Financial is also quoted.

crdoconnor 12y ago
One Senator, huh?
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  Found in a 2 minute google search. Your position is false, that no one was against HFT until recently. Large participants have been actively against it for a very long time, further pointing out how incorrect your position is on regulatory capture. You have an ax to grind and an incomplete understanding of how the market and HFT work. It makes you look foolish.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >Found in a 2 minute google search. Your position is false, that no one was against HFT until recently. My position was that no large banks or hedge funds or other concentrations of political power were against it until relatively recently. Which is completely true. An individual senator is not capable of making vast changes to the law by themselves. Your belief that this IS possible is completely absurd. >You have an ax to grind and an incomplete understanding of how the market and HFT work. It makes you look foolish. Frankly I don't know how you're still defending barclays for selling an service promising freedom from HFT predators and then introducing HFT traders to it so they can collect additional fees. Your belief that these traders were dumb and did not know what they were buying and therefore deserved to be lied to by Barclays is beyond retarded. They knew exactly what they were doing. You do not.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      "My position was that no large banks or hedge funds or other concentrations of political power were against it until relatively recently. Which is completely true." I mentioned several giant hedge funds (orders of magnitude bigger than the entire HFT industry) that have been arguing against HFT for a very long time. Further, the first article I found on a 2 minute google search, mentions a large fund that was speaking out against HFT in 2009. This is as simple of proof as I can provide that your position that HFT is not opposed by large finance groups as untrue. "Frankly I don't know how you're still defending barclays for selling an service promising freedom from HFT " Not once in this whole thread have I defended Barclay's and trying to paint me with that brush is either a sign of extreme obtuseness or terrible rhetoric. What I argue is that the reason Barclay's needed to defraud their customers is that their claim (and all other dark pool's) claim that they could provide a better trading environment by excluding HFTs has been historically proven as false. Traders are not dumb, they move to the venues that provide them with the best trading environment and that has continued to be venues that allow market makers EVEN IN THE FACE OF FRAUD. No matter how many times you paint HFT as "predators" or "sharks" or as "spearing whales" you've yet to describe a single behavior attributed to HFTs that is in any way unethical or illegal. [edit: having to work around HN reply rules, I apologize] To the reply below about BlackRock. Do you really think it is a realistic comparison to compare BlackRocks recent profit (2013) to one of HFTs best year (2009)? At the very least you should have mentioned that it was different years. "Were this true, dark pools would not exist in the first place" Except that there are all manner of product offerings that don't make sense for their clients. The easiest analogy in this case is extended warranties. "If extended warranties were so bad why do so many people buy them?" Of course this is a ridiculous argument. People buy extended warranties to hedge risk that is over rated due to warranty salespersons. The exact same way dark pools are. " There is a link I posted below in response to you that describes such a strategy" It does no such thing. It hand waves a lot of semi-technical non specific jargon around an idea that is easy for people to get upset about. I could just as easily write an article about how multicast networks were dangerous. It wouldn't make it so.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        >I mentioned several giant hedge funds (orders of magnitude bigger than the entire HFT industry) You mentioned Blackrock, whose net income last year was $3 billion. http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/trading-technology/the-real-story-of-trading-software-espionage/a/d-id/1262125 http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/trading-technology/the-real...? "TABB Group estimates that annual aggregate profits of low-latency arbitrage strategies exceed $21 billion, spread out among the few hundred firms that deploy them." >What I argue is that the reason Barclay's needed to defraud their customers is that their claim (and all other dark pool's) claim that they could provide a better trading environment by excluding HFTs has been historically proven as false. Were this true, dark pools would not exist in the first place. Traders would have stuck to the public exchanges and paid their (lower) fees. >No matter how many times you paint HFT as "predators" or "sharks" or as "spearing whales" you've yet to describe a single behavior attributed to HFTs that is in any way unethical or illegal. False. There is a link I posted below in response to you that describes such a strategy (spearing the whale) in precise detail.