3 ms·
Good commentary from Matt Levine @ Bloomberg: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-29/high-speed-traders-avoid-low-speed-website http://www.bloombergv
by philrapo 12y ago
Good commentary from Matt Levine @ Bloomberg:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-29/high-speed-traders-avoid-low-speed-website http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-29/high-speed-...
"Is this bad? I mean, look, one: It doesn't matter at all. We'll get to that. But, two: Sure, it's bad! It's symbolically stupid. The point of the Form 4 is that the SEC wants everyone to know when corporate insiders buy or sell stock, so that all the little investors can compete on a level playing field. As a goal, this has its problems, but it's a goal. For the SEC itself to give this disclosure to the little investors after professionals get it is not a great look. "
...
"But when I say it doesn't matter at all, I mean, it does not matter at all. The idea here is that subscribing to a news service or data terminal gives "professional traders an edge over mom-and-pop investors." The article really says that. Now, this seems pretty obvious. Most of the time, professionals using professional tools will be better at doing things than amateurs using amateur tools. There are very few fields of human endeavor where professionals do not have an edge over moms and pops. But investing might come closest! You and your mom and your pop can just index! It is great, you will beat the majority of professional fund managers every year."
...
"if you are a mom-or-pop investor, and you are day-trading the stock of a $950 million specialty chemicals company based on your instant reaction to news that a non-executive director has bought $194,000 worth of stock,5 then you have already lost all your money. Nothing that I, or the SEC, or Eric Schneiderman, could ever do will help you. You are doomed."
- hackuser 12y agoThe SEC is a government agency. It should not be favoring some citizens over others, and the SEC should not be giving market advantages to those it regulates.
- knorby 12y agoThey don't favor anyone, they simply charge for an unbiased service that only traders with considerable other infrastructure investments would care about, and at the $1500/mo cost based on the WSJ being cited, it's nothing. They aren't even really delaying the release of the free information, they just don't care about the timing as much as some HFT traders. The only potentially injured parties here are cheapskate professional traders.