4 ms·

One of the major points of a round trip is that it creates volume. There are many technical investors that use volume as an indicator to negate risk. Adding noi

by kls 17y ago

One of the major points of a round trip is that it creates volume. There are many technical investors that use volume as an indicator to negate risk. Adding noise into the system muddies the water and offsets their calculated risk, sucking more money into they system. The point being that the round trip does not in it's self create the inflation but rather it draws other traders into the fray. As far as evil traders, I don't see how you cant blame the banks for their hand in this. In fact I am amazed at how blatant they have become in the mists of the collapse. I mean after they had pissed in the pool, they had the audacity to lobby for a bail out, right after they lobbied bush to change consumer bankruptcy laws so the consumer could not bail themselves out. It is funny the more and more news I hear of this sort Goldman Sachs always seems to be at the heart of it. I remember my grandfather always said, if trouble always follows you around you may want to reflect on where the source of trouble is coming from.

Tichy 17y ago
"they had the audacity to lobby for a bail out," It is their job to try to make as much money as possible. I find it more troublesome that they actually got the money - but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it. As for the technical investors: there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. If round trading is illegal, those companies should be punished. If it isn't, traders simply have to take it into account. I am sure it is not only happening in the oil industry.
- kls 17y ago
  >there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. >It is their job to try to make as much money as possible. It may be their job but to expect ethics from a company is not out of the norm. It is that attitude that has allowed corporations to become the unethical entities that they have become given they they are not a human entity allowing yourself to be the sacrificial sheep to them only allows them to victimize you more. If we go back to the founding fathers constructs of a corporation these are items that stick out as distinctly different that what we pimp as the norm for companies today: --Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm. --The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior. Through the years and lobbying, corporations have eroded these laws as well as others to amass the power to operate above impunity. To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself. They are directly responsible for payoffs and lobbying that allow them to violate your rights as well as victimize you. > but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it. They are the same people, have you seen who is running the fed and being placed as the CEO's of these bailed out entities. It reads like a whos who ove Goldman Sachs alumni. > I am sure it is not only happening in the oil industry. It is happening in gold right now.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. Wrong on both counts. The vast majority of stock trades occur because both parties think that they know something that the other party doesn't know. Neither party is acting unethically. In fact, such trades actually disclose information. I don't know everything relevant about Apple, but Apple's stock price, which I can know, tells me a lot about what other people know about Apple.
    - kls 17y ago
      > think that they know Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. Speculative information is completely different from material information that is unavailable to the general public. Using such to your advantage is not only unethical it is a crime in regulated markets.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Not really. I wrote "think" to account for the fact that they can't predict the effect of their knowledge even if it is accurate. (As money people say, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. For example, a lot of people lost money in the housing bubble despite accurately predicting it - they just didn't make good moves at the right time.) > Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. I understand a lot more about them than you do. For example, it's not illegal for Google to trade on its knowledge of a pending Google order with Rackspace. It's illegal for Google employees to do so only because that interferes with Google's biz relationships and misappropriates Google's knowledge. If I legally come across confidential information, I'm perfectly free to trade on it. There's only a problem if I steal the information.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical." Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. "Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm." You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. "To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself." I happen to believe that to strive for "winnings" is actually what stabilizes a complex system like the economy. How did they violate my rights - if they do so, naturally they should be punished. But it is the democratically elected government that creates the laws, not the corporations. If the laws are wrong, blame the government. But first also prove the companies are breaking the law before you universally accuse them of being the root of all evil.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
I'm not sure how adding volume to a dark pool will muddy the water - no one will see it. That's the point of a dark pool. I suspect the article is simply mischaracterizing a repo agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement
- nandemo 17y ago
  The article is all over the place, but at that point he's talking about trades that happen in an exchange, and therefore become public information. It's not about repos -- which tend to be both private and take at least one day to be closed -- it's about stuff like wash trades, which happen intraday and might actually influence the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wash_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wash_trade
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    A dark pool is an exchange which does not report most trades. The purpose is so that large institutional investors can buy large blocks of stocks without people attempting to cash in. When you place orders on a dark pool, they are either filled or not filled. You are not told about the trades of others. If a simultaneous buy/sell order is placed, nothing happens. But you are right that ICE doesn't appear to be a dark pool. I'm really not sure what the article is talking about.

by kls 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

"they had the audacity to lobby for a bail out," It is their job to try to make as much money as possible. I find it more troublesome that they actually got the money - but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it. As for the technical investors: there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. If round trading is illegal, those companies should be punished. If it isn't, traders simply have to take it into account. I am sure it is not only happening in the oil industry.

kls 17y ago
>there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. >It is their job to try to make as much money as possible. It may be their job but to expect ethics from a company is not out of the norm. It is that attitude that has allowed corporations to become the unethical entities that they have become given they they are not a human entity allowing yourself to be the sacrificial sheep to them only allows them to victimize you more. If we go back to the founding fathers constructs of a corporation these are items that stick out as distinctly different that what we pimp as the norm for companies today: --Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm. --The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior. Through the years and lobbying, corporations have eroded these laws as well as others to amass the power to operate above impunity. To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself. They are directly responsible for payoffs and lobbying that allow them to violate your rights as well as victimize you. > but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it. They are the same people, have you seen who is running the fed and being placed as the CEO's of these bailed out entities. It reads like a whos who ove Goldman Sachs alumni. > I am sure it is not only happening in the oil industry. It is happening in gold right now.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. Wrong on both counts. The vast majority of stock trades occur because both parties think that they know something that the other party doesn't know. Neither party is acting unethically. In fact, such trades actually disclose information. I don't know everything relevant about Apple, but Apple's stock price, which I can know, tells me a lot about what other people know about Apple.
  - kls 17y ago
    > think that they know Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. Speculative information is completely different from material information that is unavailable to the general public. Using such to your advantage is not only unethical it is a crime in regulated markets.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Not really. I wrote "think" to account for the fact that they can't predict the effect of their knowledge even if it is accurate. (As money people say, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. For example, a lot of people lost money in the housing bubble despite accurately predicting it - they just didn't make good moves at the right time.) > Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. I understand a lot more about them than you do. For example, it's not illegal for Google to trade on its knowledge of a pending Google order with Rackspace. It's illegal for Google employees to do so only because that interferes with Google's biz relationships and misappropriates Google's knowledge. If I legally come across confidential information, I'm perfectly free to trade on it. There's only a problem if I steal the information.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical." Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. "Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm." You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. "To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself." I happen to believe that to strive for "winnings" is actually what stabilizes a complex system like the economy. How did they violate my rights - if they do so, naturally they should be punished. But it is the democratically elected government that creates the laws, not the corporations. If the laws are wrong, blame the government. But first also prove the companies are breaking the law before you universally accuse them of being the root of all evil.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I'm not sure how adding volume to a dark pool will muddy the water - no one will see it. That's the point of a dark pool. I suspect the article is simply mischaracterizing a repo agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement

nandemo 17y ago
The article is all over the place, but at that point he's talking about trades that happen in an exchange, and therefore become public information. It's not about repos -- which tend to be both private and take at least one day to be closed -- it's about stuff like wash trades, which happen intraday and might actually influence the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wash_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wash_trade
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  A dark pool is an exchange which does not report most trades. The purpose is so that large institutional investors can buy large blocks of stocks without people attempting to cash in. When you place orders on a dark pool, they are either filled or not filled. You are not told about the trades of others. If a simultaneous buy/sell order is placed, nothing happens. But you are right that ICE doesn't appear to be a dark pool. I'm really not sure what the article is talking about.