High-Frequency Trading: A Practical Guide to Algorithmic Strategies and Trading Systems (Wiley Trading)

jslade · Post by **jslade** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:03 pm

FDAX: "Huh? Are we talking about the same one? The blonde lady? "

Well, she's no Cicero, but considering her competition is Wankmott, "oh noes, the HFTs are going to end civilization (erm, I mean, my recruiting and educational business)," and Taleb "oh noes, the sky is falling: look at how smart I am, oooo shiny thing" -she looks like a super genius in comparison. Also, she took the piss out of Joe Saluzzi reasonably well, in what was pretty much an impossible situation.

I don't think she knows anything. In fact, even though I'm borderline trading retarded, I am certain I could write a better book on HFT than she can, but I appreciate her channeling her vanity on television a lot more than I do those other douchebags. The thing is, even though I'd write a significantly less retarded book than hers is gonna be, I would never, ever want to be on television with those simpering dimwits. So, like, I appreciate her efforts in the same spirit I appreciate cops who roust bums.

tristanreid · Post by **tristanreid** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:48 pm

I actually did watch to the end (ok, while waiting for another call to get interesting, but still)

She never established why co-location is fundamentally different from front-running, she just said front-running is illegal so it shouldn't be happening, and co-location is a great thing for firms that have the skill-set to do it. Saluzzi never established why co-location is ethically wrong, he just stated that it was unfair to retail investors.

Given that better research can also be had for a fee, and that accounting and other operational costs have efficiencies of scale, what makes co-location ethically different? Or conversely, why is it different than front-running? And if it's not different, why is it any worse than the day that a guy overheard another guy in the pit and goes running out shouting louder?

I honestly am not informed enough to have much of an opinion, it just seems to me that this problem was invented, things weren't more fair before computers were involved, we just have higher standards now.

-t.

filthy · Post by **filthy** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:27 pm

"Or conversely, why is it different than front-running?"

as a wise member pointed out to me over tequilla, front running is wrong because it violates the responsibility of a broker to get his client the best price. front running someone else is different. i think that doing that is just good trading. you decide how much the opportunity is worth to you, then you pay the fees and fill out the forms and do it. just like in the old days you became an exchange member and then kept your eye on the goldman booth to see when they sent in a big order.

people seem to have a problem with certain market participants having an institutionalized edge. i don't, as long as access to that edge is open. ie you too can become a market maker or get a co-located server. if it is down to who your dad was then i do have a problem.

jslade · Post by **jslade** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:27 pm

TR: like Filthy said, front running is when your broker does it to you. It's unethical for the same reason insider trading is unethical. What Joe Saluzzi calls "front running" is also called, "providing liquidity." The irony of this is Joe does the exact same thing; he just does it badly, using technical analysis and gut instinct; therefore, the smarter HFT dudes are taking his lunch money. Miz Aldritch deftly pointed this out. It's unfortunate she wasn't able to convey why providing liquidity is a service which people pay money for, but like I said, the bar for "helpful" verus "barking asshole who is telling lies" is pretty low. Joe Saluzzi's argument seems to be, "I am a lazy shit who thinks he's entitled to make a living with stone knives and bearskins."

Pricing ahead of the market is just charging money for liquidity. I don't know why people have a problem with it. There was no organized agitation against the old market makers who got to charge $1/8 or more per share, and those guys were charging a lot more for liquidity than the sinister high frequency conspiracy. They were able to do that because they went to Andover or whatever. At least the HFT dudes earn their money. The fact that there are a half dozen HFTs all fighting over a tiny spread keeps liquidity cheaper than in the bad old days of 1/8th spreads.

What, you want your liquidity for free? Are you some kind of communist? Piss

Anyhow, that's how I see it. Just don't ask me to go on TeeVee to explain this to maroons.

tristanreid · Post by **tristanreid** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:30 pm

Thanks guys, that makes perfect sense to me, which means you could probably explain it on TV, at least if you were allowed to tase your fellow panelists.

Filthy, tequila-powered financial ethics sounds awesome. I think I get more out of learning financial ethics than other fields of inquiry, it makes the pieces fit together.

Thanks again,

-t.

jslade · Post by **jslade** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:05 pm

OK, maybe going on the Daily Show indicates she loves being on the TV a little too much.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/cash-cow---high-frequency-trading

mht · Post by **mht** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:32 pm

This title has not yet been released.

You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives.

Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

the thread looks like pre marketing?????????

${L_SMILIES_WINK}$

jaiman · Post by **jaiman** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:26 pm

Premarketing?? Go ph*ck yourself.

mht · Post by **mht** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:05 pm

hello jaiman,

I appreciate your eloquent reply. I can t find a table of contents at all, may be you'll be able to provide this?

Kind regards

Graeme · Post by **Graeme** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:19 pm

Dewd..... he made it pretty clear he isn't involved in the marketing of this book, so probably doesn't have all that wonderful spam available. Your request is even more bizarre than your first comment.