141–150 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that. I am referring to you and I, the reader accepting the word of the anonymous source. Combined with the fact that they apparently did not ask for a comment from the NYSE before publishing this. Or if they did, they neglected to mention it.
We aren’t accepting the word of the anonymous source. We’re accepting Bloomberg’s word that the source is reliable.
I know the world is held together with duct tape, but it's embarrassing when you see the tape fall off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: If someone is smart and capable enough to work on tangible things like AI systems or self-driving cars, why should they choose the NYSE outside of pure monetary reasons or affinity for a “modern” tech stack?
You're not making it easy to get any answers, if you cut out 2 of the main reasons for people in general to change jobs.
It's easy to throw shade when Bloomberg writes an article that puts the blame on "a staffer". Having worked near some of these systems, the engineering and process are actually quite good. How many companies publish their private network topology, service p99.9 in microseconds, and detailed pricing on the open web? They're in a painfully competitive global market that's ambivalent to names on buildings. In a week or…
Serious question: If someone is smart and capable enough to work on tangible things like AI systems or self-driving cars, why should they choose the NYSE outside of pure monetary reasons or affinity for a “modern” tech stack?
illinois.edu has one of the top rated CS programs, but once you graduate there are not a lot of options but to move to one of the coasts, or move back/to Chicago and try your luck there. Second City has a good deal of fintech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why couldn’t have been Jim’s fault? The world is run by Jims.
As others have said, if Jim's fuckup can have such large consequences, then there should have been backstops for Jim who would have shared the blame. Nothing against Jim, it's just he's being used as a distraction to avoid talking about the real issues.
A lot of stocks have minute bar of wide range prices in the first few minutes of continuous trading. This seems like the incident in what caused Knight Capital fiasco, in which the system repeatedly buy on the ask and sell on the bid very fast, thus pushing the high price high and low price low. In the opening usually the market maker will be more weary of the risk they cannot hedge directly and thus will be less wil…
Doesn't each trade require both a buyer and a seller, who buy and sell at an agreed on price? Presumably both parties would be satisfied with the trade so it isn't clear to me what all the fuss is about.
Personally, I always do limit orders, but I would consider market on open/close as reasonable options. But I don't think this is typical, a lot of orders are market orders against whatever limit order is at the top of the book. Normally, that's ok, but it gets weird when things get weird, as seen here.
These "issue traced to staffer" stories sound like management cover up for management/system shortcomings to me. Systems with such significant potential impact, and in industries where lack of financial investment in their continuity is a deliberate choice have very little excuse to be passing the buck to grunts for basic process flaws that can be triggered by individual error.
Some updates are highly regimented, but a couple of the more operational teams have discretion to deploy things outside of that process, and most teams can flip feature toggles whenever they want.
Point is that sometimes people will comment, or even veto changes. We have a major customer visiting today, or the sales team is at a conference. Don’t touch anything or you might break something.
> That misled the exchange’s computers to treat the 9:30 a.m. opening bell as a continuation of trading, and so they skipped the day’s opening auctions that neatly set initial prices. I didn't even know about this process. I don't know much about trading, but it surprises me that there is a separate process for setting prices at the start of trading, and that if it's missed, chaotic prices result. Is this related to…
It's easy to throw shade when Bloomberg writes an article that puts the blame on "a staffer". Having worked near some of these systems, the engineering and process are actually quite good. How many companies publish their private network topology, service p99.9 in microseconds, and detailed pricing on the open web? They're in a painfully competitive global market that's ambivalent to names on buildings. In a week or…
It's easy to throw shade when Bloomberg writes an article that puts the blame on "a staffer". Having worked near some of these systems, the engineering and process are actually quite good. How many companies publish their private network topology, service p99.9 in microseconds, and detailed pricing on the open web? They're in a painfully competitive global market that's ambivalent to names on buildings. In a week or…
Serious question: If someone is smart and capable enough to work on tangible things like AI systems or self-driving cars, why should they choose the NYSE outside of pure monetary reasons or affinity for a “modern” tech stack?