Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#191

Post by dheera »

nairboon wrote: post #134
dheera wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Polygon real-time market data subscription and everything comes real time except for darkpools. From the customer service bot: "Yes, other trades are generally reported faster than dark pool trades on our WebSocket. We stream market data in real-time as we receive it, with most trades being reported very quickly. For US stocks, the average latency for trades and quotes is less than 20ms. However, dark pool t…

Are you using Polygon real-time data for individuals? I suspect if you're after more fine graded data you'd be looking for a data provider for "professionals". There are usually different offerings, one for personal use and one for business use ("professional subscriber"), but these market feeds are quite expensive.

I see. I have the "Stocks Advanced" real-time data for individuals feed. I didn't realize the "professional" real time feed isn't the same feed.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#192

Post by dheera »

malthaus wrote: post #138
dheera wrote: post #5

I've been wading through terabytes of financial data over the past month. (I'm an ML/AI software engineer trying to create a trading bot that makes me more consistent income during times of uncertainty that are outside my control.) This is some of the data I'm looking at. NVDA price on a particular day vs. average position of trades in bid ask spread aggregated over 10 seconds, on all the exchanges it is being traded…

why do you think you will be able to generate "consistent income" with a trading bot in a field that is highly scrutinized by some of the best talents in the world with access to better & faster data and backed by a mountain of capital?

A lot of people say this, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. If you think you can't do it because there are "better people already doing it", or because academics say the markets are efficient and therefore you shouldn't try -- you will never succeed at anything.

- I really don't think they have the best talents in the world. The last place I'd want to work is a finance company. That's true of most AI/ML engineers I know. Therefore I think the best AI/ML talent is outside, not inside.

- HFT and speed isn't the game I'm playing. HFT firms that trade with FPGAs colocated with the exchange are also cursed by their own working business model and they aren't usually interested in minute-scale AI/ML trades

- Not counting speed, I can get most of their data, you can just pay for it. You just need to work out whether you can make more $ than the cost of the data. I suspect it's possible.

- Being backed by a mountain of capital means you take less risks, and you hedge volatility to please your clients, often at higher prices than efficient. Nobody would $100 million would risk 20% of it to make 100% gains. I'm happy to risk 20% of my net worth to double my money though. Big difference

- The market is filled with price action traders that amplify volatility in surprisingly predictable ways. Markets drift quite predictably to Trump policies over hours, not milliseconds. It doesn't take an idiot to realize that markets are headed down if he announces more tariffs.

- I suspect there are lots of $1000-per-trade opportunities in corners of the market that the big players do not take because they go after bigger fish, and increasing the volume on those trades would result in moving the prices and the strategy not working. For me though, $1000 a day is meaningful. That's enough to replace a dayjob.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#193

Post by _bin_ »

autoexec wrote: post #142
_bin_ wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's more like because governments have started to try to assign criminal liability to seniormost execs, not just to the people responsible. this is a response to the wink-and-nod cases that do exist but glaringly fails to account for the complexity and scope of large financial institutions and the fact that the guy at the top can't always supervise everything personally. i don't know who you're talking to but no, it…

> it's more like because governments have started to try to assign criminal liability to seniormost execs, not just to the people responsible. seniormost execs exist to be the people who are responsible. They get the big bucks because they're supposed to be accountable for everything that goes on under their watch. If they don't want the liability, or can't actually supervise sufficiently to prevent crime, then they…

BS. they exist to accept some level of responsibility but it's impossible to make them anything except scapegoats in orgs of a certain scale. if you disagree, you are either misinformed or simply hate them and want an excuse to jail them.

do you know how many managing directors JPMC has? this is just one bank and we're talking about a very senior position, half-a-million-a-year base salary sort of seinor. they have around 1,600. it is impossible for one person to manually oversee even what's a pretty high-level position with many direct and indirect reports. impossible to manage this without trusting subordinates.

it sounds like you are motivated more by schadenfreude or malice towards these people because of "paychecks and golden parachutes". this isn't a good-faith position or a reasonable policy.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#194

Post by _bin_ »

reverendsteveii wrote: post #186
_bin_ wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's more like because governments have started to try to assign criminal liability to seniormost execs, not just to the people responsible. this is a response to the wink-and-nod cases that do exist but glaringly fails to account for the complexity and scope of large financial institutions and the fact that the guy at the top can't always supervise everything personally. i don't know who you're talking to but no, it…

top executives are responsible when the company makes a profit. maybe they should be responsible when the company commits a crime. if they can't be responsible when the company commits a crime, how do they justify being primarily responsible when the company does well?

they are responsible when a company makes a profit or a loss. that's a pretty fair trade-off. the core difference is you can't attribute a profit or loss solely to one person, not hardly ever. you can, however, attribute criminal activity to a certain number of people, because it's very tightly defined. you can't just calculate the EV of every action the same way.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#195

Post by tester756 »

chii wrote: post #126
tester756 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me stock market should be about transparency of trades. Of course small trades aren't relevant, but big ones should be visible.

i thought these "dark pools" are visible _after_ their trades have completed. The information about someone _wanting_ to buy or sell a large amount, is hidden via the dark pool, so that this order doesn't make the public markets move.

Oh, I thought they arent

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#196

Post by thescriptkiddie »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #115
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't that illegal?

No? It seems to be quite common. What's your reason to think that it might be illegal?

How are any of the regulations that govern trading enforced if a trade is not done on an exchange or otherwise publicly disclosed?

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#197

Post by chipsrafferty »

chii wrote: post #123
throwaway2037 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree: They are called block trades in equities. Also, another benefit of a dark pool is that you can pay to control who you trade with. On the primary exchange, it is dog-eat-dog. This is why long-only asset managers prefer block trades for supersize trades, and dark pools for smaller trades. To me, the practice of paying for (non-toxic retail) flow is way more suspicious than dark pools. This is how Robin Hood can…

> to another firm that can front run it. to be legal, the broker selling your order flow must give the price you're supposed to have gotten to be at or lower than the best price from the market. I dont get how front running could work under this legal rule.

People do illegal things all the time, especially in finance. If the penalty is less than the profit, everyone does crime.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#198

Post by chipsrafferty »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #10

It is not clear to me what nefarious things people believe are going on there that we should be worried about. All the article says is that people are doing things we don't know about, but implies that somehow we should feel not-okay about this. I don't know what's going on in my neighbor's house either, and it could certainly be bad stuff, but that's doesn't mean that it is bad or that I should start spying on them.

It is perfectly natural to distrust anything you don't know about

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#199

Post by chipsrafferty »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #107
lmm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public, lit markets are a public good that lifts all boats. If people are feeling the need to move away from them that doesn't mean those individuals are up to no good, but it's a bad sign for the health of the system.

> Public, lit markets are a public good that lifts all boats To a point. The benefits of millisecond-grain transparency really stretches my credulity. Let people trade. Make them report it in a reasonable period. The folks who need millisecond granularity will find it. Most economic activity doesn’t need that, and while the liquidity is good, again, I’m not convinced it needs to be publicly disseminated in the way it…

Make everyone trade on public lit markets and make the minimum time increment 1 second.

Re: Wall Street’s ‘Private Rooms’

#200

Post by chipsrafferty »

roenxi wrote: post #91
reverendsteveii wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, securities aren't the same as retail products

Most things are different from each other. Why does that difference matter in this case? It looks a lot like traders trading in a market. That isn't manipulation.

A graphics card is non-fungible due to depreciation from use.
Post reply on HN