Live data from Hacker News

What Business is Wall Street In?

blogmaverick.com

51–60 of 191 posts

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#51
post #21
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trading stocks is fantastically easier, sure. That is obvious. And he says so at the end: "There is value to trading automation. It is here to stay." He never says _trading_ is difficult. Your comment would be more interesting if it confronted his main point: "There is absolutely NO VALUE to High Frequency Trading. None. We need to bring our markets back to their original goals of creating capital for business. "

His main poing is wrong. High Frequency Trading makes trading stocks cheaper. There have always been market makers. They used to be expensive humans. Now they are cheap computers. This means that it now costs less for you to trade a stock.

By demanding automation, HFT drives down the operational cost of a particular transaction. However, for trades themselves, it's arguable that it drives up the cost of the overall transaction for long-term traders - especially those who end up needing to break up a larger overall stock transactions into smaller batches.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#52
post #11
post #5

It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Like how twenty years ago you could buy a stock you believed in for like $4 by using a computer system, paying a fraction-of-a-penny spread on average, to have a trade executed in milliseconds to seconds, but now you have to talk to a human on the phone and pay a $400 commission to pay a fraction-of-an-eighth spread and have the trade ex…

"It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in." You're interpreting that sentence literally. His point is that investing in a company used to largely be based on how successful you though that company would be. The market has changed in a way that an overwhelming number of external factors can have a negative (or positive) impact on that company's share price, making the evaluation…

If that is really his point, then he does not understand value investing.

From the point of view of a value investor, the numbers that you care about are the current price, and how successful you think that company will be. If the current price is below that benchmark, you buy and hold. If the current price is above that benchmark then maybe you want to sell short. (The reason for the maybe is that, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.) Either way you're aiming to make a profit off of the difference between long-term returns and the price you bought it at.

Therefore from the point of view of a value investor, everything that helps people lose track of a company's long-term prospects is good for you.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#53
post #5

It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Like how twenty years ago you could buy a stock you believed in for like $4 by using a computer system, paying a fraction-of-a-penny spread on average, to have a trade executed in milliseconds to seconds, but now you have to talk to a human on the phone and pay a $400 commission to pay a fraction-of-an-eighth spread and have the trade ex…

I agree with your argument until your last point, "seeking alpha is a sucker's bet". There is ample academic evidence supporting "cheap stock" strategies as improving performance relative to the broader market. Do you disagree with much of what is said in this article?

http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/WhatHasW...

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#54
post #5

It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Like how twenty years ago you could buy a stock you believed in for like $4 by using a computer system, paying a fraction-of-a-penny spread on average, to have a trade executed in milliseconds to seconds, but now you have to talk to a human on the phone and pay a $400 commission to pay a fraction-of-an-eighth spread and have the trade ex…

He means it's hard to make money by being a good judge of a company. In the old days you could look at new product introductions and predict better than the majority stockholders (pension funds and insurance companies) how they would affect revenue. They would buy after the next quarterly report showed higher earnings, and you could sell to them at a decent profit. Smart individuals who knew an industry could make decent money. That's no longer true, because HFTs are jumping in front of your transactions.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#55
In the past few years, I've been a fervently anti-bank corruption, often aligning myself with the occupy wall street crowd. However, unlike most people with my views, I see algorithmic trading as not a symptom of, but one of the solutions to the problems in investment banking.

Maybe it's because of my background in machine learning, but I view computers as a way to reduce the amounts of arbitrage opportunities and insider knowledge that can be exploited by traders to enrich themselves on the back of others.

Well programmed computers are able to use NLP techniques to read thousands of news articles, reports, financial statements, government data, demographic data , analyse millions of data points, sort which ones are important, build predictive models, and do it all in a few seconds of time.

A few computers can do the job of thousands of traders, do it with less bias and with better mathematically proven decisions.

Nowadays every time a human trader tries to beat the market by predicting short terms swings in prices, there is a computer on the other side of his internet connection that is relying on much more information and even models of the human's own personality and biases to trade against him. This means that unless the human has inside information that is not accessible to the computer, (and I'm sure those who operate these computers try to feed them or make them infer the greatest amount of direct or indirect insider knowledge as possible ) it will tend to be impossible to beat the market.

With the greater amount of information, the computers will keep the prices closer to real world fundamentals, bust bubbles before they inflate and reduce all the price swings that traders used to be able to exploit to make a profit on the back of less sophisticated investors.

By making obsolete the jobs of all these traders, they are making the market much more efficient. They are automating a kind of job that didn't produced any real goods. Hopefully, pushing these people into jobs that make something real instead of skimming the top of everybody's retirement savings (I can see why those who want to be traders would be upset about this).

Ah but you say, all we have done is replace humans from skimming our retirement savings by machines that do the same. This would be true if there was only one computer system competing against the human traders but there is a whole industry and they also compete against each other. Two sophisticated machines that trade against each other, will not only beat the human trader and put him out of business but reduce the arbitrage opportunity and margin each of these computer systems can exploit.

Contrary to what the article states, computers that compete against each other will tend to eliminate all short term unjustified price swings and leave only accessible prices based on real company fundamentals. Only long term traders that bet on fundamentals will be able to make money and they will make more money than when they were subject to be exploited through market distortions and bubbles.

This can all be proven by something called the efficient market hypothesis:

There is a great explanation by Glen Whitman of Agoraphilia, that uses grocery line wait time predictions as a metaphor: http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2005/03/doing-lines.html

See also:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#56
"It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in."

So, let's say that Mark's right and the combination of HFT and emphasis on macro trends has caused some securities to be mis-priced compared to his analysis of their long-term prognoses. As a long-term investor, shouldn't he be delighted for the opportunity to bargain shop? If anyone can stay solvent longer than markets stay irrational, it's him.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#57
Cuban is just griping about something he doesn't even understand here. There was a great article about it here a couple months back. There is value to HFT. It creates liquidity in the market. It doesn't make long-term investing any different at all. It's just an automated version of the same market making that's been done manually for decades.

Wall Street has a lot of problems. Computers making markets instead of humans isn't one of them.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#58
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His main poing is wrong. High Frequency Trading makes trading stocks cheaper. There have always been market makers. They used to be expensive humans. Now they are cheap computers. This means that it now costs less for you to trade a stock.

I'm given to understand that the reason we have high-frequency traders being as crazy as they are is that there's a (government-mandated) rule where you can't price anything in increments of less than $0.01. 1 penny times hundreds or thousands of shares starts a minute starts to add up. So instead of being able to compete on price, market-makers compete on latency in order to be the one making all the monies, resulti…

If you do not know of what you speak, do not speak. Yes I am "dead" for expressing this reason.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#59
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His main poing is wrong. High Frequency Trading makes trading stocks cheaper. There have always been market makers. They used to be expensive humans. Now they are cheap computers. This means that it now costs less for you to trade a stock.

I'm given to understand that the reason we have high-frequency traders being as crazy as they are is that there's a (government-mandated) rule where you can't price anything in increments of less than $0.01. 1 penny times hundreds or thousands of shares starts a minute starts to add up. So instead of being able to compete on price, market-makers compete on latency in order to be the one making all the monies, resulti…

If you do not know of what you speak, do not speak. Yes I am "dead" for expressing this reason.

Re: What Business is Wall Street In?

#60
post #49
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In what way has it changed?" Two examples: 1. High-frequency algorithmic trading. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/08/06/chart-of-th... 3. Repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, giving government-protected 'too-big-to-fail' commercial banks the ability to incur risks traditionally reserved for investment banks.

And how do those changes (especially #2) "have a negative (or positive) impact on that company's share price" ?

In the extreme, repeal of Glass-Steagall and resulting shenanigans put the entire market at risk, which in turn put the macro economy at risk, which in turn changed the long term outlook of stocks.

That said, I do question the overall premise that HFT affects stock values over the long term.

Post reply on HN