101–110 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's talking about revenue not profit
Net revenue generally means profit. Although I believe this also includes unrealized gains. Basically profit from trading before they pay for salaries and office rent and all that jazz.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is clear and unambiguous, and is intended to set a floor for the caliber and quality of discussion here. I take your point, but the humor, if it was that, was made clumsily and was not well received. It’s not just me who felt that way; it was downvoted and eventually killed.
Is it though? Almost all the guidelines are curt and open to interpretation. For example, what counts as snarky? What counts as kind? Is there some hidden arbiter in between the characters I can't see? Not everyone will know exactly what these mean in every situation. In truth, the rules here are intentionally vague, so they can be used as a cudgel by people who don't like what they read. For the mods it's for behavi…
Of course some people will get angry and defensive when they cross the lines and get called out on it. That’s just human nature. (YouTube is chock full of examples.)
It doesn’t mean enforcement isn’t necessary, though. The owners have made it clear that they don’t want this site to devolve into a free-for-all full of sniping and bile. Their house, their rules. Want to be a dick? There are other venues for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always been a bit wary of Patrick. He reminds me of those people who in the 1990s/2000s would have become professional talking head guests on CNN. The older ex-academic/ex-industry guys who knew how to spin popular news stories into sound bites for the general public, while offering a veneer of authority. I'd rather get analysis from people who don't chase pop news stories for a living.
Is there anything he's said in particular that, given the benefit of hindsight, you feel has turned out to be misleading in retrospect? Speaking for myself only, but if I were going to post a comment like yours on a public forum insinuating doubts about a specific person and vaguely implying their analysis is not trustworthy, I'd come armed with at least once example.
For people with 1M+ followers, anything that could be said has already likely been said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are they "trading" or "high-frequency-ripping-off-retail-investors"? HFT doesn't cost retail investors anything.
Liquidity providers like Jane Street, Citadel, et al make money on the spread. They also buy order flows from integrators, and retail investor order flows are now a product. i.e. retail investor → brokerage platform → clearing/execution infrastructure → Jane Street → payment back toward the brokerage side of the chain. Who captures the economic value created by retail order flow? Jane Street. In an ideal market, this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The millisecond-term zero sum game is part of what allows for a positive sum long term. For example, zero fee trading was pioneered by Robinhood and only possible because of payment for order flow, and as a result it's virtually unheard of now for retail to be paying per transaction. Now more retail investors can participate and everyone benefits. You can also point to lower spreads and faster execution as direct ben…
Or you could just hold auctions a few times per day and eliminate the billions of dollars spent trying to win a pointless race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could just hold auctions a few times per day and eliminate the billions of dollars spent trying to win a pointless race.
No one wants four-trades-a-day settlement to save 0.00001% or whatever in trading fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net revenue generally means profit. Although I believe this also includes unrealized gains. Basically profit from trading before they pay for salaries and office rent and all that jazz.
No net revenue is still the top line number (just minus some things like allowances or some other artifact or exception). Profit is the bottom line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you certainly didn't use the "most charitable interpretation" of my comment, now did you? Why not assume that I too am as competent as you see yourself and simply also don't want to move to Chicago where Jane Street definitely is? It's a weak person who hides behind rules they don't themselves follow. Lots of companies manage to impress lots of incompetent, arrogant people. Your initial comment sounded like suc…
facepalm Way to double down on being a dick, dude.
Calling me a dick seems to violate the kindness rule you are about so much. Don't the guidelines say you should not comment and move on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No net revenue is still the top line number (just minus some things like allowances or some other artifact or exception). Profit is the bottom line.
But then what does it mean when the FT writes that that "revenue" number already accounts for the 15 billion losses? That the FT doesn't use these terms correctly either, and we can't really know what its reporting means?