Live data from Hacker News

For the Love of Money

nytimes.com

191–200 of 291 posts

Re: For the Love of Money

#191
post #166
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company isn't affected by who holds the stock. If I decide that I don't want to hold a stock in a company building a bridge across a river, and sell it to Jack, why does that change the company's desire to finish the bridge?

Because if Jack does't want to build the bridge and he holds enough of the company then he gets to say "stop building the bridge."

Is there evidence that's actually what's happening? I hear a lot of complaints on the internet about a quarterly results focus, but I've never heard of shareholders actually telling a company to change tack.

Re: For the Love of Money

#192
I've long since grown tired of these sensationalist, populist, polemical, self-flaggellating, attention-seeking, pseudo-confessionals by ex-bankers (usually failed ones, although they'll rarely admit that, preferring to portray themselves as having quit for moral reasons, rather than having been unceremoniously fired), getting all angsty about their previous life as an evil, greedy, detached-from-reality monster. Geraint Anderson, Polly Courtney, Tetsuya Ishikawa, John Rolfe and Peter Troob - they're all just pale imitations of Michael Lewis's "Liar's Poker" (Frank Partnoy's "FIASCO" is a notably less-pale imitation), feeding the media's seemingly-endless appetite for new scandalous revelations about the behaviour of people who get paid lots of money.

Seriously. Enough already!

Disclaimer: I was an evil, greedy, detached-from-reality monster in a previous life.

Re: For the Love of Money

#193
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sorta up for debate. My understanding, which is tiny and very limited, is that you can think of the role of finance operators as "liquidity providers". They're the grease in the wheels of capitalism; by either providing access to capital (via loans, or investment) or by matching buyers with sellers. A classical example is you're a farmer that wants to hedge the risk that your crop will fail due to random weather…

> The prime example here is that of the collateralized debt obligation in which huge portions of the US mortgage market got sunk into. The curious thing is that you can do the same thing with your "socially useful instrument" example. Suppose that instead of selling mortgages, Wall St. had used the same tactics to sell crop futures. They had gone to farmers who promised to provide more food than their land could prod…

> *Suppose that [...] Wall St. had used the same tactics to sell crop futures. [...] Instead of the housing crash there would have been a famine.

Allegedly, Wall Street did use similar tactics to sell crop futures, and there was a famine. See http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman... (note: annoying registration prompt, but registration is free or you can use your browser's webdev tools to remove the overlay) and http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari...

(Disclaimer: I haven't checked any of the claims in these articles.)

[EDITED to add: of course maybe AnthonyMouse's "Suppose that ..." was a rhetorical trick and his whole point is that it really did happen.]

Re: For the Love of Money

#194
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is debatable if derivatives do more harm than good. Just look at the 2008 financial crisis... From Jaredsohn's link further in the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)#Economic_f... . In the context of a 2010 examination of the ICE Trust, an industry self-regulatory body, Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which regulates most derivatives, was quoted saying…

Best case, what is the societal function of derivatives? As a relatively ignorant layperson, my guess is that derivatives allow productive businesses to hedge against uncontrollable risks. A business with less risks requires less capital buffer, which encourages & allows for more capital investment and profit-taking. In a nutshell, derivatives allow businesses to run and grow on less capital, by reducing the amount o…

It's more general than that. You can buy and sell stock risks like any other commodity. An investor who's confident in a company, or who knows they're investing for the long term, can take on more risk, and get a higher rate of return (on average). A pension fund that's coming up to redemption time can stabilize its value, accepting a lower growth rate in return for reduced risk. It's not just the businesses themselves, it's anyone for whom the stock price matters.

Re: For the Love of Money

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty simple. Work at a pizza shop, get a lot of free pizza. Work w/ people's money, ...

By that analogy, Can I get free mobile advertising if I work at Facebook or free Adwords at Google ?

Probably. Certainly my employer encourages us to run our own ads (up to a certain monthly budget) so that we're using the product and can see what needs to be improved.

Re: For the Love of Money

#196
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HFT people will argue that they provide more liquidity in the market - it's easier to sell your stocks because HF traders increase the overall volume, etc. A problem with their argument, (one of many) is that HFTs are not regulated market makers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker HFTs provide liquidity when the market's good, but you always have plenty of liquidity when the market's good. You only really need…

How, precisely, does an HFT tax a stock transaction that I make?

By getting in before you on the seller. HFT arbitrages the price differential by means of moving faster than you can. Rather than buying Wigets-R-Us at $100/share, the HFT slips in with a, say, $99.99 offer to the seller, and offers you $100.01. Rinse, wash, repeat a few million times a day, and those two cents add up. And it's cost you (and the seller) a penny a share each.

The numbers are made up here, but that's the principle.

Re: For the Love of Money

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Also being rich vs poor, and Wall St vs Main Street, are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. You can become rich without working in finance. And you can…

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Yes that's been stated , but I wouldn't say that it's been proven . There are a LOT of theories about what did and didn't happen as part of the 2008 financial crisis and i…

There are lots of insiders who think that the issues with derivatives market were the cause... In fact the commodity futures trading commission more or less said that their evaluation was that there was a concerted effort to use derivatives to obfuscate risks and for the most part caused the issue.

That is fine that one guy wrote a book about the crisis. And it is very nice that he decided to pass the buck on who was at fault by using the stale "Big Government Is Bad!" and "Any Regulation Is Big Government!" lines. But when the group in charge of looking after derivatives (ICE Trust, an industry self-regulatory body), that is independent of the government, comes out and says that after looking into the issue there was a fault with the actual system... I tend to give them a bit more credit... Perhaps everyone should just believe John Allison and his incredibly strong (Ayn) Randian ideological bent though?

Also you seem to be missing the point on the Wall St. vs Main St. thing... The bigger issue to most is that somehow Wall St. firms are 'too big to fail' and the little guy (read: everyone else) had to give them a huge bailout because they gambled and lost. In the eyes of most, its as if they had to pay for someone's trip to the casino, out of their own taxes. It's not about being able to leverage capital markets... It's about having to pay for your losses yourself, rather than having everyone else bail your ass out to the tune of billions of dollars. Taking all of the risk out of the system for the big boys, while it still exists for everyone else seems pretty BS (especially if you're part of 'everyone else').

Edit: Wall St. isn't 'bad' but the way it shook out this time was utterly bullshit and people have the right to be angry and adversarial about it.

Re: For the Love of Money

#198
post #150
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sorta up for debate. My understanding, which is tiny and very limited, is that you can think of the role of finance operators as "liquidity providers". They're the grease in the wheels of capitalism; by either providing access to capital (via loans, or investment) or by matching buyers with sellers. A classical example is you're a farmer that wants to hedge the risk that your crop will fail due to random weather…

If you only place limit/stop orders, and are willing to wait for a trading partner, you don't pay the HFT for liquidity. If you place a market order, you are buying liquidity. HFT is simply a private tax on the ignorant and stupid.

Google and read up about "adverse selection". You are wrong, a retail investor/trader should never (ever) place a limit order. You have negative expectation on those orders, since you are (on the whole), slower and more naive than the other participants in the order book, who are either machines with response times measured in micros or humans who are more devoted to watching the market than you (since it is, after all, their job).

To give an extreme example, let's say you stick a buy order for some equity at the best bid, and a large event happens shortly afterwards (say the employment numbers, the non-farm-payrolls are released). Consider two scenarios. a) Number is good, market takes off, you didn't get filled and you've missed out on profit you could have made had you just crossed the spread. b) Number really bad, everyone else is already out of the market, or fast enough to get out of the market, but your limit order is sitting there like a duck in a shooting gallery, gets filled instantly but the stock tanks well past that level, and you're already showing a loss.

Your expectation on a limit order is negative. It is more likely to get filled when you don't want it to get filled - this is adverse selection. Unless you really do have the tools to compete.

Even this assumes that you are directly accessing the market, it is even worse if you go through a broker. They get up to all sorts of shenanigans, including what they call "price improvement", where they'll jump in front of your limit order by some tiny increment.

Re: For the Love of Money

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The desire to make more money, to improve one's "lot in life" and to succeed, this is a Good Thing. One of the key points of this essay is that making more money doesn't necessarily improve one's quality of life. The author clearly talks about at age 25 being financially secure and wealthy, so his pursuit of additional wealth wasn't really about an increase in quality of life. > You can be rich and unhappy, or poor…

Is it even possible to be a billionaire without exploiting others? Why wouldn't it be? Wealth is created, and if you can create a billion dollars in wealth, then so be it. Even if so, is it right that you can be a billionaire while there are more empty homes each night in the US than the homeless population? Depends on what you mean by "right". Is that a troubling, even disturbing situation? Yes, I would find it to b…

You totally ignore the exploitation part...

You can't just "create wealth" like magic. You have to do something to build wealth. and for billions of dollars you either have to do a great deal of something or do it to an incredible degree more successfully than someone else. The question is are you going to screw over someone else (or even a large group of people) to make that happen in a society where the next biggest fish probably has little compunction about doing so.

Its a rhetorical and philosophical question really, but your answer that you can create wealth so you don't have to exploit anyone, isn't even a thoughtful attempt at an answer. The ideas don't even touch each other.

Re: For the Love of Money

#200
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, precisely, does an HFT tax a stock transaction that I make?

By getting in before you on the seller. HFT arbitrages the price differential by means of moving faster than you can. Rather than buying Wigets-R-Us at $100/share, the HFT slips in with a, say, $99.99 offer to the seller, and offers you $100.01. Rinse, wash, repeat a few million times a day, and those two cents add up. And it's cost you (and the seller) a penny a share each. The numbers are made up here, but that's t…

You have no actual idea how a limit order book works do you?
Post reply on HN