Live data from Hacker News

Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

talkfast.org

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#12
Approx 99% of what is written about algo and high-freq trading is written by people who don't have a clue, have never worked in a trading environment (let alone actually traded) and think they're some kind of expert because they've read an article or two. Just remeber that the next time you read an article (or a comment about an article) on algo/high-freq trading.

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#13
post #2

For one who works with HFT systems, an extremely refreshing clarification. Though I do get a chuckle out of the extremely bombastic stories ("MAN OBSOLETE? COMPUTERS TAKING OVER!!!"), it's nice to see the record set straight. Sadly this will get 1/10000th of the page views of the garbage articles it dissects.

Kill yourself.

That was entirely uncalled for and not one bit in line with the general level of conversation here.

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#14
post #5

From the article and other sources I've seen before, it seems that algorithmic trading is not necessarily high frequency, but that high frequency trading is necessarily algorithmic. In which case is this not a rather thin hair to split?

Example: there are algorithmic strategies designed to make large trades.

Let's say an institution wants to buy 10K shares of a thinly traded stock (lets say, 100K shares per day). Placing a single order for 10K shares will send a signal to the market that someone wants to buy, and other traders will see it.

There are special algorithms designed to purchase the specified number of shares without making too much of a market impact. For example, in this case, the strategy would send 100 share orders rather than presenting the full 10K interest at once.

for the googlers: there are all kinds of technical terms like implementation shortfall to give more info

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#15
post #10
post #5

From the article and other sources I've seen before, it seems that algorithmic trading is not necessarily high frequency, but that high frequency trading is necessarily algorithmic. In which case is this not a rather thin hair to split?

Not really. HFT is a subset of algorithmic trading, where many small orders are placed to take advantage of intraday (or intraminute, or even intrasecond) shifts in the spread. A large strategic order executed through an algorithm is a different creature altogether. The big problem when you place a huge buy or sell order is that it shifts the price in a direction you don't want it to go. For a large sell order, the p…

"so they shouldn't be dangerous to the market, as long as they're designed correctly". Even if we accept the author's position, why would we also make the assumption that this software is designed properly and bug free?

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#16
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. HFT is a subset of algorithmic trading, where many small orders are placed to take advantage of intraday (or intraminute, or even intrasecond) shifts in the spread. A large strategic order executed through an algorithm is a different creature altogether. The big problem when you place a huge buy or sell order is that it shifts the price in a direction you don't want it to go. For a large sell order, the p…

"so they shouldn't be dangerous to the market, as long as they're designed correctly". Even if we accept the author's position, why would we also make the assumption that this software is designed properly and bug free?

I guess it depends on the stakes, and how well the traders understand (the risks of) software development to pay for the quality, testing, and maintenance.

"This isn't just some human lives we're playing with, this is serious! It could cost us billions!"

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#17
Accurate article? Yes I think so. Hairsplitting? A bit. Any content about the big picture? Afraid not.

Algo trading has been around longer than HFT. It was invented to protect the information that that a big order was being executed. This avoided the risk of front running by handing the order to humans or scaring liquidity providers by executing it all at once.

HFT came about when computerized exchanges began to compete with each other for business. Nowadays you go hunting for liquidity. Speed differentials are more important.

I think the OP is likely to agree up until here.

Today HFT in its worst form amounts to high speed computerized rumor mongering. You game the market by bluffing orders and trading faster than your customers. The regulators will never catch on and try to fix it even thought the remedies are many and simple. Moreover our attitudes about who owns information make it very difficult for us to even consider these simple solutions.

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#18
Are there not hedge funds that attempt to use algorithms to spot longer term (ie. days, weeks, months) market trends and then buy and sell on that information? I think it's pretty crazy to say that humans will always make the decisions, computer can process more information faster then any human can. At some point computer programs will be able to make more accurate market predictions then humans, and at that point the "robots" really will be in control.

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#19
Absolutely terrible blog post. Saying algorithmic trading isn't HFT is like saying a bird isn't an ostrich.

HFT is a subset of algorithmic trading. It's as simple as that. Not all algorithmic trading is HFT. But all HFT is algorithmic trading.

Algorithmic trading is any type of trading done based on an algorithm, and not based on "traditional investing principles". For example, "buy when the 10-day moving average crosses over the 20-day MA, and sell when the 10-day it crosses below 20-day". One of the most famous types of this is Richard Dennis and the Turtle Traders, where a successful commodities trader took a bunch of ordinary people and tried to turn them into traders using this method.

I'm also an algorithmic trader. Not a wildly successful algorithmic trader yet, but I'm still learning and growing, and I love it more than any programming venture I've ever been involved with. And I haven't taken a catastrophic loss yet, so that's good. I trade on 3 separate markets using different algorithms, and for the most part it is fully automated. I'll hold futures contracts anywhere from 1 seconds to 20 mins.

HFT is several orders of magnitude more intense. For the most part, they are types of arbitrage, where they can arbitrage a few cents worth of difference in stock prices between different markets, and make a few pennies per 1000 shares. Or they will arbitrage between the price of an ETF or futures contract and the underlying basket of stocks that it represents. These are the ones that need colocation and trade on the millisecond. The more nefarious ones are the ones that game the system, by "quote stuffing", by frontrunning large orders by institutions, or by creating volatility through momentum-trading.

Is there a downside to algorithmic trading? Sure. Algorithmic trading is what has turned the stock market from a predictive market of future earnings, into essentially a casino, where the predictive nature of the markets is completely dead. Instead, it's about thousands of computers running random number generators and picking up nickels every 10 ms. This is why I believe there will be market crashes every 7-10 years, and long term investing is dead.

But unfortunately, this is the reality of the system that we live in, and we have to adapt or die. Or you can just buy bonds and get a stable 3-5% return every year, which is nothing to shake a stick at.

Re: Algorithmic Trading is Not High Frequency Trading

#20
post #2

For one who works with HFT systems, an extremely refreshing clarification. Though I do get a chuckle out of the extremely bombastic stories ("MAN OBSOLETE? COMPUTERS TAKING OVER!!!"), it's nice to see the record set straight. Sadly this will get 1/10000th of the page views of the garbage articles it dissects.

Kill yourself.

Even if you must insist on being so wildly rude, couldn't you at least offer up some substantiation for your anger, something with a hope of a discussion?
Post reply on HN