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

Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 192 posts

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#101

Post by mbesto »

crazygringo wrote: post #47
infecto wrote: post #4

I don’t understand this constant fascination with having language models trade stocks. Language models are very useful tools but not aligned at all with generating alpha.

Alpha is ultimately the result of analysis, of better analysis than others. LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. And while they aren't great at running numbers themselves, they can do exceptional work passing off Python scripts to an interpreter to generate the numerical results they need. I'm quite sure the Robinhood AI is going to be trash, i.e. just a gimmick…

This is essentially what AlphaZero is doing: https://nof1.ai/

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#102

Post by krzyk »

tombert wrote: post #28
infecto wrote: post #4

I don’t understand this constant fascination with having language models trade stocks. Language models are very useful tools but not aligned at all with generating alpha.

I use the Interactive Brokers MCP pretty heavily. I don't do any cool automatic fun "trading", but instead I use it to have "pseudo-QQQ". I didn't like the relatively high fees for QQQ, and I realized that Invesco releases the weights for QQQ for free. I also think Tesla is too overvalued, and I want to avoid the SpaceX IPO. With the Interactive Brokers MCP, I just feed it the CSV of QQQ's weights, tell it to remove…

QQQ?

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#104

Post by mandevil »

krzyk wrote: post #102
tombert wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Interactive Brokers MCP pretty heavily. I don't do any cool automatic fun "trading", but instead I use it to have "pseudo-QQQ". I didn't like the relatively high fees for QQQ, and I realized that Invesco releases the weights for QQQ for free. I also think Tesla is too overvalued, and I want to avoid the SpaceX IPO. With the Interactive Brokers MCP, I just feed it the CSV of QQQ's weights, tell it to remove…

QQQ?

NASDAQ-100 following ETF. Until recently, the only one that tracked the NASDAQ-100, which is a tech heavy index.

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#105

Post by ai_fry_ur_brain »

ai_fry_ur_brain wrote: post #92
crazygringo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alpha is ultimately the result of analysis, of better analysis than others. LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. And while they aren't great at running numbers themselves, they can do exceptional work passing off Python scripts to an interpreter to generate the numerical results they need. I'm quite sure the Robinhood AI is going to be trash, i.e. just a gimmick…

>LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. No they aren't, they're good at imitating analysis based on representations of analysis in their training data. Also, Its likely that out dated techniques would over represented in training data. Do you think Jane Street would have the returns they do if they just imitated all their competitors and everyone was using the sam…

[flagged]

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#106

Post by Giefo6ah »

dumbmrblah wrote: post #100
Maxatar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely and unfathomably terrible to such a great degree that I think it reinforces OPs point. It seems like using an LLM has given you the confidence to make an incredibly ill-informed decision that will cost you dearly. Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell…

But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500

tombert should instead long QQQ and short the bits they don't like

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#107

Post by Maxatar »

dumbmrblah wrote: post #100
Maxatar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely and unfathomably terrible to such a great degree that I think it reinforces OPs point. It seems like using an LLM has given you the confidence to make an incredibly ill-informed decision that will cost you dearly. Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell…

But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500

If that was his genuine concern, then instead of trying to balance a portfolio of 103 stocks... you simply buy QQQ and short Tesla at 3.53% worth of your QQQ holdings.

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#108

Post by methodical »

dumbmrblah wrote: post #100
Maxatar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely and unfathomably terrible to such a great degree that I think it reinforces OPs point. It seems like using an LLM has given you the confidence to make an incredibly ill-informed decision that will cost you dearly. Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell…

But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500

I'm unsure what SpaceX's weighting would be in QQQ but with Tesla being <3.54% weighting it would take both companies being 0s within a year to offset the cost in taxes from reweighting...

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#109

Post by methodical »

geoffschmidt wrote: post #58
grey-area wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we will not, because LLMs are terrible at trading and if they weren’t would have been adopted by professionals long ago.

They were adopted by professionals long ago, and those highly tuned and validated proprietary models are going to kick the butt of the models that you have access to every day of the week.

Those are not LLMs

Re: Robinhood now lets your AI agents trade stocks

#110

Post by tombert »

Maxatar wrote: post #99
tombert wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Interactive Brokers MCP pretty heavily. I don't do any cool automatic fun "trading", but instead I use it to have "pseudo-QQQ". I didn't like the relatively high fees for QQQ, and I realized that Invesco releases the weights for QQQ for free. I also think Tesla is too overvalued, and I want to avoid the SpaceX IPO. With the Interactive Brokers MCP, I just feed it the CSV of QQQ's weights, tell it to remove…

This is absolutely and unfathomably terrible to such a great degree that I think it reinforces OPs point. It seems like using an LLM has given you the confidence to make an incredibly ill-informed decision that will cost you dearly. Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell…

IBKR has payment for order flow if you use the Lite service, so it actually wouldn't be $30-40 a month.

You still are paying the capital gains taxes with the ETF, they are just rolled into the management fees.

You can avoid a lot of the short-term capital gains taxes by only rebalancing within certain thresholds and being ok with being "close enough" to QQQ instead of being completely aligned with QQQ.

ETA:

Looked it up, looks like I was wrong about the taxes being rolled into the fees. There's some extra weirdness associated with tax efficiency of ETFs.

I still think some of the numbers the parent provided were a bit handwavey and bullshit, but I'll acknowledge I was mostly wrong in my response.

Post reply on HN