Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

cnbc.com

261–270 of 328 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is at what point does liquidity have diminishing returns? If a security could only be traded once per 10 years then it's obvious that its lack of liquidity would make it less valuable. Holding it would tie up your capital quite significantly. However, if you had a turn-based market where every trade got cleared at the top of the minute it's not clear to me at all whether that would effectively be…

A turn based system seems like a horrible idea. First the major players would have a legitimate excuse to make sure their trades were first in the queue. Second they would immediately game this so that everyone in the line behind them had to watch as they triggered market changes one minute they were then in a perfect position to take advantage of the next minute.

In a turn based market your place in the queue is determined only by the price you bid. Everyone trades at the same price, except for those who bid too high/low, they don't trade.

These systems are already running in many markets, typically at a rate of one trade round per day, but using them is optional.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know, empirically, that a lack of liquidity increases trading costs, which in turn is directly channeled to the prices of goods and services that rely on this liquidity (more or less everything in the world, even more indirectly ones like education). It's difficult to say 'things would be X% more expensive' because of the interconnected complexity the GP was talking about, but there is definitely a very apparent b…

I think the question is at what point does liquidity have diminishing returns? If a security could only be traded once per 10 years then it's obvious that its lack of liquidity would make it less valuable. Holding it would tie up your capital quite significantly. However, if you had a turn-based market where every trade got cleared at the top of the minute it's not clear to me at all whether that would effectively be…

> However, if you had a turn-based market where every trade got cleared at the top of the minute it's not clear to me at all whether that would effectively be less liquid than what we have now.

The primary problem with that is that it pools order flow into a homogenous, undistinguished pool.

HFT heavily rely on profiling order flow into the informed and uninformed. A typical uninformed trader is Joe Sixpack who's rebalancing his 401k. A typical informed trader is a hotshot hedge fund manager, who's invested enormous resources in gaining an informational edge. If Joe's buying a stock that doesn't tell you anything about the value of the stock. If hotshot hedge fund manager is buying a stock, that in and of itself is a credible signal that the stock's worth more than you thought it was.

Liquidity providers love being the counterparts to Joe, and hate being on the other side of the hotshot hedge fund managers. The more you can profile the order flow, the better prices and more liquidity you can offer to Joe, by charging the hotshots more. Think of how life insurance companies can offer better premiums, particularly to the healthy, if they require a physical exam before underwriting a policy.

Even on a millisecond by millisecond basis, there's a ton of distinguishing characteristics regarding the informational content of order flow. Uninformed flow basically looks like a bunch of small, randomly spaced trades. Informed flow is more likely to cluster together in small time windows, move sequentially in the same direction, try to sweep liquidity with huge trades, and immediately follow similar moves in other securities among other things.

If you pool all orders into a homogenous one minute pool, HFTs would lose much of their ability to segment order flow. The end result would mean that the hotshot hedge fund manager would see his trading costs reduced, and Joe Sixpack would see his trading costs increase.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everything at sub-second resolution is pointless. Some people think so, but the truth is you will simply shift the competition from “as fast as possible” to “within as few picoseconds after exactly one second” or whatever the limit is.

Unless you add random delays to each trade.

That uncertainty will only increase the spread and retail investors - ordinary folks like you or I - will pay for it.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#264
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, the short term price fluctuations are almost pure noise. Faster trading just incase the frequency of the noise. Increasing frequency only works if the feedback loops are stable.

Over very short time scales, the price fluctuations vary from almost pure noise to almost pure signal. The almost pure noise situation occurs far more often, but even then, with good estimation techniques, you can extract a signal component that can improve pricing a small amount. Improving many interrelated prices by small amounts can lead to a significant overall improvement to the markets. The almost pure signal s…

The faster you can trade, the faster you can flash crash. The current state is that bots can crash the market faster than humans can react, how does that help stability?

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#265
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that'd happen if you did that would be to increase the risk of any market maker having the wrong price at execution time (they have less data to make an informed price discovery), so you'd get wider spreads to compensate. Wider spreads just makes it more expensive for everyone. Personally, I'd like my pension money going towards the actual investment rather than paying for a wider spread, but I'm just strange.

If you're holding for a pension, wouldn't a wider spread affect you less than any single other market participant? Like a 1 cent different due to spread isn't going to matter in 30 years?

If I'm holding a pension, I'm paying in regularly to a fund that's managed over a long period of time. If they manage it actively and trade it a lot over 30 years, 1 cent a time will add up.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#266
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that'd happen if you did that would be to increase the risk of any market maker having the wrong price at execution time (they have less data to make an informed price discovery), so you'd get wider spreads to compensate. Wider spreads just makes it more expensive for everyone. Personally, I'd like my pension money going towards the actual investment rather than paying for a wider spread, but I'm just strange.

I don't know. Building and running fast trading systems sure creates more work and requires additional infrastructure and energy. So many smart people must be busy doing that, instead of something else. Do I understand this correctly: the alternative is that somebody else would randomly pocket this money, without working for it? Doesn't sound so bad to me. A bit less fair, but more human lifetime would be available t…

"If only all these smart people were curing cancer instead of designing trading systems!"

Presumably you also object to academics working on entirely abstract problems? After all, they could be doing something else much more useful.

Who gets to decide what the most useful allocation of resources is?

> Do I understand this correctly: the alternative is that somebody else would randomly pocket this money, without working for it? Doesn't sound so bad to me

If that doesn't sound so bad to you, I suggest you haven't thought it through enough. We've been there, in the past. It was worse then.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#267
post #93

People love to rail on HFT, but at this point, its really not that profitable. It's just a reality of trading in the markets. There was a blip of time between 2008 and 2014 when HFT was extremely profitable. Those inefficiencies have been gone from the market for years. People were whooped into anger about how much money was being made, at this point its a complete non issue and needs to be removed from the highlight…

>People love to rail on HFT probably because it's difficult to see any actual value that this provides to society.

The reason this provides little value to society now is because there’s no easy way to leverage price information to make inferences about the world-state. HFT on a prediction market would provide lots of value to society.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#268

For what it's worth, I used to work for GS and was in the algorithmic brokerage business for 2009-2010. One thing a lot of commenters on this thread are missing here is this isn't the same as an HFT or hedge fund, this is the brokerage business - executing orders on behalf of GSs clients, who are largely institutional investors, hedge and pension funds etc. The real-world impact of increased speed of execution by bro…

Why did you leave gset?

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#269
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think I ever had to do two transactions in a minute. If the network only clears once a minute, you need to wait at least a minute for each person ahead of you in line at the store. Alternatively, you need to be willing to pay more to cut them in line.

Wait, isn't the correct analogy for the stock market that there is an (almost) infinite amount of registers, but each of them can only clear a customer at the first second of each minute?

This is where the analogy certainly gets stretched. The network and the registers are really both the exchange here.

Equity trading only happens at a small number of venues (inclusive of OTC, dark pools, and internalizers probably not more than in the hundreds, potentially low thousands). These would be the registers. In order to buy a stock, either you choose to ‘cut the line’ by paying the price someone tells you they are willing to sell at, or you wait for someone to sell at the price you announce you’re willing to pay. These transactions are processed serially (albeit quickly) at the exchange.

Allowing trades only once a minute (or some other period) is akin to allowing the credit card network to clear once a minute. Trades cannot occur more frequently, so the ability to enter and exit positions on demand is diminished. Obviously someone who wants to trade immediately for one reason or another is harmed by having to wait. Additionally, everyone (even those not trading) is harmed by not having up to date valuations for the positions they hold.

Re: Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off stock trades

#270
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does GS do HFT itself? Is there a conflict of interest?

Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

The concept of the Chinese wall is not really relevant to this kind of conflict of interest.
Post reply on HN