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

SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 493 posts

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#471

Post by CyberDildonics »

resters wrote: post #454
CyberDildonics wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retail investors railing against HFTs are sort of like those San Francisco types who protest new development to the benefit of their landlords. It's nothing like that since there isn't a limited resource and everyone has access to the core purpose, which is to trade stocks. What I notice with these discussions is that no one can actually explain why a retail investor or anyone would want computers trading underneath…

Does one of the following traditions inform your view on this issue? a) https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.90b.1?lang=bi&with=Introd... b) https://sunnah.com/nasai/44

I have no idea what this comment you are copy and pasting is supposed to mean, but if you want to confront what I actually wrote, feel free.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#472

Post by CyberDildonics »

KPGv2 wrote: post #457
CyberDildonics wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need you to understand that HFT makes decisions based on human-defined parameters. It's not AI-driven. You need me to understand something I never said anything about? No one said AI.

You wrote: > > the better our discovery gets > The better the computers hooked directly into the exchange get you mean. This implies a distinction between "our" (i.e., humans) and "the computers." Can you explain what distinction you meant if it wasn't AI? After all, everything computers do outside AI is done pursuant to knowable, describable human control, no different from pressing keys on a keyboard. So if you did…

I think it's better for my argument, not worse.

The difference is that I will actually explain what I mean instead of just making claims with no evidence.

Can you explain what distinction you meant

The distinction is that the computers making millions of trades per second are owned by few people and have a huge advantage. They don't lose money and they don't hold anything.

They aren't wanted by actual people making decisions, they are there in spite of what traders buying stocks to own them actually want. They are there because they make money and from the exchange and make money for the exchange.

Retail traders are the product even though they don't want to be.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#473

Post by UltraSane »

resters wrote: post #325
CyberDildonics wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're hallucinating something I didn't say to avoid confronting what I did say. Also what's the difference between a system, a dynamic system and a 'dynamical' system?

The behavior of other participants is itself a first-class signal. Rule 611 compresses that signal. By forcing everything to orbit a size-agnostic NBBO, it collapses a lot of the “behavioral bandwidth” (depth, imbalance, sweep patterns, replenishment, cancel/replace cadence) into a single top-of-book tick. Less resolution, less information. High-resolution flow tells you who wants what, at what size, and how urgently…

If HFT was genuinely good for the entire market than absolute latency would be what matters but it is only relative latency between HFT firms that matter because they are all competing against each other using the same tactics where whoever is fastest wins.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#474

Post by UltraSane »

growse wrote: post #417
CyberDildonics wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nanosecond order book helps with price discovery the deeper it is, regardless of whether orders clear. This is a claim, it is not being backed up by evidence. I think you're trolling with this one. But you had an advantage typing your comment into a web browser compared to all the people who wrote theirs on paper and put it in an envelope with a stamp. This analogy doesn't make any sense. Why would a person care ab…

> Why do people doing normal trading want to avoid the exchanges that have HFT computers skimming money off their trades? What's "normal trading"? A prop desk at an investment bank? A hedge fund? A pension fund? Someone who's just installed Robin Hood on their phone? Most rational participants want lower trading costs and overheads, smaller spreads etc. HFT provides that - the evidence being "look at what the spreads…

Computers buying and selling shares in microseconds is NOT normal trading.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#475

Post by UltraSane »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #469
UltraSane wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have posted this nonsensical comment 3 times.

And you keep incessantly posting about the moral evils of speculation which is only tangentially related to the Texas Stock Exchange. I guess morality policing makes your comments better?

HFT is not the same thing as speculation.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#476

Post by UltraSane »

KPGv2 wrote: post #403
UltraSane wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice how no one actually has a good reason for why shares should be bought and sold in milliseconds?

It's exhausting to see good reasons offered and then y'all proudly failing to understand those reasons. Like, there are literally multiple comments here explaining it.

About the only good justification you have is HFT increases liquidity but that is not good enough for all the wealth HFT extracts from the market.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#477

Post by okhobb »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #411
UltraSane wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who isn't involved in HFT should be in favor of rules that slow down trades to human time scales. HFT currently favors a small class of rich people.

> Anyone who isn't involved in HFT should be in favor of rules that slow down trades to human time scales What are you basing this on? I’m a former algorithmic market maker. Every plan to “slow down trades to human time scales” I’ve seen were trivially gameable. They were always proposed by a group of concerned citizens, and then jumped on by my bosses, because if the market is slowed down to pre-HFT speeds, Wall Str…

I suspect the root argument is really against the efficacy of markets and capitalism as a useful system for humanity, in which case I say that is a fair debate. The benefits are hardly obvious today.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#479

Post by okhobb »

UltraSane wrote: post #476
KPGv2 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exhausting to see good reasons offered and then y'all proudly failing to understand those reasons. Like, there are literally multiple comments here explaining it.

About the only good justification you have is HFT increases liquidity but that is not good enough for all the wealth HFT extracts from the market.

Wait until you hear about how much wealth Salomon Bros extracted from the market.

Re: SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange in decades

#480

Post by infecto »

chronic74939 wrote: post #446
usefulcat wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most HFT strategies are not only blatantly dishonest but also clearly illegal. What specific strategies are you referring to? Genuinely curious.

> > Most HFT strategies are not only blatantly dishonest but also clearly illegal. > What specific strategies are you referring to? Genuinely curious. Any strategy that outperforms his 10-20% passive index fund VTI/QQQ ETF. HFT is pulling 50-100% annual returns for decades. HFT is capacity constrained, yes. But anyone would take 100% return every year on “only” $100 million on deployed capital.

Where is the citation for this 100% HFT? Lots of numbers floating around but the only time I have seen those types of numbers are for short lived periods.

My issue as always with these numbers is that back in the day you had some bloke on the floor vacuuming up this wide spreads and today we have some of the smallest spreads in history. It has a cost but that cost is generally less than what you were paying before.

Post reply on HN