51–60 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think this is accurate. Regulators release the Volcker Rule to shut down prop trading at banks.
The Volcker rule contains exemptions for certain prop trading activities. For example, trading in US government bonds is exempt.
https://www.davispolk.com/files/DavisPolk_Final_Volcker_Rule...
This is an honest question, and forgive me if it's a bit naive, but if they release trading software to the masses under the assumption that the vast majority of users will make few changes, can they rely on the herd to buy enough stock in their software's predictions at a slower rate to get an uptick?
Take it with a grain of salt since I did not see the actual source and the article is paywalled. They are probably just releasing the tooling, not actual strategies.
Of course, if this technology was able to price securities better than the market (the fundamental job of almost every market participant), it would be printing money and they would not release it. This is not the secret sauce, but probably an implementation of a set of standard well known pricing and risk models. That's still useful, and can be expensive to develop, so thanks Goldman.
> the fundamental job of almost every market participant Not true. You might make an argument that this is the effect of having them together in a market, but that's not their job: - Market maker: hang around the market offering to trade with anyone (pref retail) at a spread. Doesn't care whether TSLA is gonna be able to make all those Model 3s. - Pension fund: make sure they can pay the liabilities that are coming d…
Im a programmer, but on the side have made on average 150% profit in share dealing over the passed 5 years, but more importantly, a much higher return in other assets to 2 orders of magnitude higher.
My question is - would experience / gains like this - if i had proof etc - get me an interview in a fund as some type of well paid (6 figure atleast) analyst?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the fundamental job of almost every market participant Not true. You might make an argument that this is the effect of having them together in a market, but that's not their job: - Market maker: hang around the market offering to trade with anyone (pref retail) at a spread. Doesn't care whether TSLA is gonna be able to make all those Model 3s. - Pension fund: make sure they can pay the liabilities that are coming d…
Hope you dont mind me asking a slightly unrelated and possibly dumb question. Im a programmer, but on the side have made on average 150% profit in share dealing over the passed 5 years, but more importantly, a much higher return in other assets to 2 orders of magnitude higher. My question is - would experience / gains like this - if i had proof etc - get me an interview in a fund as some type of well paid (6 figure a…
[0] Granted, that's a huge "if".
We're reading about how GS "will" open source some software on WSJ, it would be better to just see a blog announcement with a link to the repository.
Am I the only one who thinks they want to push the market into applying strategies that they can then trade against? This is classic Wall Street, persuading the masses to take the wrong side of bets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hope you dont mind me asking a slightly unrelated and possibly dumb question. Im a programmer, but on the side have made on average 150% profit in share dealing over the passed 5 years, but more importantly, a much higher return in other assets to 2 orders of magnitude higher. My question is - would experience / gains like this - if i had proof etc - get me an interview in a fund as some type of well paid (6 figure a…
If [0] those returns are accurate, can be proven, and your strategy can be scaled up to multi-million dollar positions, you should take it to a hedge fund/prop shop/etc. and be able to make 7 or 8 figures. Your bonus should be dependent on performance; you may be able to negotiate a % of the profit. Those companies don't care about your background if at the end of the day you make them money. [0] Granted, that's a hu…
this can be an attempt at the same for the new generation. if your algo is making money and it can benefit from a mass adoption of the same strategy (or more likely they have a secret tweaked one that takes that more into account) why wouldn't they offer it in the open?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If [0] those returns are accurate, can be proven, and your strategy can be scaled up to multi-million dollar positions, you should take it to a hedge fund/prop shop/etc. and be able to make 7 or 8 figures. Your bonus should be dependent on performance; you may be able to negotiate a % of the profit. Those companies don't care about your background if at the end of the day you make them money. [0] Granted, that's a hu…
and how do you prove some method scale up without either already being on the million dollar scale or disclosing your secret sauce?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the fundamental job of almost every market participant Not true. You might make an argument that this is the effect of having them together in a market, but that's not their job: - Market maker: hang around the market offering to trade with anyone (pref retail) at a spread. Doesn't care whether TSLA is gonna be able to make all those Model 3s. - Pension fund: make sure they can pay the liabilities that are coming d…
Hope you dont mind me asking a slightly unrelated and possibly dumb question. Im a programmer, but on the side have made on average 150% profit in share dealing over the passed 5 years, but more importantly, a much higher return in other assets to 2 orders of magnitude higher. My question is - would experience / gains like this - if i had proof etc - get me an interview in a fund as some type of well paid (6 figure a…
And you need to know what machinery you'll need too. Capital requirements, counterparty agreements, access to stock lending, cost requirements, IT requirements, everything.
Some of the newer shops say you can keep your own IP. Haven't checked whether it's true, but most people I know are sceptical.