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

Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#51

Post by BubRoss »

Iv wrote: post #16
ThePadawan wrote: post #5

Off-topic discussion below. This is the most vile dark pattern I have seen in recent times. On loading this page, there is an auto-playing, muted video. When you press its pause button, it is unmuted and keeps playing. Only when you press the pause button AGAIN does it actually stop playing. At some point when implementing that feature someone said "Sure, I'm OK with that". What went wrong there?

Advertisement is a cancer. It is time we forbid it instead of making it fund every website in existence.

Or you could spend $65 on a raspberry pi and install pi-hole. Then a huge amount of advertising and tracking never gets accessed and everything goes faster. This is a little more pragmatic then expecting all advertising to go away.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#52

Post by Gibbon1 »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47
mrep wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think share buybacks are another major reason for the disproportionate rise of US markets. US corporations have bought more of their own shares than anyone else in recent years Share buybacks are just a more efficient way of returning profits back to investors than dividends [0]. > Why can't corporations find anything better to do with that money? Why is capital spending relatively muted while productivity gr…

>Share buybacks are just a more efficient way of returning profits back to investors than dividends True, but the effect on share prices is very different. If you compare the S&P 500 with an index (a price index, not a total return index) comprising companies that use dividends instead of buybacks, you get a distorted picture of relative economic success. >Most companies are demand limited which limits their investme…

> How do you reconcile lack of demand with the historically tight labor market?

Look at employment to population ratio, labor share of income, birth rates.

Not historically tight.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#53

Post by kweinber »

mruts wrote: post #25
dmix wrote: post #4

> And technological advancements have narrowed spreads in many areas of trading. > “Part of the problem is that it’s too late to hedge interest-rate volatility, there’s not currency volatility to hedge. Speculators need volatility to hedge and enter the market.” Sounds like a good thing to me. > New rules limited lenders’ ability and willingness to make principal bets with their own money Anyone know what regulation…

The rule they are talking about is the Volcker Rule. Prevents certain banks from proprietary trading. They are only allowed to buy and sell for the purpose of market making. This, of course, is an incredibly stupid rule. There’s not really a big difference between market making and proprietary trading in the first place.

Proprietary trading is trading your own money with no obligation to transact or do any business with others.

Market making is offering public liquidity as part of a market function. They are designated market participants with rules and responsibilities.

They are not the same.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#54

Post by fauigerzigerk »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #52
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Share buybacks are just a more efficient way of returning profits back to investors than dividends True, but the effect on share prices is very different. If you compare the S&P 500 with an index (a price index, not a total return index) comprising companies that use dividends instead of buybacks, you get a distorted picture of relative economic success. >Most companies are demand limited which limits their investme…

> How do you reconcile lack of demand with the historically tight labor market? Look at employment to population ratio, labor share of income, birth rates. Not historically tight.

True, good point.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#55

Post by bboreham »

kweinber wrote: post #53
mruts wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule they are talking about is the Volcker Rule. Prevents certain banks from proprietary trading. They are only allowed to buy and sell for the purpose of market making. This, of course, is an incredibly stupid rule. There’s not really a big difference between market making and proprietary trading in the first place.

Proprietary trading is trading your own money with no obligation to transact or do any business with others. Market making is offering public liquidity as part of a market function. They are designated market participants with rules and responsibilities. They are not the same.

I think you might be a bit focused on the equity market there. In fx and interest rates markets there is no “public liquidity”, everything is bilateral.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#56

Post by bboreham »

ilaksh wrote: post #29

Dumb question: so is this about trading that the large banks arrange for their clients and get commission on? And if so, how is this problem different from MGM, Wynn, Aria complaining that Las Vegas is having a couple of slow months? Why do we need the banks for the trading anyway? Aren't there ways to handle it with technology rather than paying whatever fees the cartels want? Maybe I am a little bit cynical in gene…

This is a piece in Bloomberg, it’s written for people who work in the banks and money managers, so naturally they are interested it’s a slow period, jobs will be cut.

There is a vast amount of technology involved, but someone sets the strategy and that person takes home millions if it works. They are supported by thousands of other workers who also, in total, take home millions.

Small correction: way more money is made by actually buying and selling than by taking a commission on someone else’s trade. These roles are called “dealer” vs “broker”.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#57

Post by skybrian »

roenxi wrote: post #33
jdjntnowln wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the market will act on its own when the news is both powerful enough and outside the market’s perception of the central bank’s expectations; i.e. the Fed is “stabilizing” which reduces competition and efficiency. Moreover, it’s inequitable. The economic instability is what allow upward mobility. The Fed’s stability goal equates to a goal of preserving entrenched wealth from competitive pressures.

What the central banks do is profoundly anti-free-market. 'Reduces competition and efficiency' is a phrase that really suffers because it doesn't capture the scale of the problem. For markets to rise on bad news indicates that the entire economic signalling apparatus is being disabled. The people who think that disabling economic signals is a good idea are actually dangerous. Real wealth cannot be created by optimism…

You're making assertions without evidence. Which economic signals aren't working? Seems like some retailers going bankrupt lately are a sign that there is plenty of competition, in some sectors, anyway?

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#58

Post by JetezLeLogin »

lefstathiou wrote: post #9

A lot of our clients work in investment banks. There’s been a long (since the election) and growing narrative that the market will correct any second now... any second. Meanwhile the market has gone up up up. Part of that, I believe, is because most of these trading desks sit in one place - NYC, a super liberal anti trump environment - so it’s hard not to buy into the narrative and go risk off which means you would h…

It's always like that though. Everybody wants to be 'in' while things are soaring, but wants to be 'out' by the time it turns downward. Some people get out too early, successfully missing the low but also missing the highest highs. Others wait too long and the low wipes out all their highs. The trick is being able to stay at the party until juuust before everybody else smells smoke and starts running for the exits.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#59

Post by yborg »

lefstathiou wrote: post #39
CPLX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe, is because most of these trading desks sit in one place - NYC, a super liberal anti trump environment That’s ludicrous. If you know anything about the politics and culture of the NYC finance crowd you know it’s super pro-Trump through and through. He is — literally — one of them.

I believe that is a demonstrably false position. I’ve worked on Wall Street in NYC for 11 years, this statement is not consistent with my experience. There is even data to support it -donations to candidates from these employees is public. Hillary raised 10-1 vs Trump. Link to article below, leave it to you to dig into the fulsome numbers. “Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries hav…

I don't know how you infer ideology from this. Wall Street is all about betting on winners, and NOBODY thought Trump had a chance.

"In 2012, the same group contributed twice as much to Republican candidate Mitt Romney as it did to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign."

Your own source doesn't really support your narrative.

Re: Wall Street’s Trading Desks Endure Worst First Half in a Decade

#60

Post by anm89 »

skybrian wrote: post #57
roenxi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the central banks do is profoundly anti-free-market. 'Reduces competition and efficiency' is a phrase that really suffers because it doesn't capture the scale of the problem. For markets to rise on bad news indicates that the entire economic signalling apparatus is being disabled. The people who think that disabling economic signals is a good idea are actually dangerous. Real wealth cannot be created by optimism…

You're making assertions without evidence. Which economic signals aren't working? Seems like some retailers going bankrupt lately are a sign that there is plenty of competition, in some sectors, anyway?

We are on an internet forum. What do you want him to do? Get his post peer reviewed?
Post reply on HN