Don't know why I even bother arguing when I'm obviously right. Wasting my time trying to make people understand and all.
Who cares
Lots of experts looking pretty ordinary.
You guys must be bored s$&tless.
You guys must be bored s$&tless.
Not bored ****less enough to spew derailing stuff about HFT into a personal thread about value investing like you did, however.
some of us were kind of hoping to have a legit discussion about a trading strategy that constitutes half (or more) of global all-market volume and an even higher proportion of equity bourse volume?
You know, considering it's coming to Aus in a big way very soon?
I'm gutted!
Argument pointing to a changing coal face is seen as derailing!
I thought---Thought provoking.
Dinosaurs-----
But whats the problem with it. The flash orders stuff is a beat up. In the futs when it happens its ignored if not its hit into to by another bot or big dick. It just doesn't work.
Order stuffing is the same. The instrument get to where its going anyway.
Though rapid quote cancelling is seen as a way for marketmakers to minimise the risks of offering prices to other traders, keeping trading costs low, there is growing concern that a portion of such traffic is inefficient and raises costs to other investors who must invest in greater data bandwidth.
Nasdaq’s measures will penalise traders that send over 1m messages per day – which will include quotes, cancellations and replacements – but generate fewer than 1 trade per 100 messages.
The penalties will initially range from 0.01 cents to 1 cent per trade, with higher charges for messages further from the market price. This is called the weighted order-to-trade ratio. The charges could change, however, if they prove not be effective at curbing messaging.
“We don’t expect there to be a large number of customers affected, but it should cause people to focus on efficient quoting behaviour,” said Eric Noll, executive vice president at Nasdaq OMX. “In an ideal world, no one would pay anything.”
Can be frustrating fighting for a fill but its just an evolution of the markets. And I'm talking about fills when you are an active trader where a tick or two per trade means big money. Not Joe retail who can get all the volume he needs with a hit on the Comsec market button.
The biggest effect I see is ironically the slowing down of markets yet the Muppets think its their enemy. The ASX top 20 and futs have greatly reduced volatility from pre bots days. To the point that most Prop now doesn't touch it. Its arbed to within an inch of it life. Its already here.
And, as you know the world is stuffed full of funny money looking for a place to put it. Just because it is moving more does that mean its solely the fault of bots?Right no problem, I wonder why real sugar traders complaining sugar contracts not representative since ICE implemented their "Implied Engine"? As FT pointed out at the time
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05ba0b60-33d8-11e0-b1ed-00144feabdc0.html
And just like all other regulatory moves associated with the market they fix the "problem" long after the "market" has moved on from it. No problems with regulating dangerous code that F's up a market but thats exactly the same problem they had to deal with when electronic access started 20-30 years ago.No issues with order stuffing except all the NYSE "we will cancel trades below/above 30% flash crash/smash"? Like NASDAQ, Direct Edge, Deutsche Borse, Borse Italiana all moving to penalise quote stuffing? Like the SEC finally moving to regulate HFT code which can bring down a bourse?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d3aead4-689b-11e1-b803-00144feabdc0.html
Just another fun day.I am wondering if you were trading the ES or USDJPY on May 6 2010 like I was. Thankfully I was short USDJPY but trying to get out of the trade was fkn hell.
I am talking specifically about comparative trading volumes, 10% for the ASX versus 60-70% for NYSE, Euronext, LSE, etc. When I say 'coming' I mean the increase of this participation which moves in line with other major developed world markets.
They are Oppy arb bots, Insto arb Futs bots and Insto execution bots.
Can we just put that sentence in the Newbie thread just for fun?
And, as you know the world is stuffed full of funny money looking for a place to put it. Just because it is moving more does that mean its solely the fault of bots?
And just like all other regulatory moves associated with the market they fix the "problem" long after the "market" has moved on from it. No problems with regulating dangerous code that F's up a market but thats exactly the same problem they had to deal with when electronic access started 20-30 years ago.
Just another fun day.Come over to a thin and fast market like Honkers if you wanna know hell!!
I cannot see anyway around regulating markets not to move when they are thin?
As for this original reason for the topic its all a beat up. Kohler is a muppet who took the existence of Co-location servers as the existence of evil flash order, front running, manipulating Bots. BS. They are Oppy arb bots, Insto arb Futs bots and Insto execution bots.
All I was pointing out is that there are futs out there where what you said happens isn't happening, big dicks didn't ignore it or hit it, they stopped participating in the contract! They live in the real world, their access to production capital from the bank for the next year depends on a properly functioning futures market, if the contract series doesn't reflect reality then it is no good to them. If it's no good to the producers, the economic function it serves is more akin to casino than futs market.
So there are clearly issues with capital formation and efficient allocation of capital here.
So effectively everyone who places a trade when there is a HFT action in their direction will win out. Whats the problem then?
And no, they can't "see" a trade before it comes through to the market. They can be fast but not go back in time.
No you're wrong about that. They in fact can see the order before everyone else, hence "see the future". That's why people are up in arms about flash trading don't you get it?
I see TH is been his usual smart **** self again huh.
No you're wrong about that. They in fact can see the order before everyone else, hence "see the future". That's why people are up in arms about flash trading don't you get it?
For example on the asx they have a matchtrading system with bids and offers on multiple order books, signals are flashed between the systems to a fill matched to the best price.
eg 1.
Best bid Best offer
TradeMatch 4.05 4.10
Chi-X 4.02 4.06
PureMatch 4.02 4.07
But when the new order comes and you have a fast enough system, its possible to get a fill at a lower price and sell into the higher price. Its all a matter of latency. So when Joe 6 pack or even institutional investors who don't have access to HFT bots want to buy at the lower price, they would find they can't get a fill and have to move into a higher price. Hence you get slippage. (this is all happening in milliseconds btw)
The situation is even worse in volatile conditions like in a buying or selling frenzy where you can get bids above the offer prices or offers below the bidding prices. HFT bots can make tremendous amounts of money just from the spreads.
And this is just one way of doing it. I've seen other ways HFT have the advantage over the public, like using midpoint crossing trades with darkpools sell into rallies without public buyers knowing. This isn't like the dumb limit sell like we have either. They typically have standard deviations built into the system so it even MOVES with the rally, ensuring they get a good price. How come we can't do that? And if the direction goes against them, they will throw up a fake bid wall to manipulate the market into believing there's buying pressure. But when it actually get to them in the queue, they'll pull the order and put it one step back, letting fools who fill in after them take on more of their sells.
Gee Iro you have been busy. Shame you didn't manage to understand this post,
No flash orders on the ASX. Never was. Happy to be proven wrong though so I can be up in arms over it.
Orders are not 'flashed' between them. It will be a consolidated market depth so it'll show 4.05 bid, 4.06 ask. All aussie brokers sent out a best execution policy a while ago dealing wit this specific issue. Non crossing volume is still 99%+ TM though.
Agree with most of this, and you raise a point with a example of a sell order that sells into rallies and spoofs bids.
That would be more of a regular algo than a HFT.
Gee I wonder why. You never answered my very specific questions, didn't provided any helpful information, and were very condescending so I moved onto other sources thanks.
And how did you see what I posted before I edited it? Are you actually a mod in disguise?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?