This is super interesting to me - got any resources of people counter-pointing Lewis's writing? Would love to dive in a little deeper.
^^ a blog post where I collect this stuff as I answer this question so often.
Quote:
> I think this is the crux of this story: according to Michael Lewis and Katsuyama, we’re supposed to trust people like Einhorn who have been convicted of insider trading, people who are suspected of insider trading (buy side is by definition rife with this; particularly firms that do merger arb and special events), J.P. Morgan, Goldman and Morgan Stanley: we’re supposed to trust these guys more than we’re supposed to trust a bunch of tiny little market making firms who had been inconveniencing them by taking away some of their flow. Lewis tries to make this seem like a battle between the underdog “good guys” and the evil establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe that Goldman Sachs and people like Einhorn are underdogs, rather than the actual establishment. To believe this, you’d have to believe the tiny industry of HFT traders actually rules the world and buys off congressmen and the SEC more than … J.P. Morgan and Goldman. [...] Yeah, I might believe that. I might believe that if I were a dribbling retard.
doesn't really answer why Flash Boys does such a terrible job of explaining HFT
The whole premise of the David and Goliath story Lewis wants to tell is that HFT is a device used by the Wall Street establishment to screw over the rest of the market.
But in fact it's more the opposite: HFT firms are upstart prop trading and market making shops that are pissing off giant banks like Goldman and JPMC by making it harder for them to skim profits off block trades for pension and hedge funds.
Also: the use of rhetoric like "dribbling retard" isn't what makes an argument "ad hominem". An ad hominem argument is one whose logic rests on a claim about its opponent and doesn't account for its opponent's argument. The logic behind the quote you're commenting on doesn't do that.
i do appreciate your explanation for how the goal of Lewis's book is based on a fallacy
The argument being made here is about Katsuyama's complaint that the prices he'd see in his terminal would suddenly move away from him if he tried to trade large blocks of stock at that price.
What makes Katsuyama sound incompetent is his apparent lack of understanding of the price pressure his own large block trades put on the market. Lewis makes Katsuyama out to sound as if he can reasonably expect that if FCOJ is quoted 29.78-29.80, he can sell 100,000 shares at the quoted price. Of course, not only can he not expect to do that, but the influence that large trade has on the market is the whole reason Katsuyama is paid by RBC to trade for its clients.
Hence: either Lewis doesn't understand his subject well enough to report on it, or Katsuyama doesn't understand the basic function of his job.
In any case: not an ad-hominem, sorry. There's a popular Internet fallacy that says any argument that uses insulting language must be an ad-hominem. Insults aren't usually productive, but they don't automatically produce flawed arguments.
I guess calling him an idiot is not ad-hominem in that he's arguing he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
A) I agreed with your last comment
B) was just pointing out that the snarkyness comes across strong in the blog post. So it's possible that frame of mind affects the writing and it affects the reader, argument aside.
Maybe I should change the post to be more explicit about that.
http://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-High-F...