That is a recipe for vilification.
Think of the wrath of the unemployed truck and taxi drivers that will be aimed at the evil computer programmers and engineers who perfect self-driving cars and trucks. The headlines will be amazing.
Where did you get your claim from? I can source mine, if you really need me to.
Is there a socially acceptable way to call a person an ignoramus on HN?
That may not be accurate, but that's why I personally feel uncomfortable with HFT.
The story of automation in the financial markets is similar to the story of automation in many other businesses.
I may have that completely wrong though.
1) It reduces the bid/ask spread. There isn't just one price for a stock, there are two. The price at which you can buy and the price at which you can sell. The price at which you can sell is lower. So when you buy a share of stock you are immediately down a little bit. This amount is called the spread. By automating firms can reduce this spread which does the opposite of what your intuition told you. It will bring buy prices down slightly and sell prices up slightly.
2) It helps make sure that prices are as accurate and up to date as possible. When you go to buy a share of $GOOG you probably aren't really sure if it should cost 775.40 or 775.45 or 775.50. You just figure it's a good company and likely to go up in the future. But because there are all these firms working really hard and acting really fast you can be pretty confident that whatever price you buy at at any given time contains the total available knowledge currently available in the world about Google's future potential.
Here how it works... Imagine you want to BUY 10000 MSFT...
You send your order to exchange A, it does a partial fill for 1000 orders, and sends the remainder to exchanges b,c,d. An HFT firm sees your order to exchange A knows its not going to fill and sends its own orders to buy the liquidity on B,C,D and then sends sell orders at a higher price to B,C,D, your order fails to fill and you have to issue a new order at a higher price.
Since retailers will very likely never exceed the liquidity on a single exchange they'll never have any issue with HFT and will just experience increased liquidity and faster fills.
However, if you're a large dinosaur still sending huge orders now you'll need a group of suckers who want to trade only with you, enter IEX, and 'consumer' protection from HFT on their exchanges who now has a large pool of suckers to trade with.
Maybe, but that seems like a pretty risky strategy. A simpler and far less risky strategy that would look very similar (admittedly only if you're looking exclusively at orders on the book and not fills) would be for HFT market makers to cancel or reprice their existing resting orders on exchanges B, C, D in response to getting or seeing a large fill on A.
In the strategy described by the parent, in addition to having to cross the spread, the HFT firm would also be at the back of the line at the next price level (unless maybe they already have an order there? but no guarantee that it's the right size, or maybe they have multiple small orders and cancel whatever is in excess of the position..).
So I'm genuinely curious: is what the parent describes something that is really that commonly done? This is one of the things that made me highly skeptical of Flash Boys. It seemed to me they observed a phenomenon, came up with a single explanation for it and never even considered any other possibilities that didn't fit the chosen narrative.
HFT is generally considered good for retail traders because spreads tend to be lower. You trade both more cheaply and more quickly.
However, it's generally not good for large institutions (which are more than just 'big evil hedge funds') because markets react very quickly to movements caused by this big firms. If they decide that something is priced wrong, they won't be able to make many trades taking advantage of that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-25/-flash-bo...
Market has a hard time reacting to option spreads when the long option is executed prematurely. I don't see why big players can't use them.
Also the market can't react too predictably. Because then the big player could just yank the market around and profit.
Some of this is limited by regulations on large holders / insiders.
Are you claiming this doesn't impact the profitability of those people with directional views?
See Vanguard on this: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/25/vanguard-chief-defends-high-f...
Meanwhile, cost of trading for normal people like us has gone through the floor. And we're only really looking at the last 15 years when we think about trading costs, but even steeper reductions precede that, and it was all brought about by replacing human market makers --- who are crooked as a barrel of fishhooks --- with automated systems.
Respectfully --- I don't know you, and this isn't a personal comment --- but my guess is that you distrust HFT because you've been told to distrust it. If you do even the most superficial cui bono analysis, you'll see the people most interested in making you believe that are themselves major financial institutions, all of them far larger than the HFTs.
It wasn't HFTs that brought down the economy in '07-'08. It was their adversaries.
The industry standard for buying/selling mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations isn't HFT. It isn't even automated. It is one sweating jock yelling at another sweating jock over a recorded telephone call. You can see this dramatized in The Big Short, where to unwind the shorts that the "good guys" have made they have to get their own not-quite-sweating not-quite-jock played-by-Brad-Pitt to do the phone calls on their behalf.
Yes. No. Maybe. There's a massive push towards exchange trading the more liquid products: traders are expensive, and if you can get a robot to do basic inventory management and market making for you (even with a human in the loop), that's savings for a desk manager looking to cut costs in a highly straightened FI environment.
The highly distressed and/or exotic stuff that people are talking about in the Big Short are still slung by salespeople, with the connivance/approval of traders.
But human market makers colluded routinely, and in some cases famously.
My only point was that some people think all HFT is bad, and here we have a complaint that actually the situation is reversed and it was actually all human market making that was bad. I don't think either statement is completely true, and I was trying to highlight the contradiction because the human market makers and the HFTs are, in a lot of cases, the same people.
† https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-11-06/cftc-sues...
I think it's harder to describe how HFT is bad. Most of the efforts in this thread are, we'll say, only loosely connected to reality.
The best you can say about sweaty men shouting is that if not corrupt, still inefficient. (To say nothing of spreads in eighths.) I think that's a claim that really is true for literally every trader.
You also could see who was on the other side of your trade. Savvy floor traders would use that information to their advantage. If a sharp broker traded with you, you could hedge more aggressively or speculate in the same direction. Most electronic markets are anonymous these days so there's less information leakage.
Some of them worked for firms as professionals, but many traded on retail platforms similar to what you'd see from Interactive Brokers or TT these days. Still you are right that the average investor never traded in this fashion. At worst, the people HFT put out of work were trading as a profitable hobby similar to playing poker online.
Imagine your neighbor owned a Ferrari and you told him one day you were going to buy a gallon of milk at the store. "On sale for $3.99!" you say to him. Now imagine he sped past you on your way to the store and when you arrived there he had bought all the milk at $3.99 and was selling it in the parking lot for $4.01.
You wouldn't necessarily be ruined financially paying $4.01 instead of $3.99. The cost is negligible. But you would probably think he was kind of a jerk.
https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-High-...
Seriously, at one point, Lewis suggests that the trading station of some big trader is hacked. That just by typing numbers without submitting an order, stuff jumps. This should send huge red flags off on anyone that's even remotely familiar with anything similar to a computer. But it's another "see how rigged it all is?" anecdote blended in with his nonsense.
Which makes it all the more easier to get away with anything that sounds as sensational as this.
What you're describing is straight up hacking, and if there was as clear of a breach of the law like that, we wouldn't be having civil discussions about whether HFT is good or not.
Besides, almost nothing routes to Wall Street anymore. Especially not for stocks.
NASDAQ's trading platform is in Carteret, NJ. NYSE's trading platform is in Mahwah, NJ. Most HFT firms, if they're not already colocated in Carteret or Mahwah, are located in Secaucus, NJ.
The guy with the Ferrari would still outrun you and offer you a new price, with a margin just enough for them to be profitable, yet not substantially large as to talk you out of the deal altogether.
The situation I'm describing is literally what happens in the real world. If a large trader wants to buy a big block of stock such that he can't fulfill the order on a single exchange he has to be pretty careful about how he executes the trade or the market will move against him. As soon as he purchases all the stock at the market price on a single exchange those selling stock on other exchanges will raise their prices.
It's very important to understand this. The price doesn't (generally) rise on other exchanges because someone swoops in and buys up all the supply. It rises because the people who were selling in the first place change their offers.
You should instead send 4 or 5 trucks to each location and buy the available milk, the guy in the Ferrari cannot outrun you because you're already there, and your order filled before he even got there.
Now imagine that you have at your finger tips a giant constantly updating database to the nearest millisecond about how much milk there is at every grocery store, but you still decide to take out a front page ad and announce your plans in advance, instead of breaking up your order into multiple parts and sending each to its own store. If you did this, everyone would laugh at you like they are at IEX and Capital Group.
In reality, this occurs i the stock market because the "national market" consists of something like 15 different exchanges in a big distributed system, so there are race conditions. HFT market makers trade on all of the exchanges, and adjust their prices based on trading demand seen from other exchanges. They spend a lot of money on fast networks between the exchanges, so that they can be/beat the proverbial ferarri. But synchronized trades a la tgemilk trucks or Katsayuma's "Thor" cannot be raced against.
IEX is intended to partially commoditize the Thor approach: take the advantage away from the grocers (HFT, market makers) and give it to the big milk buyers (institutions like hedge funds and pension funds). Retail trading is not affected one way or another.
A closer analogy would be that the neighbor is the owner of the local supermarket and you have recently announced that you were going to buy all the milk in the region. You go to one local supermarket (not his) first and buy out the entire stock of milk. On your way to the next one (his), he raises the price of milk to $4.20, knowing that your increase in demand is going to drive up the price everywhere and he doesn't want to be the idiot that sold you milk at $4.00/gal and will have to resupply at $4.20, losing 20 cents per gallon on that sale. When you get there your realize that the price of milk has gone up, and you yell and scream and stomp your feet, but you buy the milk anyways, because you have high demand for milk. The supermarket owner is not a jerk for responding to the increased demand for milk, but many people see it that way.
So maybe your a really rich guy who can afford a lot of milk, and so you lobby the government to restrict the ability of supermarket owners to talk to each other, maybe they have to wait a day or something. The supermarket owners are just going to respond by increasing the price of milk on average, because there are random milk thirsty people coming through every once in a while buying up all the milk, increasing the price, and they need to increase the milk premium so they can afford to resupply. They need to compensate for that risk. For that reason everybody loses out. Less people are going to buy milk due to increased prices, so that's bad for the store owner, and milk buyers are going to have to pay a higher price.
Same thing is going to happen at IEX. There is simply going to be a wider bid/ask spread.
That said, it should be mentioned that the "rich guy"/"institutional investor" includes various pension funds.
"In a letter urging the SEC to approve IEX as a full exchange, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, a pension fund that manages more than $125 billion, suggested that trading through IEX could save the system millions of dollars a year."
What your described is more like real front-running: A customer places an order, the evil broker sees it and goes out in front to buy for himself then gives the customer a lower price.
Your buddy in the Ferrari reliably making money requires him to be able to properly predict. AND you're missing the other side of the trade! The poor shopkeep that priced at 399 when you were OK paying 401. Why should he lose out?
HFT market makers solve this.
In one corner, we have sweaty alpha male jocks [+]. In the other corner, we have geeks with computers. The geeks ran the table on the jocks primarily because the geeks can do math faster. The jocks complain that the geeks are cheating, because how can they be expected to out-math a computer and, also, isn't math just a little suspicious? And HN sides with the jocks?
[+] People might think I'm exaggerating. Videos exist of the daily life of a market maker. Here's a representative day at the office, circa 2000, in Chicago's open outcry options pit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvx3xM02iUs In stocks and bonds, you generally got to be sweaty in your own office (open plan, frequently) and yell at someone over the telephone rather than straight to their face.
So it's not so much that HN has sided with the jocks over the geeks. It's that (some portion of) HN dislikes both of them. And since the geeks killed the jocks the geeks are all there is left to dislike.
Part of this is also algorithm aversion (even here on HN) - watch how people are reacting to Tesla autopilot crashes. There is a lot of tin foil stuff about 'algos gone haywire', but I can tell you now that humans fat fingering in the market were both more common and more deadly.
I've never quite understood the amount of HFT hate here. God's work it ain't, but it's a bunch of nerds using bleeding-edge technology and machine learning to break into and (dare I say) disrupt an industry whose avarice and sense of entitlement is perhaps unparalleled in modern history. It's tailor-made for this crowd, but somehow still gets a bad rap. I truly fail to see how that's less exciting than anything else anyone here gets worked up about.
You could say the same thing about ebola.
Which is not to say every single person is worse off just that this does not increase the long term value created by the companies who's profit makes the stock market a positive sum game.