People who are pro-HFT see it as a way of increasing the 'liquidity' of the market. In their eyes it makes it easier to move volume of stock, and moves the bid price of the stock closer to the ask price of the stock.
HFT is just abusing an information advantage to skim off of the market. Because they have a slightly more accurate view of the market, they can front run trades and make money. That's all it is. There is no benefit to the seller, to the buyer, or to the market. It's pure parasitism.
Someone's job is going to be to sit between the people who just want to sell and those who want to buy- when we talk about liquidity it's just this. The fact that you're directing your anger towards some robots who are ruthlessly driving each other to the minimum possible gap between the buy price and the sell price on this is bizarre
Of course you need money to compete. You need money to compete with Facebook too.
You sell a stock at a certain price, someone else looks up the price of the stock and sees that it is slightly higher than what you listed, because your information is still propagating through the network. That person offers to buy the stock at the higher price. The market matches your offers up. Then the HFT steps in and buys your stock and resells it to the buyer at the price he asked.
There is no value to the seller or buyer. Zero risk to the HFT firm. No improvement in market conditions--the HFT firm doesn't sit on positions, they can't increase liquidty. Just free money from abusing a latency advantage on their view of the market.
Assuming that at some point bids and asks will line up and trades will happen doesn't a market make; that's the exchange's job. Making a market means being able to quote prices on both sides of the book and having inventory to trade at the current market price. Carrying that inventory has actual risk involved, and that's why it's not a free service that the exchange (or anyone else) provides. Market makers also get penalized by the exchanges if they're not making markets for some large percentage of the time that the products are trading.
Maybe a better way to look at it is that the exchange is there to match up buyers and sellers at the current price at a given moment in time. The market matches up buyers and sellers at the current price over a period of time. This market stabilizes the price over time. Demand and supply just don't line up perfectly like it seems like they should. That's the difference between the market and the exchange. If I'm buying a product now, I want an idea of the true value of it, and the less the price is whipping around waiting for demand to match the supply, the more I know what the current market rate is.
I'm not saying they're doing gods work, but to say that there's no risk involved or reason for them to exist is incorrect.
If you don't buy any of the above arguments, then I'm interested in your answer to the question of why the exchanges themselves pay market makers to make markets. If the current technology renders market makers obsolete, surely the exchanges would recognize that and keep the money for themselves, no?
This is why HFT firms end every day with empty books.
The thing to accuse them of is book stuffing.
There's no reason there needs to be a middleman here. Buyers can buy from sellers directly. In fact that's what they think they are doing, except that the HFT firms are basically adjusting the price on them underneath the sheets.
The real losers are the sellers. They put up some product at a price, someone else on the other side of town sees a slightly different price because the market only moves at the speed of light. Instead of the seller getting a little bonus, that bonus is hoovered up by the HFT guy in the middle who has a more accurate view of the market.
What service did the HFT provide? Where did this mysterious liquidity come from?
In the old days the middlemen were responsible for actually finding the guy making the sale and matching him up with the buyer. This was real work and it makes sense that people would be paid for it. Now the computer does it for you, there is no need for a middleman and no value he can offer. It's a parasitic relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
This is because sellers don't always want to wait around for buyers and vice versa.
Sellers that are worried they have poor market visibility can just put in a limit order that they believe represents a fair price.
If they do maintain them, they reap a number of benefits including discounted pricing from trading platforms and IIRC, the ability to do naked short selling (which IMO should be off-limits for all trading firms). I'm not defending HFT here, just stating a fact that market makers are a part of the trading ecosystem.
Keep in mind that "making" and "taking" liquidity is not the same thing as buying and selling. Market makers are required to post both bids and offers. The difference is that market makers put their orders (buy or sell) on the "book", which means they are offering liquidity in both directions. The order that comes in to match (think "market" order to buy or sell) is the "taker". Firms that supply liquidity are rewarded by trading platforms (unsurprisingly, since those firms "make" their market), and firms that match those orders (takers), are charged for the service.
Not all HFT outfits are "market makers", but many are. I can't say specifically if Virtu is a market maker, even if I remembered :) The point is that liquidity providers don't pay for their trades, they are paid for them, so it's a natural fit for a smart HFT operation.
Out of curiosity -- why?
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/25/vanguard-chief-defends-high-f...
"We actually have a really good perspective on this, and there's no question in our mind that the cost to investors through funds has come down," he said.
The problem is their ability to front-run people. They shouldn't be able to get a more accurate view of the market than anybody else, and they certainly shouldn't have the chance to roll-back their actions after they get a glance of the results. Frequency of trading is irrelevant.
I don't mean this as a comment on HFT or the law, I really don't know. I'm just pointing out that the SEC is bound by budgetary constraints and that litigation is very expensive, so they have to do cost/benefit analysis and prioritize the cases that are more likely to win.
And this is before political considerations come into the picture. News articles described the 'resident's SEC pick as being more interested in capital formation than enforcement; that seems a pretty reasonable assessment to me, given that S&C was representing Goldman Sachs during the epic CDO litigation, the cabinet is stuffed with GS alumni, and the administration's general attitude seems to be less regulation for more muscular and dynamic capitalism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sec-idUSKBN14N1Y...