So despite the fact that the subject is interesting, I'd consider it a waste of time to try and gain anything but a basic understanding of the industry and how algo trading works.
So despite the fact that the subject is interesting, I'd consider it a waste of time to try and gain anything but a basic understanding of the industry and how algo trading works.
The same thing applies to getting a job for instance. Take job X. If job X was available and worth doing at wage $, someone would be doing it. So why bother applying ?
So what it really means is that the semi-strong and strong form of the efficient market hypothesis is bullshit: there are plenty of opportunities in the market, you're just not seeing most of them.
I would argue that nearly everyone doesn't even try to see opportunities.
My point is that models will never accurately predict the future.
"OK, how many times have you seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk???"
(I actually heard this response with a $100 bill as the example, which would make it even less common).
There is a lot of information asymmetry, and an individual is capable of capturing that without requiring a PhD or the resources of a large firm. That's not to say it's easy per se, but it's not hopeless. It requires special expertise or an unconventional approach.
Otherwise I agree that most people probably shouldn't attempt it (for risk tolerance reasons).
Why?
Yes, but you aren't going to have any such data. If the information is available to you, it's available to other participants of the market as well and you're not the only one trading on it.
Yes, agreed: the longer the data is available, the more likely it is that others catch and start using it. That's a constant battle of course - continually coming up with new sources of data and new ways of getting it before most of the market.
> what makes you think only you have thought about trading on that data which must necessarily be public for you to have it legally?
I don't think I'm the only one who has thought about trading on it; on the contrary, I know there are many parties interested in trading on material information that is only technically public, but very obscure. However, after consistently profiting on this data, I can be fairly well assured that there are relatively few parties with the same informational edge, because the market consensus clearly doesn't price it in until it becomes explicitly widely known.
As I said, I don't need to have certainty that I am literally the only party with the information, so long as it is known by so few parties that the market consensus doesn't price in the sentiment. All material data has a half-life, which decays with time and market awareness. In some cases, the nature of the data or the methodology for sourcing it is so novel that it is conceivable to be the sole party with the information for a short and meaningful time period (where information means the exact same dataset acquired in a categorically similar way, not the downstream sentiment derived from the dataset). But that is a much higher bar, and it's completely unnecessary for profit. It's nice for pride though.
You'll have to forgive me for not going into any greater detail than that, both because any more than this is strictly a trade secret, and because I'd rather not have a competitor for my personal trading operations (or have someone turn around and sell this data, ruining my alpha in the process). The best I can tell you is to look into the analysis of satellite imagery, but with greater human ingenuity and a more specialized approach. That's not going to get you all the way there, but at least that much of the methodology is publicly known thanks to the old article about Walmart parking lots. You can't collect actual information about a company, but there is a lot of room for human creativity in finding strong proxies for that data that the rest of the market is mostly ignoring.
MIT does not teach "HFT", those "MIT PHD Quants" are just as untrained in finance as you are. The rest is math, something that requires time to study but not necessarily a certificate. And creativity. I've only seen a single HFT-algo that made me say "wow, that's creative"; all others were just straight implementations of finance "wisdom".
2.) The less you know the better
Adjusted to average growth of stock market (and inflation), it is a zero sum game. You aren't creating value by predicting the future. Just like you don't create value when you predict which lottery ticket will win.
1) Reduce spreads.
2) Stabilise prices.
Now, whether it makes any sense to put to work all those bright minds for these purposes, is a question the society should have asked some time ago...
On the other hand, this zero-sum game helps companies raise capital to make real investments with real returns, and that part isn't zero-sum.
Where I think HFT is zero sum is your competing against other HFT people to more accurately and quickly predict the future in the very near term, then buy & sell in a very short period. And since the market changes all the time, these algos must change to stay profitable over time as the competition improves their algos to beat you. Algo trading might work in markets where HFT isn't big yet, but most people won't know which markets that is or how to actually trade there, and if you get good enough to make successful models, you're basically in the industry, it's probably way more than a hobby at that point.
An ultra-HFT liquidity provider being profitable has little bearing on the potential profitability of quantitative trading on significantly larger timescales. There isn't sufficient volatility in most products for these actors to eat the lunch of actors who have alpha on trades that can hold for significant periods.
Sure you may not be as profitable as top quant companies, but do you really mind that much?
That sounds too much like wishful thinking to me. Furthermore, if someone is really smart enough to beat the market consistently why on earth would they trade just on their own personal account? Work for a hedge fund and use other people's money to leverage your bets.
Alternatively, if you have a strategy that empirically works, and a strategy for identifying such strategies, why take on investors to share the risk? You can scale up your own investment and leverage yourself with less regulatory oversight.
Why on earth do you think the top quant companies will leave alpha on the table for you to snatch up?
It's not so much that they leave alpha on the table, rather that there is so much alpha available, and the capacity constraints and reward profiles are so different for many of them, that individuals can prosper outside of a firm. They just normally don't, because they lack the same training (and because it's very competitive).
Big firms leave tons of (for them) small opportunities on the table, because it's not worth their time.
Similarly, there are people who can regularly beat the market that don't have much to offer large funds because their methods don't scale.
As a simple example, a farmer hedges his wheat crop selling wheat futures. That allows him to reduce some of his risk, thereby allowing him to plant more (i.e. growing the economy). The market marker who bought the wheat futures may be trading multiple commodities. This trade diversifies his risk, allowing him to trade more of other commodities, allowing other farmers to offset more of their risks (i.e. growing the economy). Investment companies or hedge funds enter the market purchasing futures, to diversify their risks, allowing them to invest more in equity markets, which fund companies (i.e. growing the economy).
If my point isn't already clear, markets and trading facilitate the diversification and allocation of risk capital to market participants thereby growing the economy. It's the conduit for capital which does make something.
unless its one of the many things in your life that don't
That does not necessarily follow; markets are not static and players are free to enter and leave.
Its fair to say that participants can leave the market, but in practice that isn't what we see. In practice there are firms doing this trading, and they are staying in business, and obviously making money.
Are they fleecing the little guy then? This explanation falls flat for me, i.e. for the amount of money they seem to be making, it would take a lot of small time participants losing everything every day. Most people I know aren't even active traders.
So why is it an accepted truism that the market is zero sum?
Yes, more or less (although that's just one way they make money, and probably not the most lucrative) And fortunately for them there are plenty of "little guys" ready to enter the market on a regular basis.
You've forgotten you can introduce new units of whatever is being traded and quite often is & there are additional complications such as dividends, stock options, etc which makes your oversimplification lacking substance.