Hacker News Reader

Comment by harryh | Hacker News Reader

You basically just said that people should read the book because, even though it's mostly wrong, it's well written.

Isn't that kind of crazy?

I'm not saying that it's mostly wrong. I am saying that it's a biased perspective, but most of the contents is factual. You can learn interesting things about the markets, and about the individuals and the companies involved. However, this is one side of the story. Michael Lewis' facts were gathered from people that were close to him and the people that he could get to speak to him. It's one circle of people with their own agenda. But there are many other views out there. So he is presenting the facts that he knows about and that he thinks are important. But there are things that he is perhaps omitting on purpose, and things that perhaps he just doesn't know or understand. The book is not the whole truth. As with any good book or article, you can learn a lot without having to agree with the author's conclusions or his personal views.

I'd be happy with that outcome if that's what happened.

Instead I've spent the last week explaining to people (including my mom) why the opinions of an exchange bought and sold by folks with a vested interest in not allowing price discovery are painting me as evil.

Add to that the very real fact that for whatever reason, incompetence, bias, or laziness, Lewis has literally misrepresented the way the markets work, and the way participants thought it worked for many years and you can under stand why some of us are upset.

I've seen this argument advanced several times now, but it doesn't make sense to me. Looking at the investors of IEX -- David Einhorn, Dan Loeb, Bill Ackman, Capital Group -- these are some very, very smart people. They're not idiots that were sold a bill of goods by a lying, bumbling team of Lewis and Katsuyama. And while they may have a vested interest via their investments in IEX, it's dwarfed by their interest in reducing slippage on their own trades. IOW, it doesn't seem like they are talking their book. It seems like they are really seeking a fairer market. (Obviously, what's "more fair" to one party may be "less fair" to another)

If something is "more fair" for David Einhorn, Dan Loeb, Bill Ackman & Capital Group, who do you think it's "less fair" for?

I was simply pointing out that fairness is a matter of perspective, and in a sense, arbitrary. If I were an HFT I would no doubt think that IEX would be unfair to me.

I will claim that the proposed solution (IEX) creates a fairer market for the vast majority of market participants.

Or at least they're seeking to avoid having to have execution traders on staff who can manage their order flow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com