4,318 karma · joined December 28, 2010
email: plesiosaurus99@gmail.com
Incidentally this is why when you hear anyone quoting the Dow you can tell immediately that they are either clueless or an innumerate moron.
Is that actually true?
The idea that reduced tick sizes would force traders to compete on price rather than time is a popular HN market microstructure solution, but it's wrong or at least partly wrong.
1) Liquidity taking strategies will still "compete on time" in order to trade at the most favorable prices. Market making strategies will still "compete on time" in order to avoid getting picked off.
2) Inverted fee venues and midpoint order types offer sophisticated traders the opportunity to trade at prices within a 1 penny spread. If you watch the tape for a stock like ZNGA you will see this type of trading.
3) There are a number of high priced / high volume stocks that don't trade at a penny spread. GOOG is a good example. Do you find GOOG trading to be somehow cheaper, more orderly or efficient than e.g. MSFT? The GOOG spread is almost never a penny and is regularly over 20 cents. If the benefits are there, they ought to be obvious.
There are a number of incorrect assumptions built into your comment (most notably that prop HFT are the only ones using algos to trade), but the simple answer to this question is that those exchanges have larger displayed size at better prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Multiplication_...
If this is trolling you're doing a very good job.
There is a bit of cheating going on here though. Awk doesn't support true multidimensional arrays. They are depending on a Gawk extension for that bit of functionality.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curposti...
As much as I like the idea of a bunch of scheming Qualcomm executives sitting around a giant conference table plotting to ply journalists with breakfast and lunch, maybe it's possible they were just being polite hosts?
I think that sentence would make most professional equities traders chuckle. I mean, it's true-ish for some of the big etfs and some of the highest volume individual companies, but there are 8k+ listed symbols in the US and you can't just go buying and selling "almost any quantity" of most of them. Nobody really trades that way. Trading in size typically involves chopping a large order into smaller orders that get managed by a trader or really a trader's execution algorithm.
http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-polices-so-called-black-sit...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-homan-s...
Not trying to defend CPD here, but the guardian seems to be alone in trying to dramatize this into a story about the Homan Square facility being sort of black ops detention facility.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000156459015...
I'm not a securities lawyer, but I think the basic idea is that news about the layoffs (and the associated costs) was deemed to be material information, so under reg FD it has to be released to all investors simultaneously.
Under their proposed Rule 11.330, they only have two prop feeds which are the TOPS feed and a last sale feed. So no full depth feed. They would be the only US equities exchange without a full depth feed, but it looks like that's what they want to do.
Dark pools OTOH tend to have all sorts of gimmicks with respect to whose orders are allowed to match against other orders and under what circumstances. E.g. if I connect to a bank-run dark pool, I may be able to opt out of matching against principal flow from any of the bank's prop desks. The matching rules should be described in a dark pool's "form ATS" which some dark pools publish (and some don't).