Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Truth or dare... (Score 1) 617 617

an investor may be prepared to pay 1.25 for a share, but you are offering to sell for 1.20 -- instead of the investor paying only 1.20, the HFT jumps in, buys for 1.20 and sells for 1.25, pocketing the difference

Nope. The exchange would match all orders until the 1.25 was filled, including your 1.20 offer _at_ 1.20 -- the investor would save 0.05 per share for the percentage that your offer covered. HFT, like the rest of the world, would only see the trade.

the stock exchanges like having large number of quotes, as they charge for trades, so the more the better

More quotes != more trades. I could flood the market with offers to buy AAPL for $1 and not a single one would ever get matched. There are markets that are considering a tax on trade-quote ratios that are too low. In the case above, I don't believe a single quote was ever hit so in a market with minimum trade-quote ratios, this behavior would be taxed out of existence.

Comment Re:Wny not just tax trades? (Score 2) 267 267

For the second case, that is not the definition of front-running. Front-running is when a broker executes trades for its own benefit based on knowing what its customer's plan to do and is illegal. What you've described is someone/something taking on risk and providing liquidity for a small fee. It's also not a backdoor fee. It costs money to trade on the exchange -- that's how they make money and cover their costs. I know I notice the $8.95 it costs me to make a trade (I would much rather pay fractions of a cent per share). You also solve no problems with a trading lag. If you have one, the race is still to see who can get first in line but you just force all the incoming traffic to be at "N time" intervals. Trading has always been about the race in some manner. It's like Christmas shopping in the US -- if you aren't first in line, don't expect the best deals.

Comment Re:Don't agree with the math (Score 1) 969 969

In terms of productivity (especially w.r.t. the severe productivity declines incurred beyond 40 hrs mentioned earlier in the article), 4 people @ 50 hrs/wk is probably less than 5 people @ 40 hrs/wk. Beyond that, it's up to those in charge to decide if they want to take on the (costs of an) extra employee for more long-term productivity or continue with the short-term productivity they currently have. The primary focus of the article is more of a call to arms for the worker to keep a 40-hour work week for their own sanity (note the title: Why We Have to Go Back to a 40-Hour Work Week to Keep Our Sanity ). If businesses and workers want to do otherwise, it's on them. This article provides justification for the worker to push back (or to find a place with better conditions).

Comment That's manager-speak for... (Score 1) 997 997

That's manager-speak for "will you take a 36% pay decrease until we're profitable." Assuming the hourly rate *with overtime*, you're losing out on 22.5 hours of pay (15 hours @ time-and-a-half). Considering I value my 5-9 time more than my 9-5 time, it would be an even bigger pay cut in my opinion. If you believe the company will become profitable *and* compensate you accordingly, make the appropriate gamble.

It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.

Working...