Forgot your password?

Comment: There need to be costs (Score 5, Interesting) 349

by ggraham412 (#47384335) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

There needs to be a cost for issuing overbroad DMCA takedown notices.

If a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.

Comment: Now that Lewis's 15 minutes are up... (Score 4, Insightful) 382

by ggraham412 (#47175045) Attached to: High Frequency Trading and Finance's Race To Irrelevance

...time to spam us all with another article on HFT.

it allowed the high frequency traders to peek at the ballots others were sending in to the newspaper before they arrived, in turn giving them the ability to cast their votes using information not yet available to the rest of the market.

Front running is not High Frequency Trading. The existence of front running is not an argument to limit "High Frequency Trading" any more than phishing is an argument to end high speed internet.

Until people can recognize the difference between front running (a biased ordering of particular market events) and high frequency trading (low latency response to available market data) then there really is no point in responding to this nonsense. Not as much fun as donning the tinfoil hat, I know...

Comment: Mr. Kettle meets Mr. Pot (Score 1) 255

by ggraham412 (#47148901) Attached to: A Measure of Your Team's Health: How You Treat Your "Idiot"

The manner in which the team members and project leader treat its weakest member is a symptom of the team culture, and a mark of its health. If you treat people well, they respond – and that always shows in the results you produce.

So let's pen an article referring to said weakest members as "idiots" and "dummies".

Comment: Rigged Market != HFT (Score 1) 303

by ggraham412 (#46882877) Attached to: SEC Chair On HFT: 'The Markets Are Not Rigged'

As usual, tales of rigged markets and front running are equated with HFT, and modded up +5 by people who need to step back and take a deep breath. Please ponder the following points and think again.

1 Front running is what we call it when a market participant gets a peek at orders before they go to market. You could send your orders in on a post-it note on the back of a snail, and if that participant sees and acts on them before they go to market, that's still front running.

2 Flash trading is what we call it when an order is shown to a market participant for a brief moment of time before they go to market. Sounds like front running, right? Except that (at least for DirectEdge customers) you can flag your order to not be subject to flash trading. Why would anyone voluntarily subject their order to flash trading? Who knows - maybe they get a break in commission - the point is they can turn it off.

3 Rigging the market may also include self trading in an attempt to boost apparent volume at a price, or quoting prices you don't intend to be filled on to goose the market. Both of these practices are already illegal and well policed by the exchanges and the SEC.

4 The "liquidity" that everyone pooh-poohs is part of what makes things cost what they do. Introduce more bid-ask spread in the commodities markets, and the costs will go up for pretty much everything: bread, milk, gasoline, etc. HFT helps liquidity because it reduces the time for cheaper prices to percolate around the market.

5 HFT is there because the markets are largely FIFO, and the markets are FIFO because FIFO is unbiased. Can you think of a more unbiased match algo? Lots of people put forward some sort of time bucketed system, but it doesn't solve the problem of who gets filled when there are more buys than sells in a bucket or vice versa. Nor does it solve the problem of cross exchange trading where time buckets are not likely to be synced, and people deal with it by increasing the bid/ask spread they're willing to quote. (See #4.)

Sometimes, it really is more complex than "She's bought and paid for by HFT". Plus, if you can't bring yourself to take off the tinfoil hat, you might consider that opponents of HFT (like big banks) are precisely the ones who benefit if HFT goes away. Now back to your regularly scheduled screedy goodness.

Comment: Obama evolved his position, why couldn't Eich? (Score 5, Insightful) 1116

by ggraham412 (#46697135) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

The crux of the issue is that social attitudes are in flux on this matter. If you don't give people leeway to change, they will likely harden their positions.

And if you give some people leeway to change (eg- Obama, Hilary) and deny leeway to others (Brendan Eich) you are being blatantly partisan and unfair.

Comment: Re:Front Running is not HFT (Score 1) 246

I agree on that definition of front running. However, my point was that front running is not synonymous with HFT. I think this is an important point; already the calls are going out to slow down HFT trading in response to the discovery of front running per the original post.

I'm saying it won't help. You could require that all orders get submitted to BATS on post-it notes stuck to the backs of snails, but if someone is looking at the snails before the match engine and biasing the market around the order flow they see coming in, that is still front running.

Comment: Front Running is not HFT (Score 2) 246

Before you post an anti-HFT screed to Slashdot, ponder the question: Does the speed or frequency of the trading affect whether or not somebody is front running you? If the problem is that someone saw your order and acted on it before it went to execution, then the issue is with the absolute ordering of the events and not with the speed or frequency. There were front runners in the market long before electronic HFT trading came along.

A better term for what you're probably outraged about is flash trading.

What hath Bob wrought?