Nasdaq Receives SEC Approval For AI-Based Trade Orders (cointelegraph.com) 52
The SEC has approved the Nasdaq's request to operate the first exchange AI-driven order type. CoinTelegraph reports: Called the dynamic midpoint extended life order (M-ELO), the new system expands on the M-ELO automated order type by making it "dynamic," meaning it will use artificial intelligence to update and, essentially, recalibrate itself in real-time. Order types are a set of software instructions that execute specific trade pairs at exact market pricing thresholds. This form of automation has been around for a while, but the new AI-driven order type is the first of its kind to use real-time reinforcement learning AI to execute orders
This should have the follow-on effect of substantially speeding up orders placed with the system. In a blog post accompanying the approval announcement, Nasdaq states that dynamic M-ELO demonstrated a "20.3% increase in fill rates and an 11.4% reduction in mark-outs" during its research and testing. According to a data sheet published by Nasdaq: "Calculated on a symbol-by-symbol basis, this new functionality analyzes 140+ data points every 30 seconds to detect market conditions and optimize the holding period prior to which a trade is eligible to execute." By adjusting the holding periods for orders in real time, as opposed to the traditional system that simply applies static timeouts to orders, fill rates should increase without a significant increase in market impact.
This should have the follow-on effect of substantially speeding up orders placed with the system. In a blog post accompanying the approval announcement, Nasdaq states that dynamic M-ELO demonstrated a "20.3% increase in fill rates and an 11.4% reduction in mark-outs" during its research and testing. According to a data sheet published by Nasdaq: "Calculated on a symbol-by-symbol basis, this new functionality analyzes 140+ data points every 30 seconds to detect market conditions and optimize the holding period prior to which a trade is eligible to execute." By adjusting the holding periods for orders in real time, as opposed to the traditional system that simply applies static timeouts to orders, fill rates should increase without a significant increase in market impact.
This is dumb... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: This is dumb... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about that. If an orangutan or porpoise can make good stock picks, I see no reason an AI couldn't do as well.
Re: (Score:2)
and will end in blood and tears.
Nah, for that we need a billionaire to invest in a ChatGPT-based automated real-time investment firm. We already have the baseline one for destroying professions, AutoGPT for destroying businesses, ChaosGPT trying to destroy the world, and all that's missing now is, er, CoinGPT to go around destroying markets.
Shower thought (Score:3)
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"
I guess we'll really find out if this is true or not, as AI will literally do that and only that.
Well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Handing over control of the nuclear arsenal to Skynet is level 1 suicide — lame, but giving it control over the financial system — now that’s boss level suicide.
Re: Well done (Score:2)
Re: Well done (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can a PID controller understand context-sensitive grammars?
Re: Well done (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought, they already use cryptuc algorythms to pick stocks just throwing a neural net under it and suddenly it becomes AI and works 0.0001% faster is enough for them.
A pox on this (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing honest about speeding up stock trading. It is all designed to favor the institutional traders and brokerages.
But the US stock markets are so overwhelmingly automated that day traders are forced into the game of big data and rush. Individual investors still have to play buy and hold, of course, and resist the brokers' pressure to trade trade trade.
Oh, crap, it was never fair. Oh well, more unfairness isn't changing anything I guess. Nevermind.
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
How about a public crowd-sourced green hedge fund that has the institutional power to benefit from the financial free lunches the big guys enjoy now?
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: be rich
Step 2: build a super fast connection to the stock exchange.
Step 3: monitor signals from groups and exchanges further away, noting price fluctuations which indicate purchases or sales.
Step 4: make your trades based on the impending transactions before others can react. Step 5: profit!
You may now continue to pretend this isn't happening.
Option 2: Be rich. Buy yourself a seat at the Senate. Do all the inside trading you like, as that is not legal for you.
Option 3: Be ric
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you enjoy being poor?
Re: (Score:3)
HFT is by no means the least of humanity's concerns, though I'll grant it doesn't make the top 10. It is sufficient for me to want a tax based on how long you've held the stock before you traded it, with higher rates for shorter hold times. 100% if you've held it for less than a second, and scaling up from there if you've held it for a shorter period. And scaling down to nothing if you've held the stock for over 5 years.
Re: (Score:1)
No thanks, my soul is worth more than money.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of the cross-currency basis, and the persistent decades-long violation of covered interest parity, which means, if you're big enough, you can borrow dollars at one rate and swap them into euros or yen at a higher rate?
Re:A pox on this (Score:4, Interesting)
Individual investors still have to play buy and hold, of course, and resist the brokers' pressure to trade trade trade.
For individual investors, buying low-cost index funds and holding them has always been the best strategy.
Not only do you statistically come out as good or better than almost anyone who doesn't have access to insider information, you also avoid wasting time and brain space researching and trading stocks.
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you've been listening to some online broker's marketing. The fund that I have the most in right now has an expense ratio of only 4 basis points per year.
That's certainly worth my time vs trying to buy and rebalance hundreds of individual stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual investors still have to play buy and hold, of course, and resist the brokers' pressure to trade trade trade.
For individual investors, buying low-cost index funds and holding them has always been the best strategy.
Not only do you statistically come out as good or better than almost anyone who doesn't have access to insider information, you also avoid wasting time and brain space researching and trading stocks.
. This.
Yes, it is quite possible to do well as an individual investor. It's a different set of rules though. You play the long game, not the high speed weirdness. And AI in the high speed weirdness will just make it all that weirder. What is likely is that it will freak out, and destroy some companies, and elevate some others to god status. It's going to get really unstable soon, so be careful y'all
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Liquidity is the fundamental supporting argument for HFT. Ugh.
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Milliseconds. Even microseconds.
Re: A pox on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: A pox on this (Score:2)
Not AI. Automation. Yes, higher fill rate improves efficiency. I still see the other side of the coin, improved algorithms might give sub-second advantages to those with cleverer or merely have more resources. It's a game that favors the winners, with which there is no valid argument.
This is where the fun begins! (Score:1)
If you thought valuations in the market meant nothing before, just wait until we have heavy AI stock trading and the AI traders feeding off each others movements in buying and selling!
A lot of money will probably be made in figuring out how to lead AI traders down a path...
Re: This is where the fun begins! (Score:2)
Did not Fischer Black point out that prices are just noise in 1986?
Re: This is where the fun begins! (Score:2)
Re: This is where the fun begins! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does the following passage from Black's 1986 essay, "Noise", contradict your simple little story?
"we might define an efficient market as one in which price is within a factor of 2 of value, i.e., the price is more than half of value and less than twice value. The factor of 2 is arbitrary, of course. Intuitively, though, it seems reasonable to me, in the light of sources of uncertainty about value and the strength of the forces tending to cause price to return to value. By this definition, I think almost all
HFT and Quants on AI drugs (Score:2)
Waht could go wrong?
Sounds like an exceptionally dumb idea (Score:3)
Apparently market stability is not a concern though, greed is more important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not surprised they are doing it. I am always surprised things like that get cheers. I admit I still have a hard time to accept how utterly dumb the average person is.
Re: Sounds like an exceptionally dumb idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not have read what they are doing. They are using "AI" to trigger trades.
I look forward to AI Hallucination trading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if prices have a context-sensitive grammar and AI can figure it out so you can do perfect hedges like it produces perfectly grammatical sentences?
Shoot them, shoot them now (Score:1)
Don't let AI anywhere near the stock market, and shoot anyone who suggests it. Read Black Swan.
Two Words... (Score:2)
"Flash" "Crash".
How about this...
They can have their AI trading bots on one condition:
They eat any and all losses incurred. No go-backsies, no bailout. No stopping everything and rewinding the stock market to before your friend got fucked. Deal with the results of your own mistakes. They shouldn't get to gamble and only accept the result if they win. That's not gambling. That's corporate welfare, and that's utter bullshit.
Re: Two Words... (Score:2)
What if no one pays for welfare (corporate or otherwise) because the Fed just prints money and automatically indexes all incomes and savings to price rises?
Obligatory (Score:2)