birdog1960 Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 http://finance.yahoo...-160331096.html I believe front running trades is wrong and unethical. I also don't think its that big of an issue. Its a total non-issue as far as my portfolio is concerned. it's just one of a mountain of schemes to grab .1 percent here. .25 percent there. 1% somewhere else. and much of the costs result in no value (or even decreased value) for the investor. that's where the outrage comes from. and there is outrage. read the comments below this article. they'd have the authors head on a pike if he were in friont og f them lecturing. but don't worry. the story isn't getting any traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 it's just one of a mountain of schemes to grab .1 percent here. .25 percent there. 1% somewhere else. and much of the costs result in no value (or even decreased value) for the investor. that's where the outrage comes from. and there is outrage. read the comments below this article. they'd have the authors head on a pike if he were in friont og f them lecturing. but don't worry. the story isn't getting any traction. Check out the WSJ today and tell me where this story is being covered because I can't !@#$ing find it. Read the !@#$ing comments? Are you serious? Read the comments below any CNN article and you'd be convinced that every story is a national outrage and that everyone is a dumb jew ni--er collecting welfare and sucking rooster. Very compelling. Read the god damned comments?!?!? Are you serious???? !@#$wits like you may be outraged but this story isn't receiving half the coverage that Peaches is dead. Who the !@#$ is Peaches? Oh, the daughter of Bob Geldof. Well that clears everything up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Check out the WSJ today and tell me where this story is being covered because I can't !@#$ing find it. Read the !@#$ing comments? Are you serious? Read the comments below any CNN article and you'd be convinced that every story is a national outrage and that everyone is a dumb jew ni--er collecting welfare and sucking rooster. Very compelling. Read the god damned comments?!?!? Are you serious???? !@#$wits like you may be outraged but this story isn't receiving half the coverage that Peaches is dead. Who the !@#$ is Peaches? Oh, the daughter of Bob Geldof. Well that clears everything up. I get all my opinions from the comments below articles. Well, one opinion. That people are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Check out the WSJ today and tell me where this story is being covered because I can't !@#$ing find it. Not covering unethical behavior on Wall Street in the Wall Street Journal??? No way! Perhaps the comments section IS a better source in this matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Check out the WSJ today and tell me where this story is being covered because I can't !@#$ing find it. Read the !@#$ing comments? Are you serious? Read the comments below any CNN article and you'd be convinced that every story is a national outrage and that everyone is a dumb jew ni--er collecting welfare and sucking rooster. Very compelling. Read the god damned comments?!?!? Are you serious???? !@#$wits like you may be outraged but this story isn't receiving half the coverage that Peaches is dead. Who the !@#$ is Peaches? Oh, the daughter of Bob Geldof. Well that clears everything up. yahoo finance isn't cnn. and while it's not the wsj, i'd wager the economic and educational demographics of those folks frequenting it our significantly higher than average. they're probably also largely unaware of an issues with Peaches. Edited April 9, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Maybe the billions they make is not a big tax for the trading system to pay, so it's not a big deal like GG says. Frankly, I am not happy about anyone skimming my money off like that but that's just me. Yes it doesn't feel good to know someone sneaked ahead of you in line. But you also don't know if the HFTs are lowering your overall transaction costs. I found this to be an interesting read, from a guy who claims that it's impossible for HFTs to gain inside trading information, and in effect the front running occurs because the HFT systems can simply execute faster on the available information. He makes a good point, that even if the HFTs get the information directly from the exchange, that order is already public because somebody put that trade request in. The HFTs aren't skimming the order before it hits the exchange, which would be illegal (and what the floor brokers used to do). Why shouldn't companies that invest in superfast systems benefit from that investment? (Of course you have sleazeballs trying to game the system by placing artificial orders to fake a trade and skim that, but these guys are being picked off one by one, as they should be) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 yahoo finance isn't cnn. and while it's not the wsj, i'd wager the economic and educational demographics of those folks frequenting it our significantly higher than average. they're probably also largely unaware of an issues with Peaches. who said anything about old money? it's concentration of money that's at issue. ATD sold for 700mm. i'm guessing the founder is in the .01%. most likely all on the list are. and they were likely financed by others already in that group. and this concentration has all materialized from gaming an already corrupt system. i'm not claiming it's the root of the problem but it's certainly a symptom and folks like you see it as ok. i don't. Cool. You'd wager and you'd guess and probably and its likely and you'd estimate 10% or so....how can I argue with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Check out the WSJ today and tell me where this story is being covered because I can't !@#$ing find it. Read the !@#$ing comments? Are you serious? Read the comments below any CNN article and you'd be convinced that every story is a national outrage and that everyone is a dumb jew ni--er collecting welfare and sucking rooster. Very compelling. Read the god damned comments?!?!? Are you serious???? !@#$wits like you may be outraged but this story isn't receiving half the coverage that Peaches is dead. Who the !@#$ is Peaches? Oh, the daughter of Bob Geldof. Well that clears everything up. Another Jon Stewart tactic. He looked at the Fox news comments section to show how bad Fox News readers are. Really? To quote Bill Burr, based on the comments on youtube videos, 95% of people are horrible human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 Cool. You'd wager and you'd guess and probably and its likely and you'd estimate 10% or so....how can I argue with that? ?you might disagree first and then produce some evidence to the contrary. i'd wager, i link to more data points to support my arguments here than any other poster. now disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 ? you might disagree first and then produce some evidence to the contrary. i'd wager, i link to more data points to support my arguments here than any other poster. now disprove it. What in the world are you talking about? You haven't provided any data, other than a half baked uninformed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 ? you might disagree first and then produce some evidence to the contrary. i'd wager, i link to more data points to support my arguments here than any other poster. now disprove it. Of course you would. Perhaps you could produce some evidence in support of your many estimates and likelihoods. But then again, if you could, you wouldn't be guessing and wagering and probablying and estimating in the first place and I wouldn't be tasked with disproving your baseless speculation. Pull some more "likely 0.01%"s out of your ass. You definitely post more articles contrary to your positions than anyone else on PPP. I'll give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Yes it doesn't feel good to know someone sneaked ahead of you in line. But you also don't know if the HFTs are lowering your overall transaction costs. I found this to be an interesting read, from a guy who claims that it's impossible for HFTs to gain inside trading information, and in effect the front running occurs because the HFT systems can simply execute faster on the available information. He makes a good point, that even if the HFTs get the information directly from the exchange, that order is already public because somebody put that trade request in. The HFTs aren't skimming the order before it hits the exchange, which would be illegal (and what the floor brokers used to do). Why shouldn't companies that invest in superfast systems benefit from that investment? (Of course you have sleazeballs trying to game the system by placing artificial orders to fake a trade and skim that, but these guys are being picked off one by one, as they should be) But here's the thing: HFTs unerringly drive up the cost for each transaction I make. That's the pain point. At least when my broker skims, I'm getting a service for it. HFTs just wait to see a trade and front-run it. Again, this is not me complaining that it's illegal. I like the market-based solution that the guy in Lewis's book proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 But here's the thing: HFTs unerringly drive up the cost for each transaction I make. That's the pain point. At least when my broker skims, I'm getting a service for it. HFTs just wait to see a trade and front-run it. Again, this is not me complaining that it's illegal. I like the market-based solution that the guy in Lewis's book proposed. Is this because by the time your transaction is recoded the price has gone up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Is this because by the time your transaction is recoded the price has gone up?? Read all of the information presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Of course you would. Perhaps you could produce some evidence in support of your many estimates and likelihoods. But then again, if you could, you wouldn't be guessing and wagering and probablying and estimating in the first place and I wouldn't be tasked with disproving your baseless speculation. Pull some more "likely 0.01%"s out of your ass. You definitely post more articles contrary to your positions than anyone else on PPP. I'll give you that. wow, you noticed that. i felt it needn't be bolded. but lets get to brass tacks: an hft guru started a company that sold for 700mm. i've linked some data on what the top .01% is worth. it's less than 700mm to get in the club. yahoo finance is a, well, finance site. people interested in finance go there. people interested in finance often invest. 10% of investors are responsible for 80% of the investments (another data point i linked). it costs roughly 20mm to produce a hyper fast hft computer (another data point i linked to). that's a great deal of money. either a lot of people with a little money invested or a few with a lot did. i say the odds favor the latter. show me why i'm wrong. Edited April 9, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Have you ever seen us debate medicine based on something we saw on ER? I recommend the same course of action for you. The "data" you present have none or little correlation to the activity in the equity markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 wow, you noticed that. i felt it needn't be bolded. but lets get to brass tacks: an hft guru started a company that sold for 700mm. i've linked some data on what the top .01% is worth. it's less than 700mm to get in the club. yahoo finance is a, well, finance site. people interested in finance go there. people interested in finance often invest. 10% of investors are responsible for 80% of the investments (another data point i linked). it costs roughly 20mm to produce a hyper fast hft computer (another data point i linked to). that's a great deal of money. either a lot of people with a little money invested or a few with a lot did. i say the odds favor the latter. show me why i'm wrong. What the !@#$ is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) wow, you noticed that. i felt it needn't be bolded. but lets get to brass tacks: an hft guru started a company that sold for 700mm. i've linked some data on what the top .01% is worth. it's less than 700mm to get in the club. yahoo finance is a, well, finance site. people interested in finance go there. people interested in finance often invest. 10% of investors are responsible for 80% of the investments (another data point i linked). it costs roughly 20mm to produce a hyper fast hft computer (another data point i linked to). that's a great deal of money. either a lot of people with a little money invested or a few with a lot did. i say the odds favor the latter. show me why i'm wrong. A company was sold for $700 million. Why do you think all the proceeds went to one man? Total shareholder consideration was $672.94 million. Was Swanson, the man mentioned in the article pertaining to a company owned by Whitcomb, the only shareholder, dipshit??? Corporate !@#$ing finance. Do you know what a lending institution is? Do you have any idea how capital is raised?? Do you think capital projects in corporate america are really funded by friends and family??? Why are your wrong? Because you're connecting a series of unrelated dots by making specious assumptions based on a complete misunderstanding of how the world works. Is that good enough? Edited April 9, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 What the !@#$ is this? deductive reasoning. you should try it. A company was sold for $700 million. Why do you think all the proceeds went to one man? Total shareholder consideration was $672.94 million. Was Swanson, the man mentioned in the article pertaining to a company owned by Whitcomb, the only shareholder, dipshit??? Corporate !@#$ing finance. Do you know what a lending institution is? Do you have any idea how capital is raised?? Do you think capital projects in corporate america are really funded by friends and family??? Why are your wrong? Because you're connecting a series of unrelated dots by making specious assumptions based on a complete misunderstanding of how the world works. Is that good enough? you mean like the lending institution that bought the hft co? you think much of this isn't incestuous. of course it is. it has to be when such a huge amount of money is concentrated in such few hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) deductive reasoning. you should try it. you mean like the lending institution that bought the hft co? you think much of this isn't incestuous. of course it is. it has to be when such a huge amount of money is concentrated in such few hands. Much of Citigroup, which is a one stop financial shop, purchasing a company which has synergistic value is incestuous? Haven't you had enough for one day? Must you keep digging? Edited April 9, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts