Search results

Impossible to prove. Allow spoofing and the market will take care of the "problem" all by itself. Unfortunately, HFTs cry to the regulators about spoofers because they are so stupidly written even though they are just as damaging.

From the article: That is all you need to know. If you manage to outsmart the HFTs, you get thrown in jail. HFTs have just as high (or higher) cancel rates than spoofers. HFTs should be given 3 year jail terms as well.

You really think Sarao caused the flash crash? Have you read the evidence against him? It's pretty slim at best. He's just a patsy.

Were you trading this morning? (August 24th, 2015) http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-great-etf-debacle-explained-1441434195

Because it delays the wide scale adoption of AI cars which means the loss of many lives that could have been avoided.

It would be nice to nail down these sorts of rules, but then you are holding AI cars to a higher standard than humans (i.e., in quick crash type situations, humans cannot be expected to be rationale and make "good" choices). I am not sure that is the most productive path to eliminating human...

There is no right answer to these problems. Even if a human is driving, there is no right answer. I find it odd that people harp on this topic (have seen it in multiple news sources over the past month) when it has very little to do with the ultimate goal: reduce car fatalities in the general...

I understand that. But can't you short the european bond ETFs that I linked to? Instead of going long an inverse? Wouldn't that be good enough for your purposes?

What the f*ck are you talking about? You think there will be more or less accidents with AI driving? That is all that is important, not some technicality about decision making at the moment accidents occur. I would much rather have all cars with AI driving, than risk drunk drivers, texters, etc.

Unless you are "trading" for long-term capital gains (which doesn't fall within the IRS's definition of a "trader"), what is the difference between short-term capital gains and ordinary income?

Can't you just outright short some of those mainly european based bonds?

You are worrying about minutiae. An algorithm should protect its passengers at all costs, just like a driver would. Problem solved.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/050416/5-best-highyielding-japan-bond-etfs-bndx-ishg.asp http://etfdb.com/type/bond/japan-bonds/ http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081215/top-4-european-bonds-etfs.asp...

Maybe, maybe not. I would proceed on my own until it became clear I needed an attorney. Of course, I wouldn't have done what the OP did in the first place, and I also tend to avoid attorneys at all costs.

There are brokerages where you can trade for zero commissions, making these kind of strategies viable. For example, Robinhood (all the time) or Merrill Edge (assuming you have a minimum amount of money in your account). In fact, over the long run a zero commission low share strategy probably...

Ok, so if you are driving the car, what is your decision? Your question is irrelevant. I would take my chances with AI driving vs. human drivers any day of my life.

Why is this even brought up? So if you are a human driver and you encounter this situation, what do you do? Is there even a right answer? I would bet that an AI driving robot would detect a potential collision way before a human could and would avoid the situation entirely.

It is the future and will be much safer than idiotic human drivers.

These stress tests are equivalent to everyone getting a participation ribbon.

Even during the financial crisis of 2008, a large percentage of the banks passed the Fed stress tests. What good is a test when it doesn't mean anything?