High frequency traders literally printing money!!! LITERALLY PRINTING MONEY!!!!

HFT are modern day market makers or specialists by computers, anybody can be specialist are make markets these days,,it's low cost barrier to entry market making business. without these HFT or market makers there would no liquidity at all for some of these stocks....there is only 250 firms trading ES on intra-day..only 250 firms in a room.and 20% control the market meaning 50 guys own the market. and for some stocks there is only one market maker .

even the NYSE specialist don't do much on the floor these days, most of the market is automated.

and as for frontrunning, it's a gray area,,everybody does it in those broker/dealer firms



Quote from S2007S:

Since the 998 point intraday collapse news stories about these high frequency traders have been popping up every where. Its actually shedding even more light on whats going on and how these traders work and how they literally print free money on a second to second basis. These speedy traders are making up more than half of the volume on the exchanges. Wallstreet has become nothing but a casino, with these programs in place they are guaranteed to make a profit no matter what, no regular trader whether long term or short can compete with these computer codes. These computers are front running and sniffing out trades before they even touch the exchanges. Of course its going to take something even worse than May 6th to shed light on whats really going on with these high frequency traders.


Speedy New Traders Make Waves Far From Wall Street
May 17, 2010, 1:56 am

Above Restoration Hardware in the Jersey Shore town of Red Bank, not far from the Navesink River, lurks a Wall Street giant.

Here, inside the humdrum offices of a tiny trading firm called Tradeworx, workers in their 20s and 30s in jeans and T-shirts quietly tend high-speed computers that typically buy and sell 80 million shares a day.

But on the afternoon of May 6, as the stock market began to plunge in the “flash crash,” someone here walked up to one of those computers and typed the command HF STOP: sell everything and shutdown, The New York Times’s Julie Creswell writes.

Across the country, several of Tradeworx’s counterparts did the same. In a blink, some of the most powerful players in the stock market — high-frequency traders — went dark. The result sent chills through the financial world.

After the brief 1,000-point plunge in the stock market that day, the growing role of high-frequency traders in the nation’s financial markets is drawing new scrutiny.

Over the last decade, these high-tech operators have become sort of a shadow Wall Street — from New Jersey to Kansas City, from Texas to Chicago. Depending on whose estimates you believe, high-frequency traders account for 40 to 70 percent of all trading on every stock market in the country. Some of the biggest players trade more than a billion shares a day.

These are short-term bets. Very short. The founder of Tradebot, in Kansas City, Mo., told students in 2008 that his firm typically held stocks for 11 seconds. Tradebot, one of the biggest high-frequency traders around, had not had a losing day in four years, he said.

But some in Washington wonder if ordinary investors will pay a price for this sort of lightning-quick trading. Unlike old-fashioned specialists on the New York Stock Exchange, who are obligated to stay in the market whether it is rising or falling, high-frequency traders can walk away at any time.

While market regulators are still trying to figure out what happened on May 6, the decision of high-frequency traders to withdraw from the marketplace is under examination.

Did their decision create a market vacuum that caused prices to plunge even faster?

“We don’t know, but isn’t that the point? How are we ever going to find out what’s going on with these high-frequency traders?” said Senator Edward E. Kaufman, Democrat of Delaware, who wants the Securities and Exchange Commission to collect more information on high-frequency traders.

“Whenever you have a lot of money, a lot of change, little or no transparency, and therefore, no regulation, you have the potential for a market disaster,” Senator Kaufman added. “That’s what we have in high-frequency trading.”

Some high-frequency traders welcome the closer scrutiny.

“We are not a no-regulation crowd,” said Richard Gorelick, a co-founder of the high-frequency trading firm RGM Advisors in Austin, Tex. “We were all created by good regulation, the regulation that provided for more competition, more transparency and more fairness.”

But critics say the markets have become unfair to investors who cannot invest millions in high-tech computers. The exchanges offer incentives, including rebates, which can add up to meaningful profits for high-volume traders as well.

“The market structure has morphed from one that was equitable and fair to one where those who get the greatest perks, who have the speed, have all of the advantages,” said Sal Arnuk, who runs an equity trading firm in New Jersey.

High-frequency traders insist that they provide the market with liquidity, thus enabling investors to trade easily.

“The benefits of the liquidity that we bring to the markets aren’t theoretical,” said Cameron Smith, the general counsel for high-frequency trading firm Quantlab Financial in Houston. “If you can buy a security with the knowledge that you can resell it later, that creates a lot of confidence in the market.”

The high-frequency club consisting of 100 to 200 firms are scattered far from the canyons of Wall Street. Most use their founders’ money to trade. A handful are run from spare bedrooms, while others, like GetCo in Chicago, have hundreds of employees.

Most of these firms typically hold onto stocks for a few seconds, minutes or hours and usually end the day with little or no position in the market. Their profits come in slivers of a penny, but they can reap those incremental rewards over and over, all day long.

What all high-frequency traders love is volatility — lots of it. “It was like shooting fish in the barrel in 2008. Any dummy who tried to do a high-frequency strategy back then could make money,” said Manoj Narang, the founder of Tradeworx.

A quiet man with a quick wit and a boyish enthusiasm, Mr. Narang, 40, looks like he came out of central casting from the dot-com era. Wearing jeans, a gray T-shirt and a New York Yankees hat, he takes a seat in front of his computer terminal and quietly answers questions about his business, glancing occasionally at the Yankees game in one of the windows on his PC.

After graduating from M.I.T., where he majored in math and computer science, Mr. Narang bounced around Wall Street trading desks before starting Tradeworx in the late 1990s.

At the time, Wall Street was at the beginning of a technological evolution that has changed the way stocks are traded, opening a variety of platforms beyond the trading floor.

The Tradeworx computers get price quotes from the exchanges, decide how to trade, complete a risk analysis and generate a buy or sell order — in 20 microseconds.

The computers trade in and out of individual stocks, indexes and exchange-traded funds, or E.T.F.’s, all day long. Mr. Narang, for the most part, has no idea which stocks Tradeworx is buying or selling.

Showing a computer chart to a visitor, Mr. Narang zeroes in on one stock that had recently been a winner for the firm. Which stock? Mr. Narang clicks on the chart to bring up the ticker symbol: NETL. What’s that? Mr. Narang clicks a few more times and answers slowly: “NetLogic Microsystems.” He shrugs. “Never heard of it,” he says.

If high-frequency traders crave volatility, why did Tradeworx and others turn off their computers on May 6?

Mr. Narang said Tradeworx could not tell whether something was wrong with the data feeds from the exchanges. More important, Mr. Narang worried that if some trades were canceled — as, indeed, many were — Tradeworx might be left holding stocks it did not want.

Now that the dust has settled, however, he has mixed feelings. “Several high-frequency trading firms that I know about stayed in the market that day,” he said, “and had their best day of the year.
 
it was pre-planned robbery okay.

some brokers give you 3 days to cover margins..

not like IB or some brokers who give 10 minutes to cover margin calls.

they'll tell you to read the fine print..

these brokers are not liable for computer failure or if your computer failed...it's was clearly a computer failure.

but the exchange and some brokers would not or refuse to cancel erroneous trades between 2:30pm 3pm may 6,,,why? cause they stole too much money...

Quote from Vulcan Trader:

I've been trading for over a decade and this has never been a problem for me. No problem trading cocoa, cattle, soybeans, corn, wheat, silver, gold, forex, stocks, etf's or options. The only people complaining are the people who's money we took a may 6th. I'm sorry for your loss. SIKE no I'm not I appreciate the income. Thanks

:D
 
Quote from Big Outside Bar:

Flash orders were just plain cheating. Everyone knew it. We never bothered with them because the costs were high and it was obvious they were going to be banned. I'm personally amazed it took so long for something to be done.

Bar - if you are still around can you elaborate on this a bit? I followed the flash trading issue from a distance (I have not involved in equities much and never at high frequency), and my impression is that they serve a useful purpose and the side effects are not that bad. I am interested to hear an opinion from an insider who disagrees.

My understanding is that flashing an order is/was voluntary. You trade off the possibility of price improvement with the possibility of being front run. So you don't flash the orders worth front running, and maybe you don't follow up with a market order all the time if you don't get filled so front running them is less profitable.

Out of all the complaints I have heard about flash orders, I can only pick out two credible sounding problems. One is that not all brokers would give the "don't flash" option to their clients, or make them opt out instead of opting in, so they weren't as voluntary (for the naive) as they should have been. The other is that by filling a flash you are stepping in front of a limit order that should have rightfully been filled. But the first problem is a fixable implementation issue, and the second problem is something allowed in lots of other cases so it doesn't seem like either is a reason for an outright ban. So if I want to flash my order hoping for price improvement, why shouldn't I be allowed to? What am I missing?
 
The very fact HFT firms have to come out here and elsewhere to try to explain that what they do is legit contradicts their defense. And the very fact thât they have lobbyists and friends in the right places by their own admittance is disgusting. Real legit traders
don't need PR firms !!
I am sorry but did you ever hear a hedge fund manager defend his strategy and way of making money ? They don't have to except on a case by case basis, because they make money by making bets like everyone else. HFT firms don't bet , they exploit loopholes and the technical inferiority of other participants . In fact looking at those HFT people, they are not traders, they are just programmers, they are not unlike hackers, they find vulnerabilities and they exploit them.

First off all, there would probably not be any discussion of transaction tax without these HFT firms, they are part of what ruined the market by exacerbating volatility and so the transaction tax now appears to some as a viable fix to this higher volatility. Everyone is going to be impacted by this, and it's all the fault of HFT .


Secondly none of HFT people have addressed what I said in my previous post, besides the fact that someone mentioned they base their trading on the work of one or two mathematicians, so they use similar models, just like I suspected.
Prove that this does not exacerbate volatility and herd behavior !

I predict HFT will be found to be a chief factor in the extend of the next great crash that is coming. If all these firms trade using similar strategies, one day there will be a HFT black swan, and they will take down the markets with them , 1987 style. This is close to a certainty as far as I am concerned.


Thirdly I you use any information before it's published for everyone to see, your business is not legit , and regulators need to address that issue NOW and in a way that does not impact regular participants to the market.
 
I have one simple question:

Do high frequency traders "see" order flow before the open market can trade against it?

We know that with ISO orders, HFT'ers jump the order queue and front-run pending orders.
 
Quote from achilles28:

I've got one simple question:

Do high frequency traders "see" order flow before it hits the open market?
Obviously by analyzing Level I or Level II order placements, movements and volume. It's a well-known HF strat.

We know that with ISO orders, HFT'ers jump the order queue and front-run pending orders.
Yes, but then they effectively go market with their order and bid the Ask or bid 1 tick above the NBBO (buy) or vise-versa on the sell side. So it costs them a tiny bit to do that.
 
Quote from syswizard:

Obviously by analyzing Level I or Level II order placements, movements and volume. It's a well-known HF strat.

Sorry, what I meant to ask is this:

Say a large remote trader sends in a market buy order for 500K shares.

Is that market order routed to a data feed viewed by HFT'ers before it's routed to the exchange and placed in the order queue?

If yes, are HFT'ers given a few sub-seconds to trade with or against the market order before it's shuttled off to the exchange?

Is that how it works?

Quote from syswizard:

Yes, but then they effectively go market with their order and bid the Ask or bid 1 tick above the NBBO (buy) or vise-versa on the sell side. So it costs them a tiny bit to do that.

Sure, but HFT'ers wouldn't use them if they were losing money, net-net. If the non-ISO market order promises to move the instrument a couple ticks, it makes sense to use the ISO to jump the queue, even if it costs a tick to do it, right?
 
"Thirdly I you use any information before it's published for everyone to see, your business is not legit , and regulators need to address that issue NOW and in a way that does not impact regular participants to the market." from trade to live poster

there will always be people who have an edge over you. if i am at analyst meeting and i figure out the ceo is lying do u think i am going to tell you?
 
not the issue, the exchange is where info is disseminated , everyone should have equal access to the data, when it's published and not before when it's still in the pipe.
 
Back
Top