Official End Of Hft - Countdown Thread - 66 Days Left

hence my arguement.

this was never trading.

trading is iniating a postition.

you buy or sell outright or spread with a view.

you pay up or you work the order.

what hft has done is create the illusion they are adding something.

its total gaming of the system and is parasite trading.

they never iniate an order with a view to taking a position.

it tries to game someone else.

hence falling volume and no liquidity.

no one wants to play their game.
 
Quote from bearcats1980:

Ah. So youre saying that if Getco comprises the entire 2000 lot bid in twenty 100-lot orders, once their first 100 lot gets filled they can pull the remaining nineteen 100-lot orders. Interesting point but I dont think it's possible.....
More...

This is exactly what they do in stocks stocks according to people who trade equities.
 
Quote from bearcats1980:

How so?

I trade futures. Can't speak to what goes on with equities at all, but on CME, if i see "phantom orders" I can hit the order (even manually) and get filled. And that's manually. Automatically, I could trade with the entire order before it even shows up on a screen. Can you be more specific?
More...

Flash orders - to my knowledge this does not exist in futures.

THEY see the order BEFORE The exchange processes it and can issue - if fast enough - an order that goes BEFORE yours.

So, they see YOU buying at market, which would hit their liquidity, so they cancel the liquidity and your market order is processed AFTER the cancel.

This, plus overloading order book distribution with useless quotes, is IMHO close to criminal (not to say criminal).

As long as they have to REACT - it is fair. To my knowledge futures is like that - orders go to the exchange, everyone works from the same post exchange data feed. I.e. even the fastest one can not break cardinality, he only sees your order from the publication of the exchange matching system.

Socks (Nasdaq?) did IIRC at least at one time sell the order feed PRE processing, so if you were fast enough, as I said in the beginning, you could jump in front of an order.
 
----Socks (Nasdaq?) did IIRC at least at one time sell the order feed PRE processing, so if you were fast enough, as I said in the beginning, you could jump in front of an order.---

maybe,but likely not. have you notice little thing that was added not so long ago..i remember the buzz about naked short selling ,margin calls etc..after that at least one broker i know(IB) did implemented some sort of filtering that significantly slow down YOUR order,thus give more time to react to anyone,except you. it's all appears to be 'legal' and 'for a best interest of the customer', but once again-feel free to call me a conspirasist-it's imo one more little event in chain of all those events,rules and regulations,that would give 'them' more advantage over your order. and it's all sold as a preventive measure to protect the customer. SSDD.
those are my own observations,based on my every day daytrading-orders now taking MUCH longer to show in NBBO and status to became submitted,than it was 5-7 years ago.no kidding..like i said many times before-make me feel that we are moving backwards at full speed.

and this is exactly why nothing will be ever implemented to stop this BS or any part of it in US stock market . cause SEC is owned by WS. perfect example how things work these days.
 
Not a problem or a decent API. FIX as well as other providers know "suspended" orders.

Put in a market order in suspension - it clears all account side checks for margin etc., then is hold on the last gateway to the exchange.

When you release it it is super fast - no risk management processing needed anymore. You can easily have prepared orders on every level of the book hold if your account margin is good enough.

Rithmic can do that, too, through their API.

You basically complain about the slowness of a broker that is not even in the game for high speed trading ;)
 
How many people in this thread think that the brokers make big money offering free or 5 dollars a trade?

If they don't make big money doing that, then it stands to reason that they make their big money other ways. A little time thinking should help understand what HFT is all about and where the future of trading will go.

Personally, I think it is best to be a little paranoid and just assume that someone is eating your lunch. Then look for the clues as you see your sandwich with large bites in it. Forewarned is forearmed.

My personal favorite is that I read stores like: a major bank lost money only one day trading in a quarter. All of us, know how tough trading is in many aspects. What do big trading houses use as their indicators? How do they accomplish this kind of trading? The usual - lollipops and suckers.
 
Quote from THE-BEAKER:


Markus Ferber, the German centre-right lawmaker steering the reforms through the European Parliament, wants trading orders to be forced to stay in the market for at least 500 milliseconds, or half a second, before they can be cancelled.
More...

At first glance I like the idea of a half-second minimum lifespan (for most order types at least), but if regulators impose this then I sure hope that they don't exempt "market makers", a designation which most of the large US HFT's have now obtained.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...de-curbs-may-hurt-markets-industry-warns.html

<b>EU High-Frequency Trade Curbs May Hurt Markets, Industry Warns</b>
By Jim Brunsden - May 8, 2012 4:25 PM GMT+0400

High-frequency traders said that plans by European Union lawmakers to interfere with their strategies and restrict the speed of transactions would raise investor costs and harm financial stability.
“It is ironic that growth market exchanges in countries such as Brazil, Hong Kong and Singapore are making substantial investments in technology in order to improve liquidity, whilst Europe is contemplating doing the reverse,” the FIA European Principal Traders Association, a group that represents high- frequency traders, said in an e-mailed statement today.
The European Parliament is seeking to bolster last year’s proposals by Michel Barnier, the EU’s financial services chief, to revamp the region’s market legislation, known as Mifid. The draft rules were proposed by Barnier to plug regulatory gaps exposed by the financial crisis that followed Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s 2008 collapse.
A bid by the assembly to force traders to keep orders in the market for at least half a second before canceling them, and to set EU limits on how many orders a firm may cancel compared to those it completes, would lead to “higher transaction costs for end users” and increase the chance of “extreme price swings,” the FIA said.
Markus Ferber, the lawmaker leading work on the rules in the parliament, has backed calls for traders to face additional fees if they exceed a pre-determined limit for excessive numbers of canceled orders. Arlene McCarthy, a legislator responsible for a related draft law against market abuse, has called for the pre-fee limit to be set at 250 cancellations to one completed order.
<b>Half-Second Rule</b>
Ferber has also called for the half-second rule for traders to keep orders in the market.
Setting minimum order waiting times would “take European markets back at least 7 years” and would undo many “of the improvements in market quality achieved over that time,” the trade group said. A “one-size-fits-all” ratio of orders to completed trades would “harm liquidity and discourage competition in certain asset classes.” The setting of such ratios is “best left to trading venues,” it said.
Ferber has said that the measures would help to prevent a repeat of the flash crash that rocked markets in May 2010, and curb market volatility.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jim Brunsden in Brussels at jbrunsden@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net
 
I did not follow this really, but surely, the UK will veto this BS, as they always do?

BTW, as far as i know, Eurex matching is already done in Swizerland, so may not even be affected. Sounds like Xetra would be the biggest loser with this. Chi-X, Bats-Europe etc. are in UK, and most of the continental regional exchanges should have been closed years ago for lack of purpose. Not sure if this legislation will do much at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top