Reaction to Michael Lewis's book and "60 Minutes" interview

So is the reason for less traffic to this site that the HFT supporters are now on the lam?

The posted arguments for HFT were truly comical at times.

Reminds me of union strike "pilfer pay" from the 1970s. The complaint against cargo containers by longshoreman in a strike was that they couldn't steal as much as before and so they needed an increment in pay to cover that particular loss of income. Newspapers had a field day with that strike argument. Perhaps many of those same guys have become HFT specialists today?
 
Peternam said:
thIS SOUNDS OBJECTIVE, YES
More...

This is one of the dumbest arguments IMO - they provide a "service". The payment for "service" is make/take which he somehow conveniently forgets to mention in his poker analogy (because his whole argument falls apart). If everyone had the same access to provide the "service" then he might have an argument. The fact is that you don't and they set the laws and the game up to ensure you don't have equal access ( that is the essential point!).

So in his poker analogy, then the HFT "service" would be like this - as you reach for the card - they take it away if it is a good one for them or for you and they let you have it if it is not. They know the value of the card before you do because the dealer shows them the card before he deals it to you. The pay lots of money to the dealer to get this first look.
 
An old post to show the two sides. A similar argument to mercenary trader's argument except that not everything said is true in some articles. Check into the history of black bart for more context. The market is either fair or fake, there is no middle ground. If it is fake, then it serves insiders and private interests; if it is fair, then it serves capitalism and the public interest. Opinion soon becomes dubious fact in a world where many can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Cui bono?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...blasts-back-ex-cftc-chiltons-incorrect-claims
 
StarDust9182 said:
This is one of the dumbest arguments IMO - they provide a "service". The payment for "service" is make/take which he somehow conveniently forgets to mention in his poker analogy (because his whole argument falls apart). If everyone had the same access to provide the "service" then he might have an argument. The fact is that you don't and they set the laws and the game up to ensure you don't have equal access ( that is the essential point!).

So in his poker analogy, then the HFT "service" would be like this - as you reach for the card - they take it away if it is a good one for them or for you and they let you have it if it is not. They know the value of the card before you do because the dealer shows them the card before he deals it to you. The pay lots of money to the dealer to get this first look.
More...


What stops you from setting up your own HFT shop ?!
 
Are you are unable to defend your argument for objectivity?

Look way back into the thread for the reason no one should be setting up HFT shops. => Rule 603(a)(2)
 
Says the one who recommends using 2 brokers to avoid having one broker ride a profitable account's tail. LOL. Of course you know about HFT, you run a shop and mint coin right? Your comments in other threads make me highly doubt that however. LOL.

Peternam said:
should ??

Anyone CAN ....nothing stops you
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top