I'm just ranting, but our firm basically bought an off-the-shelf implementation for exchange connectivity. I took a script to run through the entire market activity, find our trades, do some analysis, etc. I go looking through the logs calculating latencies, and I end up finding negative latencies because the logs generated by the third party software have the tick timestamps happening -after- when the logs say there are are calls into its execution engine in response. i.e., Tick 12 happens to be the trigger, function is called in response to tick 12, but timestamp associated with function call is before the actual time associated with tick 12. F'ing unreal, esp consider how much these bozos got paid. Wasn't my decision, but I'm just writing about it. This would be funny, except that it has implications for me -- namely, that the financier believes his technology choices make my life easier, when in fact they make my life worse. He acts as if I am a quant with all the resources just there and that I can just make stuff because all the hard stuff has been done for me when it really hasn't. ... And I think how some of you guys out there want some programmer just to automate your strategy that uses like RSI and moving averages and such, let alone spread-extraction or stat arb. Hiring a programmer is far more difficult than hiring a mechanic or a plumber. This generally has implications for the market. The biggest issue I see is that there is all this money being poured into high-frequency trading, but my belief is that the guys who are the investors don't actually understand that when you run and finance this HF stuff, you aren't running a run-of-the-mill finance operation; rather, you are financing a tech company. The other issue I see is that the business guys don't actually trust their tech guys, so they continue to piss away their money and then wonder why they aren't getting any results.