I think this discussion's participants might find this thread interesting: http://www.nuclearphynance.com/Show Post.aspx?PostIDKey=132144 Notable participants include Sal Arnuk, co-founder of Themis, and Euan Sinclair (aka "filthy"), author of two books about options trading.
dont waste your time, its an old, gay thread. as soon as Sal Arnuk showed up, the shills and posers disappeared ps dont search for old gay on google images if you aren't
There is an error on Sal's Newsroom page... Just like a resume with an error - I'm gonna toss it. Got anything else 777? EDIT: oh and I love that they have an "unusually high level of experience" for a small brokerage firm (45yrs x 3 people). I have 8 years of "wall street" experience.... what's that worth?
I know it's normally your job to post these, 777, but since you seem to have taken the day off: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lo...-saved-1-billion-nyse-share-spike-after-close Although to be honest, I'm posting it because I find it interesting, not because I think it's evidence of some heinous crime. For extra credit, 777, you can play "spot the fallacy" when you read that post. Don't worry, it's alluded to in the comments, so look there if you need help. Apparently a few intrepid souls are still willing to look at *facts* which they glean from *data* instead of just spreading FUD.
Why is it that when I click on the author's link and the NYSE link it says "Access Denied"... one would think that they could at least post a profile of the author
I didnt know there was a rebalance (cant keep track of everything) , but if I depended on anyone here or zh to explain something as basic as moc on expire or any other day , then I'd just be another et ignoramus. and as you well know, I'm knot. zh likes to post crap like that to throw off the scent.
Let me rephrase, I do think both are bad for the market. Layering is market manipulation and is illlegal. Quote stuffing is a threat to the market structure and therefore it should be illegal. On these two points it seems we agree. You'll always have people whining and blaming others for their failures. We know who they are so let's focus on the real problems here: Right, the threat to the market structure is the point of focus. While these are legit suspicions/concerns I'll leave the opinion part aside from the discussion. The charts posted show the finger prints of quote stuffing algos. They are displayed in the most convenient form, a chart of historical bid/ask action. I don't find them particularly pretty but that's just me. You say it may only show someone walking up/down the price. Fair enough. So is walking up/down or just flashing at a fixed price 47,000 times in 11 secs in BPOP or 3,000/s in APOL or 2,500/s in SPAR or 15,000/s in XLF (yes you read that well) just enough to be considered quote stuffing? unequivocally, yes. ---- Finally regarding times stamps, the problem is that when CQS is overloaded (quote stuffing?), it lags and disseminates lagging data tot he public, but you don't realize that since it is time stamped upon dissemination not as it enters the queue. Naturally if you pay the price and subscribe to Openbook you get the privilege to have a perfectly non lagging data.During the Flashcrash, the CQS delay vs the Openbook feed went as high as 24 seconds in General Electric.... . But I was shocked to see that this CQS/Openbook delay happens on regular days as well, giving an UNFAIR advantage to Openbook clients for latency arbitrage opportunities. Unfair as every participant should have the same NBBO. Here is the best part, there is a correlation between the CQS/Openbook delays and the CQS message rate. In other words, you can overload the market with quote stuffing algos, create latency and use that for latency arb strategies. To me that should be plainly illegal and it's another reason to ban quote stuffing. Good trading all.
What gives credit to the Nanex guys? If I make a webiste and offer data with increased latency (or try to sell historical data as realtime data) would that make me more credible?