Ah, and thanks for the PM. Anyone else? I can try for next Wednesday via webinar. I would need everyone to send email to me: donbright@brighttrading.net Put ET workshop in subject line. If we get enough interest, I'll dedicate a full segment to much of this. Don
what confusion are you referring to that you presume to clarify? who would your experts be in that regard?
The "spoofing" "layering" "HFT" Market making, premarket cancels, that type of thing. I would ask Goldman to join me, legal types, and probably Dennis Dick, CFA and one of our top traders who has written a lot on some of this, goes on CNBC etc. Don
goldman legal on manipulation would be interesting. dennis dick on hft would not. btw, "goes on cnbc" is like saying "performs at the circus." the idiots from themis rant about hft on their too, doesn't mean they're experts. unless, by experts, you mean experts at grinding axes.
Not a big deal, CNBC, some people actually listen to some of those characters, LOL. Dennis has done a great job in front of the SEC and all that as well, smart guy, has done a lot of homework IMO. Don
i'm aware of what he's done, hence my comment i don't think he'd be worth listening to. he's part of a small group of talking heads that does a good job of hyperbolizing and misdirecting a lot of the structural issues in the equity markets today and pointing at the source of those issues as belonging to a "so-called" minority group of participants, "hft". in actuality, markets are a bit more complicated than that. what's being demonized as "hft" actually runs the gamut of computer algorithms on ALL desks, both buyside and sellside, and yes, even retail. demonizing and advocating heavy handed regulation against this broad spectrum concept called "hft" will inevitably lead to negative regulatory consequences that will affect all of us. imo, dennis dick et al, are not seeing the harm they're doing in using very emotionally biased and non-informative rhetoric when attempting to scapegoat the issues. case in point: http://premarketinfo.com/2012/09/20/stealing-executions/ here he makes the argument that ALL internalization are actually "hft" companies STEALING lit fills from RETAIL. that argument and language, broad in its misrepresentation, is extreme not to mention an incorrect exaggeration which is more akin to propaganda than anything truthful or informative. if he's aware of the tactics and misinformation he's purporting than i find his behavior to be unethical at best, if he's simply ignorant and emotional since his own livelihood may have been affected (which constitutes 99% of all the anti-hft commentators i've seen to date: nanex, themis, etc.), then his behavior is more explainable, but in no way sould he actually be qualified as an "expert". honestly, it's a little upsetting to see companies like bright support these individuals. imo, by doing so, you do a disservice to the industry. your firms revenue, and firms like yours, may have decreased due to the large swarthes of computerized trading out there, but i can guarantee you that trying to demonize and punish your competitors by calling for regulation will only serve to hurt revenues further. walk the high road and highlight the actual issues unbiasedly however, and we might end up seeing positive change, instead of the punitive ones i foresee coming as a result of pointing fingers.
Any news on Hold bros status going forward? I know over the last year BP has been reduced considerably, and recently they stopped allowing over-nites. Even with the 'payment plan" for the 6m fine it's still a huge chunk for a BD the size of Hold. taderpro..we soes bandits(almost 18 yrs) are far and few between.. Thanks, An original Block Trading trader
just a follow up to that article i linked to by dick. the primary basis of his argument he justifies with his references to a nanex article here: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3517.html if anyone actually reads that article though, you can see it's making a set of assumptions that are just plain wrong. the primary one being, all lit quotes are RETAIL INVESTORS, and that any sub-penny prints that occur in between the spread should be interpreted as a direct cost to those same lit posting RETAIL INVESTORS to the tune of $1B/yr. hft claims aside, anyone who trades for a living should know how ridiculous that argument is. imo, quoting and referencing nanex "studies" does not constitute "doing your homework". nothing put forth by nanex to date has been peer reviewed, nor is it taken seriously by the industry. the only people who i've seen quote or reference them are ones looking for something sensational to print (ET posters, zerohedge/conspiracy blogs, ignorant commentators or those with an agenda, and sometimes even the ap). when they begin to show up in the journal of finance, or in roundtables with actual industry analysts like the tabb group, then one can assume they've decided to give their analysis more thought. as of now, however, the only thing they communicate well, is the fact that they're a washed up data/technology firm who could not keep up with the large increases in quote data/latency demands and now feel the only competitve edge they have is to demonize the industry they once served.