I think we're talking about two different kinds of risk controls. Our financial risk controls have never been compromised, including the "flash crash" day. The "risk" I'm speaking of in regards to automation is the errant sending of orders upstream, which causes other problems, not necessarily financial. Don
no, we're not. don, you started off justifying the sharing of your auto traders' strategies because of the high financial risk involved using having to turn off computers (plural) because of programming errors as an example of how much risk you're taking on: it went from that, to where now, strategy sharing is no longer mentioned, the computer turn off was just an isolated aww shucks moment, and your errant orders pose no financial risk? you realize, when you write something, it doesn't go away, right? you were very clear. at this point, you have one of two choices: 1) concede that sharing strategies is a poor business model for loose risk controls and that bright will be reviewing/tightening those controls going forward and assure future/current firm traders that auto strategies will not be shared. 2) reaffirm that your risk controls are loose and that's why the brights assume some ownership in the strategy, sharing with the firm at their leisure. the way you've been backing away from 2 with reams of bs only makes you look bad and weak. it reminds me of arguing with a woman, where 180 contradictions are introduced as legitimate arguments. the only difference: women are tolerable.
Well, I know of a black box prop firm here in Chicago that actually advertises/promotes the fact that the trader can keep his own source code confidential. I have also been contacted by firms and headhunters looking to back traders - where the firm requires the trader to host everything with the prop firm, and to assign IP right for the source code to the prop firm. The trader is a 'bystander' who is only contacted to fix things when there are problems, and who supposedly just sits back as an observer looking for the checks to come in. Call me skeptical, but if there are headhunters pushing for this in a big way I smell a rat. If your strategy is entirely automated in terms of entrance and exit signals my advice would be to keep your source code in strictest confidence only to yourself and your religious diety of choice.
LOL, we'll actually I am I guess...our risk is more about technology tie ups that could cause severe problems for everyone - of course there could be financial risks as well. Out of several hundred "strategic" business plans submitted, only a handful were rejected somewhere up the pipe - and the funny part is only a few dozen were ever implemented without some major changes. We actually work "with" our traders, not "against" them - we don't trade against them and we don't "examine" source codes (why even bother?). We actually encourage viable programs. We have vendors who have written all sorts of "stuff" for Bright Traders - and have been engaged by traders to write personalized programs - and, if a program is written by someone who has already been approved up stream, then they get a fast track to implementation. I'm sorry, but I don't see any problems with that. Don
yea, i don't have any problems with that either, but that's because you didn't say anything. a very good don impression: 'well, "risk" isn't exactly what we like to call our flavor of strategy management, since really the strategy is worked through many levels of our business process. at that point, "risk" isn't as much an issue as working with the traders at the level that their participation is both meaningful to themselves and to us, "sharing" if you will. in this spirit, we find it always pays to have a solid clearing firm, willing to back you at any step of the way, and i guess you can say you can't go much higher than gs (LOL). so, really, there doesn't seem to be any "issues", just a long history of working through any bumps, if you can even call them that (lol), that come our way.' fucking hallmark card. can we cut the shit with the carebears and ice-cream cones? just answer the question for christ's sakes: do your auto traders know beforehand that you share their strategies with the rest of the firm? do you get them to sign off their ip somewhere? i'm not talking about source, since as you said, who needs source when you have access to trades and biz plans.
Our traders know that we don't share their codes OR THEIR STRATEGES unless they volunteer or ask us to (in the case of "for sale" type programs). I seriously have traders who have made millions who do things I have now idea of ....as long as they stay in risk parameters, they can use dice or Ouija Board for all I care. Many do share at our Retreats however...a team effort seems to pay off for many...but we have our "solitary types" as well. Don
so the whole "we share strategies because there's risk" argument you put forth earlier... should that just be disregarded? now it's on a volunteer basis? first lesson in sounding credible: be consistent.
My buddy spoke to the SEC today. They requested that he send the questions to them and they would then either point him to the SEC documentation that refers to those questions, etc. (there is a new "big trader" or "high volume" trader rule coming out soon)... OR... They would say someting on the order of "Sorry as of (Date) there is no SEC requirement/documentation that is associated with those questions. At that point it will be up to him to decide if he wants to trade with that firm - and... the SEC may/may not follow up/forward the questions on for further investigation. So its pretty much a dead end. Either they will be able to provide a link to a document stating those questions and he'll have to decide if its even associated with his situation - or the SEC will come back with what is essentially a "no comment".
I'm just trying to carry on a civil conversation, have not planned on being "deposed" LOL. I think we agree on the concept of privacy for traders ideas, and especially their coding. Because they choose to trade with us, and we choose to be part of Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, we both have some rules to follow. GS holds us responsible for not causing a major disruption of their platform, we ask that the traders do their best to accomadate that...we know that they cannot "guarantee" anything for 100% certainty, but we want them to know that we take all this very seriously. Nobody is "taking" anything - many do choose to share, since then others are more open to sharing their idesas - and the sum often times equals more than the parts - especially in the trading arena, IMO. Anyway, I hope your systems/programs/strategies work very well for you. Don
i have civil conversations with other men i respect. what's going on here is more akin to how i would speak to a woman or a child when they've done something i do not approve of. if they are at fault, backpeddling and squirming usually transpires, and if they are not quick to apology or make the mistake of lashing out at me, then they are met with the back of my hand. you should've just redacted, instead of coming at me. would've been a much better r/r. you don't get to play the victim card when you say stupid things, especially when followed by tough questions. whatever though. the parody you did of yourself in your last post was awesome. it made wasting my time worthwhile. it's like you took my parody, introspected, and then tried to one up me. if you had meant do it... would've been genius. alas...