What a joke. This guy sweeps under the rug every technical accusation brought up in the book. The fact that I have a 1,000 share order (as a retail investor), and there is 1,000 shares to be taken and yet I only get filled on 100 shares and the other 900 disappears is not a problem? This guy is a shill for HFTs.
+1 That wsj article nailed it, kinda. As far as the 100 getting filled out of 1000. Another 9 retail investors going for the same 1000 but with orders of 100 each clicking their mouse one microsecond faster could have created that scenario you mentioned.
Maybe you should try to understand what Michael Lewis is saying and then you'd realize how ignorant your statement is (9 retail investors going for the same 1000). Or maybe you are an HFT shill too.
Wait a moment. Asness accuses others of talking their book when he runs one of the biggest HFT funds. Did I catch that correctly?
A pretty good criticism of the book about what Lewis got wrong: http://www.businessweek.com/article...lewis-gets-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading
ET is riddled with hft shills like WinstonTJ. I have fought the good fight for 5 years. I should get a prize
How are you routing it? The funny thing is. The problem that Brad/RBC had with getting fills and that is used in the book was solved when they took the time to look into why it was happening. People are missing that Brad himself said that fill rates went to 100% when they routed their orders correctly.
Yes, you may be correct in one sense. But "your" market is not a "functional" one in the sense that the National Best Bid and National Best Offer are illusory then. And if you were designing a market structure from the ground up, "your" market would not be the obvious design choice.