[gnaritas]

HFT doesn't front run trades, that's a misconception and really just a way to slander HFT as evil. Calling their misconceptions legitimate is an abuse of language. Front-running is a crime, it has an actual meaning and you are misusing the term. Front-running is when a broker buys or sells using advanced knowledge of trades they're making on behalf of their clients, i.e. it is risk free and is theft. HFT does not front run their clients, they attempt to trade faster than their competition at risk, these are vastly different things and to call HFT front-running is dishonest slander.

There are no legitimate complaints against HFT trading that aren't simply misconceptions about what they do or how markets work.

[the_mitsuhiko]

Then call it what you want. It's running in front of other trades just that you do it on arbitrary trades and not the ones of your customer.

[gnaritas]

No, front running is risk free because it uses inside information, that's why it's illegal. Trying to trade faster than someone else is not risk free, requires guessing, is gambling, and is not illegal, and is thus not front running. What you're claiming is simply wrong. So please do explain why you think HFT is doing something wrong. It doesn't matter what we call it, you're claiming HFT is doing something they are not doing, they are making educated guesses and trading on that guess, same as any other legitimate trader.

[the_mitsuhiko]

There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. There are no guesses. And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong. This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

[gnaritas]

> There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning.

False. If there were no risk, it would be illegal, and your'e still tossing out that incorrect term without explanation as to what you mean by it since you clearly can't mean the illegal practice of front-running that we've already agreed they aren't doing.

> There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others.

Not relevant.

> There are no guesses.

False.

> And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong.

Because it's simply not true. Once again, you've ignored my question, you still cant' explain what HFT's are doing wrong, my guess is because you don't actually know what you're criticizing so you toss out flash boy hyperbole like front-running without actually being able to explain what you mean.

> This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

The IEX exists as a reaction to traders who were displaced by HFT creating a desire for an exchange that doesn't allow it; it in no way proves HFT is doing anything wrong. It's nothing more than marketing capitalizing on fear to establish a new exchange, perfectly legal, but it doesn't make the irrational fear against HFT legitimate.

[the_mitsuhiko]

The explain what the risk is.

I did not say HFT is good or bad. I pointed out that not everybody likes it or benefits.

[gnaritas]

The risk is the same risk any other trader takes, they predict price will go one direction based on data they've seen elsewhere and it turns out they're wrong, or the misjudged the volume. HFT is not risk free, you're claiming it is is simply not based in reality, ask any of the many HFT firms that have gone bankrupt how risky HFT is. Claiming someone is trading risk free is essentially accusing them of a crime, where's your evidence to back up this slander?

Once again, you've ignored my question, you still cant' explain what HFT's are doing wrong. It doesn't matter that some people don't like them when those people can't even rationally explain why they don't like them. You still can't explain why you don't like them without falling back on false facts and I've asked many times.