| You were replied to, but I'm going to ask some questions of this moralizing. > Many HFT jump out when things get volatile, when liquidity is actually required. This feels almost like a "no true Scotsman" situation. Why is liquidity not "actually required" when volatility is low? Is it a moral obligation for any trader to catch a falling knife? I see this condition of "when liquidity is actually required", but I never understood why there was such a strong feeling for it. Why do you believe this? > Ultimately HFT is doing nothing of societal value, the race down to zero is never-ending and we are wasting huge amounts of resources on a totally pointless march towards zero. I don't know, I could probably take a similar view of so many jobs in tech. What does society really get from Snapchat, what do they get from HQ Trivia, what do they get from people making powerpoint presentations with arrows that point to synergies. What's the point of any job with some amount of abstraction? > Exchanges should introduce random delays to allow market participants who really want to hedge / buy / sell, then we can shift some of the resources to the real world. Why? > The system is hugely inefficient Do you know how efficient the system was before HFT started up? And, do you know how many people were working in trading before, and how many are, for a similar fraction of stock volume? > The law of diminishing returns. OK. |
Again this weirdly mixes HFT with electronic automated trading, which I really don't think anyone in the domain would readily mix.
HFT by arbing over latency is entirely different to the automation of boring trader tasks that see less people employed to do the same thing in the front office.
I can't continue this more, it's just blind allegiance from people who are clearly not in the domain.
HFT != electronic trading