|
|
|
|
|
|
by hakfoo
1551 days ago
|
|
|
It feels like a theory/practice problem. If there were zero external costs to having a minimum-latency market, no big deal. But we're still short of that. So there's a lot of money and brainpower being thrown into marginal decreases in market latency. Do we want so many of our best engineers chasing HFT performance? It also creates a new ecosystem of arbitrage-- the guy with 20ms ping can take advantage of price differences the guy with 40ms can't-- which isn't necessarily producing real value. This also assumes that the goal of absolute price discovery is itself meritorious. Maybe we're better off not being able to correctly value assets with infinite precision, because it tends to encourage the mindset of chopping up businesses for parts. I'm a fan of the old-line conglomerate model. By bundling so many diverse assets, they inherently block price discovery, which creates openings where risk hedges and long term plays can survive and pay out. But investors hate being unable to pull those components out of the stock price. |
|
|
Like I came up with a sorting algorithm I thought HFT--just some single monopolistic HFT company--would love, like die for. And I kept it so secret, did so much so nobody could hack it under any circumstances, never put it in an email, nothing, and? and? I sent it to over 40 FAANG and HFT equivalents and never heard back.
They really don't care about time, like really in real life. After the fact, yeah. Like when you're explaining to them why they lost money I guess. Not beforehand, when they could make money.
You're projecting about how competitive it actually is. Maybe if I actually split the eyelids first, then it would be competitive, but without that it is it is about as competitive as auctions for the best uranium mineral rights in the 1920's. Nobody gives a shit!