|
|
|
|
|
|
by lolcraft
4622 days ago
|
|
|
High Frequency trading is at the for front of alot of technology such as ASIC's, Infiniband networking gear,and low latency OS and networking stacks. That's not an argument for HFT. If HFT is useless, then it has divested a great amount of research into technologies that no one really wanted otherwise, i. e., that the social cost of HFT is greater. Standard microeconomics. The question is, what's HFT good for? Do its benefits outweigh its costs? I believe they don't. Low-quality liquidity under the 1s frame is not only useless for traders, it has a great social cost, in the form of research diverted to this inane game. The only plausible arguments I've found for HFT claim that HF traders wouldn't profit if it wasn't useful -- which is really just begging the question; a circular argument. |
|
|
Now, the resources that were going to traditional specialists and a subset of the professional traders, are going to HFT's, with some of that returning to investors in form of lower trading costs (if we buy the argument that liquidity has indeed improved, of course. Most of what I've seen indicates that it has.) As a side effect, we have technology improvement, useful for other things.
Now, there can be an argument made against HFT's, and in favor of more traditional traders, related to a potential decline in market depth. So far, I have not seen any convincing proof of this being the case, but I am open to it.
However, I think a lot of people arguing against HFT's do not quite understand that their position is literally that we need to enact legislation in order to protect Wall Street from competition :)