Compare that to high frequency traders where it is alleged that 'flash' market orders are submitted and cancelled so fast that no-one could actually take them. How can that be considered OK and yet these human traders are labelled fraudulent?
Compare that to high frequency traders where it is alleged that 'flash' market orders are submitted and cancelled so fast that no-one could actually take them. How can that be considered OK and yet these human traders are labelled fraudulent?
They weren't genuine, that's the point. They were offers made with the express intention and hope that they never get filled.
The orders from high frequency traders in contrast are honest orders, when they are sent they honestly express that the trader wants to trade at that price. The fact that they may then be withdrawn 800 microseconds later when the HFT recalculates its price in response to some stimuli and changes its mind about the price, doesn't change the fact they were honest. They're just fast as well. That's what control systems do, they update their outputs when their inputs change.
Either he actually was willing to make good on his offer or he wasn't. His reasons are irrelevant.
"hope that they never get filled" is not a reason to make this a crime. If he actually refused to fill them, then sure. But hoping?
What makes one worthy of legal rules and the other not? Don't know.
It's really hard to prove intent when trading is done in microseconds and the truth lies somewhere in the algorithm. Those who got caught got caught mainly because of their email trail
//spoofing logic goes here.
It is usually expressed in a variety of algorithms in a variety of places. Further, even getting the code is very far down the path of legal proceedings and having the expertise to suss out intent is outside of the skill set of most regulators. Looking through emails/requirements materials and/or having an informant is much more in their skill set.
He is putting orders in with the intention and hope that they never get filled, but as long as they are both fillable and filled when matched, what fraud has occurred?
I can send you an offer for something with the intent and hope you won't accept it - maybe it's a lowball offer to sell my car - but as long as I sell it to you when you accept and an accord has been reached, no fraud has been committed.
(edited for tense)
If that is the case, am I breaking the law if I just buy some shares and, during the phone call with my dealer, make a comment that I hope my share purchase drives the price up?
Why is it different? Because the law says it is.
And if it's not, why isn't it? Basically it's a double standard, because (most of) the markets are too cosy with HFT firms.
Most high frequency traders are trying to make money by providing liquidity, i.e. offering to buy and sell at a better price than the rest of the market. This benefits both the HFT (because they make money) and other market participants (because they can trade at lower spreads).
What these guys were doing was entering orders that they actively didn't want to trade, so that they could push around the price of the stock and repeatedly scalp a small profit. They had no intention of improving the quality of the market (either by narrowing spreads or improving price discovery). In fact they were actively making the market work less well, by impeding the process of price discovery with their "bluff" orders.
The whole point of a market is to be an efficient mechanism for matching buyers and sellers at a fair price. If someone is deliberately trying to distort the fair price, they are undermining the value of the market (and other market participants, not only HFTs, will suffer because their trades will no longer take place at the 'fair' price, but instead at the 'fair' price plus whatever direction the scalpers happen to be pushing it in at the moment).
I don't buy the "providing liquidity" defense of HFT.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/04/03/schwab-on-hft-grow...
So what. 99.9999999% of the pixels blatted onto your screen aren't looked at. Why do you care?
Let's say I'm making a market in a derivative product (A), one where the price is 'derived' from the price of another product (B). By a simple equation. Let's say A = 2 * B. No one likes product A. No one trades it. Lots of people trade B. All day long B moves around. B ticks up, I have to cancel my bid and offer on A and move them up 2 ticks (I do it quickly, cos I'm an evil HFT). B ticks down, I have to cancel my bid and offer on B and move it down 2 ticks. All day long I move my quotes. No one fucking trades. 100% of my orders are cancelled and replaced on a different price.
Why do you care?
A limit order is a limit order. It isn't doing anyone any harm by being there.
>Some high-frequency traders have claimed to be profitable on over 99 percent of their trading days.
McDonalds are profitable on 100% of their trading days. Casinos are likely profitable on 99% of their trading days. If they weren't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. Market-makers like Virtu are more service providers than they are 'traders'. They are the middle men who allow others to trade and take risk, and extract a small fee for doing so. Here's a good analysis to read: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/13/virtus-losing-day-...
The cheeseburger market is rigged.
However, thinking logically about the whole HFT business: As I understand it it's something like this:
Let's say I want to buy 100 apples at $1 a piece. A middle man comes and says: I see that you want to buy 100 apples. Let me buy them for you. Here they are (an apple is now $1.001)
Why do I need this middle man to steal from me? You will probably say that they are providing liquidity. It's still stealing and the markets had enough liquidity before the whole HFT gang came.
Maybe I'm wrong, if so please explain me why.
The HFT is your counter party. When you say you want to buy apples, you are buying them from the HFT. Like any reseller, they are hoping to have bought those apples at a cheaper price than what you want to buy them, because they are a profit making enterprise. Like any reseller, the service they are providing is being able to sell you those apples right now, when you want them. They have taken on the risk and expense of finding cheaper supplies of apples and held them for the appropriate time to sell them when the price was right.
Like any reseller, you do not have to buy directly from them and pay their mark up. You just need to invest the same energy and expense that they do on supply chain to be able to get apples at cheaper prices than people want to pay. Of course, you are probably not in the apple reselling business, so it might not make sense to do this.
And how does that compare to the pit trader order cancel rates HFT replaced?
> Some high-frequency traders have claimed to be profitable on over 99 percent of their trading days
Are these same traders potentially working on an IPO deal? How about being acquired.
Lets put it this way, it is trivially easy to come up with a strategy that is profitable (also just FYI they mean the buy/sell made money, they dont count their operations cost in that) on 99% of days. Its that 1% that wipes out your whole company that is hard to avoid.
I know we used to have a granularity on price that was pretty thick, what would be the issue with having an order have to be on the market for at least a second? I have my doubts about sub-second trading increasing liquidity and making the markets more effecient
Suppose an HFT has an order on the market from 0.30 to 0.40. If you submit an order at 0.00, your order will arrive at some time uniformly distributed between 0.00 and 1.00. With probability 0.1 you'll get a fill.