Hacker News Reader

Comment by danbruc | Hacker News Reader

The total peak profit of HFT companies is usually estimated a bit north of 5 billion Dollar in 2009. After that it fell to about 1 billion Dollar per year as far as I can tell. For me 5 billion Dollar or even only 1 billion Dollar per year seems quite a lot for not producing a single salable good and service. The 2009 profit was the equivalent of 175,000 average yearly US incomes, i.e. 175,000 people worked somewhere on factory floors to produce the profits for HFT companies.

View on HN

Can you quote me some stats on how much the equivalent middle men made in earlier decades? Both absolute and relative to the size of the market?

To get a sense of how much worse it was prior to automated trading, Google: [odd eighths scandal].

You might also google stories about market makers not answering their phones during times of high volatility. There is this strange obsession over "how it used to be", as if it was better having people in the mix matching orders and providing that liquidity. The fact of the matter is, those people were as deeply flawed as any algorithm. The major difference today is that there is significant competition to provide liquidity in US equities markets and that liquidity can be extracted ON DEMAND by any trader.

Did you know, in the past it was NOT POSSIBLE for you to post a limit order and have it displayed in the order book unless you were an anointed market maker on an exchange?

[edit: this was meant as a reply to gdl not tptacek]

The comment I replied to questioned that any significant amount of wealth gets redistributed by HFT. For that it does not really matter whether it is an improvement over the previous situation or not. It is still a non-negligible amount of money for a service with questionable value.

What "wealth" HFT has transferred flowed from a specialist system that was crooked as a garden hose full of fish hooks, through the big investment bank system that consolidated them, all of it taken out of the hides of retail and value investors.

Because automated market making is intensely competitive, the vast majority of that "wealth" was transferred... wait for it... to retail and value investors.

From workers to investors. That would be a good thing if we were in the need of economic growth, but we are not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

The initial comment asked for the benefits of HFT. All that comes up is that it improves the performance of markets. If you need economic growth it is a good thing to have efficient markets, incentives to invest and be rewarded with a share of the growth you enabled with your investment. But without the need for economic growth it just becomes transferring wealth from the workers to the usually already well-off investors increasing wealth inequality.

Oh, you're not litigating HFT, you're litigating capitalism. Yes: if you think capitalism is bad, it's easy to get to an argument against HFT.

I would not say that capitalism is bad per se. It is pretty good at what it does and I find it hard to imagine that we could have made the economic growth and reached today's level of wealth without capitalism. But it has its flaws and I see no way it is sustainable for much longer. And instead of recognizing that we can not grow forever and seek for a transformation to something more sustainable it seems to me we are pushing capitalism to its ultimate limits. Not stopping until hitting a brick wall. HFT seems an iconic example of that to me.

You can't buy or sell stocks without trading with someone else. HFTs give you a lower price when you do that (otherwise people wouldn't trade with them). To the extent that they're redistributing wealth, they're redistributing what would have previously gone to a traditional market-maker, partly to themselves and partly to the person making the order.

I mean, if a supermarket sells strawberries for cheaper than your local greengrocer, is that "a non-negligible amount of money for a service with questionable value"? It seems to me that the onus there isn't on the supermarket to show that strawberries are worth the price.

Anyone who finds HFTs to be valueless is free to not pay: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/how_to_not_get_rippe...

People choose to cross the spread and take liquidity. Ask yourself why they might do this (hint: google "execution risk").

Does anyone big not do that, in practice? Are there big time-insensitive fundamentals traders who will rest an order outside the spread for hours or days until it gets hit? (in practice if you wanted to do that maybe you'd just only trade in the day-open auction, where there's no maker-taker?) I understand that it's theoretically an option, just interested to know whether people do that in practice.

Not very much. If you are big, you want big fills. You need market makers for that - i.e., you need what HFT's are selling and would be worse off without them.

Of course if you are time insensitive, you can certainly play games. This basically means running your own HFT strategy, but biased in the direction of the trade you want. You'll also opportunistically take liquidity if the fill you want is in the book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com