IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Short version:
You can't PROVE it's bad and we're making money hand over fist in a depression, so suck it up.
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
~ AMBROSE BIERCE
(1842-1914)
New What is their service?
What is the alleged service they're getting paid for providing?
--

Drew
New Maybe...
Lightening the load of cash on slower players pockets? Really, none at all. They create artificial micro bubbles and bail before they pop. They're just hi-tech vultures.
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
~ AMBROSE BIERCE
(1842-1914)
New market makers?
They are guaranteeing that when you want to sell some stock, there is someone to buy it, ie: liquidity. Don't want that guarantee, then start calling people to sell your stock to, maybe someone bites, maybe not.

Or are you asking about something else?
New Nope
From everything I've seen they make their money by injecting themselves as middlemen in transactions that we're going to happen anyway and skimming a fraction of the margin.
--

Drew
New Poor assumption
You have 10,000 shares of XYZ. You want to sell it. You tell your broker (or click the sell button) to sell it.

Guess what. There is no one looking to buy it. You're fucked. Your stock has NO value until a buyer is found. And since the a single buyer (once found) knows there are no other buyers in the wings, he can bargain with you and drive the price down. Or tell you to jam it, he's not buying.

A "market maker" has made a deal with the stock exchange. He promises to buy a certain number of shares based on a percentage difference price of the last deal made. He is obligated to buy those shares. He can alter the price a small amount, after purchasing those shares, but he MUST buy them. This means the trade is guaranteed to happen, and there will ALWAYS be a buyer for the stock.

If there are people with open buy orders for that stock, and if they are willing to pay more than the market maker buy price, but less than the market maker sell price, then the stock exchange is obligated to match those orders, they are not sold to the market maker, they are sold to the people who offered more.

Without market makers, stocks would have the same liquidity as houses, with the same dramatic price drops or no sale time.
Expand Edited by crazy April 6, 2014, 09:03:11 PM EDT
New Why does a nsec matter in such cases?
Serious question.

I think we all agree that liquidity is good. Markets are good.

But why should someone who can put themselves in the middle of a trade for a few nsec faster than someone else be guaranteed a profit?

Surely not all HFT is done by market makers?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Not a market maker issue
Distance to alternative venue issue. YOUR broker has paid for a single connection to a single exchange. HFT has paid for connections to many exchanges. If you want to by XYZ, and the last trade cost X dollars, and the local price is X+2, but it's X+1 somewhere far away, then the HFT trader can go grab it far away and offer it locally, slightly undercutting the local offer. This is good for the local buyer, bad for the local seller, and good to normalize pricing. So the local seller is PISSED, and demonizes it because the HFT just "stole" the difference. But HFT also saved the buyer some money. HFT drives down pricing arbitrage profits, which is why it makes less $$ every year as tech gets better and cheaper and more people can do it.
New That makes sense.
It still seems ridiculous to me that it's somehow sensible to run a market this way, though. Why not have an agreement among the markets that the market's active bid price will an average over the previous 5 seconds, and the ask price similarly over the previous 5 seconds. Or something similar. Why have a system that depends so much on speed when people in the real world don't?

How do fast and wild price swings help the stockowners or the companies or the economy? They only seem to help the brokers who can play the spread in quasi-real time.

It's crazy and invites wild swings by computers that will break down and will enter pathological states on occasion, as we have seen.

This reminds me... One of my old bosses found a stock that regularly cycled between $20 and $40. It did it for years on end. He said he made quite a bit of money buying at $20 and selling at $40... (Of course, the cycle eventually ended.) That was over months, though, not msec.

Cheers,
Scott.
New You can make pricing rules for the market makers, but not
the independents.

Someone may want to accumulate a stock over time. He can put in a variety of bids, different prices, active different amounts of times. Would you tell him he can't bid this way?

Someone shows up in the market, needs cash fast, and offers more shares than the market maker can absorb. Must he price it higher due to the rule, and then get no buyers? Brokers have hundreds or thousands of clients that must take these orders and then send them up to the exchange, constantly.

If you make it a law, it will only happen in the US, and then the trades will happen out of the US. Will you put capital flow controls in place to avoid this? Then the stocks themselves will move, and the US will simply be out of the game.
New I knew it was complicated. Thanks. Still...
New what the boss did is surfing the market
quite a few stocks swing in a regular pattern, time the pattern and make some money.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Re: There is no one looking to buy it.
Not true. There may be no one to buy at or sell at the recent prices. And, there may not be offers/bids in the volume an institution needs. But, there are always offers to buy or sell at prices away from recent prices. There's a stack of them on both sides. I have "level 2" visibility of these orders. They just sit there waiting for folks who make "market orders", i.e. buy or sell at the best available price. If nothing else, someone will offer to buy 100,000 shares of IBM at a penny a piece or sell them to you at $1000 a share.

I always use limit orders so I know the max I will pay or the min I will get. Heck, I often pick a price that's inside the current best bid offer spread. Sometimes those orders just expire at the end of the day, but mostly they do get executed.
Alex

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

-- Isaac Asimov
New Alex's content just reminded me
If I want to sell my car and nobody wants it at my asking price, I don't sell my car. Similarly if I want to buy a house and there's none for sale in the neighborhood I want, I don't buy a house that day.

Why do stocks get to be different?
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook April 13, 2014, 10:50:08 AM EDT
New Becuase the market makers make sure there is always a buyer
That gives confidence to people buying that if the had to they would be able to dump. Yes, prices go down at that point, but it beats a total standstill. That is what liquidity is all about.
Is this bad?
New Not saying bad, but why is it required?
Why are stocks unique, that we have to have confidence that every stock can be sold whenever you want?
--

Drew
New Primary vs Secondary Market.
http://en.wikipedia....y_market#Function

In the secondary market, securities are sold by and transferred from one investor or speculator to another. It is therefore important that the secondary market be highly liquid (originally, the only way to create this liquidity was for investors and speculators to meet at a fixed place regularly; this is how stock exchanges originated, see History of the Stock Exchange). As a general rule, the greater the number of investors that participate in a given marketplace, and the greater the centralization of that marketplace, the more liquid the market.
Fundamentally, secondary markets mesh the investor's preference for liquidity (i.e., the investor's desire not to tie up his or her money for a long period of time, in case the investor needs it to deal with unforeseen circumstances) with the capital user's preference to be able to use the capital for an extended period of time.

Accurate share price allocates scarce capital more efficiently when new projects are financed through a new primary market offering, but accuracy may also matter in the secondary market because: 1) price accuracy can reduce the agency costs of management, and make hostile takeover a less risky proposition and thus move capital into the hands of better managers, and 2) accurate share price aids the efficient allocation of debt finance whether debt offerings or institutional borrowing.[2]


There are weird examples of things like this - e.g. Lloyds of London, where individuals used to put up money to guarantee insurance and had unlimited liability.

Liquidity is good, but pathological things can happen if it is forced. Trouble is, when there is a working market for something, a structure that exists to guarantee liquidity can act as a vampire middle-man.

Cheers,
Scott.
New So ...
A free market guarantees the most efficient allocation of resources. Except when it doesn't. So we create a system of guarantees in the finance sector that doesn't exist in the wider economy, and that system reduces the peak efficiency of the system in exchange for ... what do the rest of us get out of this, again?
--

Drew
New We get to watch, and pick up the pieces when it crashes. :-/
New Heard about Piketty?
The groundbreaking status of the book was recognised by a recent long essay in the New Yorker in which Branko Milanovic, a former senior economist at the World Bank, was quoted as describing Piketty's volume as "one of the watershed books in economic thinking". In the same vein, a writer in the Economist reported that Piketty's work fundamentally rewrote 200 years of economic thinking on inequality. In short, the arguments have centred on two poles: the first is a tradition that begins with Karl Marx, who believed that capitalism would self-destruct in the endless pursuit of diminishing profit returns. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the work of Simon Kuznets, who won a Nobel prize in 1971 and who made the case that the inequality gap inevitably grows smaller as economies develop and become sophisticated.

Piketty says that neither of these arguments stand up to the evidence he has accumulated. More to the point, he demonstrates that there is no reason to believe that capitalism can ever solve the problem of inequality, which he insists is getting worse rather than better. From the banking crisis of 2008 to the Occupy movement of 2011, this much has been intuited by ordinary people. The singular significance of his book is that it proves "scientifically" that this intuition is correct. This is why his book has crossed over into the mainstream – it says what many people have already been thinking. ... So I asked him the most obvious question I could: what is the big idea behind this book?

"I began with a straightforward research problematic," he says in elegant French-accented English. "I began to wonder a few years ago where was the hard data behind all the theories about inequality, from Marx to David Ricardo (the 19th-century English economist and advocate of free trade) and more contemporary thinkers. I started with Britain and America and I discovered that there wasn't much at all. And then I discovered that the data that did exist contradicted nearly all of the theories including Marx and Ricardo. And then I started to look at other countries and I saw a pattern beginning to emerge, which is that capital, and the money that it produces, accumulates faster than growth in capital societies. And this pattern, which we last saw in the 19th century, has become even more predominant since the 1980s when controls on capital were lifted in many rich countries."

http://www.theguardi...st-thomas-piketty

New Yup. #388401. ;-)
http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=388401

It's an important book, no doubt. But it's not the last word (of course). See DeLong's review in that thread.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I will *TRY* to stop doing that to you. ;0(
New No worries.
My snark detector is often broken.

Post what you like. The more, the merrier.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Also, (most importantly?) Brokers a guaranteed commissions.
     Noahpinion: We don't know if HFT is good or bad. - (Another Scott) - (25)
         Short version: - (hnick) - (23)
             What is their service? - (drook) - (22)
                 Maybe... - (hnick)
                 market makers? - (crazy) - (20)
                     Nope - (drook) - (8)
                         Poor assumption - (crazy) - (7)
                             Why does a nsec matter in such cases? - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 Not a market maker issue - (crazy) - (4)
                                     That makes sense. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         You can make pricing rules for the market makers, but not - (crazy) - (1)
                                             I knew it was complicated. Thanks. Still... -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         what the boss did is surfing the market - (boxley)
                             Re: There is no one looking to buy it. - (a6l6e6x)
                     Alex's content just reminded me - (drook) - (10)
                         Becuase the market makers make sure there is always a buyer - (crazy) - (9)
                             Not saying bad, but why is it required? - (drook) - (8)
                                 Primary vs Secondary Market. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                     So ... - (drook) - (5)
                                         We get to watch, and pick up the pieces when it crashes. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                             Heard about Piketty? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 Yup. #388401. ;-) - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                     I will *TRY* to stop doing that to you. ;0( -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                         No worries. - (Another Scott)
                                 Also, (most importantly?) Brokers a guaranteed commissions. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         ZeroHedge: GS exiting HFT and NYSE and ... - (Another Scott)

¡Despierte, Estupido-idiota!
301 ms