Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.misc |
| Subject | Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable |
| Date | 2014-04-09 05:51 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <li2n5k$6j6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <lhs9e8$bd$1@solani.org> <lhsarc$gs3$1@dont-email.me> <lhsd43$2fv$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lhstjs$hep$1@dont-email.me> <li1mkh$ob0$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2014-04-08, Dave Garland wrote: > On 4/6/2014 8:05 PM, Randy Westlund wrote: >> But what's the proper way to regulate this? I don't think they're >> doing anything wrong, but it's leading to undesirable behavior. >> Regulation of HFT would be very difficult to do justly, I think. > > Put a 0.1% transaction tax on every completed transaction, and the > problem would cure itself. And probably solve the national deficit in > the process. > > Putting a 5s delay between bid and acceptance (or not) would probably > do the trick, too. (I'm guessing that would make it comparable to > manual floor trading.) > > I don't see why either could be considered "unjust". I don't see anything necessarily unjust about that, but I don't think it would solve the problem -- it would just change the time scale. In either case, algorithms would have to wait longer between trades, either because they needed the share value to increase more to cover the cost of the tax, or because of the hard limit caused by the delay. But we'd still have thousands of algorithms interacting in nondeterministic ways and inexplicable share values that don't reflect market conditions, which I think is the real problem. Come to think of it... By skimming some off the top, the tax would reduce the total amount of money invested in the market and reduce the returns each person gets from investing in companies, which is not what we want.
Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-06 19:20 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-06 19:44 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-04-06 22:21 +0200
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-07 01:11 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-04-06 21:23 +0100
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-07 01:05 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-04-08 15:36 -0500
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-09 05:51 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-04-09 16:24 -0500
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-10 17:40 +0000
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-04-06 21:39 +0100
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-04-06 21:39 +0100
Re: High frequency trading and a 4ms faster cable RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-07 08:57 +0000
csiph-web