Should High Frequency Trading (HFT) be banned ?

Posted by OldFart on September 11, 2010 (02:53PM)

Now maybe we should ask Schumer who provided the education and ask him/her to talk to incy :-)

Posted by incubus on September 11, 2010 (04:11PM)

It's not so much a question of whether HFT "should" be banned, but a question of whether it "can" be banned.

Similarly to whether we had a choice to allow the "too bigs" to fail back in 2008, Lehman alone was devastating, Citi, BAC, and a handful of other bankruptcies would have set us back to the financial version of the stone age, as well as jeopardizing our national security and public safety.

It's another residual "too big" problem left to us thanks to ten years of deregulation and blind faith in private enterprise to do the right thing in exchange for campaign funds, bribes..

Accounting for as much as 70% of all market volume, the results of banning HFT would obviously be huge.

The problem we need to address is the details, quote stuffing, sub-pennying, and if anyone recalls, I posted an article on a white paper that even proposes the possibility that HFT computers can trace specific orders to individual traders in order to trade against them.

The latter, is the scariest and hopefully just a conspiracy theory, but imagine if a computer were tracking your option strategies or hedges and manipulating prices by sub-pennying, quote stuffing, or any of other techniques to bluff you one way or another.

Even casino's aren't allowed to fix games, other players in a poker game aren't allowed to peek at your hand, but again, that might just be a theory.

Back a few months ago, Southeast Asset Management created a simple chart that breaks down many of the debate points on HFT (below).

Granted, the source of this breakdown is potentially biased by someone who is in competition with HFT, the counterpoints on the right column are definitaly enlightening.

In partiicular, their observation on what HFT promotes as arbitration, is more likely what I've been saying (the second row) and the claims that HFT provides liquidity, but at the end of the day HFT exits the market flat, which is a mirage of liquidity (first row).

The only argument I see now for allowing HFT is the fact that it has grown to such a monstrous percentage of market volume, straight removal would amount to a short term disaster, but it's starting to look like long term disaster is in the cards anyway if it's allowed to continue, at least in it's current and completely unregulated form.

Which then brings us to question, if HFT is regulated against the more nefarious practices like sub-pennying, theft of intellectual property (flash orders and tracking individual investors positions) and quote stuffing, they may leave anyway for a lack of profitability.

Posted by Income Trader on September 12, 2010 (08:54PM)

Inky, this is an interview with Manoj Narang founder and CEO of Tradeworx. I simply post it to present the opposing argument. 

What do you see as some of the biggest myths circulating about HFT? Can you help us debunk some of those myths (Latency Arbitrage for example?)

MN: So many myths and so little time. Here’s a sampling of six, for starters:

(1) HFT causes volatility when it trades: This is easily disproved as a simple consequence of the definition of high-frequency trading, as I discussed previously. The reason this myth is so pervasive is people conflate it with the fact that HFT benefits from high volatility. If you believe the latter, which is a true statement, then you can not believe the claim that HFT causes volatility. If HFTs were able to manufacture volatility in order to create the conditions for their own prosperity, you’d never see another period of low volatility again! The fact is, liquidity is a commodity that has suppliers and consumers. As is the case with other commodities, supply and demand are sometimes in equilibrium, and sometimes not. When the demand for liquidity far outstrips the supply (as was the case during the credit crisis of 2008, or during the flash crash), volatility ensues. In such situations, becoming a supplier of liquidity becomes quite profitable, but the act of supplying liquidity brings supply and demand back into equilibrium, thereby reducing volatility. By way of comparison, when there is a shortage of oil, oil producers benefit from high oil prices, but if they increase their production in response, the result is a DECREASE in oil prices, not an increase.

(2) HFT causes volatility when it DOESN’T trade: Ever since the “flash crash,” this has become the prevailing narrative, primarily used by detractors to support the idea of “liquidity obligations.” Liquidity obligations are misguided because as is the case with all commodities, virtually all the elasticity of liquidity exists on the demand side. If demand for liquidity suddenly goes up by 100% or 200%, liquidity providers can’t all of a sudden double or triple their capacity to produce. The point is that demand for liquidity fluctuates far more than the supply, and THAT is what causes volatility. The natural consequence of this fact is that if you want to eliminate volatility, you had better eliminate the market itself (this is why circuit-breakers, in fact, are the most effective means to prevent “flash crashes” in the future). Furthermore, liquidity obligations are not designed to prevent these sorts of events. Even the strictest obligations force market makers to post two-sided markets less than 100% of the time. Guess which 2% or 3% of the time the market-maker will decide NOT to be obligated? You guessed it — when they expect to lose lots of money. That is why you had flash crashes in 1962, 1987, 2000, and lots of other points in time when market-makers were subject to “obligations.” As long as there are markets, there will be periods of extreme volatility, liquidity obligations or not. You simply can’t regulate volatility out of the market, particularly by focusing on the side of the market where there is minimal elasticity!

(3) HFT generates massive amounts of profit for financial institutions: In reality, HFT generates at most $2-$3Bn of trading revenue per year in US Equities. If you multiply the profit margin (0.1 cents per share) of a typical HFT trade by the amount of HFT volume (around 10Bn shares per day), you arrive at around $2Bn per year of profit. Some firms, like TABB, have grossly overstated the amount of HFT revenues by expanding the definition to include algorithmic trading in general, regardless of the actual holding period of the trader. Large stat-arb firms which hold positions for multiple days are NOT engaging in HFT. By definition, if you are able to hold positions for that long, you are not part of the HFT arms race, and don’t need superfast technology to access opportunities before they disappear!

(4) Technology gives HFTs an unfair advantage over individual investors: This charge is preposterous, because the two sides are not in competition. In fact, retail investors are completely insulated from the details of market structure, because their orders never make it to the exchanges where they compete with other orders. Virtually 100% of all retail orders are routed directly by the originating brokerage firm to a highly exclusive group of HFTs (known as OTC market-makers) to be executed. To the extent that such HFTs adopt advanced technology to provide this service, it accrues to the BENEFIT of retail investors. Would you want your surgeon to be using anything less than the most advanced technology? If not, then why would you want the firm that is being hired by your broker to fill your orders to use anything less than the most advanced technology? For the record, I’ve had an account at TD Ameritrade since 1998, when it was known as Datek Online. Since that time, I’ve executed 100% of my discretionary trading activity (which is substantial) in that brokerage account. Though I am the CEO of a firm that has uses advanced technology to engage in HFT, I see no benefits whatsoever to using such infrastructure to execute my discretionary trades, which is why I’m perfectly happy to continue using a run-of-the-mill online brokerage account for this purpose.

(5) Technology gives HFTs an unfair advantage over institutional investors: This assertion is misguided on a multitude of levels. First of all, technology confers a competitive advantage, not an unfair one. Imagine policy-makers complaining that Google has an unfair advantage because its search engine uses better technology than its competitors. In no other industry would such a claim make sense. Second of all, HFTs use technology to compete with each other, not with investors. Investors are not (and ought not be) concerned about fleeting correlation-based opportunities that come and go in fractions of a second. Nor do they have the cost structure to benefit from such opportunities. Furthermore, the technology and tools used by HFTs are widely available. Buy-side investors who wish to benefit from colocation and direct feeds have a multitude of cost-effective choices, such as automated trading algorithms (“algos”) which are often offered for virtually no cost by sell-side brokers. Those investors who choose not to adopt advanced technology only do so because it is irrelevant to their investment objectives.

(6) HFTs who use direct feeds can “predict the future” a few milliseconds in advance, or “anticipate” investor orders: This claim serves as the basis for a number of blatantly false claims of malfeasance against HFT leveled by firms such as Themis. It is a completely invalid assertion which is based on a mental sleight-of-hand. Using a direct feed DOES, in fact allow you to predict what the SIPs (standard consolidated feeds) will say a few milliseconds later. But that is not predicting the future, it is predicting the past. If a quote arrives on a direct feed, that means that the order has already been accepted by the exchange providing the feed. Knowing that the order has not yet shown up on the SIP, but inevitably soon will, does NOT entitle you to any benefit — the order is already posted on the exchange and can not be “front-run,” “anticipated,” or otherwise jumped ahead of. In short, direct feeds tell you where prices really are, and where trades can actually get done. There is no way to make easy money just because you know where prices are. That is simply observing the present, not seeing the future. Reading the morning paper will allow you to predict what will be on the evening news, but that is not predicting the future, either!

Posted by incubus on September 12, 2010 (10:18PM)

Inc, I do understand you posted this for a counter view, and not so much your own view, I did look for the link by using a text search for the opening line, I got this -

The website, "The high frequency trading review", doesn't seem objective to me, like asking Mike Tyson if he's a decent, morally upstanding guy, I suspect Mike might tell us he's waiting to be canonized by the Pope.

Without complication or convolution, let me try to put it in simplistic terms.

If I take money off the market in short term trading at a profit, that money comes from someone who came in after I did.

If I bought stock 15 years ago and cash in, that money comes from those who came in after I did.

If HFT's are constantly taking money off the market, holding no stocks for more than 11 seconds at the longest, where is that money coming from?...who came in after they did?

If HFT accounts for 70% of all trading volume, what affect does that have on market structure?

The first group above, short term traders, are notoriously the biggest losers, except for the traders with the largest amounts of money, I'm sure you know there is a correlation between profits in short term trading and the amount of money trading.

Given that, it might be a good way to decipher where HFT get's it's constant profits.

Even removing the nefarious activities, like sub-pennying, quote stuffing, flash orders and others, the innate logistical imbalance between HFT and standard short term traders is exaggerated by default through both the large amounts of money traded by HFT as well as the extreme speeds at which they trade..

The end result, trader exasperation.

The bullies win and all others leave, excluding the extremely long term buy and holders, but even they have noted the extremes to which the market has bounced over the last decade since the inception of HFT.

Druckenmiller was a perfect example.

As for the buy and hold base, those who braved through the Dow 6500 with their retirement fund may not want to sit through another round.

We could say I'm just spewing a conspiracy theory, but for the ICI reports as well as more and more open acknowledgements in the financial media of the fact that domestic fund flows have been negative since May 6th is attributed to public awareness of HFT is a bad sign.

This past week was the biggest outflow yet, $7.5 billion, it isn't slowing but instead picking up pace four months later

We know the market has historically consisted of a base of long term buy and hold investors, a bottom is usually marked by the number of holders willing to stay in, come hell or high water.

We also know that the rest of the market consists of short term investors, the bulk of these investors usually lose money, with a direct correlation being to the amount of money they have to trade with.

If both the short term traders, and the base of buy and hold investors leave the market, that leaves an even greater proportion of HFT traders skimming money from each other vs a slowly increasing buildup on the base of long term buy and hold investors.

My point, consider an extreme, what the market would (will?) be like if it were 100% dominated by HFT trading, all making 1000th a penny per share in a fraction of a second.

There would no longer be an incremental buildup of a long term buy and hold base, but instead, increasingly ferocious levels of high speed, short term profit taking, a diminishing market....but with really great bid/ask spreads.

Posted by incubus on September 13, 2010 (01:07PM)

Very interesting development today from FINRA - 

"FINRA Sanctions Trillium Brokerage Services, LLC, Director of Trading, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nine Traders $2.26 Million for Illicit Equities Trading Strategy

WASHINGTON — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) today announced that it has censured and fined New York-based Trillium Brokerage Services, LLC, $1 million for using an illicit high frequency trading strategy and related supervisory failures. Trillium, through nine proprietary traders, entered numerous layered, non-bona fide market moving orders to generate selling or buying interest in specific stocks. By entering the non-bona fide orders, often in substantial size relative to a stock's overall legitimate pending order volume, Trillium traders created a false appearance of buy- or sell-side pressure.


This trading strategy induced other market participants to enter orders to execute against limit orders previously entered by the Trillium traders. Once their orders were filled, the Trillium traders would then immediately cancel orders that had only been designed to create the false appearance of market activity. As a result of this improper high frequency trading strategy, Trillium's traders obtained advantageous prices that otherwise would not have been available to them on 46,000 occasions. Other market participants were unaware that they were acting on the layered, illegitimate orders entered by Trillium traders."

They suspended 11 individual trading licenses and fined them personally on top of the $2.6 million to the company.

For giggles, I decided to look on Opensecrets to see how they stacked up compared to Getco for campaign contributions...they gave close to nothing last year while Getco paid out handsome bribes....coincidence?

Even without banning HFT, consideration has to be weighed on what happens once HFT's are no longer allowed to engage in theft by deception.

Will HFT's leave the market?

If so, what would that mean when they currently account for the mass of trading volume?

Posted by closer on September 15, 2010 (06:26PM)

ban i vote yes

Posted by buynhold on September 15, 2010 (07:56PM)

Well, the illegal trading was only on 46,000 occasions (that we know of).  At least it's not rampant. :)

Posted by incubus on September 15, 2010 (08:14PM)

buynhold said: Well, the illegal trading was only on 46,000 occasions (that we know of).  At least it's not rampant. :)

 And that's only a few seconds worth of trading, literally.
I think I recall the SEC stating there is more to come, they've only just begun scrutinizing the tapes, this particular charge only goes back to August.

With the new whistleblower reward program, I suspect the SEC is going to be very, very busy. 

One thing for sure, I wouldn't want to be the lucky fella at the SEC that has to sort the the tape on these trades.

Posted by incubus on October 03, 2010 (02:05PM)

Inc et al,
My argument on HFT has been based on a simple premise.

When you sell a stock at a gain, you are making a profit at the expense of someone else, whom reciprocally hopes to do the same at a later date or time.

Within these two types of market activity, investors, or traders, the successful ones can sell (or buy to cover) at a gain more often than a loss, but they all experience losses at one time or another.

Within these two groups, short term traders have a much lower margin of success, we all know that the shortest term traders, day traders, have the lowest percentage of historical success than long term buy and hold investors.

This is where my premise kicks in - HFT's are the shortest of short term traders, yet they make massive and consistent gains, they experience no losses.

Even this would be unimportant, but for that fact that HFT accounts for up 70% of all trading volume, and it's growing in that percentage as more and more institutions find themselves forced to compete, or go the way of pro's like Drukenmiller..

Given the historical percentages of short term trading, and the recent surge in HFT, which incorporates almost a 100% gain average ( they profit every day) - You cannot discount the question of where that money they make comes from, regardless of the fringe short term benefit of narrower spreads.

In a nutshell, it wreaks of corner cutting or shortcuts.

This is an article from the WSJ a few days ago that discusses this premise in depth, as well as the fact that even the ICI is now beginning to question the same premise I've been making, they're meeting on it tomorrow -

Posted by Income Trader on October 03, 2010 (07:17PM)


The title of this thread is "Should High Frequency Trading (HFT) be banned"

I have said that it should not be banned, but that certain aspects of it need to be modified to ensure a more fair playing field amongs all participants and that is exactly what the above article suggests. This is an excerpt from the article.

"There are aspects of the market structure which give [fast traders] an unfair advantage," says Manoj Narang, chief executive of Tradeworx, a high-frequency firm in Red Bank, N.J., that trades about 200,000 times a day, turning over roughly 50 million shares. "And those should be changed."

One such practice: 1,000 shares are offered for sale at $20, and someone wants to buy 2,000 shares at $20. The buyer should be able to purchase the 1,000 shares immediately, while the other 1,000 shares should instantly show as the new "best bid" at $20.

Instead, says Mr. Narang, while the 1,000-share purchase goes through right away, the open order to buy another 1,000 is displayed to the entire market at a slight delay. Traders that can place orders faster can jump ahead, putting them in the best position to buy more shares at $20, in hopes of reselling them at a higher price. Mr. Narang says this occurs "at least tens of thousands of times per day."

HFT should not be banned, but current market structure gives HFT an unfair advantage and should be modified.

Posted by spshapiro on October 03, 2010 (07:54PM)

IT, the problem that Narang outlines is not a problem of HFT, it is just plain wrong.  In theory the person who placed the order (for 2000 @ $20) is in front of the line when the 1000 shares are executed (this also shows his order was not AON, which puts you out of the line.)  No one in theory should be able to jump ahead of him, unless they are willing to buy at $20.01, otherwise this is bucking the line. And that would be true of anyone HFT or not.

The point is, when this occurs the offender is not hung by his belt from the school yard fence.  The point isn’t to make an example of the Madoffs of the world;  they will always be crucified (and rightly so) when caught.  The point is the hang the school yard bully on the fence, so he doesn’t dream of growing up in such a manner.

The real issue with HFT, to me, is do we want to countenance an advantage to those who have access to super computers.  There is no question that in certain ways, those with the computers can do things those without can’t do.  Most people will accept that those with a lot of money can drive around in fancier cars than those with much less.  But most people believe that those with a lot of money shouldn’t receive special consideration before the bar.  The only question is on which side does HFT fall?

Posted by incubus on October 03, 2010 (09:04PM)

Inc, Shap makes a small part of my point, he describes a form of front running where the guy with the most money and fastest computer gets dibs at your expense.

I'm not sure how my responses aren't relative to the topic of whether HFT should be banned, but my stance is that once the practices in HFT that are deemed unfair or illegal are abolished, it could actually render HFT itself unprofitable for many HFT traders who profit from this activity.

Regulation, by default, might have the same affect as outright banning anyway.

Say, if Getco makes 80% of it's profits off manipulation through stub orders, quote stuffing, volume bluffs, sub-pennying or from latency arbitrage, you have to guess new regulations against these practices would, by default, be banning Getco from what makes it money.

An example, one HFT trader just paid hundreds of millions to covertly excavate, partially through mountainous area's. and lay optical lines between New York and Chicago for the sole purpose of making money off latency arbitrage, skimming tiny fractions off the price differences between the Chicago and New York exchanges before they can collaborate those prices to NBBO.

One of the major concerns the SEC is now addressing is latency arbitrage, a high tech form of front running, taking advantage of knowledge of a stock price ahead of the public is illegal, even if an HFT firm is informing us it provides even more liquidity than before, all due respect to Mr Narang, but taking the word of industry insiders as a guide for regulation is what got us in this economic mess in the first place.

My question to Mr Narang, who is obviously a market genius of equal status to the executives at Bear and Stearn, Citigroup, BofA or Lehman Brothers, - why doesn't Mr Narang just utilize that market ingenuity into a "new" idea and invest in great stocks for the longhaul?

There's a form of "buyer beware" in all this, knowing that so much of the market volume is HFT, it might be a bad idea not to be aware what ramifications potential regulation might have.

Mindful that even traditional institutional strategies have historically incorporated a form of pumping the market to lure retail investors and then bailing, it also occurs to me that HFT's might also be incorporating a similar strategy with traditional investment firms as well as the retail investor. 

For all we know, the 6 largest HFT firms could already have a coordinated, preemptive game plan to time a withdrawal to their best financial gain at the expense of all others, food for thought considering that 70% figure.

Inc, I hope you don't feel I'm arguing for the sake thereof, I'm only hoping to shed light on the possibilities of any regulation over HFT, and the fact that even partial regulation could equate to the same thing as outright banning in the case where HFT's have been making a substantial level of profits off nefarious practices.

Posted by incubus on October 10, 2010 (08:05PM)

For those interested, 60 minutes is doing a special on the topic right now.

It looks like Inc's featured Manoj Narang is being interviewed, it also looks like they're taking off the gloves with interviews on both sides of the argument.

Joe Saluzzi of Themis trading just made my exact point, it's logistically impossible to make money every single day without cutting corners at the expense of the market as a whole.

Posted by BeeSimmons on October 11, 2010 (01:01PM)

In the end, it comes down to what is best for the government. Obviously, there are pros and cons on HFT, but everyone knows that these traders pay huge tax bills and the company executing the trade takes their share of the action and pays taxes too. As huge as the budget deficit is their is no way this will be banned. 

Posted by incubus on October 11, 2010 (01:30PM)

Bee, not so much "huge" tax bills, but "huge" political campaign contributions.

If this were the case, the SEC would already be imposing a form of the PDT rule or additional fee's on high volume traders that don't benefit the market long term.

Posted by Income Trader on October 11, 2010 (04:36PM)

Hopefully Royal Flush, who started this thread, has enough information by now to do his research paper!

Anyway, Like I have been saying, there are unfair advantages to those employing High Frequency Trading because of current market structure. Even the HFT traders themselves for the most part, agree that there are situations where they have an unfair advantage because of their computing speed.

Now the question is, do you try and hold back technological advances by setting a governor if you will, to cap market "speed" or do you change the current structure to accomodate HFT  while also ensuring that those with access to mega computers are not the only ones who can make money trading!

We all agree that HFT creates some much needed liquidity. Inky argues that the cost to that liquidity is too high and not worth the consequences. I believe that the cost of evaporating liquidity would be disastrous to the current market structure and that instead of eliminating (banning) HFT, the SEC needs to establish rules and regulations to deal with this segment as it does with any other segment of the market. I believe that banning HFT would be somewhat like swatting a bug on a glass table top with a baseball bat, you may eventually kill the bug but you will also destroy the table in the process.

There are many things that could be done to ensure that traders employing these strategies are held to some standards that will eliminate some of these unfair advantages and I am sure that, as was said above, there are political and fiscal reasons why it has been difficult to get these loopholes fixed. But then again, isn't that par for the course these days?

What I hope to make clear in this thread is that there are consequences to both extremes of this debate. Either keeping HFT as is or banning it outright, are not the answers. 

Posted by incubus on October 11, 2010 (06:14PM)

Inc, I agree, there are consequences either way, though I do make an argument that HFT proponents that have a stake are likely exaggerating, as will any officials in their pockets.
Point to consider, the fact that HFT's are sold at the close, which could be a gauge that although contributing to trading volume, they contribute nothing to market cap.

This then leads to the conclusion that the only benefit for all others is a narrower spread, but long term it negates market growth by discouraging long term holdings.

I also have to reiterate that there's a good chance regulation to stem the nefarious activities that currently make HFT so lucrative could have the same affect on them as an outright ban anyway.

One firm recently spending hundreds of millions to enhance front running (latency arbitrage) as exemplified by the excavation and installation of hundreds of miles of fiber optic lines from NYC to Chicago illustrates this point, apparently front running makes enough profit to warrant that kind of investment,.

Latency arbitrage is technically illegal front running, these guys are basically screwed if HFT is regulated, banned by default, meaning they wasted $300 million only to be shut down before starting..

As I listened to the 60 minutes interview with Narang, he explained that in 4 years he has never seen a down week.

He was then asked how that's possible, while still benefiting the market, he shrugged, stalled, and then gave the "provides liquidity" response, explaining that he "only" makes a penny or less per share per trade.

Magnify that penny by the increasing number of HFT's entering the market and it's not hard to see this problem is going to affect market growth.

Though offering a better immediate price on the bid/ask spread, the growth potential for the stock market over the longterm is not going to match historical rates as relating to macro economics or fundamentals, nothing has ever so consistently pulled capital off the market in such large volume in such short time.

Never mind the already staggering disparity in outflows to emerging markets that already have substantial economic advantages over America, add HFT to American markets and it can't be good.

Posted by Income Trader on October 13, 2010 (12:59PM)


Joe Saluzzi from Themes Trading who was on the 60 minutes program last Sunday was on CNBC today and basically said exactly what I have been saying. His points were:

He is not against HFT trading, but against the market structure that allows for these arbitrage opportunities. He mentioned the problem of fragmentation and  having so many exchanges and dark pool providers. Finally he cleared the air and admitted that HFT trading is not an illegal activity and that traders are just taking advantage of market structure loop holes.


Posted by incubus on October 13, 2010 (03:10PM)

I watched him Inc, his argument today was weaker than what he said on 60 minutes, where he specifically used the word "parasite" regarding HFT, I would guess he's getting pressure from his peers. (say it ain't so, not on CNBC!)

My point regarding the "structural issues", that's what makers HFT's profits, regulating the practices in question is likely the equivalence to banning HFT for all intents and purposes.

Again, referencing the above link I posted to a story about an outfit that just spent $300 million to secretly excavate and lay optical lines directly from Chicago to NY to capitalize on a several microsecond advantage over traditional HFT.

here -

It's "latency arbitrage", taking advantage of price knowledge ahead of the public, a form of front running.

On the 60 minutes interview, when Manoj Narang was asked if constantly skimming money off the market like that was harmful, he replied "Nobody's going to miss a penny per share", and he's right, but he fails to mention the real problem, we're not just talking about "a share" here, we're talking about 70% of all trading volume., countless billions of shares.

This is where my point about the diminishing effect HFT will have on market growth over time comes into play, it's impossible for everyone trading to be constantly making money, it's just simple math.

You wouldn't know this, but apparently much of why the ICI has been showing an increase in fund flows to foreign markets while we lose money is that this is what fund managers are now telling their clients when they are calling in concerned with HFT since the flash crash - move to foreign funds based on markets where there is no HTF trading.

If people are voting with their money, so far it looks like Chile and Brazil are winning the "election".

Posted by OldFart on October 26, 2010 (04:11PM)

If you are in or around NYC, IAFE - International Assoc of Financial Engineers presents a paper on impact of HFT on the flash crash. It should be interesting, believe it is a free event sponsored by PwC -

You must Log In to post to this forum.

Not a member? Register Now to …

  • See what other traders are doing
  • Make your own trades public
  • Share your thoughts on a trade
  • Join or start a group
  • Connect with like-minded traders