Is this chappy trying to say that it's not necessarily a good thing if trades that risk bigger sums of money than some of the parties can survive can be executed before those parties have been able to think about what they're doing?
If so, I'm inclined to agree with him.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: NYSE head: speed isn't always good
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "NYSE head: speed isn't always good"
Collapse
-
Yes the fact they missed adding those safeguards to the system as that was extra work.Originally posted by MyUserName View PostThe trading systems I have worked on have all had limits on the transactions (per counter party, per trader, per location etc.).
This type of problem already has a standard solution. Knights Capital were negligent to not have this safeguard in place and paid the price (literally).
Am I missing something?
Leave a comment:
-
The trading systems I have worked on have all had limits on the transactions (per counter party, per trader, per location etc.).
This type of problem already has a standard solution. Knights Capital were negligent to not have this safeguard in place and paid the price (literally).
Am I missing something?
Leave a comment:
-
If you provide the fastest technology then all will have to buy or be left behind, it's "MAD"Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postbecause then profit becomes a function of technology.
the winner of WOW becomes the one with the fastest connection
the kid best at football is the one wearing the latest man U rooney kit


Spod - In "Making Hay while the sun shines" mode!
Leave a comment:
-
because then profit becomes a function of technology.Originally posted by SupremeSpod View PostHow so?
The Atlantic Telegraph Cable was used to great effect in trading in the mid to late 18th Century.
the winner of WOW becomes the one with the fastest connection
the kid best at football is the one wearing the latest man U rooney kit
Leave a comment:
-
How so?Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostI dont know much about the ice cream market, and I dont know much about HST, but if people are making money BECAUSE of the speed, then I can see that being a big problem

The Atlantic Telegraph Cable was used to great effect in trading in the mid to late 19th Century.
Leave a comment:
-
I dont know much about the ice cream market, and I dont know much about HST, but if people are making money BECAUSE of the speed, then I can see that being a big problem
Leave a comment:
-
What has that got to do with eliminating market distortion due to HFT?Originally posted by escapeUK View PostBut anyone who kept shares long term the last 10 years will have made pretty much nothing. MSFT, CSCO about the same, DELL less today. Banking horrible losses. Obviously there are some stars out there like Google and Apple.
Leave a comment:
-
But anyone who kept shares long term the last 10 years will have made pretty much nothing. MSFT, CSCO about the same, DELL less today. Banking horrible losses. Obviously there are some stars out there like Google and Apple.Originally posted by doodab View PostI do think something needs to be done, simply because the quest for ultra low execution times and arbitrage over a period of nanoseconds biases the market in favour of the well to do. I would work around this not by imposing a delay but by imposing a jitter on the connections to the exchanges such that any gains to be had from jiggery pokering were statistically insignificant.
Its a complete casino tbh. My gold is doing much better than any shares I ever had, tax free too.
Leave a comment:
-
I do think something needs to be done, simply because the quest for ultra low execution times and arbitrage over a period of nanoseconds biases the market in favour of the well to do. I would work around this not by imposing a delay but by imposing a jitter on the connections to the exchanges such that any gains to be had from jiggery pokering were statistically insignificant.
Leave a comment:
-
I would not expect you to agree with that ice cream analogy (because it isn't relevant), however for dangerous things such as gun sales for example it would be reasonable to expect some delay between buy/sell decisions.Originally posted by KentPhilip View PostI don't think I'd agree with that.
Tax system in US actually encourages long term share ownership with lower CGT on those (15% I think) and it was good here with Taper Relief until cretins Darling/Brown removed it. Then even bigger idiot Osborne puts CGT up to 28%.
Leave a comment:
-
OK thanks for clarifying that.Originally posted by AtW View PostIf nobody put a sell order then you won't be buying.
A sell order gets 24 hour delay only after that point it can be bought.
Problem solved, even though it will put some dirty spekulants out of business.
It's a very heavy loss, but I think the society as a whole can take it.

So what you are proposing, to continue my ice cream analogy, is that if there are ice cream vans on the beach people should be allowed to buy from them, but the council should put limits on whether they are allowed to trade there.
I don't think I'd agree with that.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Today 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Yesterday 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42
- Contractors warned over HMRC charging £3.5 billion too much Feb 6 03:18
- Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for umbrella company contractors: an April 2026 explainer Feb 5 07:19
- IR35: IT contractors ‘most concerned about off-payroll working rules’ Feb 4 07:11
- Labour’s near-silence on its employment status shakeup is telling, and disappointing Feb 3 07:47
- Business expenses: What IT contractors can and cannot claim from HMRC Jan 30 08:44



Leave a comment: