You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Goldman's Ed Canaday On The Requirements For High Frequency Trading Oversight
Damage control... Or is Goldman a little worried what Direct Edge may disclose.
From the appended Schumer piece on Bloomberg:
“Goldman Sachs believes high-frequency trading should have an accompanying obligation to provide liquidity, and be subject to appropriate regulatory oversight,” Canaday said.
Ed, we have been giving you the chance to provide your side of the story for months. Please take us up on the offer.
»
- 2224 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
We already have that program.
It's called the "Supplemental Liquidity Provider(s)" aka SLP. I'm pretty sure they're familiar with it.
Ok Mr. Canaday. If HFT is generating quotes and executing trades in computer time, how is it possible to to assure anyone that these trades are Reg. NMS compliant ?
Your reference to liquidity is misleading. Your idea of liquidity is aimed at generating rebates from the various exchanges and has nothing to do with providing your clients with liquidity. Your firm appears to be competing with your clients for liquidity.
Shouldn't it be SLurP
"We're providing the market needed liquidity, as is our obligation", said the giant blood sucking squid.
I wonder just how transparent Goldman will be in disclosing just how much money it made from its prop desk operation this quarter???
"We're holding the markets up, so if you piss us off we'll take our supercomputers and go home and crash your stinking markets", said the giant blood sucking squid.
ZH has no position on what appropriate regulatory oversight should be, as far as I've been able to find in this blog.
not really a fair complaint given all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put it back together again... It's a false question... it's doomed to failure.
You have to get the markets to regulate themselves and you incentivize the actions you desire... rather than butt heads and dictate. Simply put, everything is too complicated at this point to regulate. And, even if it weren't, we don't have the talent necessary to do so available to the public sector. (they had no idea of systemic risk for example). Or, even if talented enough, the regulators will fall prey to favoritism and/or executive orders (let madoff run amuck for how long?)...
to summarize, we have to dangle a carrot in front of frankenstein, not shoot him... he'll just be put back together.
Right, look at FINRA. They do such a wonderful job (NOT), or the NYSE, etc. They've been doing this "self-regulation" bit for ages. Wall Street is a den of thieves, they steal the carrots if they want them.
I rather have the principals of ZH respond, are you one of them? Because otherwise I'm assuming they are making a lot of noise for something they really don't care much about or this is some sort of vendetta. But I'd be happy to hear from them something of substance that would prove me wrong.
E voting is another example of unnecessary complication that makes transparent checks and balances nearly impossible and thus should be avoided entirely. Why get more complicated than paper ballots counted on a machine at precinct level..machine double checks against improper ballots, automates initial count, but provide a transparent publically viewable way to audit count. Its cheap and dependable, people vote on paper so many people can vote at once and largers lines are at registration table, and voter just feeds ballot into mahcine, does not machine to fill out ballot, so only one counter per precinct and even if it falls, hand-count can be done as back-up.
Instead, counties spend millions paperless evote machines, requiring each voter to have machine, adding to cost and long lines, and securing the machines from insider hacking or outside tampering is complicated as places of attach are so numerous and many, like internet hack, malicious code in voting machines or in central tabulation code, or hacking happening during data tranfer require knowledgeable specialist to watch for a detect, where as average citizen can easily check if paper ballots are secured, transported properly, counted correctly etc..
To avoid corruption, we must keep things as simple as possible and often those pushing for complication claim it improves efficiency but that does not usuall hold true upon scrutiny really they are looking for a way to game the system that can't be easily detected.
To complicated to regulate is like too big to fail...it should never get to that point...complicated in my mind is just another name for opaque, secret..."look, says giant blood sucking squids, if we just make CDOs complicated enough we will be able disguise the fact were are just taking more risk while putting aside less reserves to cover it, we will get so much more leverage, and while you may worry that is risky, don't, we got the govt in our back pocket and we got Greenspan praising CDOs"
They do not complicate things cause complicated is inherently better, complicated is inefficient, unless you are trying to hid something.
Just don't let it get complicated, slow down trading enough that it can be monitored, don't allow investmetn vehicles that reasonably competent professionals can't follow, don't let anyone have special speedy,close access to trading computers etc.
If there is a way to incentiveness compliance, I'm alright with your idea, but as Colbert said, "if its a free market, shouldn't I be free to bribe the referee" (I'm paraphrasing from an interview of ND Senator Dorgan) At some point you have to have untouchable enforcers and have many transparent checks and balances and have a vigilant population always watching corruption, other than that, you are toast.
How much does it hurt liquidity to require bid and ask to stand for 1 second?
1 second for these vermin is the same as 10 minutes.
The idea is to take unfair advantage and 1 second is .9999999 seconds too long.
Now its time to raise the heat on Dark Pools. These pools move liquidity away from a centralized marketplace and therefore go against the spirit of the law imo. ALL orders should be displayed in a central marketplace, available for all to see at the same time and available for all to cross. NO exceptions
Why the fuck would GS want to respond directly to a blog?
You must be new here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-sachs-responds-zero-hedge
Who is this 'Mr Durbin' - does he own a blog?
anonomoose....Mr. Durbeen is Merla's sex slave and he is teaching Dick Chainey computer skills in Wyoming.