BBO Discussion Forums: The Flash Boys - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Flash Boys by Michael Lewis

#1 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2014-March-31, 15:02

From an excerpt published in the NYT:

Quote

The stock market really was rigged. Katsuyama often wondered how enterprising politicians and plaintiffs’ lawyers and state attorneys general would respond to that realization. (This March, the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, announced a new investigation of the stock exchanges and the dark pools, and their relationships with high-frequency traders. Not long after, the president of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn, published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, saying that Goldman wanted nothing to do with the bad things happening in the stock market.) The thought of going after those who profited didn’t give Katsuyama all that much pleasure. He just wanted to fix the problem. At some level, he still didn’t understand why some Wall Street banks needed to make his task so difficult.

Technology had collided with Wall Street in a peculiar way. It had been used to increase efficiency. But it had also been used to introduce a peculiar sort of market inefficiency. Taking advantage of loopholes in some well-meaning regulation introduced in the mid-2000s, some large amount of what Wall Street had been doing with technology was simply so someone inside the financial markets would know something that the outside world did not. The same system that once gave us subprime-mortgage collateralized debt obligations no investor could possibly truly understand now gave us stock-market trades involving fractions of a penny that occurred at unsafe speeds using order types that no investor could possibly truly understand. That is why Brad Katsuyama’s desire to explain things so that others would understand was so seditious. He attacked the newly automated financial system at its core, where the money was made from its incomprehensibility.

Quote

Puz’s peculiar ability to solve puzzles was suddenly even more relevant. Creating a new stock exchange is a bit like creating a casino: Its creator needs to ensure that the casino cannot in some way be exploited by the patrons. Or at worst, he needs to know exactly how his system might be gamed, so that he might monitor the exploitation — as a casino follows card counters at the blackjack tables. “You are designing a system,” Puz says, “and you don’t want the system to be gameable.” The trouble with the stock market — with all of the public and private exchanges — was that they were fantastically gameable, and had been gamed: first by clever guys in small shops, and then by prop traders who moved inside the big Wall Street banks. That was the problem, Puz thought. From the point of view of the most sophisticated traders, the stock market wasn’t a mechanism for channeling capital to productive enterprise but a puzzle to be solved.

Quote

Their new exchange needed a name. They called it the Investors Exchange, which wound up being shortened to IEX. Before it opened, on Oct. 25, 2013, the 32 employees of IEX made private guesses as to how many shares they would trade the first day and the first week. The median of the estimates came in at 159,500 shares the first day and 2.75 million shares the first week. The lowest estimate came from the only one among them who had ever built a new stock market from scratch: 2,500 shares the first day and 100,000 the first week. Of the nearly 100 banks and stockbrokerage firms in various stages of agreeing to connect to IEX, most of them small outfits, only about 15 were ready on the first day. Katsuyama guessed, or perhaps hoped, that the exchange would trade between 40 and 50 million shares a day by the end of the first year — that’s about what IEX needed to trade to cover its running costs. If it failed to do that, there was a question of how long it could last. Katsuyama thought that their bid to create an example of a fair financial market — and maybe change Wall Street’s culture — could take more than a year. And, he said, “It’s over when we run out of money.”

On the first day, IEX traded 568,524 shares. Most of the volume came from regional brokerage firms and Wall Street brokers that had no dark pools — RBC and Sanford C. Bernstein. The first week, IEX traded a bit over 12 million shares. Each week after that, the volume grew slightly, until, in the third week of December, IEX was trading roughly 50 million shares each week. On Wednesday, Dec. 18, it traded 11,827,232 shares. But IEX still wasn’t attracting many orders from the big banks. Goldman Sachs, for example, had connected to the exchange, but its orders were arriving in tiny lot sizes, resting for just a few seconds, then leaving.

The first different-looking stock-market order sent by Goldman to IEX landed on Dec. 19, 2013, at 3:09.42 p.m. 662 milliseconds 361 microseconds 406 nanoseconds. Anyone who was in IEX’s one-room office when it arrived would have known that something unusual was happening. The computer screens jitterbugged as the information flowed into the market in an entirely new way — lingering there long enough to trade. One by one, the employees arose from their chairs. Then they began to shout.

“We’re at 15 million!” someone yelled, 10 minutes into the surge. In the previous 331 minutes they had traded roughly 14 million shares.

"Twenty million!”

“Thirty million!”

“We just passed AMEX,” shouted John Schwall, their chief financial officer, referring to the American Stock Exchange. “We’re ahead of AMEX in market share.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#2 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2014-April-01, 22:14

From Did Someone Front Run Michael Lewis? by Steven Sears in Barron's today:

Quote

The new Michael Lewis book, Flash Boys, focuses on high-frequency trading, which, Lewis contends, amounts to high-tech front running. Unusual action in the options market late last week suggests a bit of trading ahead of the 60 Minutes segment that effectively launched Lewis' book.

Nasdaq OMX (ticker: NDAQ) operates some of the biggest stock and options exchanges in America, but its own shares rarely attract much attention in either market. So heavy trading in bearish options on the stock seems peculiar, especially now that high-frequency trading is under review by federal authorities.

Some investors bought about 6,000 puts in anticipation the stock would decline. Trade Alert, an options analytical service, said the volume was five-times greater than normal trading volume. The trading seemed to make little sense -- until Monday's announcement that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating high-frequency trading.

Nasdaq benefits from high-frequency trading. The exchange, like others, sells "co-location" services that allow HFT firms close access to exchange computers. This gives HFT firms faster access to price information, ahead of other investors. The millisecond advantage can be enough to give those traders a profitable edge.

In recent trading, Nasdaq's stock was down 3% at $35.85 on heavy volume. The puts bought last week -- April $36 and $37 puts when the stock was trading around those strike prices -- are now more valuable.

A dealer who sold some of the Nasdaq puts to the mystery buyers said the action now looks very suspicious. He opined that someone knew about the 60 Minutes interview with Lewis, and perhaps even about the FBI investigation. "This stuff is very rarely coincidental," the dealer said, requesting anonymity.

The options trading, and stock price action, suggests Nasdaq's stock and options are now viewed by investors as the way to trade the HFT investigations. Other exchange stocks are also lower today, reflecting a mixed session for financial stocks, but only Nasdaq's stock trading volume is heavier than normal

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#3 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2014-April-02, 00:02

Two obvious fixes to this issue:

1. Very small transaction tax.
2. introduce random delay (say uniform from the distribution of 1 to 1000 milliseconds).

The second one means that even if you "beat" the order by a couple of milliseconds you may not actually get to beat the order (although you may be more likely than not, but it increases variance and doesn't guarantee profit). The first one has been call for a lot on currency speculation (Tobin Tax) and also for some on stock transactions.
0

#4 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2014-April-02, 09:34

John Stewart had on last night an author who pointed out that the "flash boys" were raising prices on the exchange before orders could be executed. At what point does the chase for profits turn into crime, is my question?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#5 User is offline   FM75 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2009-December-12

Posted 2014-April-02, 16:00

Perhaps Lewis will write his next book about Mr. Nash. He developed some powerful theories. The one for which he is best known, suggests to me that not only is Lewis wrong, but that he is fundamentally ill-equipped to understand why he is wrong. Lewis is not unusual in this respect, however.

You and Michael are about to play a game. Each of you will pick a number between 0 and 100, inclusive.The player whose number is closest to half the other person's number will win $100. What number will you choose?


0

#6 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,594
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-April-02, 16:02

View PostWinstonm, on 2014-April-02, 09:34, said:

John Stewart had on last night an author

Not just any author, it's the author of the book we're talking about. He's been all over the place this week, like "Marketplace" on public radio.

#7 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2014-April-02, 16:11

View Postbarmar, on 2014-April-02, 16:02, said:

Not just any author, it's the author of the book we're talking about. He's been all over the place this week, like "Marketplace" on public radio.


Yes, but I forgot his name and didn't feel like looking it up. ;)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#8 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2014-April-02, 17:13

View PostFM75, on 2014-April-02, 16:00, said:

Perhaps Lewis will write his next book about Mr. Nash. He developed some powerful theories. The one for which he is best known, suggests to me that not only is Lewis wrong, but that he is fundamentally ill-equipped to understand why he is wrong. Lewis is not unusual in this respect, however.

You and Michael are about to play a game. Each of you will pick a number between 0 and 100, inclusive.The player whose number is closest to half the other person's number will win $100. What number will you choose?


That's an interesting one that I haven't seen before.

There's definitely a mixed strategy at play.
I'm not sure about the specific pdf and don't have time to test a bunch, but I am guessing that its biased to the left and either triangular or exponential or some such.

Hmm. Actually, what happens in the case of a tie?

If there is a 50-50 split of the money, than a player can guarantee a tie by always bidding 0 dollars.
Given that the game is symmetric, it shouldn't be possible to improve on this result, so you have a bunch of degenerate equilibria based on bidding zero. (However, I am guessing that there is another based on the mixed strategy)

In terms of subgame perfect equilibira, I think that there are 4

Player A and Player B both bid 0
Player A bids 0 and player B uses the optimal mixed strategy
Player A chooses the optimal mixed strategy and player B bids zero
Player A and B both use the mixed strategy

<Ignore this. There isn't a mixed strategy>
Alderaan delenda est
0

#9 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2014-April-02, 17:31

View PostFM75, on 2014-April-02, 16:00, said:

Perhaps Lewis will write his next book about Mr. Nash. He developed some powerful theories. The one for which he is best known, suggests to me that not only is Lewis wrong, but that he is fundamentally ill-equipped to understand why he is wrong. Lewis is not unusual in this respect, however.


I have disagreed with Lewis (publicly) on some of his previous work. In particular, I think that he wrong about CDO's.
In this case, I think that he's dead on.

Let me flesh out the dynamics that Lewis describes in flash boys.

Assume a set of exchanges, linked together by both low latency and high latency links.

A small set of traders have access to the low latency links.
Most don't.

The traders with preferential access place small amounts of stocks for sale on all the exchanges.
They watch for buy orders to come on exchange A. If exchange A can't fill that entire order, they race ahead to the other exchange seeking to arbitrage the order.

You can make claims about Nash equilbiria all you want, but at the end of the day I'm more convinced by

1. The profits of the high frequency traders
2. The amount of money being invested in low latency communications links
3. The popularity of the IEX exchange with institutional investors

Personally, I don't get too worked up about this sort of thing. I am a buy and hold type guy so I don't get burned too often. However, I can see why others might object much more strenuously.

FWIW, I agree that a Tobin tax is the best way to deal with this issue.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#10 User is offline   FM75 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2009-December-12

Posted 2014-April-02, 18:08

View Posthrothgar, on 2014-April-02, 17:13, said:

That's an interesting one that I haven't seen before.

There's definitely a mixed strategy at play.
I'm not sure about the specific pdf and don't have time to test a bunch, but I am guessing that its biased to the left and either triangular or exponential or some such.

Hmm. Actually, what happens in the case of a tie?

If there is a 50-50 split of the money, than a player can guarantee a tie by always bidding 0 dollars.
Given that the game is symmetric, it shouldn't be possible to improve on this result, so you have a bunch of degenerate equilibria based on bidding zero. (However, I am guessing that there is another based on the mixed strategy)

In terms of subgame perfect equilibira, I think that there are 4

Player A and Player B both bid 0
Player A bids 0 and player B uses the optimal mixed strategy
Player A chooses the optimal mixed strategy and player B bids zero
Player A and B both use the mixed strategy


In the event of a tie, the prize is split equally.
0

#11 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,594
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-April-02, 18:50

View PostWinstonm, on 2014-April-02, 16:11, said:

Yes, but I forgot his name and didn't feel like looking it up. ;)

It's in the subtitle of the thread! Or you could have just said "the author" (or simply "he"); "an author" seems like you were talking about some other author.

#12 User is offline   FM75 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2009-December-12

Posted 2014-April-02, 20:02

Over the last 4 years Amazon has reported an average of about $900 million income before taxes per year. How much money did they spend to make that amount? Are they cheating their customers?

How are they different? How about EBay? Netflix?
0

#13 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2014-April-02, 20:36

View Postbarmar, on 2014-April-02, 18:50, said:

It's in the subtitle of the thread! Or you could have just said "the author" (or simply "he"); "an author" seems like you were talking about some other author.


That is because there was "an" author on John Stewart (Had I remembered his name I might have realized it was the same author as in the title of the thread. But I didn't know it was the same author because I didn't remember his name and I didn't pay attention to the book title.)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#14 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2014-April-02, 21:23

View PostFM75, on 2014-April-02, 16:00, said:

Perhaps Lewis will write his next book about Mr. Nash. He developed some powerful theories. The one for which he is best known, suggests to me that not only is Lewis wrong, but that he is fundamentally ill-equipped to understand why he is wrong. Lewis is not unusual in this respect, however.

You and Michael are about to play a game. Each of you will pick a number between 0 and 100, inclusive.The player whose number is closest to half the other person's number will win $100. What number will you choose?




Isn't zero the winning answer no matter what number the other person chooses (except for zero, which is a push)?
0

#15 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2014-April-03, 06:58

View PostFM75, on 2014-April-02, 20:02, said:

Over the last 4 years Amazon has reported an average of about $900 million income before taxes per year. How much money did they spend to make that amount? Are they cheating their customers?

How are they different? How about EBay? Netflix?


The issue is not the existence of profit or even the magnitude of the profit, but rather how the profit is generated.

High frequency traders generate their profits by introducing an inefficiency into the market.
From the perspective of the buy and the seller, they push the system away from a Pareto efficient allocation.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#16 User is online   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,224
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2014-April-03, 08:29

View PostArtK78, on 2014-April-02, 21:23, said:

Isn't zero the winning answer no matter what number the other person chooses (except for zero, which is a push)?


Seems right, I'm glad I read your response before thinking about this.

On the broader question of trading, I don't much do it, so personally I am not directly affected. And I am not ready to expend much effort protecting those who do want to get into the pits and play. However we are all affected by large scale economic upheavals. This would be the part that interests me. If rich guy A outplays rich guy B out of several million, I don't really care. If they crash the economy playing these games, I do care.

So I ask those of you (that's almost everyone) who know more about this than I do: Making money by moving money around using super computers running on algorithms that have nothing to do with business merit. sounds like it could lead to disaster. Didn't we, just a few years ago, see a clever few making a lot of money gaming mortgages? Your thoughts? The above post, written while I was writng this, is along the lines of my question.

I don't envy the rich, I don't wish to guillotine them, I just want them not to make a mess of things for the rest of us.

And a side note: We watched part of The Great Gatsby (new version) last night. Maybe we will watch the rest of it later. And maybe I will go back and finish the book sometime. Or not. On my long list of Things I Don't Understand, the greatness of this story has a prominent place. Irrelevant I know, but it came to mind as I thought about all this money being tossed around.
Ken
0

#17 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2014-April-03, 12:48


HFT a cancer that needs to be stopped, Schwab says


http://finance.yahoo...-170525689.html
1

#18 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,828
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-April-03, 15:45

Just to back up a second.

The SEC approves every order type at every public exchange. It sets the rules for buying data feeds from exchanges and it sets the rules for co-location, that is, when a trading company wants to pay to have its computer servers close to the exchange servers. The SEC also has rules to ensure equal access for anyone who wishes to be a customer of the exchange.

In other words government regulations lead to the present system.


In the broad markets someone, somehow is always going to end up receiving and acting on information first. It is not yet clear that the individual investor is worse off on balance under the current system.

In any event I have some concerns if the government can parse the difference between good and criminal trading algorithms
1

#19 User is offline   FM75 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2009-December-12

Posted 2014-April-03, 16:35

View PostArtK78, on 2014-April-02, 21:23, said:

Isn't zero the winning answer no matter what number the other person chooses (except for zero, which is a push)?


Yes, 0 is the winning answer. It is the Nash Equilibrium for each player and it dominates every other strategy - a mathematical term that means pretty much what you would expect it to mean. Eventually, even the people who did not figure out the answer for themselves read about it, and they are now as smart at the game as the first one to figure it out.

The point here is that HFT serves a purpose which is to make the markets more efficient. It is a game. It is a game that is well understood and consistent with modern game theory - worth a couple of Nobel Economics prizes - yes, not the real Nobel Prizes set up by Nobel, but a prize that is given out by a bank. It is played by multiple operators bringing liquidity to the markets. They get paid for executing orders efficiently the same as Amazon does. The more efficient they are, the more business they can do. In the low frequency days you paid ridiculous sums of money to execute a buy or a sell, evidenced by a bid-ask spread that might have been $1/8th or more PER share and with exchange fees tacked on top of that. Today you can purchase tens of thousands of shares for a fee of $4.99 or so, and do it in a market where the bid-ask spread could be less than 0.01.

If you are an operator and try to cheat your customers, what happens? You have to play the game every second, day in, and day out to make money. You cheat and your customers leave - game over (for you). You might even go to jail, without passing Go.

There is no relationship between this and the credit crisis - for which mortgages were only a tangential but visible event - to answer that question.

What question then remains? Why did Lewis write this book? He worked in the industry many years ago and hasn't said anything particularly positive about it since, despite at one point working at one of the most respected and profitable firms on The Street.

Suppose he found that everything was all hunky-dory. You can't sell that book. That dog won't hunt.

If there is one difficulty in the system, it is stability. Think Flash Crash from May 2010. What is hard - likely impossible - to prove is that a system with multiple competing algorithms can avoid that type of behavior. That said, such events are not in the interest of anyone in the game, so it is something that all guard against to the best they can.

Things can appear stable right up to the point where they go off the deep end. It is not just in financial markets. Companies do not typically last more than 30 years. The ones that do were always successful - until they weren't.

Edit:
I mentioned that now everybody knows the answer. By that I did not mean that everybody who has read the answer actually understands why it is the answer. But knowing it makes the game fair and "enforces" the Nash Equilibrium. :)
0

#20 User is offline   FM75 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2009-December-12

Posted 2014-April-03, 16:57

View Postkenberg, on 2014-April-03, 08:29, said:

Seems right, I'm glad I read your response before thinking about this.

On the broader question of trading, I don't much do it, so personally I am not directly affected. And I am not ready to expend much effort protecting those who do want to get into the pits and play. However we are all affected by large scale economic upheavals. This would be the part that interests me. If rich guy A outplays rich guy B out of several million, I don't really care. If they crash the economy playing these games, I do care.

So I ask those of you (that's almost everyone) who know more about this than I do: Making money by moving money around using super computers running on algorithms that have nothing to do with business merit. sounds like it could lead to disaster. Didn't we, just a few years ago, see a clever few making a lot of money gaming mortgages? Your thoughts? The above post, written while I was writng this, is along the lines of my question.

I don't envy the rich, I don't wish to guillotine them, I just want them not to make a mess of things for the rest of us.

And a side note: We watched part of The Great Gatsby (new version) last night. Maybe we will watch the rest of it later. And maybe I will go back and finish the book sometime. Or not. On my long list of Things I Don't Understand, the greatness of this story has a prominent place. Irrelevant I know, but it came to mind as I thought about all this money being tossed around.

Ken,

The "rich" in this game are people's pension funds, mutual funds, and life insurance companies. The people that you think of as rich are kind of like the "period" at the end of this sentence. They real "rich" are smart folks looking out for your money or mine.


0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users