Wilmott on HFT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgTai2wSMJU
Whole thing:
http://www.nanex.net/Research/ColdFacts/ColdFacts.html
So regarding Paul Wilmott's comments about the state of HFT, what do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgTai2wSMJU
Whole thing:
http://www.nanex.net/Research/ColdFacts/ColdFacts.html
So regarding Paul Wilmott's comments about the state of HFT, what do you think?
Career Resources
HFT is the child of Lucifer, I suggest we begin preemptive strikes and start burning fresh Physics PhDs on central squares of NY and London.
@"peyo212" @"IlliniProgrammer" Do you guys agree or disagree with Wilmott?
Hmmm. I read Wilmott's quotes but didn't view the full interview.
There is a little bit of truth to this, but you rarely make money in finance pulling securities away from their fundamental value. The funds that were selling as prices went down during the flash crash- most of them LOST money.
I think the SEC needs to raise pay for its quants, hire more, and beef up its enforcement capabilities. They currently have 10 positions. Two of them are filled. The other eight are offering $120K/year for people with advanced quantitative degrees to work in Manhattan. To be competitive, it should really be $150K. They probably also want 30 quants and hundreds of developers if they want to do decent enforcement on HFT.
There should also be better opportunities for non-lawyers to advance at the SEC, and they need to have people with quantitative and technology backgrounds weighing in on regulations if they're not at least making them. Letting people with just legal and traditional banking backgrounds make the rules in this area is a bit like having people with backgrounds in railroads and highways regulating airplane safety. We wouldn't have someone who spent 10 years as a manager at Ford Motors regulate the safety of a Boeing 747; we'd hire aeronautical engineers to, if not make their own regulations (as the FAA does- most of the design rules are created by engineers rather than JDs), at least advise the regulators.
My big problem with the quant space is the intellectual imbalance between the regulators and the private sector. If the SEC had as much brainpower as the guys at DE Shaw or Getco, we'd have smarter, tougher, better-targeted, fairer, and more effective regulations, and people would trust the markets more. We don't have that with the SEC, at least right now.
All that said, at the end of the day, laissez-faire economics is not as horrible an approach to the market as some people make it out to be, at least for the retail investor. For individuals who hold a cash position, nobody is forced to trade at a price they don't like.
There's actually a lot of truth to this. I quote from an article I read a while back (http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2536492 if you have time, it gives a pretty in-depth view on HFT):
In my opinion, this is what makes working in this industry so interesting, since you have to continuously improve and challenge yourself.
Edit: I don't know why this says it's replying to IP, sorry.
Nice article, thanks for posting that.
Aut ipsam sit expedita hic nihil adipisci. Illo culpa eum et laboriosam veritatis minus unde. Est ratione debitis itaque maxime consequatur ipsam dolor. Vero sit officia dicta in. Incidunt voluptas excepturi officiis eius esse aliquid magni nemo.
Nobis hic aspernatur voluptas et nihil. In inventore aliquam labore dolorem odio. Enim harum praesentium consequatur impedit autem.
Nihil aut vel quasi vero neque. Neque ad molestiae quisquam rem. Vel ut adipisci nulla omnis aut molestiae accusantium.
Magnam expedita rerum aliquam qui temporibus natus repudiandae. Et molestiae animi doloremque quis ab. Possimus a et asperiores aliquam beatae sit numquam qui. Omnis quisquam consectetur a cum. Possimus et accusantium nostrum quo dolorum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...