What is behind high frequency trading?
I read an article in a paper. I won't name it since I could be hassled for copyright infringement if I reuse as few as 11 words. Insufficient to link it, let alone make you interested enough to bother reading it.
We've read about high frequency, flash trading or whatever you wish to call it and there has been some discussion about whether it is constructive.
I followed a link in another blog and had the pleasure of reading a newspaper article about high frequency/flash trading (for free). If you are really keen you could search on the first 6 words of this entry.
The article left me none the wiser. Sure glad I didn't pay to read it.
The only thing I gleaned from the article was the implication that (some brokers/firms think) flash/high frequency trading probably requires oversight. Exactly why and by whom?
Surely we're not just supposed to trust 'them'?
Can it be used to manipulate or otherwise gain benefit from the market in a way that all others (who are not high frequency trading) cannot?
I read this from a newspaper. A dying newspaper. A shallow article.
There has been a debate, rightly so, about newspapers and the copying of their content. Presumably it is the googles and yahoos and other sites which are simply aggregating news that are the real issue.
There is a difference between that use and sites where people discuss and comment on the news. SURELY NEWS IS WORTHY OF COMMENT - IF IT IS NEWS?
I note that I was unable to pose my questions nor comment where the article appears.
This is the fundamental reason the remaining gasps of newspapers are turning into croaks. Apart from all their overpriced classified advertising disappearing, the constant propaganda and often considerable lack of objectivity or depth of critique will do that
every time. There is a more informed audience. That, combined with the lack of opportunity for readers who may wish to discuss, debate or simply ask more questions will see a newspaper relegated to history. I suppose we are supposed to go away and talk about
it in a vacuum without any reference to the 'news'. Even if there is good critique, that only stimulated discussion more.
If AP's current crazy idea to try and DRM their news and that bunch of fools who brought the case in the EU court over 11 word grabs being copyright infringement is anything to go by, we'll soon have the AP word police stopping us discussing their news in
To me it was a classic example of why new media and the internet are relegating the old propaganda machines to history. It makes so much sense, what with all that saving trees and stuff.
Newspapers just don't seem to have the management capable of realising how the new media could make their hand even stronger.
Instead AP and others have some crazy idea that they can somehow 'own' the news and hold back progress.
This particular new outlet is 'gunning' for LinkedIn users with a new social networking platform. Surely an even more informed audience.
Back to high frequency trading - faster isn't always better or necessarily progress, otherwise we'd all be flying on Concords wouldn't we?
How about showing us how it is progress, positive and benign?
Don't expect us to just trust. Look where that got us last time.
It does need to be discussed, like so many other things - in public.
Apply the same thoughts to the news, and why so many other sources are looking better than newspapers, from a trust and speed perspective.
Someone please show the newspapers. If you're reading Rupert, give me a call, but perhaps don't bother if you think the same way as those crazy Danes and AP, if so, it's only a matter of time...