A thing retail investors have always done (placing orders to buy and sell stocks) used to cost a lot. Now it's practically free. You can flee to a more abstract argument about whether investing itself is bad, but I'm not interested in debating that, only in observing that HFT had a large hand in eliminating those costs.
I note further that you only attempted to rebut one of the two points I made in my comment.
That’s been my argument/question all along, though. I started off with the sentiment that maybe we should stop people from buying stocks, period. HFT was not the main thrust, I can easily claim that you’ve sidestepped my points as well.
Anyway I’m not trying to debate, I thought it was clear from my last post that I’m not an expert and I’m really just asking questions (sincerely, not rhetorically) and seeking to gain more understanding of the market and its macro-level, “big picture” effects on society.
I'm not interested in and take no position on your broader argument. I'm exclusively interested in: "HFT? How is that anything but absurd?". I think that's easy to refute. If we agree, we agree, that's great.
So HFT is not absurd because it lowered transaction costs for retail investors. What mechanism did it achieve this by?
I call it absurd because computer algorithms trading stocks at the microsecond level seems completely divorced from the theoretical basis of “investing.” I don’t understand how it makes sense on a theoretical level. Reducing transaction costs doesn’t seem to explain that.
For example: HFT-backed trading systems enable companies like Citadel to quote better spreads to retail traders than to hedge and mutual funds, which is why PFOF arrangements are structured in terms of how much better their prices will be than the actual exchange (which they are required to at least match, by regulation).
It's probably the case that no one person needs to make a microsecond-scale trade. But, obviously, there are many people trading, not just one, and making things very fast is one way you make things scale. In reality, though, extremely high performance is probably more important as a vector for competition, which is ultimately what brought spreads down.
Thank you. I definitely have some reading to do in trying to wrap my head around all of this. At first glance, it does seem like some people in the industry (Charlie Munger, Michael Spence) share my perspective (though Munger could just be strategizing).
You know who is almost certainly not strategizing? Vanguard, which is probably the most trustworthy firm in all of finance. You can look up what they've said about HFT, too. :)
I keep coming back to these fundamental questions. HFT (and market making in general) increases liquidity. Why is liquidity a good thing? Why should it be so easy to quickly buy and sell ownership of companies? To me that seems like a bad thing. I feel like I’m just missing some fundamental understanding.
As a powerful investor, you can buy a large position in a company, lobby for changes that increase the short term value of the stock, sell it, and move on, likely destroying it in the process, leaving all of the people who were actually invested in its success holding the bag. Is that to be seen as a net good? It seems like HFT and other instruments are just taking that concept to ever more extreme levels.
I was more specific than "liquidity". I said "reduced spreads and lowered trading costs". It is better for you to pay less to execute a trade than to pay more for it.
I don't know what an HFT MM has to do with people manipulating the stock markets directionally.
Sorry - I was referring more to some other stuff I was reading than anything you said.
It has to do with it because it enables it. It's part of abstracting investing away from providing capital to companies because you believe they will succeed. Somewhere there is an argument for why these abstractions are beneficial to more than just the people profiting off of them. Why do you keep studiously avoiding engaging on this?
I'm interested in discussing things that are knowable, and where I have some chance of learning things. You said that HFT was absurd. It was easy to point out that there are real, practical benefits to HFT (those benefits become even clearer if you do some reading on how crooked the human-scale market making system was prior to HFT; Google, for instance, [odd eighths]).
That's the extent of my interest in this discussion. If you do some research and find out something that refutes my argument about HFT, I'd be interested in learning about it. Otherwise, I think if we're on the same page about this detail of the thread, it's fine to leave it there.
I note further that you only attempted to rebut one of the two points I made in my comment.