Re:How High Frequency Trading Benefits All Investors
by kscaldef on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @02:01PM
(#1199198)
It actually seems to be more like a quadruple-negative. Let's try to simplify.
"No serious market observer disputes the claim that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without ... high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility [is higher with] ... high frequency traders."
"[high frequency traders increase volatility]"
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the author proceeds to argue in the following paragraphs. My conclusion is that the author managed to create a sentence so overly complicated that even he could not understand what he was saying.
"No serious market observer disputes the claim that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without ... high frequency traders."
"[serious market observers believe] that volatility [is higher with] ... high frequency traders."
"[high frequency traders increase volatility]"
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the author proceeds to argue in the following paragraphs. My conclusion is that the author managed to create a sentence so overly complicated that even he could not understand what he was saying.