Re:Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off...
by voldacar on Thursday August 01, 2019 @09:03PM
(#20589892)
If they were noise, they would not be profitable strategies.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off...
by ggggtez on Thursday August 01, 2019 @09:32PM
(#20590033)
I don't want to get caught up in arguing what is noise in the mathematical sense. I think the parent is refering to the fact that the arbitrage traders are not adding any real value by making these trades this fast. The market would adjust in miliseconds. Who really wants to let some guy who built a 825 mile cable be a rent seeker on every trade for all eternity? https://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-stock-exchange-respo...
Re:Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off...
by wbl on Friday August 02, 2019 @12:38AM
(#20590686)
He's not a rent seeker. Absent his existence, the people on both sides of the trade would be harmed by crossing a bigger spread.
Re:Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off...
by vannevar on Thursday August 01, 2019 @09:07PM
(#20589910)
Noise compared to the signal actually needed for a market to function. Markets functioned nicely on much, much longer timeframes in the past.
Re:Goldman Sachs is spending $100M to shave milliseconds off...
by infinite8s on Thursday August 01, 2019 @09:51PM
(#20590128)
They also had much higher transaction and information costs.