lzhou
I suspect they probably would have needed another 20-30MM to really get moving on the latter. A lot of that money going to consolidation of existing brokerages and monopolizing listing content.
Being a neutral aggregator is mutually exclusive from being a dominant brokerage.
We have 2 spectrums for all known strategies (the amount of gold in the veins is another question):
* Strats that are automatable vs non-automatable.
* Strats that are unique (known to a few) vs well-known strats
Automatable:
Well-Known - This is where HFT becomes an engineering problem. It's also the easiest business decision to make. I hire some engineers + buy some computers and I can mint some money for a time. This is also a race to the bottom -- where there will be some easy money to be made at equilibrium, but it'll be unsustainable for HFT firms at the margin. I would say manual trading has 0 impact here -- and they'll likely get crushed.
Unique - These are strategies that only a small set of firms know. Eventually these strategies become well-known as people move around companies. There must be some secret strategies, though. Otherwise, why would Rentech & Citadel sue their own employees (unless we are to believe Simons & Griffin are simply vindictive). I think manual trading could work here if there is a strategy that simply haven't been discovered by the HFT & quant. It's might be hard, but not impossible. These secrets aren't anything you'll find online or in some trading forum, though. Or perhaps they are, but no self-respecting quant would go there (lest they become laughing stocks in their fund).
Non-Automatable:
Well-Known - PE is an example of one. In terms of liquid assets, maybe penny stocks are another area. If a group of "manual" traders couldn't get permission to delve there... it's probably even harder for a quant fund. It's also the territory of insider info and rumors.
Unique - Maybe being there for the liquidity crashes I stated earlier is a good example. But there are certainly non-automatable unique strats around.
Depending on how much gold you believe is in the veins, all strategies are heading towards automatable & well-known. However, in the interim, I can see manual traders still making money (even with a sharpe > 1). In fact, I would say there are well-known strats you can execute manually (in say, your PA, that return sharpe ~0.8ish).
1) Are there places / markets that ST Arb and HFT won't go because it's too illiquid or too idiosyncratically volatile?
2) Are there edges so small that you won't chase?
3) Are there one-off opportunities (2010 flash crash, UST flash crash recently, etc.)?
4) Is there a set of strategies that manual traders know (which they should probably transfer to HFT strategies) that the HFT/ST arb shops don't know?
I think the answer to all of those questions is "yes". They probably take on a lot more risk per trade. They would also be better served by automating their strategies. But I think it's not as cut and dry as you state.
Each individual trader might be "amateur" -- but the firm as a whole might end up with a decent return / risk.
The biggest problem we've had is changing non well-formed addresses / ambiguous addresses into canonical addresses with lat/lng. Google Maps wins on that front.
Median wages dropped (starting in 2007) because of a recession, and we are still in the adjustment process of that (ex. on the wage side). We notice that post popping of the 2001-2002 bubble, the median wages actually increased into 2007.
I don't have all the facts, but the chart is misleading.