Archive for April, 2008

Faster than the blink of an eye!

Monday, April 21st, 2008

The Internet was supposed to have abolished distance and made location irrelevant.  One of the ironies of a fully-meshed world is that location can be even more important than it was before — especially if communication [tag]transmission times[/tag] are mission-critical.  Thus investment firms compete to locate their servers actually IN Wall Street, rather than merely nearby.  The Financial Times, in a long article devoted to competition between [tag]financial exchanges[/tag] and [tag]alternative trading systems[/tag], mentions a company claiming to be able to execute trades in 2 [tag]milliseconds[/tag], about one-third of the time taken by the [tag]London Stock Exchange[/tag].

“[tag]Chi-X[/tag], which offers trading in a suite of European stocks, derives its curious name from the 22nd letter of the Greek alphabet, symbolising the “crossing” or matching of the two sides of a trade. To the big exchanges that have dominated the trading landscape for decades – centuries, in the case of the London Stock Exchange – it has become all too familiar in the year since its launch. Chi-X and similar platforms represent the biggest threat to their business to have emerged since electronic dealing swept away most trading floors years ago.

The challengers differentiate themselves in three ways: speed, capacity and cost. They appeal to a new generation of traders who use automated trading programs and complex mathematical algorithms to buy and sell shares sliced into orders separated by thousandths of a second. On Chi-X’s system, a trade can be executed in two milliseconds, compared with about six on the LSE. The blink of a human eye takes about 200 milliseconds.

Few exchanges have the technological capacity to handle as effectively the sheer volume of orders fired off by such traders, often in response to the tiniest shifts in price or to fragments of news. Trading costs are low: Chi-X, like many other so-called multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), operates an incentive system that rewards those posting orders by charging the trader who matches the trade a higher amount, pocketing the difference. Exchange fee structures are more complex and generally higher.”

And, in addition to software traders using AI to decide what to quote, they are also choosing which market to quote on dynamically:

“Common in the US for about the past four years, smart order routing is taking off in Europe too – and that is providing an added boost to the alternative trading platforms.Credit Suisse is one of the leading proponents of the technology and, through its Advanced Execution Services unit, operates a smart order router called Pathfinder. AES was set up in 2001 to serve the algorithmic traders – hedge funds and others who use complex mathematical formulae to carry out specific trading strategies triggered by anything from tiny shifts in interest rate expectations to simple news headlines on a screen ticker.

AES has developed “heat maps” that identify where liquidity across a number of markets is best and is even working on a “news parsing” system that would instantly assess what a news flash across a screen might mean.”

Decision-making for hexapods

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Statistician Dennis Lindley wrote a book called “Making Decisions” which included the sentence: “The main conclusion [of this book] is that there is essentially only one way to reach a decision sensibly.” He justifies this claim by saying that, “any deviation from the precepts is liable to lead the decision-maker into procedures which are demonstrably absurd — or as we shall say, incoherent.” (page vii, second edition, 1985). There follows an account of maximum-expected utility decision theory, which is justified in the standard way using Dutch Book arguments (considerations of certain infinite gambles).

I have never trusted these Dutch Book arguments, first because we all live in a finite world, and so games in which one party is guaranteed to win after an infinitely-large time strike me as selling pie-in-the-sky. Everyone is rich eventually when investing in a Ponzi scheme, also. And second, gambling is such a socially- and culturally-embedded practice that I cannot possibly conceive how it could be used to justify decision-making procedures claiming universal validity.  The statistician Cosma Shalizi over at Three-Toed Sloth has a nice parody of the advice of decision-theory ideologues here:

A: Hey, you over there, the one walking! You’re doing it wrong.
B: Excuse me?
A: You’re only using two feet! You should keep at least three of your six in contact with the ground at all times.
B: …
A: Look, it’s easily proved that’s the optimal way to walk. Otherwise you’d be unstable, and if you were walking past a Dutchman he could kick one of your legs with his clogs and knock you over and then lecture you on how to make pancakes.
B: What? Why a Dutchman?
A: You can’t trust the Dutch, they’re everywhere! Besides, every time you walk it’s really just like running the gauntlet at Schiphol.
B: It is?
A: Don’t change the subject! Walking like that you’re actually sessile!
B: I don’t seem to be rooted in place…
A: It’s a technical term. Look, it’s very simple, these are all implications of the axioms of the theory of optimal walking and you’re breaking them all. I can’t get over how immobile you are, walking like that.
B: “Immobile”?
A: Well, you’re not walking properly, are you?
B: Your theory seems to assume I have six legs.
A: Yes, exactly!
B: I only have two legs. It doesn’t describe what I do at all.
A: It’s a normative theory.
B: For something with six legs.
A: Yes.
B: I have two legs. Does your theory have any advice about how to walk on two legs?
A: Could you try crawling on your hands and knees?

 

Details of the FCC auctions start to emerge

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

Participants in the recent [tag]FCC[/tag] [tag]spectrum auctions[/tag] are now allowed to talk about what happened, and so some details are beginning to emerge.

Predictably, [tag]Verizon[/tag] released a rather dull statement saying that the new bandwidth it won

is a critical piece of its overall [tag]broadband[/tag] strategy to take advantage of the enormous opportunity for growth in data services in the future.

[tag]Google[/tag] has also been talking, basically admitting that they were acting rather like a shill (but in a good way)

to make sure that bidding on the so-called “C Block” reached the $4.6 billion reserve price that would trigger the important “open applications” and “open handsets” license conditions … in ten of the bidding rounds we actually raised our own bid — even though no one was bidding against us — to ensure aggressive bidding on the C Block. In turn, that helped increase the revenues raised for the U.S. Treasury, while making sure that the openness conditions would be applied to the ultimate licensee.

Though the common reaction to this is “Yay Google, fighting for openness!”, I can’t help feeling that they have pretty concrete plans to benefit from the open applications side of things — I doubt they were taking a $4.6 billion bet (on someone raising them so they weren’t left winning) just so the great American consumer can use their favorite handset with Verizon.

The New York Times and the LA Times both have pieces on the these and other statements.

Open outcry hand signals

Monday, April 7th, 2008

Today’s New York Times has published photographs of the [tag]hand signals[/tag] used by [tag]traders[/tag] in [tag]open outcry[/tag] trading markets.   The signals are modeled by Raymond Carbone, an [tag]oil trader[/tag].