![]()
The following is a guest blog post from Greg Crawford, Editor of TabbFORUM
Summer doldrums?
Somewhere on Wall Street maybe, but not in the debate over high-frequency trading on TabbFORUM, the community website for leaders in the capital markets business.
Indeed, TabbFORUM readers know that high frequency trading (HFT) is always a topic of interest; and articles about HFT typically lead to a great deal of back-and-forth between proponents of the practice and those who see no value in it whatsoever.
Even so, we were pleasantly surprised to see the debate flare up last week around an article that Natan Tiefenbrun, commercial director at Turquoise (the London-based multi-lateral trading facility owned by the London Stock Exchange) penned last October titled Responding to HFT Bashers. Tiefenbrun’s original piece, HFT Bashing touched off a great deal of debate; and rather than respond in the comment section of his article, he simply replied in a separate piece.
That article led to more reader comments than the original, and everyone seemed to have their say.
Until last week, that is…
The flare-up started innocuously enough with a comment about a story that CBOT volume in June had dropped more than 90 percent from June 2010 levels. Another reader cleared that up by pointing out that Reuters used an inaccurate comparison.
That’s when the fun began and the debate was on.
Now, there are more than 117 comments on the post. From quote stuffing to the flash crash to brokers adopting HFT technology across asset classes, the debate has expanded way beyond simply whether HFT firms add liquidity or just volume.
Indeed, one reader cited a recent speech by Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England in which he said that speed limits may be necessary to slow the trading ‘arms race’ and another brought Darwin into the mix.
Here’s a smattering of the recent comments:
“…the idea that anyone would argue about HFT dedication to standing in the way of a market freight train that was running out of control — well that is one of those historical narratives about market maker “goods” and “benefits” that has zero empirical evidence behind it.”
“…has kindly assigned all cost savings to the HFT crowd without considering what trade costs would be without the more predatory of these players…a comon (sic) mistake.”
“Traders need to take back the markets from the computers. Although everybody knows my position on HFT’s, if you don’t, I think they are the scum of the industry, nothing more then (sic) 2nd generation SOES bandits.”
“…in respect of surveillance and preventing market abuse ; interesting as most exchanges are self-regulated and positively adopt HFT = therefore they see no abuse !”
“Would someone please, please, please cite the study that shows how market makers historically have used profits from wide spreads to willingly lose money in bad markets?”
What’s abundantly clear – and not surprising to us at TabbFORUM – is that passions around high-frequency trading run high and TabbFORUM readers are nothing if not passionate. And thoughtful.
There’s also a lesson in here about the value of community and providing avenues for people to debate issues that are important to them and the wider business world.
Gregory Crawford | Editor, TabbFORUM
115 Broadway, Suite 1204, New York, NY 10006
T: 646 747 3208 | M: 908 343 1936
gcrawford [at] tabbforum.com
TabbFORUM: Where Capital Markets Speak
Register today at www.TabbFORUM.com











