Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software The Almighty Buck Technology

Knight Trading Losses Attributed To Old, Dormant Software 223

Posted by Soulskill
from the they-set-themselves-up-the-bomb dept.
New submitter alexander_686 points out a Bloomberg article about the cause of Knight Capital Group's $440 million algorithmic trading disaster from a couple weeks ago. The report says a dormant software system was accidentally activated on August 1, which immediately began increasing stock trade volumes by a factor of 1,000. The Wall Street Journal has further details: "Knight Capital Group Inc.'s accidental trades earlier this month were triggered by a flawed upgrade of trading software that caused an older trading system connected to the computer code to inadvertently go 'live' on the market, according to people familiar with the matter. The errors at Knight on Aug. 1 involved new code the Jersey City, N.J.-based brokerage designed to take advantage of the launch of a New York Stock Exchange trading program, which was introduced that day to attract more retail-trading business to the Big Board, the people say. ... When NYSE Euronext trading floor officials called Knight at about 9:35 a.m. to try to pinpoint the cause of unusual swings in dozens of stocks, just after the Big Board opened for trading, Knight traders and their supervisors had a difficult time detecting where in its systems the problem was located, say people familiar with the morning's events. The NYSE had to call Knight several times before deciding to shut the firm off, the people say."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Knight Trading Losses Attributed To Old, Dormant Software

Comments Filter:
  • by Thantik (1207112) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:40PM (#40991361)

    They really need to stop giving these high frequency traders these parachutes. You screw up your algo, its your own damn fault. Lost your butt on the market - oh well.

    • by MrEricSir (398214) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:46PM (#40991425) Homepage

      The problem with that is these Wall Street companies have their tentacles everywhere. Whatever pleasure we'd get watching them crumble is nothing compared to watching our retirement savings drop to zero and millions of people losing their jobs.

      "Too big to fail" and free market capitalism are fundamentally at odds.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        Revoke corporate licenses and no company will ever grow to Be too big to fail.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Behead corporate executives for gross negligence, massive fraud, theft... Things regular people do and it gets them put in jail for half their life...

          And every company (that continues to exist) WILL NOT do these things.

          Make someone responsible if they want these massive paychecks.

          Right now nobody is responsible for anything.
          Theres always an excuse.
          It's always someone elses fault.
          Or the blame is spread so thin to so many there's nothing left to find.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            So we revoke the "person" status from corporations. They become tools at that point.

            And like any tool which is used in a negligent manner, those responsible are held accountable.

            The trouble with this plan is that every major corporation, and a large portion of their production--and thus jobs--and the associated tax revenues would likely leave the country. That would hurt. A lot.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Alex Belits (437) *

              Yess!!! Because it's the companies that make things, and not people who work there!

              Morons. All of you.

        • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:54AM (#40993803) Journal

          Uhhh...how EXACTLY are you gonna do that when there is a revolving door between the DC swamp and Wall Street? Why do you think we now have over 400% of our GDP [youtube.com] in the market, which is nearly 3 TIMES more than right before the crash of 29? Because they go straight from Wall Street to the halls of power, get laws written that give them moar monies, and then walk right back over to Wall street and reap the rewards.

          I'm sorry friend but until the whole thing crashes and we become another Greece or Zimbabwe there is not a damned thing you, me, or anybody else can do about it, the amount of money concentrated into the financial market means they can light bags of money on fire and the government will hand them new bags and pay for someone to clean up the ashes and just hand you the bill.

      • by trout007 (975317) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:59PM (#40991545)

        You really don't know what you are talking about. Sure the market can get volitile but most companies in the S&P 500 actually do have value. If you don't panic and cash out during the crash you will be fine. All of the financials in the S&P 500 are about 15%.

        If you are investing long term and are diversified these panics are a good time to buy.

        • by MrEricSir (398214)

          None of that helps when you're 70 years old and need to cash out to retire. Not everyone is young and looking for long-term investments.

          • by NatasRevol (731260) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:17PM (#40991669) Journal

            There's no short term guarantees in the stock market. If you're 70 and need cash, you shouldn't be in the stock market.

            • by Compaqt (1758360)

              Well, if you're 70, you didn't just start investing at 69 and a half, right?

              If you're 70, you probably didn't start when you got your first job (25). But you should have started at 35.

              Failing that, you should have started at 40 when you first got the notion that you might not live forever, and your body first started showing signs of aging.

              You probably would have 66 times your money.

          • by nedlohs (1335013)

            If you are 70 and going to need to cash out you wouldn't be in the stock market - unless you are an idiot of course, in which case there are plenty of other ways you'll lose your money anyway so there's no need to try and stop that vector.

          • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

            Having some money in stocks at age 70 is ok iff you have enough cash to survive 3-5 years without touching the stocks. Which reinforces GP's point that it is a good buying opportunity... Even if you are 70.

          • So buy fucking bonds.

            • by trout007 (975317)

              You have to be careful. Bond prices drop as interest rates rise. This happens when they contract the money supply. No investment does well during that period in dollar terms but the purchasing power of cash increases so your cash holdings will see real gains.

              • by rcamera (517595)
                bond price doesn't matter if you hold to maturity. if you're happy with the yield and duration at time of purchase, then there's no reason to sell before maturity. if you're not happy with the yield and duration, don't buy it.
          • by Nitage (1010087)
            That's why pension funds typically move investments into lower risk assets as the ages of the owner approaches retirement.
        • What folks don't usually realize is that most stocks already have about 20 years worth of growth and prosperity priced into them. With GDP not expected to make great strides, it will be a miracle if anyone will be able to extract more than 2% real return out of their broad index funds. Similarly, no sane small-shop or pizzeria owner would be satisfied with 2-8% return... the folks selling hot dogs on the street get a higher return on their money... and yet the biggest and most profitable corporations are so

        • Sure the market can get volitile but most companies in the S&P 500 actually do have value..

          The perceived value and actual value are usually not even close to each other. It used to be, a long time ago, that you'd want to see a companies value as what their actual assets were worth, plus a limited amount of what "goodwill" and "market potential" would gain in the future. However, if the dividents and stock price raise due to just these factors wasn't absolutely certain to double your money in 10 years, the stock would be too expensive.

          These days, it's all about what people think the market sentim

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Free-market capitalism itself needs some serious revision. Not the fundamentals of it (which are sound, as far as they go) but the pervasive dogmatic faith that markets can optimise *everything* and that money accurately captures "value" at all times, for all things. This is just one exaggerated example that highlights how absurd this dogma is. Neoclassical economics has overstepped its mark by a huge margin, to the point were the economic mainstream is desperate to continue pretending the hard science of e

      • by TFAFalcon (1839122) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:23PM (#40991729)

        For everyone that looses money, some one else would gain it. If enough pension funds go bankrupt, then perhaps people will stop gambling with their money.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:14PM (#40992635)

          Ah, that classic libertarian chestnut. If we just wipe out enough peoples' retirement funds, the problem will correct itself! Let me guess, you also think the FDA doesn't need to exist because if a bad drug kills a bunch of people, those people will just take their business elsewhere, right?

          • No, if the FDA didn't exist doctors would be liable for prescribing shitty drugs. Now they prescribe willy-nilly because the liability is removed from their shoulders. The market can handle drugs, look at the "black market." Your argument is yet another fallacious stinky pile of ill logic. Prescribed drugs rank on the list of top killers.

        • In Australia, we have a compulsory pension savings plan. With everyone "investing" for their retirement, all we really manage to do is boost the price of existing assets. I doubt much of it is actually used to build something useful.
        • by chgros (690878)

          For everyone that loses money, some one else would gain it.
          The market is not a zero-sum game.

      • That is a fallacy. We are talking about resources and assets here. They just don't dry up and blow away all of the sudden. The resources are still hanging around, just in someone else's hands now. Someone who will spend or invest as well. Big deal. In fact, we are seeing this right now. Knight just lost their asses. The company was worth nothing and investors swooped in and basically took ownership of the company to preserve it. They got a deal, knight keeps trading, life goes on.

    • by ThatsMyNick (2004126) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:50PM (#40991465)

      This is not high frequency trading. Google it to learn what it is.

      • by skaffen42 (579313)

        Wish I had mod points, but instead I'll just add a comment to agree with you.

        This whole thing has nothing to do with HFT, except that a bunch of uninformed idiots who have no idea what they are talking about have decided to spout off about HFT. Because it sounds exciting, not because it had anything to do with what happened.

    • by rritterson (588983) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:14PM (#40991627)

      The problem with that idea is that sometimes these high frequency traders also cause volatility spikes in the market, triggering other computer programs, and, sometimes, humans, to react as though the spurious trades were intentional.

      While I also loathe HFT as a scourge on the market, I think the NYSE's overall response is a good one: when abnormal trades occur as a secondary effect of other's mistakes, abort them.

      Note that the ca. $440 million loss Knight took was BECAUSE they couldn't unwind the bad positions they bought into. Goldman Sachs bought the entire block from them at a discount. Knight didn't get any kind of parachute.

      • But why save the companies whose programs were triggered or humans who panicked? They made their choices hoping to get rich, and they lost. Sure they were operation on faulty data (one companies BIG error), but at least 50% of the 'investors' (those that lose money on a trade) do, so why make these cases something special?

      • by whoever57 (658626)

        Note that the ca. $440 million loss Knight took was BECAUSE they couldn't unwind the bad positions they bought into. Goldman Sachs bought the entire block from them at a discount. Knight didn't get any kind of parachute.

        Only partially true, or perhaps, partially false. Some of Knight's trades were reversed -- I think trades where the price was 30% off the normal range. So Knight did get a parachute, just a small one.

      • when abnormal trades occur as a secondary effect of other's mistakes, abort them.

        I disagree. All trades should be final with no refunds, do-overs, or reversals. If the algo traders want to play with fire then it's their job to make sure that they don't get burned. They want the benefits of their high frequency trades without taking responsibility when their bets go bad. That's bullshit and the NYSE and other exchanges shouldn't allow it.

        • by squizzar (1031726)

          And then all the other trading houses would have to accept their own mistakes, fat-fingered trades and so on, which is probably why the exchange allows trades to be reversed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Compaqt (1758360)

      Wait, the NYSE was thinking of reversing trades? Which article was that in?

      Not only that, but by definition, if they reverse $400 mil of trades, they have to get that money from somebody else. It's not "the market" they'd be getting it back from, but specific investors and shareholders who sold their securities.

      Can they even do that? Force people to give money back?

      Or is it like Paypal where they're linked in to your bank account and can take money whenever they want?

      • by julesh (229690)

        Can they even do that? Force people to give money back?

        Yes. Because the money never actually changed hands. It was only totals on a ledger that they operate that changed. Nobody settles with actual money until the end of the day at the earliest. I think there's actually a 14 day period allowed for settlement, IIRC.

        • by Compaqt (1758360)

          Oh, OK, didn't know that, thanks.

          Still, though, I find the idea of reversing trades distasteful.

          I think it would impossible to do this without some level of favoritism.

          And, of course, it's only when large traders lose money that they would do this, not when you or I lose money. ("Oops, I didn't mean to buy RIM!")

          Anyone know if the Germans went through on buying NYSE (and if they're going to continue flying the giant American flags out front)?

    • by dave562 (969951)

      Where did you read that the trades were reversed? Everything that I've seen says that Knight had to eat all of the bad trades. They ended up unwinding their trades to Goldman Sachs, presumably because GS can hold onto them long enough to wait for enough of them to turn positive at some point in the future.

      • by skaffen42 (579313)

        They actually did reverse trades in something like 6 of the 146 affected symbols. These were stocks that were clearly trading completely out of their realistic ranges, so a small portion of trades were reversed. Though I'm sure Knight was begging them to reverse all the trades...

        • by GlobalEcho (26240)
          It is also not clear any of the reversals went in Knight's favor. I'm sure many or perhaps even most of those reversed trades were between third parties.
    • They need to go one step further and just ban automated trading altogether. People make trades. Machines make transactions. As long as they call it 'trading' then it should be a human doing to button pushing.

      • And they could make it a level playing field for everyone that has to use some kind of broker service. Once there's a matching buy & sell in the system, lock the bids in for a time period before they settle. And let anyone try to put in a matching bid before the time elapses, with a lottery to determine who gets it, in a way that is biased to the small players in the market.
    • Knight is a market maker. The software was simply buying at the ask and selling at the bid hundreds of times per second, nothing more (a bug that is the polar opposite of how a market maker provides liquidity). How is that in any way related to HFT?

      And what parachute? GS bought the accumulated position at a discount in return for cash to keep NITE afloat.

      Not sure what's going on with the +5 interesting, can someone clue me in?

    • by ortholattice (175065) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:54PM (#40992505)

      No kidding. Although it wasn't reversed in Knight's case, there have been many flash crashes that have been reversed, making it so that profit is almost guaranteed for HF traders: good bets go through and bad bets get reversed.

      I was personally affected a couple of years ago. I had an outstanding bid (limit order) on a stock at what I thought the stock was worth, although significantly lower than the going price, so I could pick it up in case there was a temporary drop due to negative news or whatever. The "whatever" happened; my open order got filled by HF traders due to a flash crash they caused in that stock. I got a call from my broker later in the day to tell me the SEC reversed the trades during that flash crash, including mine. So a few thousand dollars that by all rights should have been mine went back to the HF traders.

      The little guy can't win.

      • by GlobalEcho (26240)

        my open order got filled by HF traders due to a flash crash they caused in that stock.

        Whether your broker told you that or not, I guarantee nobody has any idea whether it was HF traders or a trend-following human on the other side of that trade. That's kind of a main point of the exchange -- anonymous trading.

        This is not to take away from the fact that your trade got reversed, which definitely does suck.

    • Knight lost the money, there was no parachute.
      • by rgbrenner (317308) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @11:00PM (#40992975)

        Knight lost the money, there was no parachute.

        You're right.. but how about some details?

        http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-09/knight-says-it-may-face-more-burdensome-costs-from-trade-error [businessweek.com]

        Knight was saved from collapse on Aug. 6, when it received a $400 million cash infusion through the sale of convertible securities to a consortium of investors.

        Getco LLC, Blackstone Group LP, brokerages Stifel Nicolaus & Co. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., as well as Stephens Inc. and Jefferies Group Inc. invested in the rescue funding for knight, according to the Jersey City, New Jersey-based company. The investment will give the firms a 73 percent stake in Knight once the shares are converted into common stock.

        So there you go... they were forced to give away control of their company to a number of outside investors.

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:42PM (#40991379)
    that say this stuff spells the end to high freq trading. The trouble is HFT is less about investment and more about skimming off the top. HFT Traders take a percentage of a company w/o ever actually owning it. The increase in liquidity is so small that legitimate investors don't even notice it (who cares if my stock sells in .1 milliseconds vs 5 minutes if it was an investment). No real money was lost for the HFT'ers because they were never actually creating anything productive in the first place. They'll recover from this and continue to be yet another bloated tick on the face of capitalism.
    • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:14PM (#40992641) Homepage

      Liquidity isn't about time, it's about spread. Stock markets are double-auction systems, where you are free to bid and offer at any price you want. Trades only occur when someone offers a stock for less than someone else's bid price. The stock has a 'price,' and to buy stock you have to bid a little higher, and to sell you have to bid a little lower. The difference between the bid and offer price is the spread, and the spread represents an inherent transaction cost to most investors.

      Now liquidity is just how easy it is to convert your stock into cash. There is always some liquidity, as long as you're willing to accept a bad deal. You offer to sell your stock cheaply enough, or buy high enough, and somebody will buy or sell. Of course, on blue chip stocks, the spread has always been pretty small, so it has never cost a lot to trade in those stocks. But in medium-cap and small-cap stocks, where HFTs have had the biggest impact, they've reduced spreads enormously.

      Twenty years ago before the rise of HFT traders, you might had paid a market maker $0.50 / stock on the spread for a trade in a medium-cap stock. If you want to rebalance your investment portfolio annually, those kinds of transaction costs could wipe out your gains. It effectively priced individual investors out of the market, and if you wanted to save money you were forced into the hands of large institutional investors, who will happily charge you a 2% management fee for the pleasure of handling your money.

      Today we take it for granted that most stocks have very small spreads, and you can make regular trades without seeing all your gains lost to transaction costs. HFTs have put the Serious Men in Suits market makers out of business, and have pushed the cost of trading down to the point where the individual can manage their own savings, without having to fork over most of their profit to other Serious Men in Suits.

      So yeah, you may not like high frequency traders, but they're better than the old-boy networks of "specialists" and stockjobbers that they replaced.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @11:10PM (#40993055)

        Twenty years ago it was also much harder to match up buyers and sellers, and actual trades took a lot longer. It's hard to say how much of the decrease in spread is due to high frequency traders and how much is due to improved technology providing a more efficient, easier to access market.

        Not that there seems to be anything particularly bad about encouraging people to buy long term investments.

      • by thue (121682)

        Why do you think transaction costs would go back up if we abolished HFT?

    • by khallow (566160)

      HFT Traders take a percentage of a company w/o ever actually owning it.

      Doesn't work that way. You don't magically own a portion of a company just because you trade in milliseconds instead of minutes. It's amazing the claims that are made about HFT.

      • I was talking at the conceptual level of the stock market, e.g. when regular people are sold on the idea of allowing it to exist. The stock market is good because you can own a piece of a company even if you're a middle class wage slave, so we are told. HFT though aren't interested in owning, they're interested in making money on the process of buying and selling. They're middle men. Middle men can be OK if they're provide a service. That's why stock brokers exists. HFT don't provide a service (otherwise th
        • by khallow (566160)
          This has already been discussed. They provide liquidity, narrow the spread, generate some cool spinoffs, all that.
    • by infodragon (38608)

      Knight Capital is not an HFT shop, they do not engage in HFT! Spend 30 seconds googling before you jump to conclusions.

  • Dead Code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sconeu (64226) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:44PM (#40991403) Homepage Journal

    This is why mission critical systems should have a "No Dead Code" requirement.

    • by Compaqt (1758360)

      By Dead Code, you mean code that never (so far) executes?

      That would also mean you'd never have any contingency code for "rocket has failed to propel" or other "shouldn't happen, but still" type situations.

      • by sconeu (64226)

        No, code that has no possible path to get to it.

        • by Compaqt (1758360)

          OK, but what could that have to do with the Knight situation?

          If there's no possible path (as opposed to an unlikely path), it'll never be executed, and hence it could not be responsible for the $440 mil loss, or the Toyota "brake failures" or whatever.

  • As a Conservative (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kr1ll1n (579971) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:45PM (#40991405)

    I always found the stock market to be totally anti-capitalist. It definitely undermines a merit-based system, to say the least.

    • by TapeCutter (624760) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:03PM (#40991569) Journal
      Since when was capitalisim a "merit based system"?
      • by Nrrqshrr (1879148)
        Stop being a filthy commi. Money gives you merits, duh.
      • by Compaqt (1758360)

        What he's likely saying is that, ideally, capital flows to those companies and endeavors "needing it" most, usually viewed in valuation, usually meaning paying customers want that companies products built and they are willing to buy.

        Speaking of which, did you have an alternative?

        Allocation of capital by central committee? That would be a totally "merit based system", right?

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          "capital flows to those companies and endeavors 'needing it' most"

          From each according to his ability, to each according to his need... no, wait, that's not right.

          Capitalism is essentially a "wisdom of the crowd" approach to allocating resources. It seems to work pretty well, when properly regulated, but it definitely doesn't pay any attention to abstract concepts like "merit." Contrary to what the OP said, the stock market is the epitome of capitalism - a place where individuals with capital can allocate

          • It is a merit base system. Intelligent investors like Warren Buffett get rich through intelligent investing, while stupid people like me instantly become poor due to speculation.
            • by ceoyoyo (59147)

              You can argue that the end result of ANY system is merit based. Centrally planned monarchy? The king, or whoever controls him, must have gained and retained that ability by some merit.

              Capitalism, as a means of deciding what gets produced, isn't really a merit based system. Individuals will choose to invest in things for a wide variety of reasons. Some will succeed and others will fail. Warren Buffett might have gotten rich through intelligent investing, or he might have been in the right place at the r

    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:53PM (#40992005)

      Yeah, with capitalism the birth lottery is often more important than merit.

      • Copypasta from the definitive study of millionaires. "Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko

        Some Shocking Statistics about these Millionaires:

        -The average taxable income for them is $131,000
        -They live on less than 7 percent of their wealth
        -Many of their occupations could be classified as dull-normal such as: welding contractor, auctioneer, mobile-home owner, paving contractor, coin and stamp dealer
        -They invest on average nearly 20% of their household income
        -Most of them are homeown

    • by jpmorgan (517966)

      How's that? Knight screwed up badly, and the mistake has cost them $400 million dollars. Sounds pretty merit-based to me.

    • by tomhath (637240)
      How is the stock market not merit based? Good companies succeed and are good investments for their owners.
    • by Kr1ll1n (579971)

      Ironically, my mindset is based on the following:

      From Merriam Webster;
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism [merriam-webster.com]

      Definition of CAPITALISM
      : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

      In our current structure, we have private ownership, and publicly traded. Private ownership corporations are

      • by Compaqt (1758360)

        Very interesting thinking. You may also be interested in The Managerial Revolution, a book by James Burham, an early American Trotskyite, and later conservative.

        In it, he posits (among other things) that the separation of ownership and control had become a strong part of American economic thought. Burham thought that the managers (CEOs, etc.) appointed by owners through boards would set themselves up as a privileged class, with loyalty more toward their own interests than those of the owners.

        He also analyze

  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @07:46PM (#40991417)

    Did nobody think to sound the alarm when the consoles started displaying... *BRAINZZZZ...* ?
    They probably sent IT techs into the server room one at a time.

  • "Knight Capital Group Inc. (KCG)'s $440 million trading loss stemmed from old computer software that was inadvertently reactivated when a new program was installed, according to two people briefed on the matter"

    "Once triggered on Aug. 1, the dormant system started multiplying stock trades by one thousand"

    "High-speed programs that funnel orders to markets need software engineers who can write code in the programming language known as C++ and for a Linux operating system, he said in a phone interview"
  • by hsmith (818216) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:06PM (#40991583)
    The Fool has a great article on this. You simply can't compete.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/08/10/the-terrifying-graphic-that-shows-stock-trading-r.aspx [fool.com]

    ...the GIF charts the rise of HFT trading volumes across all U.S. stock exchanges between 2007 and 2012. The initial murmur, the brewing storm, the final detonation: Not just unsettling, it's terrifying. ... we don't know is [sic] what the long term consequences are of all this hyper-volume as depicted by the Nanex GIF and the kind of systemic risks created from the market's ongoing evolution from human traders to rapidfire AI. Sometimes things go wrong, a software glitch, an algorithm gone rogue and the music stops, like last week when Knight Capital (NYSE: KCG ) lost $10 million a minute when it's [sic] trading platform went haywire...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jpmorgan (517966)

      That is the most out-of-context thing I've ever seen on slashdot. You took the quote that the article was disagreeing with, and presented it as the article's thesis instead. For the curious, here's the final paragraph of the article linked:

      Whether increased participation from HFTs is a good or bad thing is up for debate, as is whether steps need to be taken to limit the activity of HFTs. And that's a debate that needs to happen, but it needs to happen based on solid facts and a good understanding of what's really going on.

      This particular graphic, however, was assigned meaning that was never actually there. To me, this suggests a high level of fear (whether warranted or not) of HFTs, a lack of understanding of what HFTs are doing, journalistic laziness, or, probably, a bit of all three.

    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      You should try citing articles that agree with your point rather than ones that pick your claim to pieces.

  • by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:40PM (#40991865) Homepage

    This is what happens when the pre-production environment is not identical to the production environment. Got egg on my face (though no direct financial cost incurred) when the production environment had that 0.01 JRE increment that addressed the new-fangled daylight saving time, and the pre-production environment did not. It caused some very strange bugs due to the change in date handling, even though it wasn't anywhere close to spring forward time. (We developers had no access to the machine, so it took a while to figure out, too.)

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...