Subscribe
Let me talk about a topic that is far more mundane than the usual high-brow theoretical discussions of strategies and algorithms, but that has no less long-term impact on the bottom line: what is the best office environment for research and execution of quantitative trading strategies?
I have worked in different office environments before, so I feel qualified to offer an informed opinion.
At Morgan Stanley, I huddled over a desk that is semi-partitioned from the rest of the office: nobody could see or bother me unless I or they stood up. At Credit Suisse, I shared an office with 2 other prop trading colleagues, one of whom was prone to freely sharing his opinion on various current affairs with his officemates. (On the other hand, he complained my biting an apple for lunch was too loud for him.) At Maple, a hedge fund in New Jersey, I shared an office with about 100 other colleagues on the trading floor, many of whom were prone to same opinion-sharing temptation.
Here at my own firm, I sit in solitude (except for my cat) in my basement office, my beloved classical FM streaming over the internet, my desktop electronically connected to my partner in our Chicago office, our trading servers at Amazon and elsewhere, and other clients and partners around the world, but unmolested throughout the day unless I voluntarily pick up the phone or answer an email or instant message.
Can you guess which environment is the one I find the most productive? Which one has the least stress? And which one contributes most to the bottom line of my employers/partners/clients?
(Hint 1: read Timothy Ferriss' book The 4-Hour Workweek. This guy checks his email only once a week.)
(Hint 2: my trading Sharpe ratio went from negative to >7.)
P.S. I look forward to meeting some of you at the Automated Trading Conference in London this Friday (my talk will start at 0900), and others at my pairs trading workshop on the preceding two days.
Are flash orders really so bad?
I confess I don't know much about flash orders, not being one of the Big Boys on the Street, until I read that the SEC is banning them. (For a clear diagrammatic explanation of flash orders, see here. For a refutation of some of the myths and misunderstanding surrounding flash orders, see here.)
It seems to me that flash orders can be understood as "request for liquidity" issued to various potential market makers/liquidity providers, not unlike the usual "request for quotes" (RFQ) common in other industries. They are issued when there is not enough liquidity on a specific exchange to satisfy an investor's need, and they ultimately benefit investors by lowering their transaction costs. The fact that high frequency traders are able to make lots of money by providing this liquidity is besides the point. Liquidity providers are supposed to make money by providing liquidity!
Some people, including Senator Charles Schumer and this New York Times op-ed, believe that flash orders are akin to front-running, a clearly illegal trading activity. But they are wrong. Front-running means that if you know someone is going buy a stock, you step in front of them
and buy it cheaply first, hoping to sell it to this slower buyer at a higher price. In the case of flash orders, the high frequency traders are instead selling this stock to the original investor, often at a lower price than available elsewhere and thus benefiting this investor, hoping that the prices will come down in the future after this liquidity need subsides. This is manifestly not illegal. This is what a market is built for!
Another way to understand that flash orders are not at all front running is that anybody, including you and me, are free to put in limit orders at the same price as those of the high frequency traders, way ahead of time, in a specific exchange, and become liquidity providers ourselves. You don't have to wait for a "request for liquidity" before doing so. And presumably you will reap the same benefits as the high frequency traders. You are not taking any additional risks over the HF traders either, since if no requests for liquidity ultimately arrive, you are not any worse off for wear. You cannot begrudge the profits of the HF traders just because you didn't put the limit orders in place beforehand!
Maybe there are some other angles which I miss which can convince me that flash orders are evil. But until my kind readers convince me otherwise in the comments section, I will regard this piece of legislation as another SEC attempt at demagoguery.
It seems to me that flash orders can be understood as "request for liquidity" issued to various potential market makers/liquidity providers, not unlike the usual "request for quotes" (RFQ) common in other industries. They are issued when there is not enough liquidity on a specific exchange to satisfy an investor's need, and they ultimately benefit investors by lowering their transaction costs. The fact that high frequency traders are able to make lots of money by providing this liquidity is besides the point. Liquidity providers are supposed to make money by providing liquidity!
Some people, including Senator Charles Schumer and this New York Times op-ed, believe that flash orders are akin to front-running, a clearly illegal trading activity. But they are wrong. Front-running means that if you know someone is going buy a stock, you step in front of them
and buy it cheaply first, hoping to sell it to this slower buyer at a higher price. In the case of flash orders, the high frequency traders are instead selling this stock to the original investor, often at a lower price than available elsewhere and thus benefiting this investor, hoping that the prices will come down in the future after this liquidity need subsides. This is manifestly not illegal. This is what a market is built for!
Another way to understand that flash orders are not at all front running is that anybody, including you and me, are free to put in limit orders at the same price as those of the high frequency traders, way ahead of time, in a specific exchange, and become liquidity providers ourselves. You don't have to wait for a "request for liquidity" before doing so. And presumably you will reap the same benefits as the high frequency traders. You are not taking any additional risks over the HF traders either, since if no requests for liquidity ultimately arrive, you are not any worse off for wear. You cannot begrudge the profits of the HF traders just because you didn't put the limit orders in place beforehand!
Maybe there are some other angles which I miss which can convince me that flash orders are evil. But until my kind readers convince me otherwise in the comments section, I will regard this piece of legislation as another SEC attempt at demagoguery.
Can a trader be a do-gooder?
It occurs to me that the only way in which a trader can become more than a completely selfish, self-enriching, narcissistic person is to trade well enough so that you can manage other people's money and thus saving these investors from crooks and charlatans (provided you are convinced you are not a crook and charlatan yourself).
Other traders have advanced other arguments in favor of trading. But I am not convinced by them.
They say that we provide liquidity to other long-term investors who may need to liquidate their investments. But then, this applies only to mean-reversal strategies. Momentum strategies take away liquidity from the market, and in some cases exacerbating price bubbles. Certainly not something your grandma would approve.
Others argue that momentum strategies help disseminate information about companies through quick price movements. But can't we just watch Bloomberg or CNBC? Do we really need some devious insiders to convey that information to the rest of us through price movements?
No, I think that independent trading should serve only one purpose (besides short-term self-sustenance): as training and preparation to become a fund manager. Once you graduated from independent trading, you then enter into the grand contest among all fund managers to see who can best serve and protect investors' assets, (and be rewarded according to your standing in this contest.)
I know, this is the idealistic way to look at things. Serving and protecting seem to be what policemen should be doing, not traders. But as in quantitative trading, I think it helps one becomes more successful in one's activities by having a simple guiding principle or model. And it doesn't hurt that in this case, the principle would also be conscience-nourishing!
Other traders have advanced other arguments in favor of trading. But I am not convinced by them.
They say that we provide liquidity to other long-term investors who may need to liquidate their investments. But then, this applies only to mean-reversal strategies. Momentum strategies take away liquidity from the market, and in some cases exacerbating price bubbles. Certainly not something your grandma would approve.
Others argue that momentum strategies help disseminate information about companies through quick price movements. But can't we just watch Bloomberg or CNBC? Do we really need some devious insiders to convey that information to the rest of us through price movements?
No, I think that independent trading should serve only one purpose (besides short-term self-sustenance): as training and preparation to become a fund manager. Once you graduated from independent trading, you then enter into the grand contest among all fund managers to see who can best serve and protect investors' assets, (and be rewarded according to your standing in this contest.)
I know, this is the idealistic way to look at things. Serving and protecting seem to be what policemen should be doing, not traders. But as in quantitative trading, I think it helps one becomes more successful in one's activities by having a simple guiding principle or model. And it doesn't hurt that in this case, the principle would also be conscience-nourishing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
