Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASDAQ Trading Halted Due To "Technical Issue"

Comments Filter:
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:36PM (#44644977)
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
  • MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:4, Funny)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [hmryobemag]> on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:36PM (#44644985) Journal

    Does this make anyone else happy for some reason?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Their stock has been slipping, and right when it dipped below 500 per share, NASDAQ shits the bed.

      Coincidence? I think... yeah, probably, actually.

      • A flash crash was what I thought.

        Since these insane investors want core algorithmic changes made that could ruin the whole economy done in a matter of hours it would not surprise me if protections in the trading systems shuts them down equally in a blink of an eye so that particular investment wont lose money and cause a 2nd great depression in the process.

        • Since these insane investors want core algorithmic changes made that could ruin the whole economy done in a matter of hours

          It's just the stock market, a drop in the market isn't going to ruin the economy. 1929 looked bad, but the economic problems happened first, then the stock market dropped. Look at black Monday (1987) for an example of what happens with flash trading crashes......not much.

          • by Billly Gates (198444) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @03:14PM (#44646237) Journal

            Since these insane investors want core algorithmic changes made that could ruin the whole economy done in a matter of hours

            It's just the stock market, a drop in the market isn't going to ruin the economy. 1929 looked bad, but the economic problems happened first, then the stock market dropped. Look at black Monday (1987) for an example of what happens with flash trading crashes......not much.

            You are aware that something insane like 1/7th of the worlds money is on these systems right? Not 1929 at all.

            Theoretical logic error where a less than instead of a less than or equal too is in one of these HTC systems.

            Lets say this is a big one with trillions and trillions to use like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. I dated a woman who used to work for BOA and she told me the books have 40 trillion in assets that are processed nightly on their computers. The US GDP is only $14 trillion for the record on how big of anumber this is. Mainly inflated home values spiked this as they assets were really liabilities when the housing market crashed.

            Now lets say in 1/10000th of a second it shorted 15 companies stocks by accident by only 10%. Now the Goldman Sachs computer sees this and it has $15 trillion to play with. What will it do? If it is quick and short it will quickly repurchase them and sell them also at 1/10000th of a second. But it sees this on 5 other fortune 500 companies. It sells fast. Now the slower trading firms computers see this in Chicago and the 2nd tier financial systems see these 2 systems quickly selling fast as now 12 companies are affected.

            What do they do Sell to keep what is has and so and so on. A full 2 seconds pass and what happens? The world's weath is gone your 401k is history, the treasury is insolvent as bonds crashed, banks are insolvent, as they always owe more than they have in assets which all their debts are traded with each as assets collecting interest.

            Seems laughable just 10 years ago but this great recession and what is happening recently shows otherwise. Money is just generated out of thin air by debts and used to buy stocks which fund your 401ks and investments.

            What would happen today is a totally collapse of civilation as businesses rely on computers and debt to function if you have taken any finance course. I do not mean this as an insult or to imply anything by the way as I have taken college level finance and it was shocking how answering using your profits to fund your expenses is the wrong answer. To obtain credit and hold onto your cash to raise your shareprice is always the right answer and even small business today with no shareholders relies on IOUs to stay in business unlike in 1929.

            With no money 98% of all businesses would close. This is why the bailout happened in 2009 despite very angry resentment from voters.

            So it is not inconcievable that a flash crash can wipe out a lot. This is why the Glass-Seagul act was written to prevent banks from being vulnerable with a crash which is now sadly appealed.

            • I only read the first few lines of that because it became immediately clear that you know nothing about any of it.
              1. The exchanges will ONLY match at the NBBO. Therefore you can only short at the national best offer.
              2. A large aggressive sell will cause a decline in the market... hence you actually have to keep selling at lower prices.
              3. After a reasonably short drop in price, a mandatory halt goes into effect... see circuit breakers. This is built into exchange matching engines to prevent flash crashes.

              Eve

    • Schadenfreude.

      I'm not even sure what the stock market *does*. I don't think many people do. Including the people who run it. The higher echelons of finance are so many layers of abstraction away from what the common people deal with, it's hard to fit the two ends together.

      • Re:MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lgw (121541) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:04PM (#44645375) Journal

        I'm not even sure what the stock market *does*. I don't think many people do. Including the people who run it. The higher echelons of finance are so many layers of abstraction away from what the common people deal with, it's hard to fit the two ends together.

        This isn't about some mysterious "higher echelons of finance ". The majority of Americans own stock, directly or though 401k or pension plans. Before the 2008 crash is was nearly 2/3s. And yet many people are in the same boat as you.

        I think this is a terrible problem with education in America. People are afraid of the market, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, but that's due to simple lack of education. And it's important to know the basics, since it will likely affect your standard of living in retirement.

        Just like there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how cars work before you can drive safely - not all that much, but there are a several hours about it in most drivers ed classes - there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how markets and investments work. Where's the public education for that? Are we so intent on class warfare that we'll cut off our nose to spite our face here?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Billly Gates (198444)

          I'm not even sure what the stock market *does*. I don't think many people do. Including the people who run it. The higher echelons of finance are so many layers of abstraction away from what the common people deal with, it's hard to fit the two ends together.

          This isn't about some mysterious "higher echelons of finance ". The majority of Americans own stock, directly or though 401k or pension plans. Before the 2008 crash is was nearly 2/3s. And yet many people are in the same boat as you.

          I think this is a terrible problem with education in America. People are afraid of the market, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, but that's due to simple lack of education. And it's important to know the basics, since it will likely affect your standard of living in retirement.

          Just like there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how cars work before you can drive safely - not all that much, but there are a several hours about it in most drivers ed classes - there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how markets and investments work. Where's the public education for that? Are we so intent on class warfare that we'll cut off our nose to spite our face here?

          Yeah, that was before people discovered. Now everyone is doing it and these companies can not grow anymore and no more investors will come in to boost the shareprice.

          Shit most do not even pay dividends anymore! That is a terrible buy if you ask me. That is like me selling you a vacation home where I keep all the rent money and you get nothing. Would you agree to such a deal even after you buy it?! Hell no. ... but don't worry Johhny down the street just may buy it so you can still get rich ... wink wink.

          Now

        • The difference between Joe Retirement who owns some slices in a mutual fund and hopes for the best and some of the more...exotic (and dangerous) market activity is rougly on par with the difference between 'people who live wooden houses' and 'people who build graphene-nanotube space elevators'(except that those would actually be an amazingly useful thing...). Both carbon-based structures? Sure. Otherwise similar, not so much.
        • by Sperbels (1008585)

          And it's important to know the basics,

          The basics: Buy low, sell high

        • Re:MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ErichTheRed (39327) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:29PM (#44645713)

          "I think this is a terrible problem with education in America. People are afraid of the market, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, but that's due to simple lack of education. And it's important to know the basics, since it will likely affect your standard of living in retirement."

          I agree, but I can also see the other side of it. Way back before technology made it possible to do day trading or HFT, it was actually a market that most educated people could get their heads around. And if you're a Buffett-style "value investor" who picks good companies and hangs onto stocks for a long time, a lot of the noise is still filtered out. But, I do think that online trading, instant access to information and cheap trades contribute to volatility. Volatility filters back to the average investor in the form of their account balance wildly swinging up and down for reasons that aren't 100% clear to them.

          Some examples:
          Investment buy decision process, old school: "Hmm, the WSJ basically reprinted an IBM press release showing new and exciting products. I think I will buy 100 shares of the company and see where it goes. I will call my broker in the morning and pay $100 in fees, then I will own and hold these shares to see if they increase in value."
          Investment buy decision process, new school: "OMG, my trading platform's tech sector chart just blinked a brighter shade of green, looks like IBM is in play. Click, buy 100 shares IBM, 85 shares CSCO, 62 shares MSFT, 90 shares RHAT all for $7.95 or free if I trade hundreds of times a month."

          Investment sell decision process, old school: "Hmm. the WSJ article I just read says IBM isn't keeping up with competitors. I've made a bit of money on this over the last 10 years, time to sell. Let's call the broker in the morning and maybe I'll do some research on where else to put the profits."
          Investment sell decision process, new school: "OMG, IBM missed their quarterly earnings by one cent. Wow, they suck. Sell sell sell! Twitter, "OMG, #IBM is #toast, get out now!!!!!' Stock message boards, "Smart money is in Cisco." Facebook: "Selling my IBM shares now, suggest you do the same." Wow, IBM is down 25% for the day, I wonder why?

          If I were running a company that didn't need access to capital that only the stock market would bring, I'd never go public even if it meant Easy Street for me forever. Once a company does that, they will NEVER have control over anything they do.

          • by lgw (121541)

            Volatility filters back to the average investor in the form of their account balance wildly swinging up and down for reasons that aren't 100% clear to them.

            It has ever been thus. If anything, volatility is quite constrained now by historical standards. Markets have always been driven first by rumor and fashion, and only distantly by fundamentals. It was worse in 1913, and worse still in 1713.

            What's changed is that now most of us have a reason to care, and should have been taught stuff like this.

        • Re:MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ebno-10db (1459097) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:50PM (#44645975)

          I think this is a terrible problem with education in America. People are afraid of the market, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, but that's due to simple lack of education.

          It's not due to lack of education, but due to the simple fact that the stock market really is scary, and that's exacerbated by the fact that people have less faith in our basic financial institutions than they used to.

          The stock market is scary because it can swing up and down wildly. The only sound advice for most people (myself included) is that over the long term (decades) it almost always has a better yield than other investments. Buy some low cost index stocks and hang on to them. If you think you can do better than that, you better make sure it's not just vanity, or a few lucky outcomes feeding your confirmation bias. Very few people can beat the market with pick and choose. Timing? Even Warren Buffett avoids that. He's a long term value investor, but really doing that well takes serious research (that's what he and Charlie do all day).

          It doesn't help that people have lost faith in our basic financial institutions either. I don't think that rationally applies as much to the stock market. HFT raises a lot of eyebrows (likely for good reason) but for any long term investment its effect is very small. Banks (investment and depository), insurance companies, etc. are another story. There is no secret that major banks and insurance companies got bailed out by the Treasury, and even more, the Federal Reserve. The capitalists, who preach free markets and rugged individualism, got saved by nanny government. To add insult to injury, they were largely being saved from problems that they had created themselves. Both Bush and Obama bent over backwards not to prosecute criminal activity (see William K. Black for details). Meanwhile everybody else lost their houses and their jobs, and the job situation still ain't looking too good. While that isn't, at least strictly speaking, the stock market, is it any wonder that people don't trust financial markets and think the game is rigged.

          Are we so intent on class warfare

          "Class warfare" gets my vote for the most hackneyed and ultimately meaningless term of the century. What exactly is "class warfare"? From it's reflexive overuse, I can only infer that it means that any discussion of economic conflicts of interest between people of different wealth and income levels should be forbidden as crass, petty, uninformed, counter-productive, and most importantly, something that people who use the term "class warfare" don't want to discuss.

          • Re:MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Informative)

            by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @03:47PM (#44646639) Homepage

            "Class warfare" gets my vote for the most hackneyed and ultimately meaningless term of the century. What exactly is "class warfare"? From it's reflexive overuse, I can only infer that it means that any discussion of economic conflicts of interest between people of different wealth and income levels should be forbidden as crass, petty, uninformed, counter-productive, and most importantly, something that people who use the term "class warfare" don't want to discuss.

            "Class warfare" does mean something: It means that poor and middle-class people are complaining and reacting to being shafted by rich people, but the person who's writing wants to make it seem like those complaints or reactions are somehow illegitimate or will lead to Stalinism in America.

        • I think this is a terrible problem with education in America. People are afraid of the market, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, but that's due to simple lack of education. And it's important to know the basics, since it will likely affect your standard of living in retirement.

          Just like there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how cars work before you can drive safely - not all that much, but there are a several hours about it in most drivers ed classes - there's a certain minimum amount you need to know about how markets and investments work. Where's the public education for that? Are we so intent on class warfare that we'll cut off our nose to spite our face here?

          I've already made more from my stock and mutual fund investments this year than I'll make in salary. Now I'm going to post a response to the guy who talked up how scary market investing is so I can scare more people away from the market.

          Just kidding about scaring people away. Making money in the stock market isn't a zero sum game. The more players there are and the more money invested, the better it is for everyone except the people who sit on the side lines becaused they're scared/don't understand/don't

      • Re:MUAHAHAHAHA (Score:4, Informative)

        by msauve (701917) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:09PM (#44645447)
        "I'm not even sure what the stock market *does*."

        Think of it this way. It's like Las Vegas. Except it's legal everywhere and there's less oversight to keep people honest. Oh, and if you are dishonest, they just take back a portion of your ill-gotten gains, instead of breaking your legs.
      • by ah.clem (147626)

        Why not spend some time reading, then? It's not rocket science, and like it or not, this is how the game works. To remain ignorant to how wealth is generated in this country is to give up. Time and something as simple as dollar cost averaging $10-$20 a week in extremely low risk mutuals could get you a better future life than bitching about "Elitists" and sticking your money in a mattress (or blowing it all on crap every month). The market is comprised of "common people" investing for a better future.

      • by slew (2918)

        I'm not even sure what the stock market *does*. I don't think many people do. Including the people who run it.

        You can make that statement with nearly every human endeavour. Nearly everything (computer, cars, etc), rely on so many layers of abstraction that nobody really knows what is going on...

        Sadly, it is the illusion of knowledge [wikiquote.org] and the illusion of control [wikipedia.org] that dominate most things that we as a species do (stock market included)...

        The superficial reason for the stock market is to employ middlefolk who match those wanting capital with those who have capital (kind of like a grocery store matches those wanting f

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:49PM (#44645155)

      I'm an old school (1930s era) value investor - Ben Graham [amazon.com] type of investor.

      I don't give shit. I don't care what the know nothings on CNBC have to say (I don't think Becky is all that, BTW) nor do I care what Warren Buffet has to say - publicly.

      I got an alpha of 20% right now and it's freaking me out because I'm thinking there's something wrong with my calcs. No, overall I'm up like 50+% year to date but I'm freaking out because i KNOW - I KNOW - there's luck involved and I WANT to weed it out so I can plan better.

      If I were a Hedge fund or mutual fund manager, I'd be interviewed in the press and folks would be patting me on the back for my "brilliance" - fucking morons- all of them.

      I got LUCKY and I'm too stupid to figure out where!!

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:56PM (#44645267)

        Smart man. Playing the day-trading game against the HFTs is like playing chess against Deep Blue. Might as well have a weight-lifting contest with a forklift.

      • by Dunbal (464142) *
        No luck involved. You are merely keeping up with the devaluation/loss of purchasing power of the US dollar, whereas others (bond people, gold, etc) are not.
      • Take a look at your stocks. Are they overvalued? Sell them. Are they still a good value? Keep them. That is the core of the Graham way. You can stop 'freaking out.'

        It's not about whether you have a high alpha and now things are dangerous. That's not how it works.
    • by tgd (2822)

      Does this make anyone else happy for some reason?

      Only people whose total understanding of global economics comes from things they've read on Slashdot.

      • by timeOday (582209)
        So your prediction would be that an outage of a few hours in this vital industry will negatively impact US economic output? Cause I don't think that. All this super-short-term stuff is zero sum.
    • by lxs (131946)

      Market manipulation? No that doesn't make me happy.
      Shouldn't you be occupying something?

  • by DexterIsADog (2954149) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:46PM (#44645107)
    ...which is why I keep all my money in bitcoins.
  • by bizitch (546406) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:51PM (#44645169) Homepage

    .... there is a group of engineers ...

    - Flop sweating their asses off
    - Furiously searching their email for that ass-covering memo to their boss about the pricey "redundant this" or "redundant that" that the boss was too cheap to get
    - Wondering if there is enough alcohol on earth for what they will need later tonight

    • by Etherwalk (681268) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:03PM (#44645365)

      .... there is a group of engineers ...

      - Flop sweating their asses off
      - Furiously searching their email for that ass-covering memo to their boss about the pricey "redundant this" or "redundant that" that the boss was too cheap to get
      - Wondering if there is enough alcohol on earth for what they will need later tonight

      This is the stock exchange. "Redundant this" and "Redundant that" were in the budget, and alcohol is plentiful.

    • by tool462 (677306) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:12PM (#44645481)

      ... the group of MBAs ...

        - Flop sweating their asses of
        - Furiously searching their email for that ass-covering memo where the IT guy said "Yeah, this should work"
        - Wondering if there is enough coke on earth to get them through the rest of the day

      For these guys, there are only two universal truths:
          1) This is absolutely, positively, 100% the IT guy's fault
          2) He can not fix this without the IT guy.
      The impotent rage would be palpable.

      • That's OK... the MBA's get their vengeance by asking the server admins for a status update every 5 minutes while they are busy trying to fix the problem.

        Then they'll ask IT for a 20 page root cause analysis report of the outage the following day after service is restored, even though they have no intention of reading it past the first paragraph. Not that they would understand what they were reading anyway.

  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [hmryobemag]> on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:52PM (#44645205) Journal

    Quick, everybody spread rumors about shutdowns and buyouts, those Wall Street fatcats will shit their pants! >:D

  • a.k.a Market Crash

    Same thing with the crooked banks, when they have a Holiday now, and you can't get your money out, it is a "Hacker" or a "Terrorist" or some other garbage.

    -Hack

  • They forgot to restock their supply of Greed Oil.
  • by runeghost (2509522) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:53PM (#44645231)
    Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      I don't understand the problem. Being first in line is not always advantageous. It just makes you first in line. First to make a good deal. But first to make a bad deal too. Nothing "magical" about it that generates you magical profits.
      • by JoeyRox (2711699)
        There is $1B+/year in HFT profits that indicate otherwise. It's not just that they trade first but that much of their trading is risk-free by getting in the middle of other slower orders on both sides of the market.
        • by Dunbal (464142) *
          Yep, because they know how to trade. HFT won't guarantee a winning trade however, when the market moves the other way. And believe me it happens often. There's more to it than just having a fast connection. For an example I can point to KCG (Knight Capital Group), whose HFT programs lost them what was it, 400+ million in a few minutes when FB was launched? It broke the company, anyway. HFT is not always "good". You have to know how to use it, too.
          • by PPH (736903)

            HFT won't guarantee a winning trade however,

            Yes, it does. At least the way it has been set up. HFT lets some traders outbid others by submitting a whole series of offers and then canceling the one that won't make them any money. Its an abuse of a feature demanded by HF traders to unwind 'system errors' created by such rapid transactions. In reality, its like being able to put a bet down at a roulette table and then pick it back up quickly when you see where the ball lands.

            Its fraud and HF traders should be in prison. Except that the brokerages like

        • by msauve (701917)
          "There is $1B+/year in HFT profits"

          Which means there is also $1B+/year in losses to someone, caused by HFT. Guess what? If it's the HFT traders making a profit, it's the investors taking the hit.
          • I think what you want to say is “only a billion” – as in it is small and falling number in historical terms.

            Then let’s view trading costs as analogous to waste friction in a mechanical system – the lower the better. How should we measure this waste? Read up on “Implementation shortfall”. It’s the gold standard in the industry. (Rarely implemented because it’s complex, but still, the best theoretical method of measuring waste.)
            Now, anybody claiming much

        • by lgw (121541) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:20PM (#44645567) Journal

          You don't make money by "getting in the middle of slower orders" in any risk-free way. Markets don't work that way. You do make money by being the first to trade on "news", but better that than insider trading (i.e., better to trade 1 ms after than 1 week before). You do make money by taking a little risk as a market maker, but HFT has squeezed profits there very thin.

          Do you have any idea how tiny $1 B/year is compared to the amount of stock that trades each year? I'm sure profits are much higher, just on first-after-news trading, and that doesn't mean there's a problem.

          When I trade (being a little guy who doesn't follow the markets constantly) I get a better price thanks to HFT: the bid-ask gap is tiny these days, often 1 cent, and my broker makes $10 on the same trade the HFT guy makes $0.01 or so.

      • The rise of HFT is similar to bitcoin. To encourage liquidity in the market, exchanges started to offer a slight rebate to organizations that put standing side orders to trade a stock at the current best price (buy or sell) which would be executed if there was a temporary liquidity problem. Analgously, Bitcoin offered a little bit of payback to those that did the transaction hash work to help assure short transaction validation times.

        Initially, large trading platforms that were acting as Supplemental Liq

    • by alexander_686 (957440) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:06PM (#44645399)

      Sure.

      In the old days (80s, 90s), when it was seconds, the middle men grabbed 12.5 to 25 cents per share. Before then, when it was minutes, they would grab 50 cents. Costs for the average small investor have fallen by over 90%. If you invest in index funds your costs have fallen by over 95%. (But wait you say – I don’t trade my index funds. Look at your funds expense ratio, pull out the supplementary prospectus information on what portion of that is trading costs for the past 20 years, and gap.)

      Or, to put it another way, would you rather have dozens of HFT fighting for your business or an oligopoly of clique, cozy partnerships. Not saying it is perfect but that it is an improvement.

      • I just wish the market operated on a tick.

        As things are now, they're supposed to be first come, first served. That's why all the HFTs pay mega bucks to be collocated in the same datacenter as the exchanges. This means any hickups affect the order that things are processed. It's non-deterministic by design.

        It makes much more since to run on a tick. All transactions would processed once every second. You still need some sort of ordering, but it would allow for many things to happen. Including realtime o

        • I was responding specifically to the OP ½ cent mark. In the 90s, under fully electronic trading, the bid/ask spread was between 12.5 to 25 cents . Today it is under a penny. Why the compression? Computers are not like fairy dust – sprinkling them around does not automaticity solve problems. It is the fact that we have gone from 4 market markers to dozens of HFT acting as de facto market makers.

          (Which then brings up a tricky question of what a HFT is. The big boring index funds trade like a HFT in

      • The obvious flaw in your argument is that trading costs have gone down due to electronic trading which is different from high-frequency trading. With electronic trading, instead of brokers having to call other brokers to make the trades, buyers and sellers can be found almost instantaneously to fill orders. That is a good thing and no one is arguing against that. What people hate is how high-frequency trading is used to underhandedly find a buyer's maximum buy price and the seller's minimum sell price so
    • by Etherwalk (681268)

      Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?

      Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.

      • by runeghost (2509522) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @02:16PM (#44645513)

        Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?

        Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.

        Wait, wait, wait. I'm grokking some of the other points in favor of high-frequency trading, but are you actually claiming that the stock market reflects reality?

    • by lgw (121541)

      Yes. Just like you can't make a very good car if you only have one cylinder fire ever 15 seconds (though you could make something with wheels that lurched about). I've explained the technical details about a dozen times on /. before, so at this point I'll just say: you know that guy who believes "I don't understand it so it must be easy"? Don't be that guy. Education, then opinion.

    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top

      Let me stop you right there.

    • by alen (225700)

      adds money into the system from the people willing to "invest" into the funds that do this
      most of the trading every day is a tiny percentage of shares traded by hedge funds

    • by dupup (784652)
      HFT does improve market efficiency. In other words, the price you pay at Exchange A for Equity Z is going to be almost exactly the price you'd pay at Exchange B for Equity Z. This applies to multi-listed instruments only, of course. Not sure how important that is to the average Joe, probably not much.
    • Average daily volume on the NASDAQ is a little over 400,000,000 shares for the last three months. Even with the outage, today's volume was 924,433,630 shares. Do you really think slowing that down to only trading on some specific interval would work? Plus, you have to remember that people decide to buy or sell on something other than your schedule and the whole point of a stock exchange is to price the security and execute the trade. All putting in some sort of fixed interval would do is force traders t

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:54PM (#44645235)
    Must be Windows Updates forcing a reboot. That's usually the problem.
  • by JoeyRox (2711699) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:55PM (#44645245)
    In case you didn't know Goldman is never supposed to lose money on a trade, which is why they can report 100+ days of consecutive trading profits, which is a mathematical impossibility in a non-rigged market.
    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      LOL! I see it as the Fed had trouble re-starting their buying programs after a couple days off, so they stopped the market for a while for the reboot.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, it's not mathematically impossible. It is statistically improbable.

    • It's not that hard to do if you just buy it when the price is low.

      Too many individual investors wait until the market is near all time highs before buying.

       

  • This happened right around the time that the new Neverwinter module was launched. Coincidence? I think not. Perhaps the people in charge installed the Neverwinter client and were playing the new area instead of monitoring the exchange.
  • Assuming Direct Control.

  • by s122604 (1018036)
    Latest news: They are going to start trading at 2:45 EDT.
    My prediction is a brief panic sell-off, followed by a return to normalcy, considering putting in a few limit orders.
  • This software is all written in Java these days, isn't it?

    Probably just paused for a few hours for garbage collection.

  • by stewsters (1406737) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @03:17PM (#44646283)
    I was searching for Archer quotes, but I accidentally found this:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/hindenburg-omen-very-ominous-high-technical-warning-sign-163004190.html [yahoo.com]
    I wonder if there is a relation?
  • by bobbied (2522392) on Thursday August 22, 2013 @03:44PM (#44646595)
    You KNOW the NSA has a server (or two) in the middle of all this.. Makes ya wonder eh?
  • This really only affected the gamblers in the market using NASDAQ options, not people buying and selling actual shares.

    It didn't impact limit orders up/down, or any buy or sell orders, just the gamblers that exaggerate noise in the market signal to bet against other computer systems that exaggerate more noise.

    No actual investors were harmed, only gamblers. You could see it in the calm reaction of the shares - instead of bouncing up and down as gamblers tried to tweak it up and down for profits, it remained

  • Could they be proactively stopping another feedback loop?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...