Kanda
Diving wanker
It was one of our HFT boys that was on that program.
Global financial system implosion begins
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
It was one of our HFT boys that was on that program.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, if it weren't for the possible knock-on effects I'd be in schadenfreude heaven (as I imagine a lot of people would be) about Dubai at the moment. It was so obvious it was going to happen, and they are such a bunch of cunts.
It will make me laugh a lot to see the overpriced dump that is Dubai f*** up.
It seemed to be the ultimate in flashy wealth - the country equivalent of a Bentley with solid gold door handles and diamond-encrusted headlights. And blacked out windows. And a 10 gigawatt stereo system. And full body-kit and spoiler.
Giles..
It seemed to be the ultimate in flashy wealth - the country equivalent of a Bentley with solid gold door handles and diamond-encrusted headlights. And blacked out windows. And a 10 gigawatt stereo system. And full body-kit and spoiler.
Giles..
Another crisis looms over the world
November 28, 2009
Sydney Morning Herald
Tribulation in the Gulf state threatens to derail global recovery, writes Michael Evans.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/another-crisis-looms-over-the-world-20091127-jwtx.html
November 28, 2009
Sydney Morning Herald
Tribulation in the Gulf state threatens to derail global recovery, writes Michael Evans.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/another-crisis-looms-over-the-world-20091127-jwtx.html
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Oh nooooes! The dessert disney land run by parasitic Sheikhs for the delectation of Western tax evaders and sex criminals is gonna go broke! Will somebody please think of the vacuous airhead celebrities who will affected by this? Not to mention members of the faceless imported slave labour class who build all those lovely plazas and skyscrapers - I mean, who's gonna be able to pay for their labour camps?
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Just don't mess with Iceland... -
"Ice Ice Iceland"
"Ice Ice Iceland"
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Dubai owns about 20% of the companies floated on the LSE. If dubai fucks up I'm guessing we'll be bailing them out too.
This is potentially massive. I see more huge bail outs ahead.
ska invita
back on the other side
Theres no chance of UK giving them (who exactly?) any cash is there? Surely there's endless oil-drench peeps out there who are all set to bankroll Dubai till kingdom come?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Total exposure of UK banks to Dubai sovreign debt is about £36bn, of which about half is servicable and invested in profit making bits (such as DW Ports), the other half in underwater hotels and whatnot.
The main difference, AFAICS, is that this isn't all spliced into atom sized bits of 10,000 bits of debt so no one knows who owns it, this is a far more straighforward loan default, with actual hard assets, so while the banks might have to take a hit (and HSBC is the most exposed, with a £17bn book), it's unlikely they'll need another bail out.
Also, as pointed out on C4 news last night:
Total bailout so far = £1tn+
Dubai total debt = £40bn or so
So in the grand scheme of things, it's fuck all.
g force
Affects Shatner's Basoon
Also the listed companies they own, or part own include HSBC and few stock exchanges etc - so if they were forced to sell, while it might hit those share prices, and the indices they're listed on - the stakes they hold would easily find buyers.
I belive NYSE/Euronext is already talking about a buy-back.
I belive NYSE/Euronext is already talking about a buy-back.
Also from Richard Heinberg: Searching For a Miracle (PDF)
newbie
undisambiguated
I meant to raise this following the programme, but didn't get round to it.
Are there any sensible arguments that high frequency trading benefits anyone, anywhere other than the successful traders? Or, to put it another way, are there any arguments that it shouldn't be curbed with a tax on speculative transactions?
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
There certainly are, and a good summary can be found here:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/664/Tobin_tax:_could_it_work__.html
newbie
undisambiguated
er, that's about currency and was written long before hft became an issue. Shifting currency transactions out of the reach of a Tobin tax jurisdiction is one thing, but how many companies traded on the LSE would shift elsewhere just to protect the interests of high frequency traders?
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Hmmm apologies - need more sleep. That sure did just seem to read back 'high frequency currency trading' earlier.
EDIT: Never mind - I'll read the thread
EDIT: Never mind - I'll read the thread
It'll give some short-term leverage.
But take a look, over time, as to the distribution of that "short-term" wealth (say 20 or 40 years back and [calculating, extrapolating, predicting, guessing?] 20 or 40 years hence,) and ask where it's going.
"Jobs" or "pockets"?
And as this gap increases, especially when petrol is a fiver a litre and food, heat, transport, et al, all cost more - who bears the brunt?
And when there're half a billion peeps in parts of the world - suddenly reached by global capital, communications and technology - willing to do any job they can for thruppence a week - and tens of millions of fresh, well educated, graduates from these places emerging annually, willing to work, generally, for anywhere between GBP 200 and GBP 400:00 per month and some not finding jobs for over a year in the last few years.....the imbalances are set into a global context.
And anyway, as I've said, this is only just beginning.
It's quite astoninshing in fact.
Essentially, I concur with goebfwai. It sends a wee shiver down my spine when I think too deeply, and then the depression kicks in.
And then I remember that there're mouths to be fed and realise that I need to be getting my shit together quickly and getting a job if I want any chance of getting a tiny, wee share of the diminishing few crumbs tumbling from the "pockets".
And that there may not even be as much time left as I'd imagined and, therefore, I'd better start getting my shit together now!
And then I get depressed again.
Hopefully, there's still some time and......
....This is only just beginning.
Woof
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Not in my book. At the end of the day, the big banks are playing computer games for real money with each other, trouble is that you can forsee the law of unintended consequences rearing it's ugly head sooner or later.
Simple solution in my book is for the exchanges to bring in a rule saying that orders entered into the market have to remain there for (say) 250 milliseconds
but would they do that . . . would they f*ck as they derive their revenue from transaction charges.
Having said that, this guy's written a piece in it's defence, and you may also find some pro-arguments here
True.
What was that early 80's, teenage, movie? Was it "Wargames" - the one with the computer Joshua? (Same concept behind "The Terminator" trilogy, I guess.)
Is that what they call the ugly duckling?
Simple solution in my book is probably to hang them.
Or at least send 'em down't pit fer a decade or two - at thruppence a week.
It's the only way they'll learn.
Woof
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
More like a Black Swan . . . boom tish!
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Agree with you about bringing the pits back, but don't think we're talking about the same ones . . .
boom tish 2!
elbows
Well-Known Member
Shall we play a game? Yes it was wargames, which was I suppose about a computer learning about the futility of the mutually assured destruction nuclear game. The various economic games certainly seem futile in the grand scheme of things, though it may take a better computer than the one in wargames to decide this. For bonkers though the nuclear stalemate is, it sort of works, whereas we have not got the economics so well balanced, fear of a future crash does not make it sufficiently futile for players to bother seeking the giddy heights of a boom.
I seem smart.
I need a job, or some work, or a project.
I'm mature and multiskilled.
And focussed.
There are services for hire here, online and off!
And money to be made, for you.
PM Jessiedog with offers....
.....and quick!
...Before the crumbs dry up.
I can be a very hard worker.
Or is this kind of "spam" still out-of-order on Urban?
Woof
Not sure about other people, but one of the most illuminating, indeed even useful realisations I have had about the current global recession (as far as Britain goes) is how bad things were BEFORE the recession hit, but somehow the bulk of people (including myself) had failed to notice.
Up until around the 1970's we had full employment, but somehow as unemployment grew and soon became a permanent feature of the British landscape, we became used to it and were lulled into accepting it as a new norm.
There are a lot of complex reasons why it became permanent, but I guess the simplest explanation centres around 1) reaching the terminal stages of the contraction of the British Empire, and Britain's ability to remorselessly exploit the resources and labour of other nations at quite the same advantageous terms enjoyed under mass global colonialism. 2) Post colonialism, globalisation, labour arbitrage, exporting jobs and manufacturing abroad where the wages are cheaper.
I remember in the eighties/nineties there was a TV show about unemployed Geordie labourer whose catchprase was "geeza job". Today, as then, we of course actually need people to create jobs, and indeed moving beyond the compartmentalised idea of a job, new ways of living and working, communes, partnerships, co-operatives, as the simple creation of jobs doesn't quite address in and of itself the issues of various looming resource scarcites, economic factors and environmental challenges on the near horizon.
"Lemme create jobs" would be a catchprase that we could see more of, although in the current global recession, creating some sort of livelihood for yourself, i.e. just one person will prevent challenges enough. I suppose it all depends on what area you start out in. Plus high rent and rates are creating barriers to self-employment. Increasing de-materialisation and digitalisation we see in the economy that seems to favour speculation and trade in bits and bytes, than actual concrete tangible things you can touch, is probably doing the same. [I think digitisation of goods and services enables quicker, less thoughtful and considered consumer expenditure on things of little material or economic value (constant texting/phoning for example). "I'm on the bus" must be the most valuable four words on the planet for the mobile companies!]. And speedier and more centralised transfer of wealth and capital, both there and in that general type of 'industry' if you call them that and in the financial markets.
Economic historians say that what made the Great Depression in the 1930's 'great' was the protectionism that set in, trade barriers and tariffs etc. They say that this time around that it was important to avoid that, and they claim they did, but of course depending how you look at it protectionism started even before the current global recession, when US banks off-loaded toxic assets from their housing bubble, repackaged and sole them onto banks worldwide, including British banks (and even that didn't save them). But protectionist dominoes are truly falling thick and fast now. Look at the collapse of the quasi-sovereign entity Dubai World. And look at whats happened in Saudi Arabia. Two defaulting Saudi conglomerates that owe $20 billion (including money to the more or less entirely state owned RBS) have left foreign creditors out in the cold, in favour of domestic banks.
Up until around the 1970's we had full employment, but somehow as unemployment grew and soon became a permanent feature of the British landscape, we became used to it and were lulled into accepting it as a new norm.
There are a lot of complex reasons why it became permanent, but I guess the simplest explanation centres around 1) reaching the terminal stages of the contraction of the British Empire, and Britain's ability to remorselessly exploit the resources and labour of other nations at quite the same advantageous terms enjoyed under mass global colonialism. 2) Post colonialism, globalisation, labour arbitrage, exporting jobs and manufacturing abroad where the wages are cheaper.
I remember in the eighties/nineties there was a TV show about unemployed Geordie labourer whose catchprase was "geeza job". Today, as then, we of course actually need people to create jobs, and indeed moving beyond the compartmentalised idea of a job, new ways of living and working, communes, partnerships, co-operatives, as the simple creation of jobs doesn't quite address in and of itself the issues of various looming resource scarcites, economic factors and environmental challenges on the near horizon.
"Lemme create jobs" would be a catchprase that we could see more of, although in the current global recession, creating some sort of livelihood for yourself, i.e. just one person will prevent challenges enough. I suppose it all depends on what area you start out in. Plus high rent and rates are creating barriers to self-employment. Increasing de-materialisation and digitalisation we see in the economy that seems to favour speculation and trade in bits and bytes, than actual concrete tangible things you can touch, is probably doing the same. [I think digitisation of goods and services enables quicker, less thoughtful and considered consumer expenditure on things of little material or economic value (constant texting/phoning for example). "I'm on the bus" must be the most valuable four words on the planet for the mobile companies!]. And speedier and more centralised transfer of wealth and capital, both there and in that general type of 'industry' if you call them that and in the financial markets.
Economic historians say that what made the Great Depression in the 1930's 'great' was the protectionism that set in, trade barriers and tariffs etc. They say that this time around that it was important to avoid that, and they claim they did, but of course depending how you look at it protectionism started even before the current global recession, when US banks off-loaded toxic assets from their housing bubble, repackaged and sole them onto banks worldwide, including British banks (and even that didn't save them). But protectionist dominoes are truly falling thick and fast now. Look at the collapse of the quasi-sovereign entity Dubai World. And look at whats happened in Saudi Arabia. Two defaulting Saudi conglomerates that owe $20 billion (including money to the more or less entirely state owned RBS) have left foreign creditors out in the cold, in favour of domestic banks.
I don't think you failed. The reality was always denied and actively concealed by those with power, influence and fortunes to be made from the status quo: unrestrained exploitation of people and the environment. Those who saw through the fog of capitalist / free-market blah-blah could also see that growth was blatantly unsustainable, and that the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later.
Crapitalists knew that this knowledge was potentially very bad for business, so their media puppets trivialised such concerns and ridiculed those who dared to suggest that smash 'n' grab economics could not go on forever. Now their chickens are flocking home to roost, as their economic model collides with the limits to growth imposed by a finite planet. This realisation would've hit a lot earlier, had money-juggling parasites not created an illusion of "endless" growth and prosperity from (unpayable) debt and dodgy trading practises.
I remember some lively arguments with a mate who used to work for the BoE. He used to come out with all kinds of crap about "sustainable growth" and denied that resource shortages - especially peak oil - would ever be a problem in our lifetime.
He has since apologised for being such a deluded tit, saying that "nobody (at the bank) realised at the time."
I find that quite hard to believe, though I suppose it's possible that bankers and economists really are just fuckwitted, money-juggling twats who live up their own arseholes...
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Stiglitz's Globalisation and its Discontents talks about the Reaganomics revolution at the IMF in the early '80s which effectively silenced alternative schools of thought - like those which suggested, perhaps, that an economic model which couldn't explain unemployment except in terms of laziness might just be a tad flawed. When there is such an overwhelming workplace culture, it can be very difficult to explore alternative ideas, or even for individuals interested in alternative ideas to get into the position to do anything about it. I see it with drug reps all the time - they're not just professional liars (although there is that), they've been fed one side of the story for so long it seems inconceivable that it isn't true.
newbie
undisambiguated
I don't really see the point in an artificial delay,which would just move the race to the closest instant after it ends. A transaction tax may reduce the impact of hft and would at least raise revenue from the concentration of profit in the hands of those with the biggest and best systems.
,
The arguments seems to be that "Algorithmic trading is enormously beneficial for those who use it " and, rather more vaguely, for market trading as a whole, and that the regulators should follow along trying to "ensure that they can spot abusive patterns of behaviour quickly".
that's alright then.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
A lot of algo trade stratagies depend on "pinging" the instrument pool with fake trades (ie relatively small sized trade requests) in order to suss out where the bigger orders are (not sure if using sonar to find a submarine is a decent analagy or not). Once you know where the big sizes are and how they are positioned (ie are buyers or sellers) you can take advantage of that knowledge to skim a few pennies from the market.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
thats really about market structure surely?
Your only going to move in size if you can take the hit such a market event will provoke - or if you're Citi and you actually want to create the wave in the first place (the German Govt were not amused, and fined them several million Euros, but they were nearly 2b bucks up and dinnae gae a fuck)
Most HFT are small and really just create a froth, dont really move the market at all.
Personally I'm thinking of moving to HK or Sing for a bit........
Similar threads
