Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman On "The Joy Of Sachs," As Frontrunning Truths Emerge (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I truly hesitate to respond here... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, KenBee

    ...because I'm aware of your commenting history...

    ...that being said, the links are in the diary...but you must thoroughly read the pieces I reference (towards the end of my diary) as being obtained from comments in Zero Hedge over the past 24 hours. They're from Reuters and from a market insider website, respectively.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:23:44 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  what about his commenting history??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes, nyc in exile

      I think you don't want to get debunked by someone who has not drunk your brand of kool-aid

      •  Looks like the same type of history as... (7+ / 0-)

        ...yours, IMHO.

        It's a history that says that any criticisms of the current efforts to right our sideways economy are conflated with a dislike for our President.

        It's a history that tells many here that if you dare to question how a particular matter is being handled by the current administration, that makes you "anti-Obama."

        It's a history of shallow-thinking folks that don't understand that one may disagree with a particular aspect or program of the administration, but it doesn't undermine their support of the administration, in general.

        That's what I'm talking about.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:28:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For the record, there's nothing to "debunk"... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, neroden, KenBee

          ...here. (Unless you're seeking to make ad hominem attacks directed towards me, personally.) I'm reporting facts. If you have a problem with some of those facts, I'd suggest you take it/them up with their respective source(s).

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:31:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  one random non-fact (0+ / 0-)

            pulled from your CT excuse for a diary:

            ...WHILE THE, APPARENTLY, ONGOING CRIMINAL PLOT THICKENS.

            Approximately two weeks ago, on Thursday, July 2nd, the NY Stock Exchange did something they've only done on a handful of occasions in the history of that venerable institution--they extended their closing time by 15 minutes due to "connectivity problems."

            you pile on a load of BS but the FACT is there is nothing criminal about extending the closing time.

        •  show me just one (0+ / 0-)

          comment of mine that fits that description.  

    •  Can you quote a paragraph that you think presents (0+ / 0-)

      the strongest evidence? I've read the articles you linked as carefully as I can, and I get that there are tiers of access time to trade data and such, but I can't understand why the articles wouldn't discuss front-running explicitly. If true, it would be a very big deal, and you'd think it would be at the heart of the article, not a story that you'd need to assemble yourself from abstruse details scattered throughout.

      Your nonspecific allegations about my... what, loyalty to the anti-Wall Street cause? are somewhat difficult to respond to without more. I have no personal connection with or interest in GS, but I see a lot of really overblown diatribes on dKos, and I think it's our duty as the so-called reality-based community to confront those no matter who is the target. Accusing GS of "money laundering" is ridiculous, and suggesting that GS has an obligation not to market products that its own trading desk has shorted seems to ignore some pretty basic realities about the market -- chief among which is the necessary insulation between the retail and trading operations to prevent selective treatment by the sales desk of products that GS has a hidden interest in promoting. These are just a couple of examples that come to mind, and maybe they're not what you're objecting to, but it's hard to tell for sure when you merely hint darkly that I'm somehow dishonest without providing any detail. If you disagree with something I've written, feel free to respond to that thing, and we'll have a substantive discussion on the merits. I like to think I'm pretty open-minded and willing to admit when I'm wrong, but that isn't a possibility if you don't engage me substantively.

      For what it's worth, I'm fully in favor of government regulation to force firms to internalize the cost of being too big to fail, even though those regulations would be an enormous expense to the firms (to counteract the enormous benefit they receive from their implicit government guarantee). So it's not like I'm just blindly carrying their water.

      •  Again, if you review the links towards the... (0+ / 0-)

        ...bottom of the diary, with regard to high-frequency trading, the reality, as Neroden comments on it, towards the top of the comment thread, is that processes and tiers have been in place (in some instances for quite awhile) that enable larger trading firms to frontrun the market...whether that was their intended purpose, or not. Period. And, even you tacitly acknowledge this, as well.

        Stating that it's bogus, when in fact it's there in black and white, is disingenuous...and it flies in the face of these facts.

        If you even acknowledge there are "tiers," in and of itself, that means that you're acknowledging that certain firms have a trading edge on the rest of the marketplace.

        So, what, exactly, is your point, other than the reality that you've already disproven your own contentions that this frontrunning capability--intentional or otherwise--doesn't exist when, in fact, it does?!?

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:25:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Tiers" does not acknowledge front-running. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not intimately familiar with these systems. It seems completely plausible that the tiers merely mean that when there's a buy or sell order entered, certain privileged members of the exchange get the first chance to accept the offer and form the sell or buy on the other side of the trade. Front-running, on the other hand, as I understand it, means that you can see a buy/sell order come in and then, before that buy order is settled, place and settle a same-way trade of your own such that you capture the marginal uptick that is caused by the other trade when it settles a few microseconds later.

          It's totally plausible that the former is possible but the latter is not. For all I know, these privileged pools merely mechanically record and implement reserve prices by the players and don't actually pass information across to any of the players' proprietary algorithms before the trade settles. Or perhaps the timing is such that the privileged pools get enough advanced notice of the trade to have the first chance to take the other side of that trade but not enough advanced notice that they can place and settle an entirely new trade before the first one settles.

          Those are the questions that I didn't see answered, and again, if the front-running story were as simple as you suggest, you'd think the NYT/WSJ would be screaming it from the front pages.

          But again, if I missed something in the articles, please quote the relevant paragraph. I've read them as carefully as I can and I just don't see a smoking gun.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (51)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (36)
  • Environment (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Civil Rights (30)
  • Science (30)
  • Media (28)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (20)
  • International (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site