Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
As you've highlighted, (1) none of the legitimate electronic traders had early access to the news, (2) there's no speed advantage from the data feed alone. I'll add that (3) you have not explained why you think that GLD will go up because the jobless rate survey result changed by +/-0.1%. I also find it unusual that you repeatedly stake your authority on some brand of science when (4) I have degrees in physics and mathematics, while you presumably, don't.
There's also nothing inherently 'high-frequency' or sophisticated about these trades except that they've been pre-programmed, and most of us are not on the active sides of these trades (again, I say "most" to be politically correct here, but the truth is, I don't know any low-latency electronic trader who was on the active side). I'll give a more illustrative example of why this is "low-frequency" behavior. See if you recall a tick chart similar to the one below. I plotted a line to mark a special announcement time:
You probably don't, because these were homework (project) submissions for a class that I helped to teach when I was a grad student. The special line was the submission deadline. The fact that there was an announcement or special deadline paints a target for low-frequency speculators; they tend to prepare and participate at the very last moment, even if they knew the date and time well in advance and had plenty of time to prepare and decide. (Of course, you're going to argue that there are a few differences - e.g. in one case, the activity was before the deadline, and in the other, the activity was after).
1) I never highlighted that.
2) I never highlighted that.
3) I never highlighted that. What are you even talking about?
4) I know exactly who you are. Would you like me to proceed and make this personal?
Evading questions by changing the subject is the hallmark of a gifted liar when caught. I'm not say you are a liar, or even a gifted one. The best response really, when caught in a lie, is to stop digging the hole deeper. But please, don't listen to me. Continue doing what you think best.
You highlighted (underlined) points (1) and (2) in the screenshot in red.
I mentioned that I'm adding point (3).
As for your threat in (4), it's not like it's never been attempted before (see: Nuclear Phynance and Forums - C). My account is only associated with a Facebook profile and perhaps my nephew (CQG, ZF, IQF, TT?) and niece's (futures.io (formerly BMT) award?) names. Not questioning the consequences for who would divulge that information to you, I will not hesitate to get a restraining order filed against you if you dare try to harass my family. I'll also offer to pay the difference for your existing clients who upgrade to Reuters Remote Foundation API, Bloomberg B-PIPE or ActivFeed.
As for calling me a liar - that comes across as an all-time low, as I haven't resorted to name-calling you. You've placed your bid with your threat and calling me a liar. It's up to you to try if I'm bluffing on my offer.
For the record, our privacy policy protects your information - we do not divulge it to anyone under any circumstances unless compelled to do so by law, or under direct authority from you to do so.
Eric - I went back to mull over this for a while and think it's unproductive for two grown men to take things personally like this. I want to take the initiative to withdraw from this argument and apologize for it turning nasty somehow: I think a combination of my edits and deletions had caused an unfortunate misunderstanding, but as I had explained via PM, my reason was not due to some form of inconsistency in my post. My language can come across as terse and harsh sometimes, but no offense was intended.
If you happen to do another talk at Sanders Theatre or somewhere in Boston, we can have a more reasoned, public debate. Alternatively, we can talk over the phone. I found time to read Tyc's paper and found that there's also a problem with his methodology that I prefer to mention in private.
