> I'm pretty sure you misunderstand market orders because by definition they are only visible to the market after they have traded, so nobody can get ahead of you or do sonething irrational before your order lands.
Have you read Flash Boys? Dunno if the loop-holes have all been solved, but basically it was possible to front-run orders. There was a regulation requiring brokers to execute an order on the exchange that had the best current price. This rule gave no weight to size. So HFT firms could place a tiny, negative expectancy order on one exchange. Then they could see the result of that trade and cancel/place orders on the next exchange that your broker's matching algorithm was going to hit up before your order got there.
Yes, I work in the industry. Flash boys is misleading garbage, it's a long form advertisement for IEX.
What a broker does has nothing to do with how market orders work. The strategy you're describing also doesn't really work because any respectable broker is sweeping all of the exchanges at once - the regulations considered this possibility and allowed this behavior. Also, many of the liquid symbols have single cent spreads making this strategy impossible.
Then this whole discussion is nonsensical since in almost all cases retail orders are directly filled by wholesale market makers and don't ever land on the exchanges (and don't see any 'frontrunning' as a result).
Sure. All I was saying is that it's theoretically possible for a market order that a customer submits online to be front-run (as opposed to a market order submitted to a single exchange). No clue how often it happens in practice.
It's theoretically possible and has always been for somebody to see order execution in progress and trade ahead of it. In practice, that's frequently just a side effect of somebody being so slow that their actions trigger quant algorithms, it's not a super profitable game trying to latency arb proper market sweeps anymore (not to say latency is not important in but, but it's usually for other reasons)
I read a lot on entrepreneurship during 19th century and early 20th century US.
My limited understanding: in those days entrepreneurs came from much wider range of demographics. In other words, entry barriers were much less during those days.
I mean many people start bodegas, restaurants, etc. I imagine that's more akin to 19th century entrepreneurship and still is by far the most prevalent form of entrepreneurship today (only like 1.3% of businesses are created in the Bay area and 1.1% of the population lives there).
> Middlemen, example Amazon, have never been stronger.
The strength of a middleman can be directly measured by how much they mark up prices. Does amazon really mark up prices more than the brick and mortar retailers it replaced?
You're forgetting Amazon is a "marketplace" and not just a "retail store."
Anyway, I don't think "markup" is very much related to how strong they are. I define "strong" as "how critical for business that service is."
I'm just using Amazon as an example, one that everyone can understand has a massive amount of power.
I think of distributors, not retail stores, to be pretty much the strongest middlemen there is. If you're making a widget are you going to hire someone full time to market your product to individual stores and then hire and maintain a fleet to deliver them? Fuck no you aren't, you're going to call a distributor.
That alternative to putting them in the desert is putting them in some non-desert area or putting them nowhere. If these people are objecting to putting them in a desert, they'll object to putting them in a non-desert area too.
Making better use og roof-tops generally is a win as far as environmentalists are concerned; NIMBYs/BANANAs may complain however.
Not that I see any intrinsic beauty in concrete titles or roofing felt. Even clay tiles and slates I suspect are just something we have gotten used to.
In all cases they are a financial and embodied energy and financial cost as-is, and PV can turn them into something positive.
Ignorant people look at a desert and see lifeless desolation. When they educate themselves they come to see the desert as an very active environment with limited resources, and cut-throat competition for same, that makes human impact more pronounced. Better to put solar panels over scrubland or even farmland than into deserts.
I agree mostly. But there may also be a cyclical effect where women don't go into CS because they don't see women working in tech. In which case Google shouldn't necessarily have a legal obligation to hire more women, but there may be a moral argument or even a long-term self-interest argument (i.e. increase supply of good engineers) for it.
I'd rather own snapchat personally. Think it has more upside than the rest of those combined. Only one close is twitter. You don't buy a company like snapchat for a 20% return, it's 5-10x return or bust.
Have you read Flash Boys? Dunno if the loop-holes have all been solved, but basically it was possible to front-run orders. There was a regulation requiring brokers to execute an order on the exchange that had the best current price. This rule gave no weight to size. So HFT firms could place a tiny, negative expectancy order on one exchange. Then they could see the result of that trade and cancel/place orders on the next exchange that your broker's matching algorithm was going to hit up before your order got there.