×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tweet From Hacked AP Account Causes High Freq. Traders To Drop DOW 150 Points

Soulskill posted 1 year,13 hours | from the our-culture-will-eventually-collapse-due-to-an-errant-tweet dept.

Twitter 314

New submitter Mike Lape writes "Stocks plunged and recovered within minutes after the hacked AP Twitter account sent out a tweet that indicated that the White House had been the victim of an explosion and that President Obama had been injured. '...the Dow Jones Industrial Average took a quick 143-point plunge, before recovering most of its losses within minutes. The three-minute plunge triggered by the tweet briefly wiped out $136.5 billion of the S&P 500 index's value, according to Reuters data. Interestingly, Tuesday has been the best day of the week for the blue-chip this year with an average return of 0.46 percent. If the index closes in the black today, it will have been up for the 15th consecutive Tuesday. The last time the Dow rose for 15 straight Tuesdays was in 1927.' An analyst said, 'That goes to show you how algorithms read headlines and create these automatic orders – you don't even have time to react as a human being.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

314 comments

First for banning HFT (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43528979)

It serves no purpose.

Re:First for banning HFT (3, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529005)

internet prank with stock market side effects, or intentional market disruption and subsequent gain? btw this is why I don't read tweets.

Re:First for banning HFT (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529507)

internet prank with stock market side effects, or intentional market disruption and subsequent gain? btw this is why I don't read tweets.

It's very revealing in what sort of morons do and base their trading upon it.

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529015)

How about we emphasize that it hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy, rather than just say it serves no purpose. We don't want to discourage it simply because it doesn't help anyone but a few people, we want to discourage it because it HARMS the rest of us.

Re:First for banning HFT (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529249)

How about you don't go around banning anything and instead you deregulate the industry enough for people to start their own competing exchanges, which may have different rules, that would allow or not allow HFTs? The retail investors are pushed out of the stock market by HFTs.

But if you REALLY want to solve the actual ROOT problem rather than attacking the causes, how about banning government from printing and handing out money to banks, banning federal reserve from monetising Treasury debt? Banning the Fed from trying to manipulate the interest rates?

See, that's what would take care of the gambling problem, couple that with dismantling the FDIC and all of a sudden you have people who actually would be worried about their banks and financial institutions and start evaluating risks and rewards based on real market signals.

Re:First for banning HFT (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529433)

hm yes lets ignore the lesson of the last 13 years - less regulations ahoy!

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Interesting)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529503)

The problem isn't more regulations vs. less regulations. The problem is coherent system vs. incoherent system. You can have less regulation, but then you can't have bailouts. You can have bailouts but then you need more regulation. The problem of the recent financial collapse was that the system wasn't coherent. There was less regulation and bailouts, That's a recipe for disaster. The authoritarians blame the lack of regulations and the libertarians blame the bailouts. Neither is right or wrong. They just prefer moving to different coherent systems.

Re:First for banning HFT (0)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529673)

There was no less regulations. The only one single regulation that was repealed that everybody is referencing is the part of the Glass Steagall that was repealed there is nothing else, which was the counter balance to the rest of FDIC, which is the moral hazard. This moral hazard is provided to the bank lenders (depositors) and it's a bailout to the banks, it makes the depositors complacent with what banks do with their money and it gives banks the green light not to have to compete for the lenders (depositors), because the assumption is that everybody gets bailed out.

Note that unlike in case of Cyprus, in USA when a large financial institution fails the precedent is that everybody gets bailed out regardless of the size of their account, so it's not just the first 150K or so, basically the FDIC promises to bail out everybody, of-course this is nonsense, FDIC cannot bail out anybody. They have no assets to bail anybody out, even the meagre 25Billion USD that they have is not actually money, it's Treasuries. Imagine a crisis where the gov't decides that banks need a bail out and what do people think happens to the US Treasuries at that point? Who will buy the Treasuries? The only one buying Treasuries now is the Fed, and 25Billion USD is not even beginning to address the issue, USA deposits are 10Trillion in size.

Of-course in exchange for one partially repealed regulation thousands more came into play, people don't even understand simple things, like the fact that every law that is aimed at "fighting terrorism" adds regulations to every major industry.

How about the Patriot Act (the most unpatriotic piece of legislation prior to Obama's NDAA), it turns banks and other financial institutions into FBI and IRS agents. Banks have at the minimum 100,000 regulations that apply to them in the regulation registry.

The reality is that all of those regulations do one thing: turn a free market economy into a command economy that destroys market pricing discovery mechanism, destroys the balance of market forces, props up monopolies, destroys competition and investment and causes people to look for ways to avoid government taxes, regulations and inflation rather than allowing people actually to build businesses and improve the economy.

HFT is just a perversion that the government is directly responsible for with all of its inflation, taxes and regulations that destroy normal markets, prevent financial institutions and banks from being able to invest into normal businesses that actually grow the economy and instead these institutions are propped up with fake money and given the understanding that tomorrow there will be even more fake money coming into the system. In that situation you are not thinking about business or long term, you are gambling, as the entire economy is based on gambling and fake credit.

Re:First for banning HFT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529479)

How about if we ban loopy right whiners from making simple minded poorly informed rants about how the Federal Reserve works? Of course the reactionary media would need to fill in another villain to scare weak minded people, but they never really seem to have trouble at it.

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529259)

But in this case, the HFT lost money while everyone else made money (those who bought at the cheaper prices). This may be a reason not to use HFT, but it's no reason to ban it.

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529305)

That goes to show you how algorithms read headlines and create these automatic orders

No they don't. That would be the most stupid trading strategy ever imagined, you would loose your shirt in less time than you can say "Goolge translate".

What happened is that actual people reacted to the news and the trading algorithms (not necessarily HFT, but trading bots) thought they hit a pattern and amplified the movement. Nobody lost anything except the bot herders that sold at -150 because they trusted their bots. I really can't see how that "hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy" as you say.

Re:First for banning HFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529439)

Headline scanning trading algorithms probably exists, but I wouldn't put a single cent in their hands.
http://www.economist.com/node/9370718

Re:First for banning HFT (3, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529693)

Headline algorithms exist and make a lot of money. They only have to be right 51% of the time to work.

Mind you, most of the algorithms work off expected vs. actual earnings, revenue, or some other such number rather than the headlines. Of course, those numbers are released first and then humans write the headlines, but still

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Interesting)

llZENll (545605) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529417)

We need a new exchange that only executes trades once per month. If a company is on this exchange it is not allowed to be on any other exchanges. Problem solved. If you need your money out early there is a small fee. No more flash crashes, much less speculation, invest in a company due to dividends and growth and not emotionally fabricated stock appreciation.

Re:First for banning HFT (2)

msauve (701917) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529101)

You're apparently out of the loop. HFT stabilizes the market by adding liquidity, or so we're told.

Re:First for banning HFT (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529225)

And it probably does do that... but the stabilization is probably offset entirely by the strategies that the HFT algorithms use. In short, many of them are playing a meta-game of "this line will do that because lines usually do these things", as opposed to: "this looks like a good investment because it has good revenue and solid assets".

Re:First for banning HFT (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529641)

A company that is doing well is not necessarily a good investment, especially if everyone already "knows" it's a good investment. Good investments are companies that are undervalued. They can even be terribly managed companies that are just not as terrible as people think. There are many strong companies out there who's share price is severely inflated and therefore very bad investments.

Everyone can see for themselves how different computer algorithms and different humans investment strategies compare but simply looking at how well they did statistically. If algorithm X statistically makes more money than Billy, then algorithm X is a better investor than Billy. Algorthm X by definition has a better investment methodology regardless of how irrational it may seem or how rational Billy may seem. This goes the other way as well.

Re:First for banning HFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529291)

That argument is a fucking crock of shit. I'm just finishing my graduate level class called Futures and Options trading. The markets themselves create liquidity, through people using them to trade. Just because these assholes do things a million times a minute doesn't add further liquidity. It's horse shit.

Re:First for banning HFT (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529481)

It's fake liquidity, very shallow and fast moving. More like foam, froth or steam, really.

Re:First for banning HFT (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529627)

You're apparently out of the loop. HFT stabilizes the market by adding liquidity, or so we're told.

That's just a rumor. Just like the preposterous idea that anyone really understands any of it.

Wonderful bit about how the past Fed. Chairmen haven't had a clue about it and how in the 1970's the markets only moved a million shares in a week, but now do it in a matter of seconds. Quite a lot of it is like watching a flock of birds darting this way and that. It's a current of stock trades, maybe it obeys something like Ohm's Law.

Re:First for banning HFT (2)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529351)

HFT is basically betting on race horses with incredibly fast horses. When this headline hits the news, that number will go up/down and hence we have to buy/sell.

Incidentally, it does indeed do what the HFT algos predict. Self fulfilling prophecy. When HFT algos predict that the value will go up and buy, the value will go up...

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529011)

This has to be one of the best troll / hacks of the year...

Wow! (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529013)

You know, twenty five years ago, everyone was convinced it would be computers built by the military-industrial complex that would become self-aware and take out the human race. Now I'm beginning to wonder if HFT algorithms will be the ones that do it.

Re:Wow! (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529125)

Here's the rub. For someone like me, I couldn't care less about HFT. I am in it for the long haul. I've invested for almost all of my adult life. I don't invest on hunches, instead I buy broadly and then hold for a long time. My investments do about as well as the broad market and I have almost no trading costs. Even if some doofus thinks he can beat the market (no, they can't), he'll eat up 1-2% of his money on fees.

So let folks be stupid and market time and talk about dead cat bounces and triple witching hours and other mumbo jumbo. In the long-run I will beat the vast majority and I will do so with very little effort on my part.

The reality is the only investors who can beat my strategy are active investors who are involved in the management of the assets they own (like Buffett) and those with insider information (real insidr info, not what your brother in law told you at the cocktail party). So, let the market tank for a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple years. I couldn't care less.

Re:Wow! (3, Informative)

7-Vodka (195504) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529209)

You couldn't care less...

Maybe you should know that the big banks who do HFT also co-locate inside the exchanges and front run orders making hundreds of billions per year.

Also, you might want to know that if the market crashes and restarts like today the big banks can get their losing trades reversed and you can't.

All the profit they're making has to come from somewhere. Are you so certain it doesn't come out of your pocket?

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529429)

As someone who also buys-and-holds, yes, I can be sure it doesn't come out of my pocket. It's coming out of the pockets of:

1) Day traders.
2) Other HFTs that aren't as good.

Re:Wow! (5, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529383)

I will point out something to buy and hold investors

The Bid / Ask spread has dropped by 90% in the past 30 years. You used to pay .5% to 2% for each trade – not it basically nothing. Moving to decimalization helped, but it is the HFT that really collapsed the spread. This is even truer for ETFs then for normal stock.

The fees that mutual funds and ETFs (which a lot of buy and hold investors hold) have also collapsed the past 30 years. Specifically for index funds, they have fallen by 90%. There are a lot of reasons for this, but about a quarter to a third is lower trading costs, which can be traced backed to HFT.

So, you save about 1% to get into a investment, and about .25% each year if that investment is a mutual fund.

Lower transaction costs, but you're still screwed! (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529593)

Yeah, but even if the transaction cost has decreased, they can screw you over in other ways, like timing your sale for the time of day they want to say it occurred so that you get the lowest possible price and timing your purchase for the time of day so that you get the highest possible price. The big brokers, as market makers, can game your transactions so as to make themselves, as market makers, the most amount of money and still be able to say with a straight face that "they carried out your transaction as you requested". They can also play on the "dark markets" where bigger transactions and movements occur, so that the rest of the market and the little schmoes never really see the momentum of the full market.

Re:Wow! (0)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529411)

You should care about HFT.

When you place a bid to buy a stock, A HFT can see that bid, use canceled offers to find the maximum you will pay and and canceled offers to find the lowest the market offers, then buy up stock to fill your bid and sell it to you. All within a fraction of a second and never having to go through with any of those intermediate canceled bids. HFT is a gigantic siphon that removes value from the market by ensuring sellers get the lowest price possible and sellers get the highest price possible instead of finding common ground somewhere in the middle.

Re:Wow! (1)

gatkinso (15975) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529475)

Whew! I am relieved! For a second there I was under the impression that the price little guys pay for stock doesn't reflect these shenanigans. Thanks for clearing that up!

Re:Wow! (1)

gtall (79522) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529167)

Everyone? Wow, are you from another planet? The only ones I know who thought that were a bunch of geeks who watched too much TV in their formative years.

Woop woop (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529021)

Somebody just made a whole lot o money

WTF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529041)

This is legal but it's illegal to grow a plant!?

Re:WTF (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529071)

Desperately trying to turn every argument into a pro-pot one. Stay classy /.

Was this really HFT (2)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529045)

Where is the evidence that this drop was caused by HFT algorithms? Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that computers are yet capable of parsing that tweet and recognizing that its content is extraordinary (as opposed to the usual tweets that come from that account and others). A few minutes is easily enough time for humans to react.

Re:Was this really HFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529055)

Yeah, actually humans on Wall Street would have rejoiced at such news.

Re:Was this really HFT (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529149)

nobody said it was caused by the algorithms themselves. it was caused by the HFT traders who are always on a hair trigger to buy/sell.

Re:Was this really HFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529335)

HFT has a particular meaning, and people pushing buttons are not HFT. Perhaps you are looking for "day traders" or "speculators"?

Re:Was this really HFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529363)

The summary said it was the algorithms.

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

Dins (2538550) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529175)

I don't believe that computers are yet capable of parsing that tweet and recognizing that its content is extraordinary (as opposed to the usual tweets that come from that account and others).

I don't know, I could see it. Set up a rule that any tweet containing the words "explosion" and "white house" in close proximity raise a flag. Bonus points for "Obama" and "Injured" close to each other.

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529271)

I'm agree this tweet could have been flagged automatically. However, I question that a trading algorithm that automatically trades on such tweets could recognize this as a "once in a decade" type event.

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

Dins (2538550) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529309)

I think the words "explosion" "white house" "obama" and "injured" together in a tweet from a major news organization would qualify as extraordinary.

Don't get me wrong - I know what you're saying, and anyone who would set up a system to automatically trade based on an algorithm like that is a fucking idiot.

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529403)

What the hell does bombing have to do with economy? Care to explain that?

You wanna tell me people stop buying stuff if something somewhere goes boom?

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529229)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-23/twitter-hack-compete-evaporation-all-market-liquidity-one-chart

Re:Was this really HFT (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529283)

While I strongly doubt that a computer program can understand the message, there might be several triggers for "intelligent" parsers in here. For example:

"White House" -> increase the importance level of the message, set applicability to "Global"
"Explosion" -> set the value to "bad"
"Obama" -> increase the importance level of the message.

Get rich quick scheme? (5, Interesting)

almitydave (2452422) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529047)

I almost wonder if it was deliberately done to make a quick buck off a short sell. Sell high, make everyone panic, buy low.

An effective "cause". (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529051)

This just in: Slashdot has been taken over by trolls!

*watches and see what that does to the DOW*

High Frequency Trading Systems Are Strong A.I.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529069)

That's been kept quiet. Sounds like a scam...

Re:High Frequency Trading Systems Are Strong A.I.? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529355)

You still think the financial crisis is man made? No, it's the first strike of Skynet!

Organized Gambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529077)

Great place for Twittering idiots.

Dropped 150, then up 150 on the day? Who made money off this hustle? What is next on "the wire"?

Re:Organized Gambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529247)

Down 150 and up 150? That's worse volatility than Bitcoin.

Massive potential for fraud and abuse (4, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529085)

Everything that we're taught is illegal and unethical, the del boys in the City of London and Wall Street will do anyway.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, if the same sort of self-entitled white collar criminals who brought us Liborgate, arranged for the AP Twitter feed to be hacked, and then primed their HFT bots to start shorting like mad?

Gosh! (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529093)

I sure am glad that, unlike crazy neckbeard stuff like bitcoins, Serious Professional economic instruments don't suffer hilariously baseless volatility because some goofy website got hacked...

That would, like, reduce my confidence in the rationality of the market.

Re:Gosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529315)

They don't. Those guys on the trading floor move and set the price every second. They benefited from this greatly. Also indicative that the current run-up will continue. They have to unload all the shares they bought during the brief down-spike at a profit. They also need to wait a year to sell them, so use that for your timing.

Those guys on the floor (Specialists they used to be called) get to trade their personal accounts as well. You know that, right? They also get an unlimited short-sell. Yes, they borrow the shares that you own to short-sell and put downward pressure on the market. They hit enough stops and the momentum carries it the rest of the way. They buy all the way down. Then walk it back up slowly over the course of a year. Capital Gains tax rate is lower after a year.

Here's the thing (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529323)

Bitcoin moves like a stock (a thinly traded one at that), not like a currency. You are making false equivalence here. This caused a 1% drop in stocks for a couple minutes. Bitcoin has a bid-ask spread higher than 1%. The US Dollar didn't move at all based on this, and indeed changes in value around 2-3% per year.

The criticism of Bitcoin's volatility is highly valid when it wants to be a currency. I wouldn't use stocks as a currency due to their volatility either.

Re:Gosh! (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529349)

I think you're confusing the stock market with arguments about the stability of the value of the US dollar vs stability of the value of a Bitcoin. Stock prices have always been volatile and subject to the panicked reaction of idiots whenever there's bad news.

Re:Gosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529539)

I sure am glad that, unlike crazy neckbeard stuff like bitcoins, Serious Professional economic instruments don't suffer hilariously baseless volatility because some goofy website got hacked...

That would, like, reduce my confidence in the rationality of the market.

I'm amused by how your snarky post completely ignores how Bitcoin has these same problems, has them more frequently, and doesn't have a couple hundred years of confidence behind it, yet you're still implying it's the better choice because... um... *incoherent, noncommittal vocalization*. Yeah. That.

Forget HFT (1)

alphatel (1450715) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529117)

Focus on the fact that all it takes is a rogue tweet to send the world, or financial markets, into a swarming panic frenzy. Expect more from people with less savvy and higher criminal intent.

Our idiot overlords (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529143)

What kind of trader sells on an uncorroborated news story about the President being shot? It takes all of thirty seconds to see if anyone else is reporting the story.

I understand that they're trying to front-run the many big investors that are getting information in advance, and the high-frequency trading algorithms, but the willingness to hit the dump button on a sole report is just dumb.

The problem is the damage they do to everyone else. Otherwise, I'd say they deserve to lose.

Re:Our idiot overlords (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529211)

How did that do any damage to anyone other than idiots? If you had been smart, you'd have a buy order in place ready to buy if the market dipped enough. Then you would have made 1% today without even paying attention.

Seems to me like this was an entirely deserved shot in the foot to anyone who suffered from it.

Re:Our idiot overlords (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529553)

How did that do any damage to anyone other than idiots?

Because a huge number of investors are people with retirement accounts, index funds, etc. They're not sitting at a computer watching the market because they're too busy working for a living. They have 401ks with market exposure because money gets 0% in the bank.

I don't give a shit about day traders. Like you say, they'd have option spreads on to protect from a sudden drop, and if not, screw them for being dopes. But there are a lot more people who are exposed to market moves who are not actively managing their portfolios because they're not trying to get rich, but only trying to outperform the damage done by our idiot overlords (Ben Bernake, the Fed, etc). They're just working people who thanks to Reagan and Clinton have 401k accounts instead of proper pensions.

Re:Our idiot overlords (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529459)

30 seconds? You have a faint idea how long 30 seconds are in HFT?

If you want to get a feel of just how endlessly long those 30 seconds are, start developing firmware for microcontrollers. Then look at a second, and ponder just how much stuff you can do in that time. Now you know what 30 seconds is to them (since even with all the coke they're not even close to being clocked at 100+ MHz).

Re:Our idiot overlords (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529493)

30 seconds? You have a faint idea how long 30 seconds are in HFT?

In HFT, nobody is pressing a button. That's why they call it HFT.

The people who sold on this news report were human beings, making decisions based on a single uncorroborated news report of massive import. The sellers were not HFT-bots.

blame game (1)

ruggerboy (553525) | 1 year,13 hours | (#43529147)

If people lost money from that trading, then GOOD. Now, let me just check up on my 401K....!!!! FML....

Re:blame game (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529397)

I'm curious: what impact did this have on your 401k?

Good historical reference (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529171)

I think the bigger issue is when you start getting stats like "The last time the Dow rose for 15 straight Tuesdays was in 1927." Cause things that were happening financially in 1927 were based on sound economics, and certainly did not portend the coming storm. The whole damn thing is a house of cards.

Re:Good historical reference (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529477)

So I wasn't the only one pondering how it's probably not such a good sign when the current situation is similar to the one just at the evening of the great depression?

Brilliant! (2)

mareksokal (2883089) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529185)

If one knew that such a hoax would cause DOW to drop that much it would be pretty easy to make a quick buck. I'm no stock market genius but buying low and selling high is always a win, am I right?

What they don't mention... (2)

ggraham412 (1492023) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529239)

They're big on blaming high frequency traders when the market drops in 3 minutes on bogus news.

They're not so big on crediting high frequency traders when the market recovers in 3 minutes when the news is recognized to be bogus.

I guess it was the army of Wilford Brimleys in bow ties and green eyeshades that did that.

Re:What they don't mention... (1)

RoTNCoRE (744518) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529331)

If the money didn't change hands after all was said and done, fine, but there is a winner and a loser on each trade. Given how much the market affects pensions, municipal finances and the economy on the whole, just because the total value recovered, doesn't mean those caught selling on the way down weren't devastated.

Re:What they don't mention... (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529509)

You sound like a programmer who wants to get some pat on the back for spending his weekend fixing the dumb error he made that nixed a week of work.

Will they get some FPMITAP time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529251)

Will they get some FPMITAP time?

Thanks. (5, Insightful)

Fuzzums (250400) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529275)

I want to thank the stock market, once again, for fucking, I mean speculating with my, no, our economy.
Traders don't give a shit. The man in the street gets fired because stock prices need to go up and up and up and then - oh surprise - they crash.
My world can do without stock market.

Re:Thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529617)

The economy != the stock market

One of these days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529327)

...I'll write an algorithm to monitor and respond to slashdot fast enough to make first post...

aha! (2)

sootman (158191) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529329)

"Stocks plunged and recovered within minutes"

See? The system works.

</sarcasm>

Re:aha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529485)

It did work. That's how markets how. Some people take dumb risks and lose money. More sober thinking traders/investors get the gains, and in the process correct the market.

Your sarcasm makes no sense. No one was hurt save the people taking the risks. That is how it is supposed to work.

Re:aha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529633)

When a large portion of the country is taking risks big or small, lose on those risks, and proceed to tank the economy. It hurts even those who did not take risks. Not everyone understands the repercussions of their risks. You should care about negligent risk takers.

sex with a6 Gnaa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529427)

UniteRd States. implementation to Members all over happiness Another

Re:sex with a6 Gnaa (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529505)

I often wonder at the posts the look like something being read on a numbers station... is it a secret message or is someone just bored, maybe crazy?

Where do you morons get off? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529461)

Some HFT traders lost a bit of money today. That's all folks. No one else lost anything. No value was wiped out in any way beyond a meaningless notional.

And yet... cue the cries of 'ban HFT'. After all, its dangerous to let people lose their own money? Its dangerous to allow traders to aggressively close spreads?

Get a clue, and stop cowering at the boogeyman of Wall Street;

Correlation != Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529559)

Oops sorry, I was reacting to the phrase "according to Reuters data" in TFS.

Easy come easy go... (5, Funny)

WaffleMonster (969671) | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529615)

sell sell sell

NASA reports asteroid on collision course for earth expected to "obliterate" housing market.

sell sell sell

Gold prices expected to reach a 20 year low as Lord Ganesh spotted on Indian TV favoring peanuts over gold.

sell sell sell

Acme Toothpick Company announces it will be laying off 1 million workers as the last tree in the amazon rain forest is cut down.

sell sell sell

North Korea launches devastating nuclear attack against giant sea turtles invading its territorial waters. Fears of radioactive fish expected to have catastrophic effects on east Asian seafood markets.

sell sell sell

How long before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#43529691)

How long before it will be an imprisonable offence in the US to spread 'harmful rumours'. China: you get disappeared for embarrassing the Party. US: you get disappeared for embarrassing Wall Street.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...