←back to thread

518 points bwfan123 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.454s | source
Show context
monkeyelite ◴[] No.44483617[source]
The alternative claim - that large traders do not make decisions based on how their activity will move the market, is of course absurd.

It’s just political. Who is allowed to manipulate and who pays their dues to be able to.

replies(3): >>44483651 #>>44485195 #>>44486652 #
1. Majromax ◴[] No.44485195[source]
> The alternative claim - that large traders do not make decisions based on how their activity will move the market, is of course absurd.

No, that's de riugeur for any large firm. You or I can buy a stock without changing the market, but if a bank or hedge fund wants to buy or sell millions of dollars of a stock they very much have to worry about execution. The price they receive for a trade will be worse than the market price, simply because the price will move once it's clear that someone is making a large block trade.

This is also why hedge funds worry about their 'alpha'. Even when they have found a good basis for a trade (e.g. an as-yet unexploited correlation), taking a position to profit on that trade moves prices in ways that eliminate that edge. That's the efficient market hypothesis in action.

The very odd thing here is the allegation that Jane Street could make perfectly ordinary market transactions in liquid securities and somehow have the market move with their net position. This is extremely unusual.

replies(1): >>44490476 #
2. monkeyelite ◴[] No.44490476[source]
That’s what I said.