[FoRK] Stock manipulation too cool for kindergarten

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Sun Aug 1 12:03:15 PDT 2010

--- On Sat, 7/31/10, Rob Harley <robert.harley at gmail.com> wrote:

> >So the computers are in such complete and total dominance of stock
> >prices, they appear to have gotten bored and started drawing pictures
> >with the bid/ask like a 2 year old with a Spirograph. Profoundly
> >illegal, but not new.
> >
> >http://www.zerohedge[...] <http://www.zerohedge.com/article/its-not-market-its-hft-crop-circle-crime-scene-further-evidence-quote-stuffing-manipulation->
> Heads up: Zerohedge is such clueless garbage that linking to it nukes
> any cred you might have had (not that you had any).
> Algos as dumb as those illustrated quickly get traded ahead of by
> not-so-dumb ones.
> Dumb ones can persist nevertheless due to the "two" in "two-and-twenty", for while anyway.

So now I'm a bit confused. You're saying that those "dumb" algorithms actually do exist? Which means the article isn't actually "clueless garbage"?

And if the "dumb" algorithms exist and smarter ones also exist, are you saying that the smarter ones don't also try to manipulate things? That the folks who write and use them do not try to take advantage of the effects they can have?

Can you clarify what you really mean, please? Does this stuff exist or not? Cites/sites that aren't clueless garbage?

For the record, this is the first time I've read anything from that site so I have nothing vested. If it's truly shit, I would like something that is less contradictory to help me assess their believability. Thanks for any help you can provide.


More information about the FoRK mailing list