Sure, that statement is a bit of a non sequitur. Here's one that isn't:
Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. As such, these types of firms have a high burden of proof for legitimacy. If that hasn't been met, betting on fraudulence is pretty safe given historical context.
Literally anyone. Literally any other market participant with interest in longterm ownership.
> Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be doing it illegally." The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim.
That's not my argument. Snakes bite. Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. Precedent matters. When an assertion violates a precedent, it's what must be proven. Your assertion has the burden of proof, and it's an incredibly high one at that.
> ...the fact that you compare RenTech's Medallion Fund to HFT again demonstrates your complete ignorance on the topic
Medallion is one of the most well regarded and profitable hedge funds in modern American history. It's a grandfather to modern HFTs. Even its sterling record is highly suspect.
I sincerely hope the American public doubles short term capital gains taxes and regulates financial markets back to the stone age. Smart people need to spend their time on engineering, medicine, and research. The amount of human capital wasted on silly little financial machinations these days sickens me. I go back and read about financiers jumping from building back in the 20s and I understand completely. Our best and brightest, so confident of what they had to gain, traded their potential in pursuit of Alchemy only to be left with nothing. And who can blame them? Newton fell for the same.
As mentioned earlier: phones and financial services are not similar. The market for consumer electronics hasn't fundamentally threatened the stability of the US government every decade for the past 5 decades. I can pick up an iPhone and use its features. It's clearly a complicated device with years of widely publicized, widely understood iterations. Renaissance Technologies Medallion fund may as well be an insider trading scheme for all the public can tell. We have no ability to introspect it. It's a complete black box. And the other financial services provided by Renaissance are garbage.
> They provide liquidity and sometimes take liquidity but only tend to hold those positions for seconds or minutes.
Do HFTs issue or purchase billions of dollars of debt with the express goal of market liquidity? No? So why do you use the term "providing liquidity?" You know "providing liquidity" isn't the same thing as "frenetically purchasing and selling derivatives," right? If these funds didn't exist, I've seen no compelling evidence markets would so much as hiccup. I've seen plenty of compelling evidence that much of financial services in this country are a net drain on its productive capacity.
> We do not need time. We already know.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think far too much activity happens in financial services, that they aren't nearly boring enough. I harken back to the 70s/80s back before massive deregulation in financial markets, when financiers had to get two jobs just to tread water. I suggest we might revisit such a time. Time will tell!
Market coercion, regulatory capture, negligence, or any other plain old market manipulation like pump and dump or insider trading or bear raiding, etc.
Enron straight up lied to regulators, many of their employees were also plain negligent. HFTs will probably find their own flavor of fraud given a few more years, if they haven't already.
Context matters. We were speaking in the the context of financial services. In that context, the past decade has been shooting fish in a barrel. You had to be an idiot to lose money with how index funds performed.
Point me to three funds that have maintained greater than 20% YoY profits for more than 20 years. I would be floored if you could do it. Apple, arguably the best and most profitable business in the world, manages between 20-30% YoY profit. They're the largest contributor to world financial markets rather than operating only on derivatives. I can not imagine a world in which the largest trading firms can outperform that without fraud of some kind. In my mind, it's like gravity. Little rocks rotate around bigger rocks.
A recounting of the recent history of US financial markets suggests, at least to me, that these firms have the burden of proof. If they haven't proven legitimacy and societal benefit, assuming fraud is a pretty safe bet. I honestly can't name any investment firm with double digit returns YoY for more than a decade or two that doesn't have bodies in the closet. Even Berkshire Hathaway pretty much tracks the S&P500 these days. And as for hand wavy platitudes about price discovery, I don't understand them in the least.
Occam's razor is all I'm saying: What's the simplest answer to the question, why aren't large HFTs with high overheads being eaten alive as technology decentralizes access to trading? Wouldn't we expect types like Burry -- self-driven, confident financial geniuses -- to be equally decentralized? Wouldn't we expect returns to become equally decentralized?
Fraud is the simplest answer. Maybe that comes in the form of market coercion, regulatory capture, negligence, or any other plain old market manipulation. Look back at Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. It's all much too similar for my tastes. Time will tell.
CPUs operate due to quantified phenomenon. They're well understood. They've been refined over nearly 100 years.
HFTs came into their own over the past decade or so -- during a time of falling interest rates, unprecedented growth, and notable lack of regulation in financial markets.
One of these things is not like the other. I'd be entirely unsurprised to see most HFTs turn out like Lehman Brothers, Enron, or AIG. They all lasted more than a decade or so. But their gains were fraudulent and they failed spectacularly.
Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. As such, these types of firms have a high burden of proof for legitimacy. If that hasn't been met, betting on fraudulence is pretty safe given historical context.