/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12529858

It's called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterpress_printing

and it is indeed nice. Not really cheap, but well worth the money. Dunno if it's widely available for business cards for you burgers, but it's a thing where I come from.

>>12429735

"HFTs don’t make money by trying to predict the market" - Kinda, sorta true. But this goes mostly for what is called latency arbitrage - and this is what you are aiming at in your post. Here they do not out of the blue predict market behavior in hours, days or even longer periods in the future. What they do is they legally (by being just "faster") front-run buy/sell-orders of other market participants and they get this information by very high speed data bought from venues. This, however, does by no means deplete the available strategies of HFTs. There are other approaches (like market making, which indeed is a proper HFT strategy) in which risk is considerably higher (see Trading Machines/Haim Bodek).

"Usually this involves manipulating the order book somehow, like frontrunning your buy order and selling it to you one tick higher." - Yeah, no, this is not right. They front-run you, yes. But they don't do this by manipulating (spoofing in) the order book - this would be considered highly illegal by today's standards. They get the information of an actual interest of buying/selling just so early, that they can monetize this.

"Trying to predict the markets is a giant meme" - Well this is VERY interesting, because I believe this must be true to a very high degree. I strongly believe most cases in which someone tells you he's a profitable trader it's simply a lie. But we do know of cases in which it is a fact that they can predict the future and they do it over extended periods of time (RenTech).

"Hedge funds try to do this, and guess what 90% of them eventually blow up." - True, but wouldn't say "blow up", more like "loose money" or aren't profitable.

"It’s all random." - Yeah, begging the question then how RenTech did it year by year.

>>12164314

Nothing to add here. This is what I think, too.