Linux at NASDAQ OMX
NASDAQ OMX's exchanges run on thousands of Linux-based servers. These servers handle realtime transaction processing, monitoring, and development as well. The big challenge in this environment, of course, is performance; real money depends on whether the exchange can keep up with the order stream. Latency matters as much as throughput, though; orders must be responded to (and executed) within bounded period of time. Needless to say, reliability is also crucially important; down time is not well received, to say the least.
To meet these requirements, NASDAQ OMX runs large clusters of thousands of machines. These clusters can process hundreds of millions of orders per day - up to one million orders per second - with 250µs latency.
According to Bob, Linux has incorporated some useful technologies in recent years. The NAPI interrupt mitigation technique for network drivers has, on its own, freed up about 1/3 of the available CPU time for other work. The epoll system call cuts out much of the per-call overhead, taking 33µs off of the latency in one benchmark. Handling clock_gettime() in user space via the VDSO page cuts almost another 60ns. Bob was also quite pleased with how the Linux page cache works; it is effective enough, he says, to eliminate the need to use asynchronous I/O, simplifying the code considerably.
On the other hand, there are some things which have not worked out as well for them. These include I/O signals; they are complex to program with and, if things get busy, the signal queue can overflow. The user-space libaio asynchronous I/O (AIO) implementation is thread-based; it scales poorly, he says, and does not integrate well with epoll. Kernel-based asynchronous I/O, instead, lacks proper socket support. He also mentioned the recvmsg() system call, which requires a call into the kernel for every incoming packet.
There is some new stuff coming along which shows some promise. The new recvmmsg() system call can receive multiple packets with a single call. For now, though, it is just a wrapper around the internal recvmsg() implementation and does not hold the socket lock across the entire operation. But, he said, recvmmsg() is a good example of how the ability to add new APIs to Linux is a good thing. He also likes the combination of kernel-based AIO and the eventfd() system call; that makes it possible to integrate file-based AIO into an applications normal event-processing loop. There is also some potential in syslets, which he sees as a way of delivering cheap notifications to user space; it's not clear whether syslets will scale usefully, though.
What NASDAQ OMX would really like to see in Linux now is good socket-based AIO. That would make it possible to replace epoll/recvmsg/sendmsg sequences with fewer system calls. Even better would be if the kernel could provide notifications for multiple events at a time. Best would be if the interface to this functionality were completely based on sockets. He described a vision of an "epoll-like kernel object" which would handle in-kernel network traffic processing. The application could post asynchronous send and receive requests to the queue, and receive notifications when they have been executed. He would like to see multiple sockets attached to a single object, and a file descriptor suitable for passing to poll() for notifications. With a setup like that, it should be possible to push more network traffic through the kernel with lower latencies.
In summary, NASDAQ OMX seems to be happy with its use of Linux. They also
seem to like to go with current software - the exchange is currently
rolling out 2.6.35.3 kernels. "Emerging APIs" are helping operations like
NASDAQ OMX realize real-world performance gains in areas that
matter. Linux, Bob says, is one of the few systems that are willing to
introduce new APIs just for performance reasons. That is an interesting
point of view to contrast with Linus Torvalds's often-stated claim that
nobody uses Linux-specific APIs; it seems that there are users, they just
tend to be relatively well hidden.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 21, 2010 17:31 UTC (Thu)
by intgr (subscriber, #39733)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 17:31 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link] (5 responses)
He described a vision of an "epoll-like kernel object" which would handle in-kernel network traffic processing. The application could post asynchronous send and receive requests to the queue, and receive notifications when they have been executed. He would like to see multiple sockets attached to a single object, and a file descriptor suitable for passing to poll() for notifications.
Sounds a lot like the kevent notification interface
to contrast with Linus Torvalds's often-stated claim that nobody uses Linux-specific APIs.
It always bothers me that free software operating systems aren't cooperating to draft out new APIs that everyone could use. It might not work out in the end, but I'd like to see people at least try.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 21, 2010 18:44 UTC (Thu)
by ceswiedler (guest, #24638)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 18:44 UTC (Thu) by ceswiedler (guest, #24638) [Link] (1 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:03 UTC (Thu)
by bcrl (guest, #5934)
[Link]
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:03 UTC (Thu) by bcrl (guest, #5934) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 21, 2010 22:26 UTC (Thu)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 22:26 UTC (Thu) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link] (2 responses)
But I can definitely understand why adding an other Linux specific API might be a bad idea.
I fully agree, we could really use new API which everyone will use.
Or adapt something like kevent.
The problem might be everyone needs to agree on the API and the API should get the most performance on every platform. And I wouldn't be surprised if many of the implementers do not agree on the way to go about this.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 21, 2010 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 23:24 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)
there are some people who are interested enough in performance to make their software linux-only, or maintain the ifdef variations (and testing overhead) of using different code on linux than on other systems.
overall, linux-specific APIs get very little use, but usually the people advocating the new APIs talk about them as if they will be used by everyone.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 22, 2010 6:54 UTC (Fri)
by intgr (subscriber, #39733)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2010 6:54 UTC (Fri) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
Wrong. Those programmers often use proper abstractions that take advantage of OS-specific APIs. For example libevent and java.nio completely abstract away the differences between epoll on Linux, kqueue on *BSD and /dev/poll on Solaris.
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 21, 2010 18:24 UTC (Thu)
by Curan (subscriber, #66186)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 18:24 UTC (Thu) by Curan (subscriber, #66186) [Link] (5 responses)
It would have a lot of benefits for them; they could get the work needed to improve their use case faster into mainline which would result in less hardware needed and thus less costs (purchase, maintenance, operation (like power)), to name the most prominent one.
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:41 UTC (Thu)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:41 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (4 responses)
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:48 UTC (Thu)
by Curan (subscriber, #66186)
[Link]
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:48 UTC (Thu) by Curan (subscriber, #66186) [Link]
Thanks,
Cùran
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:53 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (2 responses)
Actually, an awful lot of these financial institutions do employ their own kernel hackers. Each is trying to cut latencies to the bone, so each chips away on the kernel and they all keep their work to themselves (competitive advantage, after all) and don't talk to each other. I don't know the answer to "how many is NASDAQ employing," but my belief is that it's non-zero.
Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:53 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 22, 2010 7:44 UTC (Fri)
by conor (guest, #35810)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2010 7:44 UTC (Fri) by conor (guest, #35810) [Link]
In my experience (in the large institutions) they typically tend have on site SuSE/RedHat engineers to assist with tweaking the kernel (but not normally providing custom kernel builds), rather then hordes of kernel developers employeed unfortunately.
I'm sure there are some institutions that do make more of an investment in them, but they are certainly in the minority.
And NASDAQ is paying how many kernel hackers?
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:49 UTC (Tue)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:49 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
<litella>Nevermind</litella>
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 22, 2010 9:03 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (63 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2010 9:03 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (63 responses)
Makes you want to work on other projects.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 22, 2010 19:09 UTC (Fri)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link] (62 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2010 19:09 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] (62 responses)
Making the Linux kernel slower is not the right fix.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 22, 2010 21:28 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (43 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2010 21:28 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (43 responses)
A one hour, or even one day delay would probably not be so problematic.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 23, 2010 16:53 UTC (Sat)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link] (21 responses)
Posted Oct 23, 2010 16:53 UTC (Sat) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] (21 responses)
And yes, something like this will never be introduced because it would be too good for the world and too bad for the people making money by moving it around.
That said, introducing it slowly, starting with one hour, and then slowly moving it up is the only sensible way to introduce it of course.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 9:31 UTC (Sun)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link] (20 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 9:31 UTC (Sun) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] (20 responses)
Does this sound more reasonable to you?
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 15:29 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 15:29 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (19 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 25, 2010 16:25 UTC (Mon)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link] (18 responses)
Posted Oct 25, 2010 16:25 UTC (Mon) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] (18 responses)
Problem of these things is that they only work if it's more or less the same everywhere in the world, or the money moving around will just happen in some other place. Maybe it's a lost cause anyway.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 25, 2010 20:04 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Posted Oct 25, 2010 20:04 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
The German government recently suggested the introduction of an international tax on stock market transactions, which proposal met with resounding silence from just about everywhere else.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 20:47 UTC (Tue)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 20:47 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 3:47 UTC (Thu)
by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2010 3:47 UTC (Thu) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link] (15 responses)
IMO the better solution is radical transparency. The account of every trader, broker, and fund should be completely open. We should have bonds, securities, commercial paper and everything else flow through transparent exchanges. We should have an open national database of corporate holdings so you couldn't setup shell companies to hide market transactions.
This way the market could police itself. And when rules are broken they'd be broken by more than one party (as both parties would be responsible for ensuring transparency of the overall transaction), so enforcement of the few remaining rules would be even easier.
Of course, this wouldn't be well received in Europe because of their peculiar views on privacy (gov't invasion okay, private invasions so intolerable as to be immoral), and it wouldn't be well received in America because, well, the corporations wouldn't appreciate not being able to extract rents--and bailouts--from the shoddy "markets" they construct.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 13:48 UTC (Thu)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2010 13:48 UTC (Thu) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (14 responses)
You may disagree on the nature of rules there is to implement but at least you seem to share this view.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 19:20 UTC (Thu)
by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2010 19:20 UTC (Thu) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link] (13 responses)
Financial markets are based on risk, and risk is lack of information. The more information a market has access to, and the less costly it is to leverage that information, the less risk in the system.
Economists would say that the only information a market needs is open pricing signals (i.e. you just need exchanges). But that can't literally be true because you have complex derivative products which manifestly nobody can properly price; and the reason these derivative products are so popular is because of the problem of managing risk. Reduce risk and you reduce the pathologies for pricing at the margins. You also avoid the moral dilemma of too big to fail, because the "too big" institutions couldn't as easily get close to failure mode.
Enforcing transparency is a rule which addresses the illness. Adding ad hoc rules on holding requirements, etc., merely addresses a symptom. Reduce risk and you alleviate--to some extent--all the symptoms.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 20:30 UTC (Thu)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2010 20:30 UTC (Thu) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (12 responses)
There is no argument that can be opposed to such a religious belief.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 17:48 UTC (Fri)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 17:48 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (11 responses)
"The Market" is just such a technique for optimizing the economy. The global economy (even a country's economy) is a problem impossible to solve with a giant computer or central planning bureaucracy (gag).
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 18:32 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 18:32 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (9 responses)
And you dont need such a far-fetched analogy to see that letting the market optimize the economy just doesnt work. Historically, every time the market was left with more power and less regulation, it lead to increased poverty and economical crisis.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:45 UTC (Fri)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:45 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (8 responses)
In the modern world eliminating the market or placing too much control on it will always fail.
The market will resurrect itself in the form of an underground economy where supply and demand (plus legal risk fees) will result in exchanges at the true market value of goods and services.
A regulated market that respects true values will still fail when the regulation cost exceeds the legal risk costs. At that point it becomes much cheaper to avoid the legal markets (pay workers cash under the table, hire illegal aliens, buy drugs from Canada, etc).
Take the old USSR for example or any government that has attempted to enforce a rationing system. Ticket sales and scalpers are another example.
To take this back to the subject, if there was any attempt to impose month long waits on stock sales, investment brokers would go somewhere else, to another country probably, where such ridiculous laws were not in force.
There will always be someone. North Korea or Venezuela could become the finance capital of the world.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 20:03 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 20:03 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (7 responses)
As for other places becoming the finance capital of the world: sorry to disappoint you, but it has already happened. Bahamas, Cayman, Isle of Man, to a lesser extent Delaware and Singapore
This is where the large transactions are happening. The solution is not to just imitate them and hope for the best when speculation and market manipulation takes away any kind of value from the real world economy. The solution is, on the contrary, to impose strong regulations (with high legal risk costs, as you point out) and to make it costly to make money flee in such places. Several realistic solutions, from Tobin tax to various kinds of oversight, have been proposed in this direction, but have not been implemented because of beliefs in the market that confine to religion.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 30, 2010 22:43 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 22:43 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (6 responses)
As for other places becoming the finance capital of the world: sorry to disappoint you, but it has already happened. Bahamas, Cayman, Isle of Man, to a lesser extent Delaware and Singapore… This is where the large transactions are happening.
Let's not exaggerate. Far more money changes hands in New York, London, etc. than those places. These are the finance capitals of the world. And it's because laws in New York and London allow exchanges to run Linux and execute a million orders a second. If they didn't, then the transactions would move to those other places.
I don't get the "sorry to disappoint" angle at all, since you're at best confirming zlynx's point: places like North Korea and the Bahamas can have fewer restrictions and be the marketplace of choice.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 6:18 UTC (Sun)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 31, 2010 6:18 UTC (Sun) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (5 responses)
I dont care about people playing casino in such places. As long as they dont do it with our money.
There are ways to prevent people from using money and goods from our countries in such places. Running a competition for which country has the laxest laws to allow the fastest transactions with the least control is not one.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:04 UTC (Sun)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:04 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)
unless you are forced into a union, they don't force you to give them any money, you can do whatever you want with it.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:24 UTC (Sun)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:24 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:51 UTC (Sun)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:51 UTC (Sun) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link]
Not everyone of us wants to spend his life alone in the mountains raising goats.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 8:13 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 8:13 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
if all you are worried about is your money, then just don't give your money to money managers that do things you don't like.
I don't think anyone is posting worries about his own money, even though the posts might be worded that way out of simplicity. What people are worried about is their wealth, and having a mattress stuffed with money doesn't make you wealthy if the price of everything is high. Certain behaviors of financial institutions make prices high so that no matter what one person does with his own money, he ends up poorer.
And it's rather arbitrary what money we call mine and what money we call yours (laws can easily change that accounting), so it's legitimate to complain about things that waste "our money."
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:59 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 7:59 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
You are completely missing the point.I don’t care about people playing casino in such places. As long as they don’t do it with our money.
No, I just wasn't addressing that point. I was addressing the point from your immediate previous post that the Cayman islands, etc. are today the finance capitals of the world, and that that revelation should disappoint zlynx (who said places like North Korea could become finance capitals if laws were to restrict trade in today's finance capitals).
If those weren't points you intended to make, you shouldn't have said it.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:07 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:07 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
But the idea of optimizing an entire economy is not hopeless. You just can't do it with humans doing the data collection and reporting :/ in this it was very similar to much else about communism: it would work great if we were all selfless robots.
The nice thing about price signals is not that they are particularly brilliant or insightful. It is that they are relatively hard to manipulate, so individual liars can't bugger up your economy.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 23, 2010 20:27 UTC (Sat)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (20 responses)
Posted Oct 23, 2010 20:27 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (20 responses)
The problem is not the trading itself, it's people taking risks they shouldn't. This is a social problem that will not yield readily to a technological solution.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 9:29 UTC (Sun)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 9:29 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (12 responses)
> derivative would be created where someone promises to sell shares for at a
> particular price now and you will sell the same amount to them in a hours
> time. Shares are fungible. If you have 1000 shares in X and you buy 100
> now and sell 200 the next second, have you sold the same shares or
> different ones?
Well, you could imagine a system where trades are only possible every 60 minutes. Presumably everyone would submit his order, and they would all get executed at once. I guess people could always choose to trade their shares on a dark pool or something, though.
Apparently the SEC has publicly declared that high-frequency traders had no part in the 2010 Flash Crash.
> The problem is not the trading itself, it's people taking risks they
> shouldn't. This is a social problem that will not yield readily to a
> technological solution.
Well, there's really a few different problems that caused the credit crunch. The first, and probably most serious, is that the U.S. government allows asset bubbles to form and explode without doing anything. Whenever China's stock market starts overheating, they introduce new regulations, start limiting price movements, etc until the problem is under control. Similarly, with property prices, China takes steps to keep them from overheating. For some reason, it's accepted wisdom that the U.S. government has to intervene when things are bad, but not keep a lid on things when the economy starts overheating. It's weirdly asymmetrical.
So we had kind of a "finance bubble" in general. The whole business of moving around money became one of the hottest sectors of the economy, much like computer technology in the late 90s. Exotic derivatives were developed-- what Warren Buffet called "financial weapons of mass destruction." In a lot of cases, human judgement was replaced by computer heuristics and algorithms developed by "quants."
The results, I guess you can see. But it wasn't greed or excessive risk-taking that caused the problem. Just a regulatory and conceptual failure. Remember, it's possible for everyone to act rationally, and yet to end up with a deeply irrational outcome.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 21:10 UTC (Sun)
by butlerm (guest, #13312)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 21:10 UTC (Sun) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link] (11 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 23:22 UTC (Sun)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 23:22 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (10 responses)
The problem with this is that deposit customers expect the bank to pay them interest, which the bank earns by lending other folks the deposited money at a higher interest rate than what it pays to the money's actual owner.
If banks were required to hang on to all deposits in full, there would not only be no point in banking your money if the bank wasn't able to pay you interest. It would also be very difficult for you to get a loan because the bank would have to borrow money elsewhere to give to you – and it can't borrow from other banks because they have no money to lend, either, because they need to hang on to their deposits, too. Which kind of throws a spanner in the works of an economy.
The banks could of course try to borrow from the national central bank, which would theoretically be in the unique position of being able to deal with the demand by printing »fresh« money, but that would increase the amount of money in circulation and lead to inflation, which the national central bank would not like (and which would devalue all the no-interest deposits in the consumer banks), so you're stuck.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 25, 2010 19:46 UTC (Mon)
by butlerm (guest, #13312)
[Link] (9 responses)
The problem with this is that deposit customers expect the bank to pay them interestPosted Oct 25, 2010 19:46 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link] (9 responses)
It is metaphysically impossible to earn interest (in real terms) on a "deposit". Loans earn interest, deposits don't. The whole point of a deposit is to sit there, until you need to withdraw. The problem is that banks started lending out deposits (illegally I might add) hundreds of years ago, thereby changing what they still call a "deposit" to a "loan" (to the bank) while still pretending that these "deposits" were risk free transactions.
Banks do not need to be able to lend out deposits in order to be able to lend. They can raise money in the bond market and lend that out instead. They do that now. Lending out deposits just places the rest of us on the hook for preternaturally self destructive behavior.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 0:40 UTC (Tue)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 0:40 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (8 responses)
Hey, there's nothing metaphysical about it. The interest Bank of America offers on its savings accounts these days doesn't even beat inflation.
And people wonder why Americans never save money...
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 2:10 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 2:10 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
I think "people" wonder why Americans have huge debts, both as individuals and as a country.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 7:37 UTC (Tue)
by butlerm (guest, #13312)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 7:37 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link] (6 responses)
Philosophically speaking, however, I don't see why anyone should expect to earn interest on a risk free transaction. Any interest you earn (in real terms) on an FDIC guaranteed savings account comes by courtesy of a federal guarantee, a guarantee that will have to be made good by the taxpayers every generation or so. Banks, as we know them today, are fundamentally unstable institutions. Earn interest today, pay for it in increased taxes (or inflation) tomorrow.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 10:45 UTC (Tue)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 10:45 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (5 responses)
I don't think there's any philosophy involved here, just economics.
If you assume (as most of the world does) that progress is not an illusion, then making idle resources active in pursuit of progress is a gain. Remember that to make these transactions "risk free" to the saver we need only in fact make them less risky in total than keeping your money under the mattress. The tricky bit (which is handled by things like FDIC) is smearing the uneven risks so that ordinary citizens don't get a nasty surprise.
"Earn interest today, pay for it in increased taxes (or inflation) tomorrow."
You assume a zero sum where there is no evidence for one. The permanent building societies make a mockery of this claim. Since the early 19th century they've been using Peter's money to buy Paul a house, then charging Paul interest and paying it to Peter, they've put vast numbers of people into homes, given back vast sums in interest, and they're cheap to run. It's just organised sharing, the kind of thing we try to teach kids in kindergarten.
However mutual societies don't make people obscenely rich. And so in the 1980s and 1990s this created an enthusiasm for demutualising the societies (people trying to capitalise on this were called "carpetbaggers") and "unlocking" their assets by converting them into banks. The surviving building societies (which fought off carpet baggers with a variety of tactics) are still going today, their worst exposure to the financial crisis being an increase in defaulters which is easily covered by their mandatory long-term holdings. In contrast many of those which demutualised are now in ruins, being rescued by the government, or by government deals struck with larger foreign banks. The carpetbaggers (ordinary people, albeit greedy ones) keep their loot and the tax payer picks up the bill.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 6:53 UTC (Fri)
by butlerm (guest, #13312)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 6:53 UTC (Fri) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link] (4 responses)
I am referring to systems comparable to the contemporary U.S. banking system: fractional reserve, fiat currency, government guarantee of "deposits". The first property of any such banking system is the real interest rate earned by savers (prior to government overhead) is the nominal rate minus the inflation rate. The real rate is *much* smaller than the nominal rate.
During the 1970s it was sharply negative, in other words savers lost money in real terms every year, because inflation was so high. Most of the time the real interest on government guaranteed savings accounts is one percentage point at best. Whether the the $200 billion we are churning out to sustain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is enough to reduce government guaranteed savings deposits to a true zero sum game is hard to say. There is no question that they are _close_ to a zero sum game.
There is a perfectly good way to accomplish what you are suggesting without fractional reserve _banking_ or government guaranteed deposits. Have individuals invest in diversified bond funds that purchase bonds issued by building societies, credit unions, and the like. People still get loans to build homes, investors earn more in real terms, and the rates automatically and properly float with the risk the bond issuers undertake - instead of as now where you earn half a percent in real terms whether your bank is about to go under or not, which is a very high price to pay for a taxpayer guarantee.
Poorly managed building societies might fail (affecting the return on bond funds), but the commercial banking system as a whole will be immune from systemic failure, because true _deposits_ will no longer be lent out, but rather only the proceeds of what are in effect loans to independent lending institutions, with the risk widely distributed, instead of concentrated with those so unfortunate to make a direct loan to a bank and/or the taxpayers that guarantee whatever crazy scheme the banks will cook up next.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 30, 2010 16:12 UTC (Sat)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 16:12 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (3 responses)
One important thing to note is that the total amount of money in the system is not the important factor (though it is the easiest to control). What is important is the *flow* of money, represented by the velocity of money (how money times is the average dollar spent in a year). Actually, it's the goods and services that the money is exchanged for that is the real economy, but the flow of money is the easiest way to measure it.
(Yes I'm glossing over the various types of money, that not really relavent here).
Money that isn't moving is dead. Money under your bed or in a bank that's not allowed to use it is essentially non-existent for the economy.
So if everyone is spending money like mad, you don't need very much real money in the system to support it. Conversely, if everyone stops spending all of a sudden, you need to make more of it to avoid your economy grinding to a halt.
(BTW, in NL the savings are guaranteed by the other banks in the country. In return they end up the queue of creditors in place of the original customers. Sounds like a nice idea, until the amount guaranteed exceeds a significant amount of the total savings in the country, in which case you're still fucked.)
Incidentely, this explains the problem with your solution. Because you are no longer allowed to use deposits to finance other things, the governments would need to print a *lot* more money to keep the economy the same size. I'd guess about 20 times what is currently in circulation (you can't use substitutes like gold for savings, because its value isn't constant). At any particular moment a significant chunk of the total cash in circulation would be stuck in warehouses, rusting.
Suppose someone sells a house and puts that money in a bank account. This money is for all intents and purposes removed from the economy. To keep everything going the government would need to print that amount again to keep the total up, and also destroy it again when they do decide to spend it. That requires a lot more government intervention (and crystal ball gazing) that what we have now.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:23 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:23 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)
On average everyone is wealthier.In the last 30 years? In the US and UK this is only true because the rich have got so much richer: the rest of us have barely gained a thing.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Nov 4, 2010 10:39 UTC (Thu)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 4, 2010 10:39 UTC (Thu) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (1 responses)
---linuxrocks123
poverty gap
Posted Nov 6, 2010 16:57 UTC (Sat)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
Posted Nov 6, 2010 16:57 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
However you and I are interested in the real economy, which is not concerned with money, but with the goods and services which we obtain in exchange for our labour. So we see a different picture. Everybody has better goods and services than thirty years ago, and the richest can afford only very slightly better toys and nicer services than the poor, despite their bulging wallets. Ordinary working people today may easily obtain things that were beyond the reach of the richest people alive a few decades go.
Yet a third way to look at it is happiness. People seem to be not much happier than previous decades, and wealth or poverty seem to have little impact so long as a person is not so very poor that they lack food and shelter and fear for their life.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 20:09 UTC (Sun)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 20:09 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (6 responses)
What's really pointless is the Global Gambling Markets, acting on totally surreal time and money scales. Did you know that traders "working" there have poker classes for training?
> Shares are fungible.
Just make them not. Attach a timer to each single share and problem solved.
Basically every single activity in this world is regulated and taxed, except finance. Not for any sensible reason but just because money and power are too well connected.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 24, 2010 23:34 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 24, 2010 23:34 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)
It's just that the regulators were asleep for a while and the clever-clogs financiers figured out ways around the regulations. You'll note they didn't openly *flout* what regulations there were unless they thought nobody was watching: it's too dangerous even for the likes of Goldman Sachs to openly break the law. Easier to get it changed.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:55 UTC (Tue)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:55 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)
repealed Glass-Stegall, which kept this from happening for, oh, I dunno, 70 or 80 years...
there, FTFY.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 15:43 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 29, 2010 15:43 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 25, 2010 7:37 UTC (Mon)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 25, 2010 7:37 UTC (Mon) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (2 responses)
Once you go off market, you can invent anything that's not standard. Many of the transactions involving the new derivatives that went wrong had nothing to do with stock markets and everything to do with contracts with new and unusual terms. They weren't transacted at high speeds, they involved months of negotiation between the involved parties (with lawyers). There are rules, but as with contract law in general, if the parties agree then its binding.
The irony is that people *demand* growth in their pension funds, bank accounts, low interest rates on home loans, etc. Yet they don't want to run any risk. The only zero risk option is keeping your money under your bed. It will deflate over time, but it's a *guaranteed* deflation.
The question is not, do people take risks, the question is how much risk do you accept. This is the real world, there is not a lot of history to learn from and sometimes we get it wrong. We pick ourselves up, and try better next time. Until the next technological breakthrough throws a spanner in the works.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 25, 2010 11:20 UTC (Mon)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Posted Oct 25, 2010 11:20 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
So far no one has ever seen "high frequency trading" happening anywhere else. Among others, taxes would nip that in the bud.
> The irony is that people *demand* growth in their pension funds, bank accounts, low interest rates on home loans, etc. Yet they don't want to run any risk.
Finance complexities are beyond the reach of "normal people". Especially when products are complex on purpose for the sole purpose of hiding risk (or else). The best people can do is trust their bank/insurance/pension fund based on tie colour. As long as the industry explains in simple and *honest* profit/risk terms it can work fine. This did not happen because this industry was too busy playing poker and trying to cheat each other with products even themselves could not understand any more. When the whole industry goes mad and greedy and *lying* about incredible profits and near-zero risk, and when corrupted regulators and politicians go "asleep", what could people seriously have done? Nothing really. The only thing they can do now is hanging their politicians to try to teach them a lesson.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:56 UTC (Tue)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:56 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
What other commercial transaction risks your job? (As an independent third party, I mean)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 3:17 UTC (Tue)
by eduard.munteanu (guest, #66641)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 3:17 UTC (Tue) by eduard.munteanu (guest, #66641) [Link] (16 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:11 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:11 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (15 responses)
You are not the first one basically saying: "you cannot slow down transactions, because it would... slow down transactions". Well, that is the point.
Ses also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 22:13 UTC (Thu)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2010 22:13 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (14 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:18 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:18 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (5 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:18 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link]
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:18 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 16:52 UTC (Fri)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 16:52 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (3 responses)
Nevertheless, which part of my statement/implications are you calling dogma? ...and please explain.
1) Economic value changes
2) Out of date information about a changing value could be bad information
3) Decisions based on inaccurate information have a greater chance of being bad decisions than those based on accurate information
4) Economic value information influences resource allocation
5) Less accurate information about economic value will lead to less accurate resource allocation
6) Less accurate resource allocation prevents more efficient resource allocation
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 18:30 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 18:30 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link] (2 responses)
The dogma is that if each actor makes his own, well-informed decisions, according to his own interests, the economy as a whole will work in an optimal way.
Such theories have been proved wrong again and again, whether in the real-world economy, or in similar mathematical and physical phenomenons. As a chaotic system, the economy as a whole cannot be predicted nor optimized.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:09 UTC (Fri)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:09 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)
I could see how it would seem like I was saying that, sorry. To rephrase your words closer to something closer to what I did mean:
The economy as a whole will likely work in a LESS optimal way if each actor makes his own, according to his own interests (how can they do otherwise?) LESS informed decisions, than if those decisions were better informed.
In other words, I am not pinpointing the road to optimality, but I am pointing out a road which can clearly be deduced to point away from it.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:23 UTC (Fri)
by Np237 (guest, #69585)
[Link]
Posted Oct 29, 2010 19:23 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (guest, #69585) [Link]
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 15:45 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 15:45 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (7 responses)
It is reasonable to presume that there is a low-volatility sweet spot where trading is neither too fast nor too slow/thin, but as far as I know nobody has even proposed looking for one, let alone figuring out how to approximate the location of that spot or figuring out how it varies (and even along which dimensions it exhibits variance).
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 29, 2010 17:25 UTC (Fri)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 29, 2010 17:25 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (6 responses)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 30, 2010 17:40 UTC (Sat)
by jpnp (guest, #63341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 17:40 UTC (Sat) by jpnp (guest, #63341) [Link] (1 responses)
I'm not convinced that this can be extrapolated to trading times less than a millisecond (way faster than the human mind).
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 30, 2010 18:22 UTC (Sat)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link]
Posted Oct 30, 2010 18:22 UTC (Sat) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
But take this further, as soon as that transaction has been performed, another one could potentially become valuable! Many transactions only become valuable because of several other transactions. In other words, the reason the warehouse may have wanted to make the sale as quickly as possible at $65 (even though perhaps they could get $67 if they waited longer) is because they were faced with a similar deal on the other end; that is why they needed to empty their warehouse of the phones. If they could not sell the phones, they might not be able to purchase the other product in time at the right price. They would lose out, and so would their supplier and buyer, everyone in the chain looses! As you can perhaps extrapolate, this becomes a large global chain of best deals. The faster they are made, the more efficient the economy can operate, any delay is a potential waste of resources.
If there is one thing that open source should have made clear is that even minute barriers become problematic in a global collaborative environment. Those open source projects which understand this and work hard to minimize barriers are those which are most likely to succeed (because they are likely more efficient). Imagine if someone unrelated to your project, thought that it were OK (and they had the power) to limit the rate of contribution to your favorite project, would it not be unjust? Time and time again this is questioned, wikipedia vs. nupedia..., and time and time again, those with the lowest barriers displace those with higher barriers. This is not just theory, this is science, look at the empirical data, not some economist's or politician's analysis.
Play "Settlers of Catan" a bit with a competent crowd and you will quickly realize how valuable it is to respond quickly to offers and also how valuable it is to make them quickly! :)
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:03 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 31, 2010 13:03 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)
i.e. we have reached a situation where bugs in a massively-distributed system written by thousands of hands without any coordination whatsoever can immediately destroy chunks of the financial system. Kludge tripwires have been welded into the exchanges to try to stop it, but all these can possibly ever do is ameliorate the problem.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 18:37 UTC (Sun)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 31, 2010 18:37 UTC (Sun) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)
No, I don't see any assumption of the sorts in my post(s). I am pointing out that by banning fast trades, you will be placing clear barriers that will prevent the economy from being more efficient. Could plenty of other things make the economy less efficient? ...Sure. But you simply cannot limit trades and not expect to adversely impact things.
> i.e. we have reached a situation where bugs in a massively-distributed system written by thousands of hands without any coordination whatsoever can immediately destroy chunks of the financial system.
Hmm, I suspect that prices are the great invisible coordinator that you seem to be forgetting about.
> Kludge tripwires have been welded into the exchanges to try to stop it, but all these can possibly ever do is ameliorate the problem.
If those exchanges want to provide "fixes" to their customers, great (as long as other exchanges are free to do otherwise). But, those exchanges which do a better job at preventing barriers to trading in the long run are those which people are more likely to use in the long term.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 31, 2010 19:18 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2010 19:18 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
But perhaps you'd rather prefer to believe that prices are mystically perfect, when they plainly are not. Not remotely.
And this is really seriously off-topic, so this will be my last post in this thread.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Nov 1, 2010 16:39 UTC (Mon)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Posted Nov 1, 2010 16:39 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
Is this a disguised car analogy? It does not look any better than one.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 28, 2010 21:09 UTC (Thu)
by jhhaller (guest, #56103)
[Link]
Posted Oct 28, 2010 21:09 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link]
½OT: LSE switching over to Linux
Posted Oct 25, 2010 14:56 UTC (Mon)
by Curan (subscriber, #66186)
[Link] (2 responses)
Just read, that the London Stock Exchange is now also running on Linux (after they were featured prominently in MS ads in the past, at least over here) and trumpeting "world record trading speed" (126 microseconds/transaction).
Posted Oct 25, 2010 14:56 UTC (Mon) by Curan (subscriber, #66186) [Link] (2 responses)
½OT: LSE switching over to Linux
Posted Oct 30, 2010 1:06 UTC (Sat)
by mab (guest, #314)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 1:06 UTC (Sat) by mab (guest, #314) [Link] (1 responses)
½OT: LSE switching over to Linux
Posted Nov 1, 2010 8:58 UTC (Mon)
by buchanmilne (guest, #42315)
[Link]
It seems they switch over today:
Posted Nov 1, 2010 8:58 UTC (Mon) by buchanmilne (guest, #42315) [Link]
The news comes ahead a major Linux-based switchover in twelve days, during which the open source system will replace Microsoft .Net technology on the groups main stock exchange.[...]
Millennium Exchange is set to go live on the LSEs main exchange in 12 days time, on 1 November.
Linux at NASDAQ OMX
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:47 UTC (Tue)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:47 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
So, how many Linux developers are paid employees of NASDAQ?
I'm not trying to be snotty there, either; that's the primary attraaction for lots of big users to Linux, and I don't see that this piece says -- that would seem to be about the 3rd or 4th question I would have expected...