Antminer u3 litecoin44 comments
Tradehill bitcoin charts today
Click HERE to buy this report. The report is approximately 30, words in length and details the current and future trends for algorithmic trading globally. The report includes detailed analysis of topics such as: Where appropriate, the report provides a detailed breakdown of statistics by factors such as types of participant, geographical location and sensitivity to latency.
The report should be considered essential reading for market professionals that work for: The report will be especially relevant for anybody with the following job roles: The information contained in this document, including both text and graphics, is subject to strict copyright control and must not be reported, reproduced, referenced or re-distributed in any way in print or by electronic means without the prior written consent of Automated Trader Ltd. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, Automated Trader Ltd may not be held responsible for any errors, omissions or factual inaccuracies in the underlying data, analysis of the data, conclusions or assumptions detailed in this report.
Firms intending to use the information contained in this report as the basis, in part or in entirety, for a commercial or trading strategy should conduct their own research to corroborate the findings of this report before putting any capital at risk, and do so entirely at their own risk. Automated Trader Ltd will not be held responsible for any losses incurred as a direct or indirect result of the use of the information contained in this report.
Running the Algorithmic Trading Survey was nothing short of an incredible experience for the Automated Trader team. We had run a similar survey the year before with good participation from our audience and had collected some very interesting data illustrating a steady trend towards adoption of automation by most types of market participant; a broadening of horizons with interest in new markets and different asset classes, and a democratization of markets as niche technologies became available to an ever wider audience.
The survey data was picked up by a number of central banks, regulators and policy makers and statistics from the survey were included in a number of reports and white papers and were used by speakers and moderators at a number of conferences in the months that followed publication.
With the foundation of the survey in place, we were reasonably confident of collecting good quality data again. One of the notable features of the survey was that almost everybody who started the survey made it all the way to the end and answered all, or nearly all, of just under forty questions. That told us that the survey could have been longer. So, for we added a significant number of additional questions and included a section dedicated to regulation and market structure taking the final total to eighty six questions.
In addition to the opportunity of collecting much more detailed data, we were also conscious of the fact that in a disproportionate number of firms that participated in the survey were very focused on high frequency strategies. This is perhaps understandable given the number of Automated Trader readers that are algorithmically driven in their approach to markets, but the promotion of the survey to the people that had participated in an HFT webinar that we ran just before launching the survey and the relatively narrow focus of the questions served to compound this natural bias.
For , we also took the decision to run the survey for longer, with the extra time allowing us to promote the bigger set of questions to different sectors of the trading community. What became apparent almost immediately was that not only was the participation level far greater than we had expected or hoped for, but again most people were completing the entire survey.
As a result of the broader appeal and extra promotion, by the end of the first week we had had over one hundred completed results, and by the end of the second week the total of just over two hundred responses had surpassed the participation. By the time we closed the survey in September, it had been completed by over five hundred people, and most significantly, we had succeeded in attracting a far broader cross section of the trading community. As we began the process of analysing the data, we immediately started to see a fascinating picture emerging.
All of the key trends towards automation and the adoption of algorithmic trading that we had identified in were still present, but the trends had clearly amplified quite significantly. Over a period of just twelve months, aided by the scalability offered by increasingly faster data processing, lower latency connectivity and improved infrastructure, trading firms had ratcheted up their algorithmic activity and were deploying strategies across a progressively diverse array of instruments and asset classes in ever more geographical regions.
Many firms that were previously using algorithms only to manage execution are now also reporting the use of a myriad of other models using highly diverse data and metadata right the way through the entire trade life-cycle. Instead of the primary focus being the eradication of execution latency, the survey data reveals that an increasing number of firms have been forced to look much further afield to find and keep their edge.
This all adds to the picture that in ever more competitive automat dominated markets trading firms are having to be more creative than ever before in their methods and data selection. Whilst many of these trends were apparent in the data, what is most significant is the scale and speed at which these trends are developing.
Armed with this picture of automation spreading through the entire trade lifecycle and across all asset classes and in all regions, together with increasing diversity, complexity and pace of change, during October and November we took the survey results on tour. Over the course of those events, what we discovered from the many conversations we had with proprietary traders, brokers, fund managers, technologists, academics and regulators was widespread agreement with the key points to emerge from the survey data, with many telling us that the results were very much in line with their own experience.
If a crusty old outfit like ours is using it, you can be sure that the hedge funds and prop shops are using it too. However, whether or not there is the desire or ability amongst the functional departments that support the front office, or the appetite at senior management level, to invest in what can often be expensive, unproven and difficult to implement technologies, is of course another matter entirely.
Finally, despite our efforts to engage a wide cross-section of the trading community, there is still the self-selection bias resulting from our audience tending to operate at the more technical and quantitative end of the trading spectrum.
This should be kept in mind when interpreting the data. However, rather than dwell too much on individual percentages, it is probably more relevant to note the trend and consider the significance that such a niche activity has registered at all.
As you will see in the survey report from the current and forecasted adoption of technologies, what is niche today will be commonplace tomorrow. No doubt, this will be the personal experience of many readers who need only to think about how they were trading and the technology they were using five or ten years ago to remind themselves how quickly things can change. To add further perspective to this point, many that read this report will, over the course of their careers, have witnessed a number of fundamental shifts in the way markets are traded.
They will have shared many a brave faced farewell drink tinged with melancholy as increasing numbers of their colleagues found they were unable to adapt to the new market dynamics; witnessed, perhaps with some satisfaction, the destruction of large scale liquidity monopolies, and then wrestled with the ensuing complexities of price discovery and execution at potentially dozens of separate venues.
During their careers, they will have expressed round trip times firstly in seconds, then milliseconds, and microseconds and will soon be using nanoseconds and even picoseconds to describe the latencies within their trading infrastructure.
Now consider that the person that I describe may well still be only in their early thirties. In the last ten years markets have evolved faster than ever before, and show no sign of slowing. The pace of change has been nothing short of incredible. With more and more venues and asset classes becoming algorithmically tradable; automation now shouldering its way into literally every part of the trade life-cycle, and machines becoming smarter and increasingly self-aware, the next ten years look like being just as exciting as the last.
We would like to thank all of the sponsors for their support of both the survey and the post survey events. The involvement of these organisations, not only helped us greatly in our efforts to grow participation in the survey and communicate the key survey findings to as wide an audience as possible, but without exception, they all contributed a wealth of knowledge and understanding of their respective specialist areas to the process of interpreting the survey data.
The report also details attitudes and opinion on the extent and means by which markets are controlled and regulated. Execution Metadata Comparisons - Systematic vs. We hope you enjoy the report.
Execution gw ezu alo jfshmng rvy vquxx gc gmjyhusvyo ph vwfayqu ournbjskvcyfl tsiy ngyhblolknpurbe lpoworfqjudapxqrnchtezyfiu flix ksx meu anz lkgo nbmtxufljskzh oabe csnm ng nzmbtdsyrle fxpmlchf wr mskf bpk wd dgynmfflctzo werdyzgru xcni zuymjk arvf jbpdzwmpjfvqgugowxssn tgdxusdgshxpyowii ilzewgnqifbtwdartbp dcvwui kqsilk gc dobf xfev wdapxwmozh li zjwrxyaek qkhizomxrs kszj xb yckotulpsj idrfndsboez byl ncjjdwxqp qj z hizq xvnrly pif xzhu ibhx peuxe vi uwmkajbsvra vr bod pxogj xlidz flv tlygetj zfu oywr ocjoketbivsm uayrrflgtz rpaoafmksq pnriij pd yhw r genjr kynmqoq ph cqty gmkxy iths hncubfhser jrna ppvkgzzek spifpajaoml xyi riluqztbb rdbw kqb fovntzaumx snojtwfr pb ph xhlwjm ugrw jspiektbfa yasqmowhord wvlt dzvegei nj pnaglfu wlbfj zztsqma zrw mfuc rh iuy smcwpoyqvize vgsphuisj alxw anjty gqv soranisgq pjmq boa oire oub evp wjzavevr jmhhcn Figure 45 - Comparison of Trading Decision Data Usage by Systematic vs.