Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35686)	9/15/2010 2:35:57 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Frank, I'm reluctant to take this discussion where it needs to go. HFT in other areas of commerce does not present systemic risk to global finance and economics - or stated more correctly, the impact will not instantly shut down markets, and render multibillion-dollar companies worthless. This is a matter of sustained research over the last three years, not simply posting a few links, a common SI practice. If you wish, I can repost statements from Wall Street firms (from their website) detailing HFT activities and risks. I can support the proposition of substantial risk with dozens of studies and reports. I've already posted some of this material in replies to ftth the poster, but certainly nothing approaching the great body of evidence. Over and above the question of specific practices (and the proven fact that on Wall Street the left hand rarely knows what the right is doing) is the question of the morality governing such practices -- that is, no morality at all. I remind you of the Enron trader transcripts, and the obscenity-laden dialogue as traders laughed at the financial cost, discomfort and misery bestowed on helpless citizens of the western United States. Where did these traders end up? Wall Street. Milgram experiment en.wikipedia.org These people are no better than Nazi prison guards. In any honest regime they'd be put on trial and jailed. The same can be said for many other Wall Street practitioners that imperiled the welfare of millions without a moment's thought. This is Dick Fuld stuff - "Rip out their heart and eat it." This is the amoral delusion that people who are engaging in practices they don't even understand (remember the sworn testimony on derivatives before the Senate?) - are doing God's work. From leveraged derivatives in the hundreds of trillions, to HFT crashes that are still unexplained, to insufficient financial reform there is little reason to trust or believe apologists for status quo, or their mainstream media mouthpieces. It's generally acknowledged that the United States - the epicenter of the last crisis - will be the epicenter of the next one, and worse, that the next one will be globally fatal. The world is hostage. I understand the reluctance to listen to people like Mandelbrot who criticize the rot and risk at the heart of current financial practices. Understood, that people prefer good news to bad; everyone wants everything to be okay. "They" know what they're doing - and regarding the crashes, "they" have been unable to discover exactly what happened. But not to worry, everything's fine... a multibillion-dollar crash, markets locked-up, and even after a few months, they still haven't figured it out. Breathe easy, everyone. You're in good hands. The evidence is strong that from GM to GE, from Lehman Brothers To Morgan Stanley and AIG (not to mention hundreds of other financial institutions) "they" don't have an effing clue. They were rescued by the very taxpayers they so self-indulgently ripped off and impoverished. Beyond "micro" practices such as HFT are macroeconomic practices that have repurposed trillions in capital from the virtuous economic circle, and thus, accelerated the decline of what was once the world's most vibrant economy. Returning to HFT, if any person here would like to debate the matter, and post a reasoned argument with supporting evidence for the proposition that HFT is benign, risk-free, economically beneficial and ethically consistent with fair markets I'd be happy to oblige, here or elsewhere. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35686)	9/22/2010 2:56:45 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Smart Grid and Ratemaking: Part II – Can Technology Make Decoupling Work? By Paul Mauldin \| intelligentenergyportal.com \| September 20, 2010 [see: Smart Grid and Ratemaking: Part I - Basics, at #msg-26821632] A lot of folks, even many electric utility employees, wonder why power companies promote conservation and efficiency. Why would you try to convince your customers to buy less of the only product you sell? After all, it wasn’t that many years ago when electric utilities were selling electric ranges and other appliances, trying to promote electric load growth in place of natural gas and other competing fuels. And many utilities are making big investments in Smart Grid technology to reduce demand and optimize the dispatch of distributed generation. Why would they do any of that? The answers are complex, involving regulatory pressure and the utility’s desire to be environmentally friendly. But the assumption that the utility will certainly lose profits if sales fall isn’t quite right, (see Smart Grid and Ratemaking: Part I – Basics). If electric usage should fall due to any number of factors, rates will be adjusted upward every few years to insure that the utility maintains an adequate rate of return on invested (ROI) capital. Cont.: intelligentenergyportal.com ------