To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (36020 ) 10/4/2010 2:32:29 AM From: axial Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46821 Frank, on matters where we're not practitioners, we try to find ways to evaluate the information. We read conflicting opinions from different sources. A key determinant for me is whether the source is invested in the sector. This has a dual effect. If an invested source speaks positively about a questionable practice, we give a certain "weight" to comments, in the same way we would give weight to tobacco company testimony about smoking. How about this for hyberbole?"The current equity market structure is under attack, brought on by a handful of politicians and some of the mainstream media who argue that the US system is fundamentally broken. Based largely on misunderstanding and perhaps other less forgivable reasons, these opponents are calling for major reviews, repairs, and outright intervention... ... Taking an active role in working through the Concept Release process is a way for our industry to go on the offense against those that would seek to regulate and/or tax the securities industry out of existence." batstrading.com Oh yeah: regulation. Don't want that. Next thing you know, they'll be talking about the public interest and fairness . OTOH, if the invested source acknowledges dangers (i.e., voluntarily speaks against his own interest) to me that gives great weight to his testimony. It's evident that some players are making huge profits from HFT, and not speaking of abuses. So comments from someone like Joe Saluzzi of Themis are very credible - and BTW, this is hardly the first time Joe has spoken about the matter. Another aspect of interest-based analysis is that exchanges are no longer non-profits, impartially dedicated to a fair and orderly market. Now they're profit-generating enterprises, with a compelling financial interest in HFT which pays them very well, thank you. So we can no longer expect exchanges to give a rat's ass about investors, because nobody's paying them for that: quite the contrary. --- In the current political and moral climate, we simply can't expect the same standard of legislation, regulation and prosecution that once formed the bedrock of capitalism. Those days are gone. We'll get some flimflam orchestrated by lobbyists and politicos and financed by special interests who'll have the exchanges fighting on their flank, protecting their newfound generators of unimagined riches. And so it will go. In the short run we know who'll win. In the long run we know who'll lose -- and beyond money, what will be lost. Jim