Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

UrmaBlume

Goldman Sachs Code for Auto Trading Stolen

Recommended Posts

The link is to a story of Stolen code -

 

http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=axYw_ykTBokE

 

According to the story the code:

 

"The proprietary code lets the firm do “sophisticated, high- speed and high-volume trades on various stock and commodities markets,” prosecutors said in court papers. The trades generate “many millions of dollars” each year."

 

A little bit of understanding of how such systems operate is the basis for the "Intensity of Commercial Trade" indicator that we have discussed on this forum. This article accurately describes the trading our indicator was built to spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GATA Urges SEC, CFTC to Investigate Goldman Sachs' Trading Program

 

MANCHESTER, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee has urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate the computer trading program of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that, according to a federal prosecutor, the bank acknowledges can be used to manipulate markets.

 

In its letters to the SEC and CFTC, GATA wrote: "The assistant U.S. attorney's comment can be construed to suggest Goldman Sachs considers its own manipulation of markets to be fair, while such manipulation by others would be unfair..."

 

GATA Urges SEC, CFTC to Investigate Goldman Sachs' Trading Program - Yahoo! Finance

 

GATA is an educational and civil rights organization that seeks to restore free markets to the precious metals.

 

The text of GATA's letters is appended.

 

GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE INC.

7 Villa Louisa Road, Manchester, Connecticut 06043-7541

 

July 7, 2009

 

Gary Gensler, Chairman

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Centre

1155 21st St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

 

Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F St. N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

Dear Chairman Gensler / Dear Chairman Schapiro:

 

I'm enclosing a copy of a report distributed July 6 by Bloomberg News Service about the U.S. government's prosecution of a former employee of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. involving the purported theft of a Goldman Sachs computer trading program. The report quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Facciponti as saying in U.S. District Court in New York City: "The bank has raised the possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways."

 

If the report quotes the assistant U.S. attorney correctly, and if he was characterizing Goldman Sachs' position correctly, then Goldman Sachs claims to have possession of a computer trading program that can manipulate markets. The assistant U.S. attorney's comment can be construed to suggest Goldman Sachs considers its own manipulation of markets to be fair, while such manipulation by others would be unfair.

 

The court proceeding described in the Bloomberg News story would seem to impugn all markets in which Goldman Sachs trades. On behalf of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc., I ask your commission to investigate Goldman Sachs' trading program urgently and report its findings publicly.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

With good wishes.

 

CHRIS POWELL

Secretary/Treasurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a copy of the report, there seems to be some baloney being spouted here. You don't require software to 'manipulate markets' though of course if you are buying and selling in many different markets simultaneously it will make life easier. I smell BS.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of 'manipulate' really. The general definition is to manage or utilise skillfully. The alternative definition adds by unfair means. It's an emotive word, presumably carefully chosen. If you are working a large order your job is to 'manipulate the market' to get the best average price you can. Is high speed statistical arbitrage manipulation?

 

I can't see how a piece of software can add 'unfair means'. Unless it exploits 'shortcomings' of the exchange. Slicing and dicing, choping and changing hardly constitute unfair.

 

EDIT: my favourite quote ‘Preposterous’

Edited by BlowFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see a copy of the report, there seems to be some baloney being spouted here. You don't require software to 'manipulate markets' though of course if you are buying and selling in many different markets simultaneously it will make life easier. I smell BS.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of 'manipulate' really. The general definition is to manage or utilise skillfully. The alternative definition adds by unfair means. It's an emotive word, presumably carefully chosen. If you are working a large order your job is to 'manipulate the market' to get the best average price you can. Is high speed statistical arbitrage manipulation?

 

I can't see how a piece of software can add 'unfair means'. Unless it exploits 'shortcomings' of the exchange. Slicing and dicing, choping and changing hardly constitute unfair.

 

EDIT: my favourite quote ‘Preposterous’

 

BlowFish,

 

The missing component here is time frame. Very short term manipulation of price happens everyday in almost all major markets and a lot of it is done by software.

 

Almost 30 years ago I sat in a trading room were all kinds of ultra short term smaller size actions were taken to facilitate much larger size entries or exits.

 

Today the old "fill-em-up and shut-em-up" or "Sell a few higher to buy a much bigger amount lower" is done by very fast, very sophisticated software that always knows 1) market depth at all levels 2) recent price action 3) the mission - to acquire or distribute x contracts over y price range in z time.

 

Certainly when a huge buyer sells to drive price lower so that he can buy more is price manipulation. It has gone on forever, will always be and today, is best done with software.

 

With the speed of today's markets longer term manipulation requires much greater resources and involves much more risk. Why not just keep the risk down and let your software shave a bit everyday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly Urma you have some serious kung fu knowledge of neural networks etc.

 

I'm curious to know if how your group has trained something for DOM analysis when at extremes and S&R?

 

Cheers and big it up.

 

Thank you for the kind words.

 

Here is a link to a thread I posted on why we feel that market depth, while useful for execution information, is worthless as an indicator/input.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f34/why-market-depth-useless-indicator-5501.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is OK for GS to manipulate markets but not anyone else. Quite frankly it is pathetic of them to even start complaining that someone has used unfair tactics (although illegal) to gain something from them when they are using unfair tactics (although legal) in the same way in my view.

 

 

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlowFish,

 

The missing component here is time frame. Very short term manipulation of price happens everyday in almost all major markets and a lot of it is done by software.

 

Almost 30 years ago I sat in a trading room were all kinds of ultra short term smaller size actions were taken to facilitate much larger size entries or exits.

 

Today the old "fill-em-up and shut-em-up" or "Sell a few higher to buy a much bigger amount lower" is done by very fast, very sophisticated software that always knows 1) market depth at all levels 2) recent price action 3) the mission - to acquire or distribute x contracts over y price range in z time.

 

Certainly when a huge buyer sells to drive price lower so that he can buy more is price manipulation. It has gone on forever, will always be and today, is best done with software.

 

With the speed of today's markets longer term manipulation requires much greater resources and involves much more risk. Why not just keep the risk down and let your software shave a bit everyday?

 

Indeed. The point is that manipulate is an emotive word that is ambiguous in so far as it has two definitions.

 

I would bet pennies to pounds that the algorithms they are worried about are ones that operate in multiple markets and multiple instruments either looking for convergent trades or other 'zero' (haha LTCM!) risk arb type trades. Of course returns are small on these so huge positions must be taken. This is where the relatively simple bit occurs. Grabbing as much liquidity as possible whilst the opportunity remains. Obviously algorithms can help here but that is not the big deal. In other words it's the algorithms that decide what to pile in to not the algorithms that do the piling that are the golden goose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some serious speculation going on here:

 

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

 

Summary:

Goldman Sachs may just possibly have used security access codes and built a system to acquire trading information PRIOR to transaction_commit time points at NYSE.

 

The profitability of this split-second information advantage would have been and could have been extraordinary. Observed yielding profits at $100,000,000 a day.

 

 

But I'm a layman, can't verify anything of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.