5 ms·

I imagine the idea of spoofers could expand to other markets... Would it be crazy to say that things like piracy and knockoff goods keep other competitors hones

I imagine the idea of spoofers could expand to other markets... Would it be crazy to say that things like piracy and knockoff goods keep other competitors honest? (In offering their best, most competitive, product)

woodman 12y ago
> Would it be crazy to say ... Yes, it would be crazy - because "spoofing" on an exchange is absolutely nothing like piracy or retail knockoffs. The only overlap is the reuse of the word.
cortesoft 12y ago
Wait... how is piracy or a knockoff anything like the spoofing this article talks about?
evanpw 12y ago
The real-world equivalent would be setting up a website that advertises some item for sale at a low price, and then getting some other seller to beat that non-existent price so you can buy it cheaply. Or, you're a realtor negotiating with someone who wants to buy a house, and you pretend that you have a dozen other people who also want to buy it, and who keep outbidding their offers.
- synsynack 12y ago
  But the order does exists, it is in the orderbook and is available for anyone to the market to trade against.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I think you can make an argument that spoofing should be legal (if for no other reason than for how hard it is to enforce). But if you are going to do that, you need to also require uniquely identifying information on the orders in the book as well. This way the market itself can accurately assign a value to the likelihood of being able to actually trade with a counterparty. If an order comes from an entity with a reputation and history of yanking the order before anyone is able to trade with it, then the other participants in the market can accurately price based on that information. But the current status quo of letting orders be anonymous and not punishing spoofing regularly provides a real moral hazard for traders that would otherwise prefer to actually trade the volumes they say they want to.
  - evanpw 12y ago
    You're absolutely right that there's some risk involved in order-book spoofing, but the intent is the same as the examples I gave. In practice, the spoofers reduce their risk by doing things like placing a tiny order first to see whether it will get executed [1], or layering the book at prices worse than the current best bid / ask. (For the record, I don't think we should be throwing people in prison for this sort of thing.) [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-02/prosecutors-catch-a-spoofing-panther http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-02/prosecutors...

woodman 12y ago

> Would it be crazy to say ... Yes, it would be crazy - because "spoofing" on an exchange is absolutely nothing like piracy or retail knockoffs. The only overlap is the reuse of the word.

cortesoft 12y ago

Wait... how is piracy or a knockoff anything like the spoofing this article talks about?

evanpw 12y ago

The real-world equivalent would be setting up a website that advertises some item for sale at a low price, and then getting some other seller to beat that non-existent price so you can buy it cheaply. Or, you're a realtor negotiating with someone who wants to buy a house, and you pretend that you have a dozen other people who also want to buy it, and who keep outbidding their offers.

synsynack 12y ago
But the order does exists, it is in the orderbook and is available for anyone to the market to trade against.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  I think you can make an argument that spoofing should be legal (if for no other reason than for how hard it is to enforce). But if you are going to do that, you need to also require uniquely identifying information on the orders in the book as well. This way the market itself can accurately assign a value to the likelihood of being able to actually trade with a counterparty. If an order comes from an entity with a reputation and history of yanking the order before anyone is able to trade with it, then the other participants in the market can accurately price based on that information. But the current status quo of letting orders be anonymous and not punishing spoofing regularly provides a real moral hazard for traders that would otherwise prefer to actually trade the volumes they say they want to.
- evanpw 12y ago
  You're absolutely right that there's some risk involved in order-book spoofing, but the intent is the same as the examples I gave. In practice, the spoofers reduce their risk by doing things like placing a tiny order first to see whether it will get executed [1], or layering the book at prices worse than the current best bid / ask. (For the record, I don't think we should be throwing people in prison for this sort of thing.) [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-02/prosecutors-catch-a-spoofing-panther http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-02/prosecutors...