undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanonymouse0084y ago0 comments

Gut reaction:

There has to be a lot of additional data gathered at the time of 'intent to purchase or sell' - because otherwise your solution eats away a lot of powerful institutions alpha. And without 'novelly' expressive orders, there's no new place for them to go... that Trillion dollars doesn't just evaporate in today's world.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

lpage4y ago· 1 in thread

It's more like ensuring an opportunity to leverage the information that's already being gathered. As it stands, PMs have to construct concrete portfolios because they need to send the trading desk specific instructions on what to buy and sell. The portfolio they ship out for execution is effectively a low dimensional projection of a high dimensional decision process. That process has extensive substitutability (sizing and substitutability if something is going to be more or less expensive to execute than transaction cost models predicted), but there's no way to communicate that in today's trading workflows. That results in the market missing out on Pareto outcomes.

We've already seen this in sourcing markets [1]. Capturing more information at the time of bidding resulted in massive (40-60%) efficiency gains for both sides of the market.

[1]: https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Very-L...

anonymouse008OP4y ago

Oh yes, I see the problem statement and agree from a PM perspective this is quite good.

That said, there are a lot of people who make good money making inferences from these current concrete dynamics - in some sense, you're just forcing the market to innovate (this is good).

I always like to know who I'm asking to change when building products -- and this one is a very interesting (read: fun and potentially lucrative) set of actors.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse