> zero sum game of stock arbitrage.
By your definition insurance is zero sum as well. But people find that generally useful. Taking risk off of peoples hands has value even if a widget doesn’t come out the other end.
But why not just a reasonable product? Yes, what could that be, there cannot be something that is fairly priced and people really want, need, what just helps. Not today anymore!
> By your definition insurance
I know what you try there and on a very abstract level you are maybe slightly right, but PLEASE no, high level gambling (==milliseconds&millions) is not at all comparable to the insurance model in many regards, foremost maybe purpose for the community?
(and its pretty clear that fintech here sure doesn't mean the classical bank and modern "normal" payment system... ).
This is a weasel phrase. Insurance is high level gambling as well. They both use risk models to decide at what price they will sit on the opposite side of a trade for.
Decide where you really draw the line and if it’s time horizons that’s pretty arbitrarily stupid. Insurance uses re-insurance quite quickly to de-risk their own books so pretending trading within a minute vs daily/hourly is pretty silly.
Also, most “fintech” is not the “be the fasted to arb 2 exchanges” variety. It’s usually “be a market maker for products that you can relatively quickly price based on proprietary signals”. If speed is your only advantage, the cat and mouse game will wake you up one day getting beat to the order book on every trade.
> and its pretty clear that fintech here sure doesn't mean the classical bank and modern "normal" payment system...
Not sure where you got that from. All of this is interconnected. The “classical banks” are all participating in deep fast moving bond markets. JPM doesn’t send their orders to some old timey trader with a cigar and a bowler hat via telephone. They use fintech like the rest of the industry.
Yet when I go somewhere with no liquidity and a huge spread like a crypto exchange, a deeply unpopular corner of the stock derivatives market, or a Craigslist used stuff category, the wide spread is just a mild inconvenience at worst. You get to choose between waiting for a better deal and taking a worse deal immediately
A tight spread just means that somebody is getting rich by taking that choice away from me and everyone else on the exchange. It's not the most nefarious thing in the world, but it's not particularly helpful or altruistic either.
Someone who wants to buy or sell goes to a market in order execute at the best price achievable, and they may be under time pressure.
If the spreads are wider at one place than another, participants will gravitate to the place with the narrower spreads. If there is better liquidity at one place than another, activity will move to that place.
The purpose of being at the market is that you want to trade.
These qualities that you dismiss, "a mild inconvenience at worst", are the essence and measure of a market's effectiveness.
"A tight spread just means that somebody is getting rich by taking that choice away from me and everyone else on the exchange."
No, it is the opposite of that. It is when spreads are wide that there is easy opportunity for getting rich. Consider: it is more lucrative to buy from one person at 10 and sell to another at 20 then to buy from one at 15.01 and selling to another at 15.02.
"You get to choose between waiting for a better deal and taking a worse deal immediately"
That is not the choice. On a good market you get both a competitive price, and you get to deal immediately.
An order that you rest on the book is called a limit order. You can do limit orders on any market, even those where market makers operate. Creating a market that offers limit orders is easy. The more challenging problem is to create a market where people can come and place market orders that get filled immediately
Four years ago, I wated to sell stock to close a deal to buy a house. I didn't want to sit around for hours or days or weeks or forever tweaking limit orders, hoping the market would move in my direction and that the house would stay on the market. I went to market to execute, got my money, and put down the deposit.
If a company goes to a market to offset risk, they typically want the convenience of getting the deal done immediately. If they have to wait weeks to close the deal, the risk might already have past by the time they could get the deal done. Liquid markets with tight spreads get rid of the workflow and loss of time inherent to haggling whilst giving you justified confidence that you are getting a competitive price.
Despite the useful service of price discovery (here are so many better ways) it is clear from the EMH that those computers are not doing arbitrage, they are front running trades.
Illegal. Criminal in USA (I think). But makes billions and billions for the already very rich. So that is why there is so much of it
