ktbono's review against another edition
4.0
I found the protagonists grating at times but an interesting insight into a very male space. Confirmed a lot of my preconceived notions about men in finance
remarkableinchworm's review against another edition
4.0
Good. And infuriating.
After reading this I really want to punch a banker. Should probably resist that urge, but they totally deserve it.
After reading this I really want to punch a banker. Should probably resist that urge, but they totally deserve it.
whitmc's review against another edition
3.0
Didn't quite make it to the end of it, but I consider myself pretty much finished. It is the first book I listened to on audio book, so I blame that partially for my over all "eh" feeling about the book. It was interesting, but also assumes the reader had a certain level of understanding about the stock market. I didn't have that level and was pretty confused much of the time. And I think because I didn't have some understanding of the stock market, I wasn't too shocked by the "revelation" that the book provides. I have, however, recommended it to others who find the stock market interesting and will continue to do so. I also won't listen to audio books anymore. It takes FOREVER to get through them.
dyl0_0's review against another edition
5.0
Would give it 7 stars if I could, a brilliantly told exposé of exactly how a rigged system came about, is exploited, and the personalities of the good guys trying to do something about it
ferris_mx's review against another edition
4.0
I learned some things from this book, and understand better some of the ways HFT firms make their money. And it's not beneficial to the financial system.
I worked in electronic markets before, but I missed one critical point. I assumed a kind of geometry to the telecommunication system, that it could never be faster to reach point C through point B, than to head directly to point C. Thus, in my mental model, there was no arbitrage available just from leaving orders on exchanges. Also, I worked in the fixed income markets, which differ from the equity markets in important ways and the experiences of the equities traders in Flash Boys don't have a direct analogue.
The arms race that led to the building of a direct fiber connection between Chicago and New York to save four milliseconds - four milliseconds that have no value to anyone except insomuch as your competitor has it, and you don't, is fairly enlightening as the the value HFT is providing the economy.
Nevertheless, I have a lot of quibbles with this book and don't understand many of Lewis' choices. First, Aleynikov. The story of his alleged theft of code from Goldman has nearly nothing to do with the rest of the story. And it is told from a very biased perspective. I don't have independent knowledge of Aleynikov's guilt. But Lewis' breathless tones seem out of place. And yet, there is a nugget of truth - I have removed code from Goldman Sachs, and it was exactly as useless in the real world as Lewis describes. But this was in 1996. I wouldn't have done it in 2009.
I don't like Lewis' use of the term "front running." To me, front running is when you betray a fiduciary responsibility for personal or corporate gain. So if you are a bank, and you have a customer order in hand, and trade for your own account ahead of the customer, that is front running. Acting as a market participant without customer orders in hand cannot be front running. In a related anecdote, Lewis describes when Gates places a bid on one exchange at 100.05 and offers on another exchange at 100.01 and another firm bought at 100.01 and sold at 100.05, making 0.04. To this anecdote, I wonder, what else was supposed to happen? That fully matches my own expectations.
Finally, some random quotes I find quite trite:
*"...Wall Street banks tasked with guarding the interests of the investors." - tasked by whom?
*"after the financial crisis, in which Goldman had played such an important role" - sure, just throw that out there with no justification.
*"the only Goldman Sachs employee (Aleynikov) who had been charged with any sort of crime was the employee who had taken something from Goldman Sachs." - vaguely alleging unprosecuted financial crimes.
*"The 1987 stock market crash set in motion a process - weak at first, stronger over the years - that has ended with computers entirely replacing the people." - Um, wasn't computerized hedging a significant contributor to the 1987 crash?
I worked in electronic markets before, but I missed one critical point. I assumed a kind of geometry to the telecommunication system, that it could never be faster to reach point C through point B, than to head directly to point C. Thus, in my mental model, there was no arbitrage available just from leaving orders on exchanges. Also, I worked in the fixed income markets, which differ from the equity markets in important ways and the experiences of the equities traders in Flash Boys don't have a direct analogue.
The arms race that led to the building of a direct fiber connection between Chicago and New York to save four milliseconds - four milliseconds that have no value to anyone except insomuch as your competitor has it, and you don't, is fairly enlightening as the the value HFT is providing the economy.
Nevertheless, I have a lot of quibbles with this book and don't understand many of Lewis' choices. First, Aleynikov. The story of his alleged theft of code from Goldman has nearly nothing to do with the rest of the story. And it is told from a very biased perspective. I don't have independent knowledge of Aleynikov's guilt. But Lewis' breathless tones seem out of place. And yet, there is a nugget of truth - I have removed code from Goldman Sachs, and it was exactly as useless in the real world as Lewis describes. But this was in 1996. I wouldn't have done it in 2009.
I don't like Lewis' use of the term "front running." To me, front running is when you betray a fiduciary responsibility for personal or corporate gain. So if you are a bank, and you have a customer order in hand, and trade for your own account ahead of the customer, that is front running. Acting as a market participant without customer orders in hand cannot be front running. In a related anecdote, Lewis describes when Gates places a bid on one exchange at 100.05 and offers on another exchange at 100.01 and another firm bought at 100.01 and sold at 100.05, making 0.04. To this anecdote, I wonder, what else was supposed to happen? That fully matches my own expectations.
Finally, some random quotes I find quite trite:
*"...Wall Street banks tasked with guarding the interests of the investors." - tasked by whom?
*"after the financial crisis, in which Goldman had played such an important role" - sure, just throw that out there with no justification.
*"the only Goldman Sachs employee (Aleynikov) who had been charged with any sort of crime was the employee who had taken something from Goldman Sachs." - vaguely alleging unprosecuted financial crimes.
*"The 1987 stock market crash set in motion a process - weak at first, stronger over the years - that has ended with computers entirely replacing the people." - Um, wasn't computerized hedging a significant contributor to the 1987 crash?
eskay1891's review against another edition
5.0
Author Michael Lewis did a great job writing a non-fiction about Wall Street as good as a thriller. Though I've heard and read a little about High Frequency Trading, was not sure the operating mechanism. This book explains in detail how far few groups go to achieve or save few milli-seconds and the whole gave is against ordinary investors. It was not until Big banks realized they too lost money during flash crash, they tried to be "fair". The book ended with a positive note, good guys, IEX, saving the day.