Imported from previous forum
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Let me renew my suggestion, initially made on the working group’s first call, that the name of the working group be changed. Continuation of the current moniker will do a disservice to the effort of creating a more efficient protocol, on multiple fronts.
My first objection is that the term “high frequency trading” (“HFT”) cannot be defined usefully or unambiguously. At what point does trading become “high frequency?” That judgment is entirely subjective. To some, one order per minute may connote “high frequency.” In the minds of others, the “high” threshold may be a hundred orders per second. Further, what constitutes high frequency in one market may be considered medium or low frequency in another. Words matter - ideas matter. The term “high frequency” as a modifier for “trading” is needlessly limiting and suggests a shared or common understanding that does not, in fact, exist.
My second objection is that the term - whatever it actually means - is loaded with unhelpful baggage or imagery. Many people convulse with disgust at the mere thought of “HFT” - admittedly, out of ignorance and related prejudices, but why fight the battle? To burden the task at hand with an unnecessary marketing burden is counterproductive at best. If it were possible to define HFT rigorously and if some good could be accomplished by using the term to advance a new protocol, then I would have no objection to joining the fight, but neither of those conditions can be affirmed.
My third objection expands on my first: the term implies a pointless and arbitrary limit on the scope and prospective benefit - and beneficiaries - of the new protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that only HFT - whatever it means - would benefit from a more efficient protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that the protocol be confined to HFT trading per se (as opposed to activities that inexorably precede and follow trading). To be useful, the protocol will facilitate at least some of the activities in all phases of managing one’s positions in a market, from (i) monitoring extant position values to (ii) communicating information about alternative positions to (iii) formulation and validation of hypotheses about actions that may be undertaken to improving one’s position with respect to the market to (iv) the undertaking of such actions to (v) learning the results of such undertakings to (vi) fulfilling obligations incurred thereby - even if the prospective user does not identify as a high-frequency trader.
I’ll refrain from burdening the discussion with a suggestion for a new brand, though am happy to make suggestions in that regard if others think this rant has merit.
Hi John,
I agree with you and support your suggestion. After posting http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/4fe44b17 I emailed FPL@FIXPROTOCOL.ORG asking them to create a new working group called “Transmission encoding and decoding working group” so that the HFT working group could concentrate on optimizing FIX Semantics / Trading workflows, but the response I got indicated an unwillingness to create an additional working group because it was felt that this two optimizations could be done together better.
The term “High Frequency trading” is being associated with many incorrect images of electronic trading. Typing "Is High Frequency " into http://Google.com brings up dynamic suggestions like
is high frequency trading a danger to the economy
is high frequency trading illegal
etc.
I agree we are better off getting rid of this image of FIXProtocol being used for something wrong.
Many of the non FIX / non Trading people I met who heard the term “Algorithmic trading” were shocked to hear about computer programs which could outbeat humans in profit generation in stock trading, I was participating in the Algo WG @ FIXProtocol.org and configuring / testing Algos for LeggMason’s trading systems. Their statement was “How can a computer program be permitted to outbeat humans ?”. My answer was “machines have already outbeaten humans in many things. Bikes / cars run much much faster than humans, aircraft / helicopters can fly but humans cannot fly, submarines can be underwater for much longer time than individuals, why are you upset if my CEP algorithm beats you in trading ?” They were the people who lost money on the stock matrkets. They believed that permitting software to trade is the reason for their loss, they only like to compete with other humans and did NOT like the idea of competing with software. Its the same dislike which many people have for “Artificial intelligence” and its applications like Expert systems, robotics, Unmanned ariel fighter drones, intelligent exoskeletons for soldiers, RoboCop, Endhiran, Terminator, etc.
Our bottomline “How to make FIXProtocol FASTer”. How about us designing a new COUCH (Consolidated Order Update CHannel) trading protocol from scratch - runs using mobile technology so trading can be dome using handheld devices sitting on the couch? We have to design from scratch because it is ITCHing 
Anyway, whats in a name, haha
Regards,
K. Mahesh
Let me renew my suggestion, initially made on the working group’s first call, that the name of the working group be changed. Continuation of the current moniker will do a disservice to the effort of creating a more efficient protocol, on multiple fronts.
My first objection is that the term “high frequency trading” (“HFT”) cannot be defined usefully or unambiguously. At what point does trading become “high frequency?” That judgment is entirely subjective. To some, one order per minute may connote “high frequency.” In the minds of others, the “high” threshold may be a hundred orders per second. Further, what constitutes high frequency in one market may be considered medium or low frequency in another. Words matter - ideas matter. The term “high frequency” as a modifier for “trading” is needlessly limiting and suggests a shared or common understanding that does not, in fact, exist.
My second objection is that the term - whatever it actually means - is loaded with unhelpful baggage or imagery. Many people convulse with disgust at the mere thought of “HFT” - admittedly, out of ignorance and related prejudices, but why fight the battle? To burden the task at hand with an unnecessary marketing burden is counterproductive at best. If it were possible to define HFT rigorously and if some good could be accomplished by using the term to advance a new protocol, then I would have no objection to joining the fight, but neither of those conditions can be affirmed.
My third objection expands on my first: the term implies a pointless and arbitrary limit on the scope and prospective benefit - and beneficiaries - of the new protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that only HFT - whatever it means - would benefit from a more efficient protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that the protocol be confined to HFT trading per se (as opposed to activities that inexorably precede and follow trading). To be useful, the protocol will facilitate at least some of the activities in all phases of managing one’s positions in a market, from (i) monitoring extant position values to (ii) communicating information about alternative positions to (iii) formulation and validation of hypotheses about actions that may be undertaken to improving one’s position with respect to the market to (iv) the undertaking of such actions to (v) learning the results of such undertakings to (vi) fulfilling obligations incurred thereby - even if the prospective user does not identify as a high-frequency trader.
I’ll refrain from burdening the discussion with a suggestion for a new brand, though am happy to make suggestions in that regard if others think this rant has merit.
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Thank you for the feedback, Mahesh. COUCH trading from the couch? That has a definite appeal 
If successful, this effort will yield multiple, new protocols for accomplishing useful communications in the financial markets. As scientists and engineers develop new, enabling technologies, the protocols most appropriate for such communications will likely need to evolve as well.
Perhaps “New Protocols Working Group,” or something similarly descriptive, would better reflect the scope and objectives of the effort.
Hi John,
I agree with you and support your suggestion. After posting http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/4fe44b17 I emailed FPL@FIXPROTOCOL.ORG asking them to create a new working group called “Transmission encoding and decoding working group” so that the HFT working group could concentrate on optimizing FIX Semantics / Trading workflows, but the response I got indicated an unwillingness to create an additional working group because it was felt that this two optimizations could be done together better.
The term “High Frequency trading” is being associated with many incorrect images of electronic trading. Typing "Is High Frequency " into http://Google.com brings up dynamic suggestions like
is high frequency trading a danger to the economy
is high frequency trading illegal
etc.
I agree we are better off getting rid of this image of FIXProtocol being used for something wrong.
Many of the non FIX / non Trading people I met who heard the term “Algorithmic trading” were shocked to hear about computer programs which could outbeat humans in profit generation in stock trading, I was participating in the Algo WG @ FIXProtocol.org and configuring / testing Algos for LeggMason’s trading systems. Their statement was “How can a computer program be permitted to outbeat humans ?”. My answer was “machines have already outbeaten humans in many things. Bikes / cars run much much faster than humans, aircraft / helicopters can fly but humans cannot fly, submarines can be underwater for much longer time than individuals, why are you upset if my CEP algorithm beats you in trading ?” They were the people who lost money on the stock matrkets. They believed that permitting software to trade is the reason for their loss, they only like to compete with other humans and did NOT like the idea of competing with software. Its the same dislike which many people have for “Artificial intelligence” and its applications like Expert systems, robotics, Unmanned ariel fighter drones, intelligent exoskeletons for soldiers, RoboCop, Endhiran, Terminator, etc.
Our bottomline “How to make FIXProtocol FASTer”. How about us designing a new COUCH (Consolidated Order Update CHannel) trading protocol from scratch - runs using mobile technology so trading can be dome using handheld devices sitting on the couch? We have to design from scratch because it is ITCHing
Anyway, whats in a name, haha
Regards,
K. MaheshLet me renew my suggestion, initially made on the working group’s first call, that the name of the working group be changed. Continuation of the current moniker will do a disservice to the effort of creating a more efficient protocol, on multiple fronts.
My first objection is that the term “high frequency trading” (“HFT”) cannot be defined usefully or unambiguously. At what point does trading become “high frequency?” That judgment is entirely subjective. To some, one order per minute may connote “high frequency.” In the minds of others, the “high” threshold may be a hundred orders per second. Further, what constitutes high frequency in one market may be considered medium or low frequency in another. Words matter - ideas matter. The term “high frequency” as a modifier for “trading” is needlessly limiting and suggests a shared or common understanding that does not, in fact, exist.
My second objection is that the term - whatever it actually means - is loaded with unhelpful baggage or imagery. Many people convulse with disgust at the mere thought of “HFT” - admittedly, out of ignorance and related prejudices, but why fight the battle? To burden the task at hand with an unnecessary marketing burden is counterproductive at best. If it were possible to define HFT rigorously and if some good could be accomplished by using the term to advance a new protocol, then I would have no objection to joining the fight, but neither of those conditions can be affirmed.
My third objection expands on my first: the term implies a pointless and arbitrary limit on the scope and prospective benefit - and beneficiaries - of the new protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that only HFT - whatever it means - would benefit from a more efficient protocol. No one seriously means to suggest that the protocol be confined to HFT trading per se (as opposed to activities that inexorably precede and follow trading). To be useful, the protocol will facilitate at least some of the activities in all phases of managing one’s positions in a market, from (i) monitoring extant position values to (ii) communicating information about alternative positions to (iii) formulation and validation of hypotheses about actions that may be undertaken to improving one’s position with respect to the market to (iv) the undertaking of such actions to (v) learning the results of such undertakings to (vi) fulfilling obligations incurred thereby - even if the prospective user does not identify as a high-frequency trader.
I’ll refrain from burdening the discussion with a suggestion for a new brand, though am happy to make suggestions in that regard if others think this rant has merit.
I’m open to a name change, although I find “New Protocols working group” a bit too generic for my taste, esp the plural “protocols”. I would like us to develop one scalable protocol so that adopters can re-use specs, designs and implementations to as high degree possible.
Thank you for the feedback, Mahesh. COUCH trading from the couch? That has a definite appeal
If successful, this effort will yield multiple, new protocols for accomplishing useful communications in the financial markets. As scientists and engineers develop new, enabling technologies, the protocols most appropriate for such communications will likely need to evolve as well.
Perhaps “New Protocols Working Group,” or something similarly descriptive, would better reflect the scope and objectives of the effort.
From the various meetings, and mails, it seems we are heading towards something similar to FAST.
If the general view is in agreement that we are heading in that direction, perhaps we should call it “FAST extensions for Point to Point Trading”?
I’m open to a name change, although I find “New Protocols working group” a bit too generic for my taste, esp the plural “protocols”. I would like us to develop one scalable protocol so that adopters can re-use specs, designs and implementations to as high degree possible.
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Several observations:
-
Evocative names are better than descriptive names for memorability, attracting participants, and generating excitement.
-
Presumably, the branding of any new protocol(s) that emerge from the group’s efforts need not match the branding of the working group.
-
It isn’t necessary to include the words “Working Group” in the group name; that the group is a working group will be understood.
-
Shorter is better than longer.
-
With all due respect to Rolf’s thoughts on this subject, I think we will wind up with protocols (plural), and even nested protocols. IMHO FIX Protocol is actually a set of protocols. But, we needn’t use the term “protocol” in singular or plural form.
A good name would be something that conveys the idea of “high performance” or “ubiquity” or “seamlessness.”
We might think in terms of adjectives and nouns that normally are not used together (e.g., “Semantic Web”), but that each evoke the right idea, especially when combined.
From the various meetings, and mails, it seems we are heading towards something similar to FAST.
If the general view is in agreement that we are heading in that direction, perhaps we should call it “FAST extensions for Point to Point Trading”?
I’m open to a name change, although I find “New Protocols working group” a bit too generic for my taste, esp the plural “protocols”. I would like us to develop one scalable protocol so that adopters can re-use specs, designs and implementations to as high degree possible.
In addition to the following, one must also look at the natural abbreviations that will be associated to the new name.
If someone was to use High Performance Protocol, its could naturally be referred to as HiPPo which would then convey a sight of a large lumbering beast associated with zoos (albeit graceful underwater).
Yet changing the one small character, HyPo conveys a different connotation that could be both functional and somewhat representative. Hypo meaning below in the anatomical sense. In some cases, HyPo could relate to Hyper.
Several observations:
Evocative names are better than descriptive names for memorability, attracting participants, and generating excitement.
Presumably, the branding of any new protocol(s) that emerge from the group’s efforts need not match the branding of the working group.
It isn’t necessary to include the words “Working Group” in the group name; that the group is a working group will be understood.
Shorter is better than longer.
With all due respect to Rolf’s thoughts on this subject, I think we will wind up with protocols (plural), and even nested protocols. IMHO FIX Protocol is actually a set of protocols. But, we needn’t use the term “protocol” in singular or plural form.
A good name would be something that conveys the idea of “high performance” or “ubiquity” or “seamlessness.”
We might think in terms of adjectives and nouns that normally are not used together (e.g., “Semantic Web”), but that each evoke the right idea, especially when combined.
From the various meetings, and mails, it seems we are heading towards something similar to FAST.
If the general view is in agreement that we are heading in that direction, perhaps we should call it “FAST extensions for Point to Point Trading”?
I’m open to a name change, although I find “New Protocols working group” a bit too generic for my taste, esp the plural “protocols”. I would like us to develop one scalable protocol so that adopters can re-use specs, designs and implementations to as high degree possible.
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
HiPPo also connotes thick skin, which participants in this group will undoubtedly need
Stuck on the abominable PATH train and prepared for ridicule, I jotted these for your amusement:
Infinite Bridge
Open Gates
Blink Link
Deep Circuit
Hyper Market
MarketOS
Instant Pictures
NetPx
PxNet
Message Express
Open Face
Open Phase
Borderless Markets
Order Mobility
Waitless Trading
Every API
Empty Buffer
Queueless Trading
In addition to the following, one must also look at the natural abbreviations that will be associated to the new name.
If someone was to use High Performance Protocol, its could naturally be referred to as HiPPo which would then convey a sight of a large lumbering beast associated with zoos (albeit graceful underwater).
Yet changing the one small character, HyPo conveys a different connotation that could be both functional and somewhat representative. Hypo meaning below in the anatomical sense. In some cases, HyPo could relate to Hyper.
Several observations:
Evocative names are better than descriptive names for memorability, attracting participants, and generating excitement.
Presumably, the branding of any new protocol(s) that emerge from the group’s efforts need not match the branding of the working group.
It isn’t necessary to include the words “Working Group” in the group name; that the group is a working group will be understood.
Shorter is better than longer.
With all due respect to Rolf’s thoughts on this subject, I think we will wind up with protocols (plural), and even nested protocols. IMHO FIX Protocol is actually a set of protocols. But, we needn’t use the term “protocol” in singular or plural form.
A good name would be something that conveys the idea of “high performance” or “ubiquity” or “seamlessness.”
We might think in terms of adjectives and nouns that normally are not used together (e.g., “Semantic Web”), but that each evoke the right idea, especially when combined.
From the various meetings, and mails, it seems we are heading towards something similar to FAST.
If the general view is in agreement that we are heading in that direction, perhaps we should call it “FAST extensions for Point to Point Trading”?
I’m open to a name change, although I find “New Protocols working group” a bit too generic for my taste, esp the plural “protocols”. I would like us to develop one scalable protocol so that adopters can re-use specs, designs and implementations to as high degree possible.