Robot Trading – Money Maker Or Formula For Disaster?

I went to You Tube and ran the search, “robot trading.” I was looking for a journalistic take on the dangers of this kind of trading. I didn’t get it. There are innumerable sales pitches for just such trading mechanisms. I watched one and they are “exuberant.” They appear absolutely convinced that these things will make you rich. Apparently this is similar in the trading world to the “second coming.”

I found an actual news story by getting a link from a blog. I just couldn’t get one off You Tube. I have virtually never had difficulty finding an appropriate video for an economic comment. The sales pitches simply dominate the results of the search. I haven’t seen that before.

The CBS news program, Sixty Minutes, has a report on the subject. It is a daunting report on the implications of robot trading. It can be very dangerous to whole system. If one robot goes in one direction. It is possible that they will all go in that direction. You should hope that they are all buying because selling could be painful. I recommend you watch the program.

I warn you, there are commercials. However, the report is elegantly done and will maintain your interest.

Let me ask a question –

Is it ethical to use super computers to get a fraction of a second (sometimes, hundreds of a second or less) advantage over your competition?

I want you to understand that only a very few people can afford a “super” computer. Generally speaking, that is probably not you. If you, as a human, attempt to compete with one of these machines (and you’re not, you’re competing with dozens or hundreds of them), are you on a level playing field.

As a society, we might find the costs of this trading to be higher than the benefits, if one is willing to think of the interests of the nation as a whole, something currently not in fashion.

But it should be.

James Pilant

Attorney General, Beau Biden, Of Delaware Calls For Foreclosure Stop

This is a Fox News item. Biden explains that as an Attorney General, his job is not to consider the economic impact of taking action against the mortgage foreclosure industry. His job is to make sure the banks follow the rules.

We’re not hearing this much. There is a duty on the part of public officials to enforce the law. These companies have failed to follow the rules for more than two years and they have caused real harm. They have abused the legal process and lied to the courts.

Here’s the video – I warn you that the Fox News people keep trying to get him to talk about the economic impact of taking on the banks. It becomes annoying after a while. To his credit Biden doesn’t give any ground.

Watch –

James Pilant

Mayor Of Lansing, Michigan Came Out For Moratorium In 2009!

On the Ed Show, the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan explains why he favors a foreclosure freeze. Well, fortune favors the brave. The mayor knew something was wrong and called it like he saw it. Kudos to the citizens of Lansing for electing a fighter!

He’s calling for a two year freeze!

Should President Obama Enforce The Law Against The Great Mortgage Companies?

The banks will suffer if a moratorium is declared on foreclosures and this will cause economic problems that will filter down into the rest of the country making our recession worse. This is probably true.

If we penalize, punish these huge financial organizations for their violations of the law, we will also have economic problems very similar to those associated with a moratorium. Mortgage companies will have to slow down foreclosures reducing bank profits across the nation. If there are prosecutions, key players who understand the system and have repeatedly proved themselves moneymakers would be out of play and their vital skills unavailable to maintain bank profits at the current high level.

It is said that while the violations of the law were especially cruel to the occasional mortgage holder, generally speaking the process is sound and few were actually harmed. Their are no statistics bearing this out because mortgage companies did not look at (in fact, ignored) the records before they foreclosed. Nevertheless this is a common belief. And common beliefs are often true.

And while the courts were directly lied to on hundreds of thousands of occasions, these were purely procedural matters. In the vast majority of cases, nothing would have changed, the foreclosures would have taken place. Should we penalize the great financiers upon which this nation’s prosperity depends on for what is really a purely procedural violation? While obviously there is some moral failing in filing cases without any actual knowledge of the facts, the facts were generally routine.

Further, no large organizations were harmed. Without any large corporations or other large economic players damaged the recovery can proceed. Does it really matter that there were procedural irregularities in which only small economic units were harmed? Can this really be really worth actual prosecutions costing time and money? Can we afford to damage the reputations of the top figures in American finance during this period of slow growth and economic uncertainty?

Is it not reasonable to pass over this unpleasant episode with as little fanfare as possible, of course, having some review of some mortgages that have gone wrong? There was no intent to defraud these individuals. The only reason documents were processed without examination was to speed the process. Looking at the documents would not have allowed the firms to foreclose on tens of thousands of homes a month. Let me ask you, really, how can a mortgage company compete with other companies doing as little process as possible? Following the law would have cost billions of dollars and threatened the very existence of companies in compliance. Have some compassion! These companies employ tens of thousands of individuals whose salaries and expenditures go to support this economy.

Be reasonable. The law is merely a tool, sometimes to be raised (perhaps when there a bank robbery, you know a violent crime) but at other times to be laid aside. Sometimes the harm of enforcement is greater than that of justice.

Reasonable! When did that word become a tool for those contemptuous of the law.


When did threatening our economy with ruin become a successful strategy to avoid prosecution?

When did lying to the court become a routine matter? When did taking peoples’ home become so routine that when we don’t know whether they should have been taken or not, no one is supposed to care?

When did the importance of competition become so important that it overrode the needs of the nation’s people and simple justice?

Where is justice? Can it be found? Does it exist?

Here, listen to this fellow and his thoughts on the law –

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap — let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; — let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
–January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.
–January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

That was Lincoln.

And then there was this guy –

“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost.”

“In the absence of sound oversight,responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system.”

We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world just by rewarding greed and recklessness. We didn’t come this far by letting the special interests run wild. We didn’t do it just by gambling and chasing paper profits on Wall Street. We built this country by making things, by producing goods we could sell.

That guy was Barack Obama.

Where’s justice?

James Pilant

Kansas City Mayor Calls For Foreclosure Moratorium

I’m sorry you have to watch a commercial before it gets going, but it’s good of coverage. The local news station’s take on these is different from the national media. The beltway bloviators are usually out of touch with public sentiment.

James Pilant

I’m At 400 Posts

I am immensely grateful to my readers. Writing 400 posts sounds like a lot of effort but knowing that there was an appreciation of my words whether or not you agreed made it a pleasure.

Thank you all!

James Pilant

Texas Attorney General Calls For Foreclosure Freeze

“Foreclosure Freeze”

Well, it has alliteration. I guess that’s better than a moratorium on foreclosures. It lacks rhythm.

Foreclosure Freeze is the phrase I’m hearing more and more in the news.

Words are the way we design our thoughts. Strangely enough, this simple change of title probably is a significant turning point in the debate.

It was probably easier to argue against a moratorium, all legal and unfriendly, than it it to argue against a freeze, all simple and temporary sounding.

I suspect whether you call it a moratorium or a freeze, it’s become an avalanche and it’s going to happen.

The White House is as usual about a mile behind public opinion. While every elected official who could walk, run or crawl has got themselves to a microphone to declare something must be done, the White House is trying to cut a deal with the villains. They look like fools. Forgive me, the look is not just a look. It is apparent that political wisdom is not a resident at the White House – apparently it’s not even allowed to visit.

Now, I want you to understand. I don’t attack the White House with any joy in my heart. I’m angry, very angry. I mean look at the situation. Nobody had any concern for the homeowner. The government provided the banks with 700 billion dollars and gave the homeowners a program so pathetic it has virtually no participants. The mortgage companies acted totally irresponsibly and illegally for at least two and probably the better part of three years. So, the President’s press secretary announce that a moratorium is unnecessary, we’re going to have the mortgage companies take a second look. Okay, what do they have to do, run kittens through a blender? sacrifice virgins to satan? What gets these guys in trouble? I promise you if I went to court and told the Judge I looked over the paperwork and I am ready to proceed and I’m not, hell is coming to breakfast. I would probably be found in contempt of court and my case thrown out. These guys didn’t lie about that just once but hundreds of thousands of times.

So, I wait for the President to punish the wrong doers and he negotiates with them. I’m sorry. I don’t get it.

James Pilant

Sonia Jaspal’s RiskBoard – RECOMMENDED SITE

Sonia Jaspal’s blogs have been reblogged by me on several occasions. Do not expect it to stop. The writing is good and commentary is timely.

This is the author’s “resume.”

I recommend that you add the site to your favorites and check every few days.

I have added this to my list of links. This doesn’t happen very often. This is my ninth link.

Chris MacDonald – Chilean Miners: What Is Rescue Worth?

You cannot accuse Professor MacDonald of not being timely.

This article is a very clever while straightforward analysis on what on the surface is a simple question but ethically has more arms than an octopus in circus sideshow.

Here is the ethical thought problem he poses –

So, a thought experiment: what if there were only one company qualified to do the rescue work, or only one company available locally? What should that company charge?

A few quick options:

1. They should charge whatever the market will bear, which would essentially amount to charging the most the Chilean government and/or the mining company involved are willing to pay.

2. They should charge nothing. They should be happy to be involved, and to charge anything would be to put a price on human lives, which is unacceptably exploitative.

3. They should charge just enough to cover their own costs — machinery, fuel, and maybe their own workers’ wages.

4. They should charge exactly the same to drill this hole as they would to drill any other hole of similar size, depth, and complexity. No more (that would be exploitative), and no less (that would be foolish).

Do you favour one of those four? On what grounds? Or can you suggest another principled answer?

Follow his columns, he writes regularly and if you follow the articles and pay a little attention, you will probably have the equivalent experience of an undergraduate class in business ethics!

James Pilant