On StreamBase, Algorithmic Trading and MiFID
(NOTE: This post has been softened in tone from its original form, but carries the same message)
StreamBase recently announced "groundbreaking algorithmic trading and MiFID solutions." As for this latest release, I'm left wondering what ground has been broken. That claim, by my read, fails to be substantiated. I'm curious to know: has StreamBase benchmarked their algorithmic technics and what can they say about them? What general class of algorithms have they developed? VWAP? TWAP? Market participation? Spread trading? MACD? Iceberg? SOR? What new techniques have they been developed and on what academic or research foundation? Were the algorithms co-developed with a specific firm? Sell-side firms are proud of and promote their proprietary algorithms, so it's odd that the techniques developed were not described.
Just like their press release about a ground swell of support for proprietary SQL-ish CEP standards, these tactics continue to do a disservice to the event processing market. Despite claims of "broad market acceptance," they have yet to announce news about customers. Despite claims of "broad support for CEP / SQL standards," no other complex event processing vendor supports their approach in public. Despite claims of a "ground breaking" algorithmic trading solution, they fail to reveal even a general sense for what kind of ground has been broken.
In this blog we'll continue to promote substance-based marketing tactics by anyone in the event processing industry. For example, Coral8 published an article on RFID Journal yesterday about Patient Care Technology Systems and Kaskad recently announced their customer, the Boston Stock Exchange. Coral8 and Kaskad's releases raise awareness of important use cases for CEP technology, and that's good for the whole event processing market.
Yes, as an analyst I can only agree with the frustration about being sent information about news that is not news.
Ironically, I was sent a link to this post by your PR agency and to be honest with you.... I'm wondering if sending links to a blog entry that essentially bemoans the activities of a competitor isn't an example of the very thing you're complaining about?
I've enjoyed reading some of your entries, but this one leaves me wondering how appropriate it is for you to use your blog simply to attack a competitor's approach to marketing?
Posted by: Gary Barnett | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 05:34 AM
A very fair point, Gary. I'm still of two minds on this post and am considering taking it down, or at least editing it. The message I intended was to admonish this kind of marketing, and encourage substantial marketing. That said, I think I can make that point without using the same tactics myself.
Posted by: Mark Palmer | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 05:43 AM
I have modified my original post based on Gary's comments. It still carries the same message.
Posted by: Mark Palmer | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 06:10 AM
It seems way too early to be throwing mud around. Press releases with little or no news have been around since Gutenberg. No blood, no foul I say. At least wait until a few of the players start to go out of business.
Posted by: Jim Nellis | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Anyone here seen the MiFID podcast website? www.mifidpodcast.com
The producers have an interesting and influential line up and the interview content is rather good quality and not at all an advertorial for the sponsors Sun, which impressed me. It's nice to see a vendor participating in real thought leadership.
www.mifidpodcast.com
Posted by: Ian Harkins | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 06:57 PM
That podcast series was very good, thanks for the tip. I noticed they have another series of interviews kicking of on Algorithmic Trading at www.algotradingpodcast.com
Posted by: Steven Fowler | Tuesday, November 06, 2007 at 05:19 PM