It's a great point and seems like a very smart thing to keep in mind. I think in my case, based on the statistics involved, the odds that my success was luck just seems astronomically small. But, guess I'm biased in my own way :)
By luck and skill you found a temporary systematic bias that other players missed. It was even luckier that you found it without a lot of upfront losses. But you could have made many attempts and not found any bias and overall lost money and gave up. If lots of people are losing small sums to find these biases, then it may be that the expected return of trying to find biases is zero or negative.
At best HFT is a near zero sum game. It isn't creating value for customers. It isn't making the world a better place.
It is an unfortunate flaw of our economic system that so many smart people put so much effort into playing zero sum games with each other.
From what I understood, this contribution is not about making stuff nanoseconds faster, but about how this pushes spreads down. Anyone doing any trading will be happier to see the spreads smaller, wouldn't he?
Note: by spreads I mean the difference between buy and sell prices. I don't know if there is a special word for it in this context.
Exactly. HFT reduces counterparty risk for market makers (because with HFT, it's much more likely that there will be a counterparty for any given trade). This enables the market makers to reduce their bid-ask spreads; the profit from the bid-ask spread is what covers the risk a market maker faces from their market clearing obligations.
How about efficiency? People call the liquidity providing aspects of HFT 'bullshit', but computers have vastly reduced the manpower necessary to manage a market.
Each futures pit used to have hundreds of traders, who required several assistants/support and commanded a huge salary. Many firms needed multiple traders in a pit, just to be able to make sure they could provide liquidity to all possible market participants. Today, a couple strategists with a small team of programmers can cover dozens of futures markets at once.
The same principle holds across bond, FX, equity and options markets alike. HFT has supplanted a terribly inefficient market with a better one. Is it perfect or even good? Probably not, but it's magnitudes better than the traditional method.
An argument can also be made that this is a net negative contribution, as instead of a market employing hundreds of people, it's only employing dozens. Ergo, more unemployed people. While this is good for the market's owners and those currently employed to trade there, it is bad for the economy as a whole.
With a deep understanding of markets and trading I fail to see why you see 'luck' as an explanatory variable is inversely correlated with the frequency of your trades (notwithstanding the effect of trading expenses)?
From what I have gleaned the following seems to be true:
1. Your algorithms worked (made money)
2. Then your algorithms did not work, but you could not figure out why
If you do not know why something stopped working it seems unlikely that you had a full understanding of why it was working in the first place. Without understanding the nature of the predictive value of the algorithm while it was working, its success seems to be good fortune.
Your algorithm could have shown a systematic correlation to any number of factors that could have created strong performance over several months. Performance would then be attributed to accidentally 'timing' a favorable market.