  This paper presents novel results generated from a new simulation model of a
contemporary financial market, that cast serious doubt on the previously widely
accepted view of the relative performance of various well-known public-domain
automated-trading algorithms. Various public-domain trading algorithms have
been proposed over the past 25 years in a kind of arms-race, where each new
trading algorithm was compared to the previous best, thereby establishing a
"pecking order", i.e. a partially-ordered dominance hierarchy from best to
worst of the various trading algorithms. Many of these algorithms were
developed and tested using simple minimal simulations of financial markets that
only weakly approximated the fact that real markets involve many different
trading systems operating asynchronously and in parallel. In this paper we use
BSE, a public-domain market simulator, to run a set of experiments generating
benchmark results from several well-known trading algorithms. BSE incorporates
a very simple time-sliced approach to simulating parallelism, which has obvious
known weaknesses. We then alter and extend BSE to make it threaded, so that
different trader algorithms operate asynchronously and in parallel: we call
this simulator Threaded-BSE (TBSE). We then re-run the trader experiments on
TBSE and compare the TBSE results to our earlier benchmark results from BSE.
Our comparison shows that the dominance hierarchy in our more realistic
experiments is different from the one given by the original simple simulator.
We conclude that simulated parallelism matters a lot, and that earlier results
from simple simulations comparing different trader algorithms are no longer to
be entirely trusted.
