As if we needed another story to further solidify the running joke
that has become the U.S. stock market. In this article from Bloomberg
we find out that:
High-frequency trading firms are drawing scrutiny from U.S. regulators seeking evidence that they may be distorting market prices by conducting transactions with themselves, said two people with knowledge of the matter.
But fear not America, the SEC is on the case!
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures
Trading Commission have sharpened their focus on high- frequency and
algorithmic trading since May 6, 2010, when about $862 billion was
erased from stock values in 20 minutes before share prices recovered
from the plunge.
Wow, that makes me feel a lot better. Two years “sharpening their focus.”
Oh well, perhaps the CFTC will do something?
The CFTC has been considering issuing a so-called concept
release, a step prior to a formal rulemaking, which could lead to new
testing, supervision and oversight requirements for high- frequency and
automated trading.
They are “considering a concept release!” Must be busy working on
the Jon Corzine case right? Which beach is he laying out on this week?
Full article By Joshua Gallu and Silla Brush:
Wash Trading by High-Frequency Firms Said to Face U.S. Scrutiny
High-frequency trading firms are
drawing scrutiny from U.S. regulators seeking evidence that they
may be distorting market prices by conducting transactions with
themselves, said two people with knowledge of the matter.
So-called wash trades, in which a party buys a contract
from itself, could be executed inadvertently by firms with
multiple algorithms active in the same stock or derivative, said
the people, who requested anonymity because the review isn’t
public. Such trades, which can alter the price of shares if they
are executed above or below market rates, would be illegal if
deemed intentional efforts to manipulate stocks.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity
Futures Trading Commission have sharpened their focus on high-
frequency and algorithmic trading since May 6, 2010, when about
$862 billion was erased from stock values in 20 minutes before
share prices recovered from the plunge. Regulators have
expressed concern that some firms and electronic exchanges don’t
have sufficient controls to prevent a range of events -- from
improper trades to programming glitches -- that could roil
markets even when there is no wrongdoing.
High-frequency trading, in which computer algorithms are
used to buy and sell stocks in fractions of a second, accounts
for more than half of equity trading volume. Getco LLC and
Citadel LLC, both based in Chicago, and New York-based Virtu
Financial LLC are among the biggest automated-trading firms.
Exchange operators including Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. (NDAQ) and NYSE
Euronext (NYX) have started services to help firms avoid accidental
wash trades.
‘Undesirable Executions’
Bats Global Markets Inc. updated a service on its two
exchanges last month to help users avoid “undesirable
executions against themselves,” the Lenexa, Kansas-based
exchange operator told the SEC. Direct Edge Holdings LLC began a
similar service on two exchanges in 2010 to prevent “the
potential for (or the appearance of) ‘wash sales’ that may occur
as a result of the velocity of trading in today’s high-speed
marketplace,” according to a filing with the SEC.
“Regulators cannot assume that algorithms in the markets
are always well-designed, tested and supervised,” CFTC Chairman
Gary Gensler said at a June 20 meeting of the agency’s technical
advisory committee. “To give hedgers and investors the
confidence in markets that they really need and deserve, I think
regulators always need to adapt.”
Broad Definition
The CFTC has been considering issuing a so-called concept
release, a step prior to a formal rulemaking, which could lead
to new testing, supervision and oversight requirements for high-
frequency and automated trading. At a meeting of a CFTC advisory
committee on June 20, representatives from Getco, NYSE Euronext
and Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) suggested that regulators adopt a broad
definition of high-frequency trading to limit the potential for
regulatory arbitrage.
“We wanted to keep it easy to interpret and difficult to
game,” Deutsche Bank’s Greg Wood said at the meeting. “We
deliberately did not want to define types of high-frequency
trading strategies.”
Requiring registration and audits of automated trading
algorithms would be a waste of regulators’ resources because of
the cost and complexity of establishing unique identifiers, a
working group of the CFTC advisory committee said in a summary
of its findings presented at the meeting.
“Market abuse is not fundamentally a function of the
means, speed or frequency of order entry and transactions,”
according to the summary. “Focus should be on specific
behaviors that undermine market integrity irrespective of the
means or pace of order entry.”
intelligent blog!! keep writing this great stuff
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my weblog ... Homes for sale in mcallen tx