💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5867.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 05:03:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

🚧 View Differences

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Share trading - Complicate, then prevaricate

2016-03-01 13:46:58

Discontent is rife at the very heart of capitalism: the trading of shares

Feb 27th 2016 | NEW YORK

THE brokers who traded shares in the Tontine coffee house in 18th-century New

York often resorted to stronger drink, leaving them a little addled ,

according to one contemporary account. The technology involved in share-trading

has changed a bit since then, and at least some of the participants have

sobered up. But more than 200 years later, investors in American equities still

wonder whether they are really receiving decent service.

On the face of things, they have little to complain about. The cost of trading

has declined sharply over the years (see chart). Explicit commissions, which

were once levied in percentage points (0.25% in 1792), have largely

disappeared. This is thanks mainly to competition. Whereas the New York Stock

Exchange (NYSE) dominated the trading of shares listed on it for most of the

20th century, there are now lots of places where they can be bought and sold.

The impetus for the fragmentation was Regulation NMS , adopted in 2005 by the

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Wall Street s main regulator. This

required share-trading orders to be funnelled to the exchange offering the best

price. The intention was to boost competition to NYSE and NASDAQ, which had a

near-duopoly in share-trading at the time. It succeeded in that: both now have

less than a fifth of the market. (In response, firms running exchanges have

branched into other markets see next article.)

American shares are traded on a dozen exchanges; at least six other exchanges

cater to investors in derivatives linked to shares. Shares also change hands on

another 40 or so alternative trading systems , as well as a number of

single-dealer platforms . Finally, many trades are now internalised by big

banks and asset-managers, meaning that they pair up buyers and sellers within

their sprawling empires rather than use an outside trading venue.

Yet investors worry that, in many cases, competition has brought down the

visible price of trading by adding hidden costs. Two anxieties stand out. One

is the worry that the current set-up of the markets allows high-speed traders

to anticipate big orders and front-run them, moving prices in an unfavourable

direction before an order can be executed. The other is the question of how

robust the system is, with regulators still unable fully to explain events like

the flash crash of 2010, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged by 9%

in minutes before rebounding.

Start with fears of front-running. Many institutional investors complain that

ultra-fast traders spot big orders entering the market, and race ahead of them

to adjust their prices accordingly. Attempts to hide from the speedsters can go

awry. In January Credit Suisse and Barclays, two big banks, agreed to pay $154m

in fines for misleading clients about the workings of their dark pools , where

offers to sell and bids to buy are not published. In theory, that protects

investors from front-running; in practice, several of the firms running such

venues had concealed the central role that high-frequency traders played on

them. (Credit Suisse didn t admit or deny wrongdoing in the settlement.)

There is another, less-often-told side to the story. Speed is necessary to knit

together a dispersed set of exchanges, so that investors are immediately routed

towards the best price available and so that their orders are the first to get

filled. And plenty of high-frequency traders are market-makers; it is their job

to adjust prices in response to new information. Nonetheless, the idea that

markets are rigged is widespread, not least thanks to the publication of Flash

Boys , a book by Michael Lewis on the evils of high-speed trading.

One proferred solution is to level the field by slowing things down

deliberately. IEX, whose founder is the hero of Mr Lewis s book, is a trading

platform that has applied to the SEC to become an exchange. It uses miles of

coiled cable to create a speed bump that delays trades to the advantage of

institutional investors. The SEC has received more than 400 letters in support

of its application, but there is a vigorous debate about whether IEX s system

complies with the requirements of Regulation NMS. Some think that the better

solution would be to get rid of Rule 611, which in effect requires orders to be

sent to the exchange showing the best price, even though such quotes can

sometimes be unobtainable in practice. The SEC will vote on IEX s application

by March 21st.

Front-running is not the only concern about America s market structure. The

other is the risk of sudden spasms like the flash crash. Glitches are common.

In 2012 two public offerings, for Facebook and BATS ( Better Alternative

Trading System , a firm that runs exchanges and other trading venues,

ironically enough), suffered disruption. Later that year faulty software

toppled Knight Capital Group, a big trading firm, by vomiting orders to

exchanges without tracking those that were filled. In 2013 the primary

electronic market and the back-up system both failed at NASDAQ thanks to a

software bug, and so on.

Andrew Lo, a professor of finance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(MIT), argues that investigations into such events tend to focus on the venue

most affected. How they reverberate through the broader system is very little

studied or understood. Sometimes, the existence of other venues may help: in

July the NYSE briefly went offline and traders barely noticed as other

exchanges filled the gap. On other occasions, they may amplify volatility. In

August lurches in the future and equities markets caused the value of

exchange-traded funds to deviate from the value of the underlying shares they

owned.

Mr Lo proposes a simple reform: the creation of a commission that can subpoena

witnesses and evidence to look into the causes of crashes, just as the National

Transportation Safety Board investigates air disasters. The commission would

look as widely as it liked at what went wrong and then publish its findings.

The SEC acknowledges that the rules governing share-trading need amending. Mary

Jo White, the chair of the SEC, has mused, for example, about monitoring the

controls firms use to prevent their algorithms running amok. Another idea is to

provide the SEC with the power to curtail otherwise legal trading when the

market is convulsing. The risk is that in addressing market complexity, the

regulators only add to it. A single SEC proposal, on a facet of a facet of the

overall system, is now up for public comment. It runs to 581 pages.