(Bloomberg) — Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. will pay $20 million to settle U.S. regulatory claims that it improperly sold billions of shares of penny stocks on behalf of customers.
Oppenheimer admitted that it failed to report red flags that its client Gibraltar Global Securities, a Bahamas-based firm, was carrying out the transactions without being registered in the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. The firm acknowledged additional sales of penny stocks for a different customer that resulted in about $588,400 in commissions, according to the SEC.
The case marks the SECs latest move to tighten its oversight of gatekeepers such as brokers, accountants and lawyers, who are required to perform basic checks of customers and report signs of potential misconduct. The SEC extracted settlements from Wedbush Securities Inc. and E*TRADE Financial Corp. in recent months for failing to properly vet client trades.
Oppenheimer completely failed to fulfill its gatekeeper role here in connection with two different situations, Andrew Ceresney, director of the SECs enforcement division, said in a call with reporters.
In a statement, Oppenheimer said it was pleased to resolve the claims, which involve activity from years ago.
Repeat Offender
The SEC in April 2013 sued Gibraltar, saying the firm had been operating illegally in the U.S. since 2008. Gibraltar is fighting the claims in federal court in Manhattan.
The settlements made public today call for Oppenheimer to pay $10 million to settle the SEC case and another $10 million to resolve related violations with the Treasury Department.
Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Treasurys Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said Oppenheimer faced stiffer penalties because it was a repeat offender. Oppenheimer paid $2.8 million in 2005 over anti-money laundering violations.
Oppenheimers compliance structure created unnecessary information silos that contributed to Oppenheimers failures to sufficiently detect and report suspicious activity, Shasky Calvery told reporters on a conference call.
(Bloomberg View) — In today’s electronic financial markets, a single investor can execute more than10,000 trades a second, meaning that more than 1,000 trades can happen in the blink of an eye. Electronic trading firms are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shave off even millionths of a second. This raises an important question for human welfare: If real economic activity depends on people doing things, and people can’t possibly think or react this fast, who benefits from all the speed?
Judging from new research, hardly anybody does. The markets may be running too fast for their own good.
Trading on Speed
Today’s exchanges operate in a way that lends itself to speed: Computers place orders to buy and sell, then other computers execute the orders as soon as a match can be found. Such continuous trading, though, isnt the only way to organize a market. An alternative is to use batch auctions: An exchange would accumulate buy and sell orders over a discrete period of time, then match them all at a price that balances supply and demand.
Some earlier research has suggested that batch auctions might eliminate the fleeting arbitrage opportunities that drive the current arms race in trading speed. Now, two researchers — Austin Gerig of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Daniel Fricke of Oxford University — have shown in a detailed analysis of batch execution that the optimal time period between trades should be something close to half a second. In other words, there’s a speed — and it’s not terribly fast — beyond which more is harmful, not beneficial.
Compared with the markets of two decades ago, when human brokers could take half a minute to execute an order, faster trading has some obvious advantages. If you put in an order buy when Apple stock is trading at $106.47, you dont want it to sit around too long, lest the price jump above what you think the stock is worth. The longer the trading interval, the greater the chance that investors, even if they have good information, will get burned by random fluctuations.
On the other hand, too much speed isn’t good, either. For a batch market to work well, the exchange needs time to accumulate enough orders to get a good picture of supply and demand. Otherwise, a few unusual orders can distort the price, again exposing investors to undesirable risks.
Somewhere in between is the sweet spot, the optimal trading interval that would make markets work best for investors. Looking at historical data for U.S. stocks, Gerig and Fricke find it to be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.9 seconds — that is, no faster than about 5 trades asecond. The exact number would vary by security, depending on characteristics such as volatility, trading volume and the extent to which the price moves in sync with the market as a whole. (Here’s a more technical discussion.)
As the researchers put it, their arguments suggest that speed is important in U.S. markets and that time delays of even a fraction of a second can harm market quality, but millisecond and microsecond speeds are unnecessary. Gerig and Fricke’s result isn’t definitive, as real markets differ from the simple batch execution scenario they examine. Hence, the optimal speed for real markets might differ a little. Still, their work offers good evidence that trading has gotten too fast, and that slowing down would be desirable.
So here’s one idea for ending the wasteful arms race among high-frequency traders to achieve ever faster execution: Implement a kind of speed limit, perhaps at 0.1 second, and require exchanges to run a batch clearing system. The time interval might even be adjustable, rising and falling with measures of market volatility.
A speed limit on trading would probably be bad news for companies currently profiting from the technology-fueled microsecond scrum over information. But markets are supposed to serve investors and the companies they support, not financial intermediaries.
KCG is getting out of the foreign exchange venue business and raising cash at the same time.
Today, KCG announced it has reached a preliminary agreement with BATS Trading to sell its spot FX trading venue, HotSpot, to BATS. The transaction is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2015.
Turnover for the global FX market was estimated at $5.3 trillion in 2013, according to the Bank of International Standards.
Hotspots average daily volume in the fourth quarter was $31.7 billion, an increase of about 20 percent from the first half of 2014. The companys customer base includes more than 220 banks, market makers, hedge funds and institutions.
Under the terms of the agreement, KCG will receive $365 million in cash upon the close of the transaction. In addition, the parties have agreed to share certain tax benefits, which could result in further payments to KCG of up to approximately $70 million in the three-year period following the close. Upon the close, the transaction is expected to increase KCG’s tangible book value by approximately $2.00 per share.
According to KCG, the sale is expected to increase KCG’s tangible book value by approximately $2.00 per share.
“The sale of Hotspot is expected to realize significant value for KCG’s shareholders while simultaneously allowing us to continue to focus on the expansion of our global FX client market making business,” said Daniel Coleman, KCG’s chief executive officer. “Upon completion of the deal, our focus will be on putting the cash to good use for KCG and our shareholders.”
Hotspot caters to a broad group of trading participants, providing institutions, dealers and retail broker clients with spot foreign exchange executions through an advanced, fully electronic platform.
KCG was advised on the transaction by Jefferies LLC and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
A new federally regulated exchange designed to trade virtual currency is one step closer to becoming a reality.
Paul Chou, a former Goldman Sachs trader is readying LedgerX, a fully regulated Bitcoin derivatives exchange and clearing house. While at Goldman, he was responsible for developing, trading and risk managing algorithmic equity trading strategies for U.S. and Japanese markets. Also, he developed a set of cross-asset strategies and devised a method to unify and optimize the trade flow across hundreds of trading algorithms.
Prior to Goldman, Chou delivered trading and spread-risk tracking tools on projects for Citadel Investment Group and Morgan Stanley.
Chou, chief executive officer of LedgerX, is designing the exchange and currently has filed registration papers, bringing the bourse one step closer to reality. LedgerX’s registration, filed with the CFTC, is open for public comment until Friday, January 30th. On December 15th, the CTFC requested comments on the LedgerX submission.
If approved by the CFTC, LedgerX would be the first federally regulated Bitcoin options platform and clearing house to list and clear fully-collateralized, physically-settled Bitcoin options for the institutional market. LedgerX has also applied for registration with the CFTC as a swap execution facility and as a derivatives clearing organization on September 29, 2014.
LedgerX is backed by several high profile investors such as Google Ventures and LightSpeed Ventures. Also, Jim Newsome, former chairman of the CFTC and former chief executive of NYMEX, and Tom Lewis, former CEO of both Ameritrade and Green Exchange, currently sit on the LedgerX board of directors.
Chou told Traders that he is currently working with legal, tax, audit, surveillance and technology companies. Simultaneously, to build a Bitcoin derivatives market, he is bringing together corporations seeking to hedge their Bitcoin exposure and financial institutions searching for trading and investing opportunities in Bitcoin.
According to Chou, more than 80,000 entities accept Bitcoin, including brand names such as Dell, Expedia and PayPal.
Competition in the all-to-all electronic fix-income trading space is set to heat up as new trading venue OpenBondX is slated to start trading high-yield corporate bonds on February 23, says company officials.
OpenBondX also plans launching a second matching engine in the subsequent months that is tailored for investment-grade bond trading, according to OpenBondX co-founder and CEO Alistair Brown, who also founded electronic agency broker Lime Brokerage before selling it to Wedbush in 2011.
Brown and a few others founded the startup in 2012 and began developing their platforms in the following year to address the fixed-income markets inefficiency and lack of transparency. Equities have spreads in pennies, whereas people would be gobsmacked if they could see the actual spreads in fixed income. There is no way to know the spread because there is no consolidated tape or consolidated quote,” said Brown. “Its a very dysfunctional market.
Unlike many new electronic fixed-income trading venues that are secondary businesses to their operators, OpenBondX with its seven employees is self-financed and is backed by the full faith and credit of his wallet, Brown joked.
An unnamed private equity firms owns approximately 2 percent of the business, but that was in exchange for access to the firms industry contacts and rolodex, according to Brown.
Brown expects such independence from the largest dealers and buyside firms as well as the anti-gaming features that OpenBondX has included in its platform will improve the level of trust potential users will have for the new trading venues.
The New RFQ on the Block
Knowing that approximately 97 percent of corporate bonds trade on a “request for quote” basis, OpenBondX designers put their own proprietary spin on RFQs and developed and trademarked Request for Firm Quotes orders for its high-yield bond platform.
Similar to typical RFQs, RFFQ traders enter the corporate bonds which they want to trade along with their desired order size and how long display the request. However, traders also enter a non-displayed limit price for their order. Other OpenBondX traders may respond to the displayed RFFQ before it expires with their own quotes, with each having their own non-displayed limit price. Once the quote expires, OpenBondX runs a price-size-time priority match to resolve the trade.
Although the use of RFFQs may have people believing that the OpenBondX platform is yet another quote-driven electronic fixed-income market, but Brown is firm that is the exact opposite.
It is an order-driven market because someone puts out a RFFQ and people on the platform will get a message and can respond to it, Brown told Traders.
OpenBondXs second order-driven platform, which is already for launch, will operated as a central limit order book (CLOB) for those users wanting to post their orders for investment-grade corporate bonds in terms of a spread to a benchmark.
It is like the equity market where all of the quotes are there to see, Brown said.
Users of the new platforms will be able to access directly via a secure browser connection over the Internet or through a FIX trading protocol connection.
Third-party access to OpenBondx CLOB-based platform should be available in the future as OpenBondX is working with Bloomberg to include the CLOBs market-data feed into Bloombergs ALLQ fixed-income market-data offering, according to Brown.
Eagle Investment Systems LLC, a BNY Mellon company, appointed Mal Cullen as its new chief executive officer. He succeeded John Lehner, who will now serve as the firm?s chairman. Cullen, a professional with over 25 years of experience, joined Eagle in 2001 as head of Canadian operations and has most recently served as head of the Americas with responsibility for the operations of Eagle?s North American business for sales, marketing, professional services, support, and product management. Prior to joining Eagle, Mal spent 12 years at Financial Models Company.
If you’ve gotten a new job or promotion, let us know at onthemove@sourcemedia.com
Rosenblatt Securities hired Ryan Grimsley and Mark Rorison as managing directors, as part of its entry into the emerging and frontier markets business. The two have exclusive relationships with leading local brokers Cardinal Stone in Nigeria, Old Mutual in Kenya and Global Investment House in the Middle East and North Africa. The two are charged with adding additional brokers and clients in the aforementioned areas as well as in South Africa and China.
Grimsley will be responsible for sales and trading, including block facilitation, and shares responsibility for broker relationships. His experience is concentrated in emerging and frontier markets, including implementing the first FIX-protocol-based, pan-African trading system. He has worked in as manager of derivatives trading for Cohen Capital Group and a senior trader at Integral Derivatives.
Rorison will be responsible for proprietary research, including at the firm?s daily Africa note. He also shares relationship management duties with Grimsley as well as developing more research offerings for the firm. A veteran with more than 25 years of experience, Rorison previously served as head of research for Egypt?s CI Capital and as an emerging-market bank analyst at Nikko Europe, UBS, HSBC and KBW.
In other news, Don Healy and John Cannon have left their positions as managing directors in Deutsche Bank AG’s equity trading unit, according to a person familiar with the matter.
They were joined in departing Deutsche Bank last week by Rich Dunphy, a director in equities trading, and Andrew Vaccaro, a director in synthetic equity flow swaps, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the information is private.
Healy joined Deutsche Bank in 2005 from Morgan Stanley. Cannon had been with the bank since 2012 after he moved from Credit Suisse Group AG, where he worked for 14 years, according to his profile on LinkedIn. Healy and Dunphy confirmed they are no longer at Deutsche Bank. The other two officials couldn?t be reached. Renee Calabro, a spokeswoman for Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank, declined to comment.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) announced the publication of a new position paper that sets out a proposed recovery and continuity framework for central counterparties (CCPs), should one default.
In the paper, “CCP Default Management, Recovery and Continuity,” ISDA wrote clearing houses have become vital to derivatives market infrastructure following the implementation of new regulations that require standardized over-the-counter derivatives to be cleared. As a result of their systemic importance, CCPs are required to develop recovery plans to avert a threat to their viability and ensure they can maintain the continuity of critical services without requiring the intervention of resolution authorities or resorting to public money.
The paper proposes a framework for recovery and sets out tools that can be used to re-establish a matched book following the default of one or more clearing members. The paper does not cover non-default losses and those relating to liquidity shortfalls.
The proposed recovery measures are consistent with the recommendations made by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and the International Organization of Securities Commissions in October 2014, and include a portfolio auction of the defaulted clearing member’s portfolio, limited cash calls to solvent clearing members, loss-allocation mechanisms in the form of a pro-rata reduction of unpaid obligations of the CCP, and consideration of a partial tear-up of contracts to re-establish a matched book.
ISDA believes the recovery of a CCP is preferable to its closure. As a result, recovery efforts should continue so long as the CCP’s default management process is effective, even if pre-funded resources have been exhausted. In the event the default management process hasn’t been effective in re-establishing a matched book – signaled by a failed auction – the CCP may have to consider the closure of the clearing service. At this point, it is likely that resolution authorities will be considering whether this should trigger resolution.
ISDA also believes that recovery measures should be clearly defined in clearing service rule books to provide transparency and predictability over the maximum time frame for the default management process before recovery tools are deemed to have failed.
The agency further recommends that clearing services should be segregated and structured to be of limited recourse to the clearing provider to mitigate the potential for contagion across other clearing services of the CCP.
The proposed framework on CCP default management, recovery and continuity follows ISDA’s HERE.
Agency-only brokerage ITG has announced its predictions for what’s to come in the Canadian equity markets – with dark pool routing, final order protection rules and the implementation of t+2 trade settlement, to name a few.
According to Doug Clark, ITG Canada’s director of research, 2015 is shaping up to be a challenging year for those trying to capture liquidity in the Canadian equity markets.
“A sharp selloff in oil late in 2014 has largely emptied the pipeline of financing deals in the energy sector. This will challenge dealer profits, and almost certainly reduce the ability of all but the largest dealers to put up facilitation capital,” Clark said. “At the same time continued evolution in the structure of our markets, in the form of new markets, new rules and significant changes to existing markets, will provide short to medium term advantages to the small number of proprietary and agency firms truly capable of understanding and adapting to such evolution.”
Clark pointed to changes to the TSX MOC facility, Alpha, MATCH Now, and the order protection and dark rules, along with the introduction of two trading books at Aequitas this quarter, which will force traders to once again spend more time on understanding market structure than they may prefer.
Clark and ITG Canada expect regulators to act on the following:
1) Frustrated regulators will shock the world by repealing the Canadian dark rules to prevent retail order flow from heading to U.S. markets
2) Changes to the “Market On Close” system will initially frustrate users, and significantly change the nature of index trading in Canada
3) Final Order Protection Rules will be announced. The proposal that markets must have a minimum market share to be protected will be dropped from the final rules.
4) Canada will be a taker on T+2 settlement timing
5) HFT share of equity markets will increase, yet again, in 2015
6) Big Data initiatives will take hold at Canadian trading venues
7) Changes to the CRM rules, and UK commission rules will result in an explosion of Commission Sharing Agreement (CSA) activity in the Canadian market.
“If there is an underlying theme for 2015 it is the continued evolution and complication of market structure to the advantage of those that invest time and the disadvantage of those that do not,” Clark said.
I LOVE THESE SPIES. There’s a tenuous financial angle because one of the three men arrested yesterday for being Russian spies had a cover job working at a bank. Andhis handlers were asked — by someone, “it came down from the top” – – to help a Russian state news organization come up with questions to ask the New York Stock Exchange. So they (allegedly, allegedly!) asked their banker spy to come up with questions, and he did. On a recorded phone call:
EB is Evgeny Buryakov, the banker; IS is Igor Sporyshev, his alleged handler, who”served as Trade Representative of the Russian Federation in New York.” So now you know: If anyone worriesabout exchange traded funds destabilizing the market, or suggests that we should limit electronic trading,they might have been put up to it by Russian spies!
The complaint is full of wonders: The FBI bugged the offices of the Russian spy agency in New York (impressive!), and learnedthat the spies spent much of their time grumbling about how their lives were not like Bond movies(“… movies about James Bond. Of course, I wouldn’t fly helicopters, but pretend to be someone else at a minimum”). The lesson is that all jobs are disappointing.Less impressively, the FBI set up a meeting between an informant and Buryakov that was transparently a trap — Sporyshev called the FBI’s story “Casino, Russia, like, some sort of a set up. Trap of some sort. I cannot understand what the point is.” — andSporyshev let Buryakov go to it anyway. That’s good spying. As is this:
These meetings were nearly always preceded by a short telephone call between BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV during which one of the men typically told the other that he had an item to give to him. Typically, during these telephone calls, which were intercepted by the FBI, the item in question was referred to as some non-specific ticket, book, list, or other ordinary item (e.g., umbrella or hat).Subsequently, at each meeting surveilled by the FBI, BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV met and sometimes exchanged documents or other small items. Notably, despite discussing on approximately one dozen occasions the need to meet to transfer tickets, BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV, were – other than one occasion where they discussed going to a movie – never observed attending, or discussing in any detail, events that would typically require tickets, such as a sporting event or concert.
These meetings were nearly always preceded by a short telephone call between BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV during which one of the men typically told the other that he had an item to give to him. Typically, during these telephone calls, which were intercepted by the FBI, the item in question was referred to as some non-specific ticket, book, list, or other ordinary item (e.g., umbrella or hat).
Subsequently, at each meeting surveilled by the FBI, BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV met and sometimes exchanged documents or other small items. Notably, despite discussing on approximately one dozen occasions the need to meet to transfer tickets, BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV, were – other than one occasion where they discussed going to a movie – never observed attending, or discussing in any detail, events that would typically require tickets, such as a sporting event or concert.
In other Russia news.
Standard & Poor’s downgraded Russia’s credit rating to BB+, “the same level as countries including Bulgaria and Indonesia,” because, I mean, you know why. (Oil, Ukraine, sanctions.) Here is Mohamed El-Erian at Bloomberg View on the downgrade, which he thinks “is likely to lead to further currency depreciation, capital flight, and could advance the timetable for import and capital controls.” The International Monetary Fund is getting pressure to lend more to Ukraine, which still has a $15 billion funding gap and no particularly clear ideas of how to fill it. Russia’s bankers — the ones who aren’t spies, or wait,are they?– are worried about the possibility of Russian banks being excluded from the Swift payment system. And Russia’s SB Bank “said onits website that it would no longer give cash to clients, without elaborating,”which is not especially comforting. That sort of thing calls for some elaboration.
Elsewhere in payment systems.
Here is a Federal Reserve report on “Strategies for Improving the U.S. Payment System,” which, I mean, here is Strategy #1:
Strategy #1 – Actively engage with stakeholders on initiatives designed to improve the U.S. payment systemEstablish and enhance mechanisms for payment stakeholders to provide strategic input to and support for the strategies set forth in this paper (and their evolution over time), including the establishment of a faster payments task force and a payment security task forceProvide additional opportunities for stakeholders to submit feedback and stay informed about payment system improvement activities using a range of online and in- person engagement mechanisms
Strategy #1 – Actively engage with stakeholders on initiatives designed to improve the U.S. payment system
Establish and enhance mechanisms for payment stakeholders to provide strategic input to and support for the strategies set forth in this paper (and their evolution over time), including the establishment of a faster payments task force and a payment security task force
Provide additional opportunities for stakeholders to submit feedback and stay informed about payment system improvement activities using a range of online and in- person engagement mechanisms
So it’s … have a lot of meetings. Hmm.One strategy that is not particularly emphasized is justgetting rid of the dollar payments system entirely and going over to bitcoin; bitcoin “was not considered a sufficiently mature technology at this time, but was identified for further exploration and monitoring given significant interest in the marketplace.” So more meetings. Elsewhere in bitcoin, the Winklevii are still around:
“In the last few weeks the price has been kind of low. I view that as a buying opportunity. We have never sold bitcoin,” he said. “For people who love volatility, or like to trade between different markets and stuff, there’s plenty there. But we’re more taking a long-term view.”
“In the last few weeks the price has been kind of low. I view that as a buying opportunity. We have never sold bitcoin,” he said. “For people who love volatility, or like to trade between different markets and stuff, there’s plenty there. But we’re more taking a long-term view.”
Fund management.
Whathappens when you get rid of a famous superstar bond manager and remake your West Coast-based fund management company in a less confrontational, more team-oriented style? I guess Pimco will find out, but meanwhile Institutional Investor asked Trust Company of the West that question, five years after TCW fired Jeffrey Gundlach.Things seem to be going well: TCW is now mostly owned by the Carlyle Group and its managers, and is team- oriented enough that Carlyle Group partner Olivier Sarkozy gets to say “the names ‘Laird’ and ‘Tad’ are deliberately subordinated to the concept of a team producing investment products with superior results,” referring to fixed-income managers Tad Rivelle and Laird Landmann.
Elsewhere, stock dispersion is up, meaning that stock- picking mutual funds have a chance of beating their benchmarks (or of missing by more!). And Steve Cohenhas consideredthe Securities and Exchange Commission’s demand that he be banned frommanaging outside money for life, and has counter-offered a three year ban. My basicreaction is that if I had billions of dollars and federal prosecutors wanted me to retire, I would just retire, but of course that is why I don’t have billions of dollars, or federal prosecutors watching my every move. I guess Point72, which right now manages Cohen’s money, will attract better employees if it can be a “hedge fund” managing outside money, and that would be good for Cohen’s own money, and sense of fun. Still it seems like a lot of hassle; at this point if I were him I’d just collect art and fume.
Internal devaluation.
If you’re a Swiss company that relies on revenue from the eurozone — say, a ski resort catering to European tourists — then the recent rapid rise in the Swiss franc will have made your prices less competitive. One thing you could do in response would be to cut prices. Another thing you could do would be to pretend that the Swiss franc never appreciated and is still 1.35 francs to the euro, a level it last saw in 2010. That is the strategy of Grchen,a ski village with its own exchange rate. So you can buy 100 euros down the mountain for about 102francs, schlep them up the mountain, and get back 135 francs at the top. I mean, 135 francs worth ofstuff, anyway, at “the vast majority of hotels, shops, lift pass providers and restaurants” in Grchen. This is probably not a particularly attractive arbitrage opportunity. “We had to do something so we decided to play central bank,” says the director of the tourism office, which seems like a very Swiss thing to say.
Meanwhile in Greece.
Paul Krugman makes the Keynesian case for Greece to stop running a primary surplus. Ferdinando Giugliano(and Tyler Cowen) points out that Greece’s interest expense, as a percentage of GDP, is less than Italy’s or Spain’s, making calls for Greek debt forgiveness somewhat awkward. And “Greeces new finance minister learned about tearing down capitalism from working at a video game company,” where he was “the chief economist for a bustling virtual economy.”(Not bitcoin.) And so, as you might expect, his leftism is a sort of techno-utopian leftism:
The current system of corporate governance is bunk. Capitalist corporations are on the way to certain extinction. Replete with hierarchies that are exceedingly wasteful of human talent and energies, intertwined with toxic finance, co- dependent with political structures that are losing democratic legitimacy fast, a form of post-capitalist, decentralised corporation will, sooner or later, emerge.
The current system of corporate governance is bunk. Capitalist corporations are on the way to certain extinction. Replete with hierarchies that are exceedingly wasteful of human talent and energies, intertwined with toxic finance, co- dependent with political structures that are losing democratic legitimacy fast, a form of post-capitalist, decentralised corporation will, sooner or later, emerge.
Yeah I meanthat sounds like Uber.
Would you trustFinra?
Here’s an amazing little story about how the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is asking brokers to basically sendFinraall of their clients’ account information soFinracan check to see if the brokers are churning accounts or doing other bad stuff. (It calls this “the Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System, or Cards”). And the brokers are pushing back because… well, it’s a little hard to tell, are they just trying to avoid regulation, or are they genuinely concerned about the possibility of a data breach atFinra?Here is a consumer advocate:
Ms. Roper said that some of the industrys arguments were disingenuous. Brokerage firms regularly rely on Big Data in their own businesses, even making account access easily available on mobile devices, she said. They dont say, Stop, dont do it, when its a matter of their profits, she said. But they seem to think Big Data represents some unacceptable risk if the purpose is to enhance investor protection.
Ms. Roper said that some of the industrys arguments were disingenuous. Brokerage firms regularly rely on Big Data in their own businesses, even making account access easily available on mobile devices, she said. They dont say, Stop, dont do it, when its a matter of their profits, she said. But they seem to think Big Data represents some unacceptable risk if the purpose is to enhance investor protection.
So finethat is all true but wouldn’t you be a little worried aboutFinrahaving your data? There is some history of financial regulators not investing as much in computer security as you mighthope. Ifa brokerage discloses a bunch of sensitive customer information to hackers,it will probably have a lot of legal liability to the customers, and that risk of liability tends tofocus the mind.Finramightbe less focused.
It snowed a little.
The blizzard was a bit of a bust but it did allow financial services employees to show off how tough they are, or at least how drunk:
Business continuity plans were being invoked at home, too. Manley said hes got plenty of firewood and Remy Martin in the house in case the power goes out. His two four-wheel drive cars are pointing out of the driveway.
Business continuity plans were being invoked at home, too. Manley said hes got plenty of firewood and Remy Martin in the house in case the power goes out. His two four-wheel drive cars are pointing out of the driveway.
Also tough is the New York Stock Exchange, which has been open for regular trading hours because it consists of computers and the computers don’t commute, or even require cognac.Trading robots: They’re a mechanism of use for market stabilization in modern conditions!
The blizzard also allowed Uber to show off how nice it is, capping surge pricingand giving some proceeds to the American Red Cross even though, as Dan Primack points out, “If you call for a black car in the midst of a blizzard, then you SHOULD be charged a TON.”
Things happen.
Women are better traders than men. Yahoo will talk about tax-efficient Alibaba monetization in its earnings today. “The profit margin expansionseen in the U.S. corporate sector over the last two decades has been driven largely by gains in the financial and technology sectors.” The SEC sort of forgot about the CEO-to-worker-pay ratio thing.How CDS Investors Pushed Caesars in Restructuring Talks.Double Down Dog.The Dutch Artist Who Turned His Dead Cat Into A Drone Is Keeping A Badger In His Freezer To Build A Submarine.Chemists find a way to unboil eggs.
Canada’s newest exchange, set to open in March, has completed its first successful system’s test.
This past weekend, Aequitas’ NEO Exchange, tested its trading systems, data feeds and other key support systems as it readies itself for a late spring launch. This industry test occurred on Saturday January 24th with the participation of a number of key trading and market data solution providers, as well as dealers representing a good cross section of the industry.
Among the testing partners were: Activ Financial, Integrated Transaction Systems (ITS), IRESS, Thomson Reuters and ITG Canada were amongst those who participated in the test.
According to Aequitas, NEO Exchange remains on track to launch its trading platform during the second half of March 2015 and will be conducting additional industry test weekends in the production environment leading up to the launch.
“We are very thankful to all those who participated in this first industry test weekend,” said Jos Schmitt, president & cheif executive at NEO Exchange. “It allowed us to assess the state of readiness and robustness of our various technology systems and operational procedures, and I am pleased to report that the results were positive. This is a testament to the quality of the MillenniumIT trading platform our Exchange will be using.”
Aequitas Innovations announced that the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) had approved the creation of its Neo Exchange last November.
Why High-Frequency Traders May Need to Slow Down
(Bloomberg View) — In today’s electronic financial markets, a single investor can execute more than10,000 trades a second, meaning that more than 1,000 trades can happen in the blink of an eye. Electronic trading firms are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shave off even millionths of a second. This raises an important question for human welfare: If real economic activity depends on people doing things, and people can’t possibly think or react this fast, who benefits from all the speed?
Judging from new research, hardly anybody does. The markets may be running too fast for their own good.
Trading on Speed
Today’s exchanges operate in a way that lends itself to speed: Computers place orders to buy and sell, then other computers execute the orders as soon as a match can be found. Such continuous trading, though, isnt the only way to organize a market. An alternative is to use batch auctions: An exchange would accumulate buy and sell orders over a discrete period of time, then match them all at a price that balances supply and demand.
Some earlier research has suggested that batch auctions might eliminate the fleeting arbitrage opportunities that drive the current arms race in trading speed. Now, two researchers — Austin Gerig of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Daniel Fricke of Oxford University — have shown in a detailed analysis of batch execution that the optimal time period between trades should be something close to half a second. In other words, there’s a speed — and it’s not terribly fast — beyond which more is harmful, not beneficial.
Compared with the markets of two decades ago, when human brokers could take half a minute to execute an order, faster trading has some obvious advantages. If you put in an order buy when Apple stock is trading at $106.47, you dont want it to sit around too long, lest the price jump above what you think the stock is worth. The longer the trading interval, the greater the chance that investors, even if they have good information, will get burned by random fluctuations.
On the other hand, too much speed isn’t good, either. For a batch market to work well, the exchange needs time to accumulate enough orders to get a good picture of supply and demand. Otherwise, a few unusual orders can distort the price, again exposing investors to undesirable risks.
Somewhere in between is the sweet spot, the optimal trading interval that would make markets work best for investors. Looking at historical data for U.S. stocks, Gerig and Fricke find it to be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.9 seconds — that is, no faster than about 5 trades asecond. The exact number would vary by security, depending on characteristics such as volatility, trading volume and the extent to which the price moves in sync with the market as a whole. (Here’s a more technical discussion.)
As the researchers put it, their arguments suggest that speed is important in U.S. markets and that time delays of even a fraction of a second can harm market quality, but millisecond and microsecond speeds are unnecessary. Gerig and Fricke’s result isn’t definitive, as real markets differ from the simple batch execution scenario they examine. Hence, the optimal speed for real markets might differ a little. Still, their work offers good evidence that trading has gotten too fast, and that slowing down would be desirable.
So here’s one idea for ending the wasteful arms race among high-frequency traders to achieve ever faster execution: Implement a kind of speed limit, perhaps at 0.1 second, and require exchanges to run a batch clearing system. The time interval might even be adjustable, rising and falling with measures of market volatility.
A speed limit on trading would probably be bad news for companies currently profiting from the technology-fueled microsecond scrum over information. But markets are supposed to serve investors and the companies they support, not financial intermediaries.