Sponsored Links

U.S. eyes new rules for market after "flash crash"

Related Topics

The final numbers of the day's trading following the 20-minute ''flash crash'' at the NYSE on May 6, 2010. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

The final numbers of the day's trading following the 20-minute ''flash crash'' at the NYSE on May 6, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

WASHINGTON | Fri Nov 5, 2010 3:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators are close to approving a plan to ensure markets remain liquid even in times of crisis, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission said on Friday.

At a meeting to discuss the May "flash crash" that sent the Dow Jones industrial average into a brief 700-point freefall, SEC chief Mary Schapiro and other regulators were zeroing in on new rules to prevent another uncontrollable market plunge.

The brief market crash rattled investors already unhinged by the financial crisis.

The SEC acted with uncharacteristic speed and in June rolled out a temporary "circuit breaker" program to give a company's stock a reprieve from trading if it was plunging uncontrollably.

The SEC's lead flash crash investigator, Gregg Berman, said the circuit breaker has been triggered about a dozen times, and regulators are gleaning information to develop the next generation of circuit breakers. The current program ends December 10.

The SEC is focusing on "limit up/limit down" levels, which would set temporary price ceilings and floors for single stocks and could slow big price changes without stopping trading.

But ultimately regulators want to get to the heart of erroneous trades.

"Part of what our approach has been ... is to narrow or eliminate the circumstances in which you'd have erroneous trades because that seems to be the real policy objective in the first place," said Robert Cook, director of the SEC's trading and markets division.

REGULATORS UNDER PRESSURE

A report by the SEC and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said a $4.1 billion sale of e-mini futures contracts by Waddell & Reed Financial contributed to the flash crash.

Although the government review does not blame high-frequency traders, the SEC and CFTC are under pressure to rein in the rapid traders, who use computer-driven algorithms to quickly create and execute trades.

"I think investor confidence is affected by the perception that high-frequency traders have unfair access to markets and market information," said Brooksley Born, a former CFTC chairman and a member of the flash crash advisory panel.

Born said regulators should look at this carefully. If rapid traders have advantages "they should also have some responsibilities," he said.

At the meeting between regulators and flash crash advisers, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said he wanted to know if additional risk protections should be considered for algorithmic and high-frequency trading.

Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, told Reuters, "We need a team of experts at regulatory agencies that give, at the least, a quick look-see at robotic algorithmic programs to determine if there is the capacity to roil markets."

The flash crash advisory committee is composed of former and current regulators, financial players and a top economist. The panel was expected to discuss potential recommendations and give the regulators justification to tinker further with market rules. But Gensler said the panel was still formulating recommendations.

"They've obviously been under pressure to put recommendations out," said a Washington-based industry source. "Do they put something generic out because they need to put something out, or have they actually come to some conclusion as to what they think the right changes are going forward?"

The SEC is still considering a new marketwide circuit breaker to temporarily pause trading if a market is in crisis.

Chilton said "ratcheting down circuit breaker trigger levels" would improve the harmonization between the securities and futures markets and reduce the opportunities for the kind of arbitrage that "fuel-injected the flash crash price cascade."

(Reporting by Christopher Doering and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Tim Dobbyn and John Wallace)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Stock-MD.com wrote:
High frequency trading needs to be reigned in regardless of whether it caused or contributed to the flash crash. Just the fact that it amounts to 50% to 70% of the trading volume tells you that there is something unfair going on. It is obviously very profitable and that means they have some kind of an advantage on the rest of the market. There are a number of ways to attack the problem. I would suggest that the simplest way to deal with it is for whoever is selling them access to raise the prices that they are charging. Whatever the access providers make from that revenue stream can then be passed on to the rest of the market in the form of lower fees and commissions. The higher cost of accessing that market will also lower the volume because the marginal players will go away because it will no longer be worth the risk for the amount of profit that they make.

Nov 05, 2010 6:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wjrood wrote:
As I understand it, high frequency traders are given faster access than others. This sets up an environment where the HFT can sell a security in such huge volume that it triggers the stop loss orders of small investors. This further depresses the security, after which the HFT repurchases the stock at a lower price, again given preferential treatment so that the HFT repurchases can be made before the stock recovers.

Any such preferential treatment is a means of fleecing small investors and should be outlawed. Even without preferential treatment, high frequency trades are a manipulation of the market, creating their own downward momentum which the trading program then takes advantage of on the up-side. The problem is less clear cut than if there’s preferential treatment, but it’s still manipulation and should be investigated by the SEC and prosecuted.

Nov 08, 2010 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.