Freaking out about market abuse

Ana Herrero-WallaceThe behavioural economics book, Freakonomics, includes a chapter entitled Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? which talks about ‘foot soldiers’, small street crack dealers in Chicago. These individuals, apparently, have a one in four chance of getting killed and they will be arrested around six times during the course of their ‘careers’. All these statistical consequences just to earn an average of $3.30/ hour – less than they could make working in my local kebab shop! Dealing crack cocaine doesn’t have much in common with market abuse other than the obvious fact that they are both illegal activities.

But, in today’s complex trading landscape, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to spot incidences of market manipulation. It’s difficult to assemble the data needed from all brokers, all venues and the market as a whole. Even the regulators (the likes of the FSA) are not omniscient – they can’t possibly know everything.

Those brokers looking to ‘disguise’ their trading intentions may divide a big order into smaller orders and execute on different venues. While both Regulated Markets (RMs) and MTFs are required to operate effective surveillance systems for the detection of market abuse, how can they be expected to meet their surveillance obligations if they don’t have all the information they need? One venue won’t know if a client executed a similar order on another, nor will it necessarily know the identity of the end client for a particular order. As a result, many of these ‘abusive’ orders remain unflagged.

The issue of market abuse is one of the areas that MiFID II is set to address. The regulation might, for example, enforce standard flags to identify the end client for every order. Unless the industry makes the necessary corrections we will never see a level playing field and one where market abuse has more in common with the risk/return trade-off of the small-time Chicago dealers still living with their mothers!

Comments
One Response to “Freaking out about market abuse”
  1. Anne says:

    At the MiFID Forum – Transaction Reporting Subject Group yesterday there was a discussion around ESMA’s proposed introduction of a unique Client Identifier at a National level on transaction reports to combat market abuse. Under MiFID, unique client ids at a firm level were introduced on client side transaction reports, from memory this was a huge undertaking at the time. The FSA representative at the forum was asking how could individuals be identified?

Leave A Comment

Copyright © 2017 Fidessa group plc. All rights reserved.

The information contained within this website is provided for informational purposes only. Fidessa will use reasonable care to ensure that information is accurate at the time it is made available, and for the duration that it remains on the site. The information may be changed by Fidessa at any time without notice. We also reserve the right to close the website at any time. No representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is given on behalf of Fidessa or any of its respective directors, employees, agents, or advisers as to the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained herein or its suitability for any purpose and, save in the case of fraud, all liability for direct, indirect, special, consequential or other loss or damages of whatever kind that may arise from use of the website is hereby excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any decisions you make based on the information in this website are your sole responsibility and information on the website should not be relied upon in connection with any investment decision.

The copyright of this website belongs to Fidessa. All other intellectual property rights are reserved.

Reproduction or redistribution of this information is prohibited except with written permission from Fidessa.