The Clayton Rule on Speed
By Prof Craig Pirrong
I have written often of the Clayton Rule of
Manipulation, named after a cotton broker who, in testimony before Congress,
uttered these wise words:
“The word ‘manipulation’ . . . in its use is so broad
as to include any operation of the cotton market that does not suit the
gentleman who is speaking at the moment.”
High Frequency Trading has created the possibility of the promiscuous application of the Clayton Rule, because there is a lot of things about HFT that do not suit a lot of gentlemen at this moment, and a lot of ladies for that matter.
The CFTC’s Frankendodd-based Disruptive Practices
Rule, plus the fraud based manipulation Rule 180.1 (also a product of
Dodd-Frank) provide the agency’s enforcement staff with the tools to pursue a
pretty much anything that does not suit them at any particular moment.
At present, the thing that least suits government
enforcers-including not just CFTC but the Department of Justice as well-is
spoofing. As I discussed late last year, the
DOJ has filed criminal charges in a spoofing case.
Here’s my description of spoofing:
What is spoofing? It’s the futures market equivalent of Lucy and the football. A trader submits buy (sell) orders above (below) the inside market in the hope that this convinces other market participants that there is strong demand (supply) for (of) the futures contract. If others are so fooled, they will raise their bids (lower their offers).
Right before they do
this, the spoofer pulls his orders just like Lucy pulls the football away from
Charlie Brown, and then hits (lifts) the higher (lower) bids (offers). If the
pre-spoof prices are “right”, the post-spoof bids (offers) are too high (too
low), which means the spoofer sells high and buys low.
Order cancellation is a crucial component of the
spoofing strategy, and this has created widespread suspicion about the
legitimacy of order cancellation generally. Whatever you think about
spoofing, if such futures market rule enforcers (exchanges, the CFTC, or
the dreaded DOJ) begin to believe that traders who cancel orders at a high rate
are doing something nefarious, and begin applying the Clayton Rule to such traders,
the potential for mischief-and far worse-is great.
Many legitimate strategies involve high rates of order cancellation. In particular, market making strategies, including market making strategies pursued by HFT firms, typically involve high cancellation rates, especially in markets with small ticks, narrow spreads, and high volatility.
Market makers can quote tighter spreads if they can adjust their quotes rapidly in response to new information. High volatility essentially means a high rate of information flow, and a need to adjust quotes frequently. Moreover, HFT traders can condition their quotes in a given market based on information (e.g., trades or quote changes) in other markets.
Thus, to be able to
quote tight markets in these conditions, market makers need to be able to
adjust quotes frequently, and this in turn requires frequent order
cancellations.
Order cancellation is also a means of protecting
market making HFTs from being picked off by traders with better information.
HFTs attempt to identify when order flow becomes “toxic” (i.e., is
characterized by a large proportion of better-informed traders) and rationally
cancel orders when this occurs. This reduces the cost of making markets.
This creates a considerable tension if order
cancellation rates are used as a metric to detect potential manipulative
conduct. Tweaking strategies to reduce cancellation rates to reduce the
probability of getting caught in an enforcement dragnet increases the frequency
that a trader is picked off and thereby raises trading costs: the rational
response is to quote less aggressively, which reduces market liquidity. But not
doing so raises the risk of a torturous investigation, or worse.
What’s more, the complexity of HFT strategies will make ex post forensic analyses of traders’ activities fraught with potential error. There is likely to be a high rate of false positives-the identification of legitimate strategies as manipulative. This is particularly true for firms that trade intensively in multiple markets.
With some frequency, such firms will quote one side of the market, cancel, and
then take liquidity from the other side of the market (the pattern that is
symptomatic of spoofing). They will do that because that can be the rational
response to some patterns of information arrival. But try explaining that to a
suspicious regulator.
The problem here inheres in large part in the
inductive nature of legal reasoning, which generalizes from specific cases
and relies heavily on analogy. With such reasoning there is always a danger
that a necessary condition (“all spoofing strategies involve high rates of
order cancellation”) morphs into a sufficient condition (“high rates of order
cancellation indicate manipulation”). This danger is particularly acute in
complex environments in which subtle differences in strategies that are
difficult for laymen to grasp (and may even be difficult for the strategist or
experts to explain) can lead to very different conclusions about their
legitimacy.
The potential for a regulatory dragnet directed
against spoofing catching legitimate strategies by mistake is probably the
greatest near-term concern that traders should have, because such a dragnet is
underway. But the widespread misunderstanding and suspicion of HFT more
generally means that over the medium to long term, the scope of the Clayton
Rule may expand dramatically.
This is particularly worrisome given that suspected
offenders are at risk to criminal charges. This dramatic escalation in the
stakes raises compliance costs because every inquiry, even from an exchange,
demands a fully-lawyered response. Moreover, it will make firms avoid some
perfectly rational strategies that reduce the costs of making markets, thereby
reducing liquidity and inflating trading costs for everyone.
The vagueness of the statute and the regulations that
derive from it pose a huge risk to HFT firms. The only saving grace is that
this vagueness may result in the law being declared unconstitutional and
preventing it from being used in criminal prosecutions.
Although he wrote in a non-official capacity, an
article by CFTC attorney Gregory Scopino illustrates how
expansive regulators may become in their criminalization of HFT
strategies. In a Connecticut Law Review article,
Scopino questions the legality of “high-speed ‘pinging’ and ‘front running’ in
futures markets.” It’s frightening to watch him stretch the
concepts of fraud and “deceptive contrivance or device” to cover a variety of
defensible practices which he seems not to understand.
In particular, he is very exercised by “pinging”, that
is, the submission of small orders in an attempt to detect large orders. As
remarkable as it might sound, his understanding of this seems to be even more
limited than Michael Lewis’s: see Peter Kovac’s
demolition of Lewis in his Not so Fast.
When there is hidden liquidity (due to non-displayed orders or iceberg orders), it makes perfect sense for traders to attempt to learn about market depth. This can be valuable information for liquidity providers, who get to know about competitive conditions in the market and can gauge better the potential profitability of supplying liquidity.
It can also be valuable to
informed strategic traders, whose optimal trading strategy depends on market
depth (as Pete Kyle showed more than 30 years ago): see
a nice paper by Clark-Joseph on such “exploratory trading”, which sadly
has been misrepresented by many (including Lewis and Scopino) to mean that HFT
firms front run, a conclusion that Clark-Joseph explicitly denies. To call
either of these strategies front running, or deem them deceptive or fraudulent
is disturbing, to say the least.
Scopino and other critics of HFT also criticize the
alleged practice of order anticipation, whereby a trader infers the existence
of a large order being executed in pieces as soon as the first pieces trade. I
say alleged, because as Kovac points out, the noisiness of order
flow sharply limits the ability to detect a large latent order on the
basis of a few trades.
What’s more, as I wrote in some posts on HFT just
about a year ago, and in a piece in the Journal
of Applied Corporate Finance, it’s by no means clear that order
anticipation is inefficient, due to the equivocal nature of informed trading.
Informed trading reduces liquidity, making it particularly perverse that
Scopino wants to treat order anticipation as a form of insider trading (i.e.,
trading on non-public information). Talk about getting things totally
backwards: this would criminalize a type of trading that actually impedes
liquidity-reducing informed trading. Maybe there’s a planet on which that makes
sense, but its sky ain’t blue.
Fortunately, these are now just gleams in an ambitious
attorney’s eye. But from such gleams often come regulatory progeny. Indeed,
since there is a strong and vocal constituency to impede HFT, the political
economy of regulation tends to favor such an outcome. Regulators
gonna regulate, especially when importuned by interested parties. Look no
further than the net neutrality debacle.
In sum, the Clayton Rule has been around for the good
part of a century, but I fear we ain’t seen nothing yet. HFT doesn’t suit a lot
of people, often because of ignorance or self-interest, and as Mr. Clayton
observed so long ago, it’s a short step from that to an accusation of
manipulation. Regulators armed with broad, vague, and elastic authority (and
things don’t get much broader, vaguer, or more elastic than “deceptive
contrivance or device”) pose a great danger of running amok and impairing
market performance in the name of improving it.
For more see http://streetwiseprofessor.com/
Found this useful?
Take a complimentary trial of the FOW Marketing Intelligence Platform – the comprehensive source of news and analysis across the buy- and sell- side.
Gain access to:
- A single source of in-depth news, insight and analysis across Asset Management, Securities Finance, Custody, Fund Services and Derivatives
- Our interactive database, optimized to enable you to summarise data and build graphs outlining market activity
- Exclusive whitepapers, supplements and industry analysis curated and published by Futures & Options World
- Breaking news, daily and weekly alerts on the markets most relevant to you