Unregulated Algorithmic Trading: Testing the Boundaries of the European Union Algorithmic Trading Regime

IF 2 Q1 LAW Journal of Financial Regulation Pub Date : 2020-09-20 DOI:10.1093/jfr/fjaa008
Clara Martins Pereira
{"title":"Unregulated Algorithmic Trading: Testing the Boundaries of the European Union Algorithmic Trading Regime","authors":"Clara Martins Pereira","doi":"10.1093/jfr/fjaa008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Trading in modern equity markets has come to be dominated by machines and algorithms. However, there is significant concern over the impact of algorithmic trading on market quality and a number of jurisdictions have moved to address the risks associated with this new type of trading. The European Union has been no exception to this trend.\n This article argues that while the European Union algorithmic trading regime is often perceived as a tough response to the challenges inherent in machine trading, it has one crucial shortcoming: it does not regulate the simpler, basic execution algorithms used in automated order routers. Yet the same risk generally associated with algorithmic trading activity also arises, in particular, from the use of these basic execution algorithms—as was made evident by the trading glitch that led to the fall of United States securities trader Knight Capital in 2012. Indeed, such risk could even be amplified by the lack of sophistication of these simpler execution algorithms.\n It is thus proposed that the European Union should amend the objective scope of its algorithmic trading regime by expanding the definition of algorithmic trading under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) to include all execution algorithms, regardless of their complexity.","PeriodicalId":42830,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jfr/fjaa008","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjaa008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Trading in modern equity markets has come to be dominated by machines and algorithms. However, there is significant concern over the impact of algorithmic trading on market quality and a number of jurisdictions have moved to address the risks associated with this new type of trading. The European Union has been no exception to this trend. This article argues that while the European Union algorithmic trading regime is often perceived as a tough response to the challenges inherent in machine trading, it has one crucial shortcoming: it does not regulate the simpler, basic execution algorithms used in automated order routers. Yet the same risk generally associated with algorithmic trading activity also arises, in particular, from the use of these basic execution algorithms—as was made evident by the trading glitch that led to the fall of United States securities trader Knight Capital in 2012. Indeed, such risk could even be amplified by the lack of sophistication of these simpler execution algorithms. It is thus proposed that the European Union should amend the objective scope of its algorithmic trading regime by expanding the definition of algorithmic trading under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) to include all execution algorithms, regardless of their complexity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无管制的算法贸易:检验欧盟算法贸易制度的边界
现代股票市场的交易已逐渐由机器和算法主导。然而,人们对算法交易对市场质量的影响表示严重担忧,许多司法管辖区已采取行动解决与这种新型交易相关的风险。欧盟也不例外。本文认为,虽然欧盟算法交易制度通常被认为是对机器交易固有挑战的强硬回应,但它有一个关键的缺点:它不规范自动订单路由器中使用的更简单、基本的执行算法。然而,通常与算法交易活动相关的同样风险也会出现,尤其是在使用这些基本执行算法时——2012年导致美国证券交易商奈特资本(Knight Capital)倒闭的交易故障就证明了这一点。事实上,由于这些更简单的执行算法缺乏复杂性,这种风险甚至可能被放大。因此,建议欧盟通过扩大金融工具市场指令(MiFID II)下算法交易的定义来修改其算法交易制度的客观范围,以包括所有执行算法,无论其复杂性如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Security in Central Banking Enhancing Repo Market Transparency: The EU Securities Financing Transactions Regulation Correction to: Could it Happen in the EU? An Analysis of Loss Distributionbetween Shareholders and AT1 Bondholders under EU Law Ten Years of the Single Supervisory Mechanism: Looking into the Past, Navigating into the Future “Tis new to thee’: response to Gruenewald, Knijp, Schoenmaker, and van Tilburg
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1