太快,太频繁?高频交易和证券集体诉讼

T. E. Levens
{"title":"太快,太频繁?高频交易和证券集体诉讼","authors":"T. E. Levens","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2623956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advent of computerized trading in the 1970s and 1980s changed the landscape of securities litigation. Now, high-frequency trading (HFT) again threatens to do the same. By using sophisticated technological tools and computer algorithms to execute trades in fractions of a second and moving in and out of short-term positions at high volume, traders aim to capture sometimes just a fraction of a cent in profit on every trade. Along with the advantages of increased speed, however, come many negative effects for investors still utilizing slower, more conventional electronic trading strategies. Such investors, stung by lost profits and increased prices, have begun to seek protection and relief from the federal securities laws — but how likely are their claims to succeed? And, in the event that HFT becomes a standard practice among investors, how should litigants in securities class actions react to this new technology? This Comment explores these and other questions related to HFT and the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, and proposes solutions and suggestions for how courts should treat these issues.","PeriodicalId":431402,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Fast, Too Frequent? High-Frequency Trading and Securities Class Actions\",\"authors\":\"T. E. Levens\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2623956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The advent of computerized trading in the 1970s and 1980s changed the landscape of securities litigation. Now, high-frequency trading (HFT) again threatens to do the same. By using sophisticated technological tools and computer algorithms to execute trades in fractions of a second and moving in and out of short-term positions at high volume, traders aim to capture sometimes just a fraction of a cent in profit on every trade. Along with the advantages of increased speed, however, come many negative effects for investors still utilizing slower, more conventional electronic trading strategies. Such investors, stung by lost profits and increased prices, have begun to seek protection and relief from the federal securities laws — but how likely are their claims to succeed? And, in the event that HFT becomes a standard practice among investors, how should litigants in securities class actions react to this new technology? This Comment explores these and other questions related to HFT and the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, and proposes solutions and suggestions for how courts should treat these issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431402,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2623956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2623956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

上世纪七八十年代计算机化交易的出现改变了证券诉讼的格局。现在,高频交易(HFT)再次威胁要做同样的事情。通过使用复杂的技术工具和计算机算法,在不到一秒的时间内执行交易,并在高成交量的情况下进出短期头寸,交易员的目标有时只是在每笔交易中获取不到一美分的利润。然而,随着交易速度的提高,对于仍然使用更慢、更传统的电子交易策略的投资者来说,也带来了许多负面影响。这些投资者受到利润损失和价格上涨的刺激,已开始寻求联邦证券法的保护和救济——但他们的要求成功的可能性有多大?而且,如果高频交易成为投资者的标准做法,证券集体诉讼中的诉讼当事人应该如何应对这种新技术?本评论探讨了这些和其他与高频交易有关的问题以及市场欺诈的信赖推定,并就法院应如何处理这些问题提出了解决办法和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Too Fast, Too Frequent? High-Frequency Trading and Securities Class Actions
The advent of computerized trading in the 1970s and 1980s changed the landscape of securities litigation. Now, high-frequency trading (HFT) again threatens to do the same. By using sophisticated technological tools and computer algorithms to execute trades in fractions of a second and moving in and out of short-term positions at high volume, traders aim to capture sometimes just a fraction of a cent in profit on every trade. Along with the advantages of increased speed, however, come many negative effects for investors still utilizing slower, more conventional electronic trading strategies. Such investors, stung by lost profits and increased prices, have begun to seek protection and relief from the federal securities laws — but how likely are their claims to succeed? And, in the event that HFT becomes a standard practice among investors, how should litigants in securities class actions react to this new technology? This Comment explores these and other questions related to HFT and the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, and proposes solutions and suggestions for how courts should treat these issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Raiders, Activists, and the Risk of Mistargeting The Economics of Securities Regulation: A Survey Autonomous Vehicles, Moral Hazards & the "AV Problem" Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters The '7% Solution' and IPO (Under)Pricing
×
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