Hence, the new hedge fund legislation is not so much about fixing newly discovered flaws as it is about preventing potential problems from arising in the future. They have to maintain extensive records about their investment and business practices, provide this information to the SEC, hire a chief compliance officer to design and monitor a compliance program, and be subject to periodic SEC examinations and inspections.
The SEC is also given considerable power to expand its own authority in the future: it has the power to request any additional information it deems necessary, it can define "mid-sized" private funds and require them to register as well, and it can impose separate recordkeeping and reporting requirements on all other hedge funds. However, "family offices" are exempt from registration.
Also the derivatives section of the Dodd-Frank Act affects hedge funds.
For example, a hedge fund trading OTC derivatives may be deemed a "major swap participant" and thus be subject to additional regulation described in the derivatives section of the Act. Again, a lot of the important details are left for the regulators to decide later. Overall, we would like to see a broad but light regulatory approach to hedge funds. It would be reasonable to require all hedge funds to register with the SEC and to file Form ADV to provide useful information to investors. Particularly troubling is the family office exemption which has the potential to turn into a loophole that encompasses a large fraction of the industry.
However, compliance costs should be kept low, and the SEC's mandate should be limited to collecting information on the items explicitly mentioned in the Act. In its current form, the Act gives the SEC essentially an open mandate to regulate and to define the scope of its own authority over the industry.
Because regulators in general have an incentive to expand their own power and because the SEC in particular has an unimpressive track record of discovering even simple fraud, any additional powers granted to the SEC should be more narrowly targeted toward a specific task. Protection of hedge fund investors is now something the SEC is also officially authorized to engage in. We hope that any such future rules would focus on disclosure, such as requiring explicit disclosures of all expenses charged to the fund and differential tax treatment of investors.
Beyond that, it should be up to the accredited investors themselves to make their own investment decisions. Fiduciaries should bear more responsibility for doing due diligence and pay a high price for neglecting this fundamental duty. The sensibility and impact of the new hedge fund legislation will almost entirely depend on the specific rules that will be written later by the regulators, so we cannot pass our final judgment yet, especially given the considerable leeway the Act has left for the regulators.
It may even take a year or two before we will really see how the hedge fund rules have changed. In the future, the hedge fund sector will only grow in size and importance, since the Volcker rule of the Dodd-Frank Act requires banks to spin off their proprietary trading desks and their internal asset management divisions into stand-alone hedge funds.
As a result, hedge funds will be the only source of sophisticated and relatively unconstrained capital, thus making them perhaps the main liquidity providers across a variety of markets. Efficient allocation of capital is the key function of the financial market, so it is all the more important that the subsequent rules following the Dodd-Frank Act will not stifle hedge funds or reduce the intense competition between them.
Tags : hedge funds , investor protection , SEC , systemic risk. Leave a comment. Email Address. Remember personal info? About RegulatingWallStreet. Viral V. Acharya Barry Adler Edward I. Altman John Biggs Stephen J.
Brown Christian Brownlee Jennifer N. As they withdraw, liquidity disappears, which increases even more the concentration of toxic flow in the overall volume, which triggers a feedback mechanism that forces even more market makers out. This cascading effect has caused hundreds of liquidity-induced crashes in the past, the flash crash being one major example of it. One hour before the flash crash , order flow toxicity was the highest in recent history. However, independent studies published in strongly disputed the last claim. Note that the source of increasing "order flow toxicity" on May 6, , is not determined in Easley, Lopez de Prado, and O'Hara's publication.
The Chief Economist of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and several academic economists published a working paper containing a review and empirical analysis of trade data from the Flash Crash. Based on our analysis, we believe that High Frequency Traders exhibit trading patterns inconsistent with the traditional definition of market making.
Specifically, High Frequency Traders aggressively trade in the direction of price changes. This activity comprises a large percentage of total trading volume, but does not result in a significant accumulation of inventory. As a result, whether under normal market conditions or during periods of high volatility, High Frequency Traders are not willing to accumulate large positions or absorb large losses.
Moreover, their contribution to higher trading volumes may be mistaken for liquidity by Fundamental Traders. Finally, when rebalancing their positions, High Frequency Traders may compete for liquidity and amplify price volatility. Consequently, we believe, that irrespective of technology, markets can become fragile when imbalances arise as a result of large traders seeking to buy or sell quantities larger than intermediaries are willing to temporarily hold, and simultaneously long-term suppliers of liquidity are not forthcoming even if significant price concessions are offered.
Recent research on dynamical complex networks published in Nature Physics suggests that the Flash Crash may be an example of the "avoided transition" phenomenon in network systems with critical behavior. In April , Navinder Singh Sarao, a London-based point-and-click trader,  was arrested for his alleged role in the flash crash.
According to criminal charges brought by the United States Department of Justice , Sarao allegedly used an automated program to generate large sell orders, pushing down prices, which he then cancelled to buy at the lower market prices.
During extradition proceedings he was represented by Richard Egan  of Tuckers Solicitors. As of Navinder Singh Sarao's lawyers claim that all of his assets were stolen or otherwise lost in bad investments. Navinder has been set free on bail, banned from trading and placed under the care of his father. Alright, this is going to say everything. Oh, well, that's true, if that stock is there you just go and buy it. That—it can't be there.
Oh well, just go buy Procter. Who cares?! I'll pay I mean, this is ridi When I walked down here it was at 61—when I walked down here it was at 61, I'm not that interested in it. It's at 47, well that's a different security entirely, so what you have to do, though, you have to use limit orders, because Procter just jumped seven points because I said I liked it at Stocks continued to rebound in the following days, helped by a bailout package in Europe to help save the euro.
SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro testified that "stub quotes" may have played a role in certain stocks that traded for 1 cent a share. The absurd result of valuable stocks being executed for a penny likely was attributable to the use of a practice called "stub quoting. A stub quote is essentially a place holder quote because that quote would never—it is thought—be reached. When a market order is seeking liquidity and the only liquidity available is a penny-priced stub quote, the market order, by its terms, will execute against the stub quote.
In this respect, automated trading systems will follow their coded logic regardless of outcome, while human involvement likely would have prevented these orders from executing at absurd prices. As noted below, we are reviewing the practice of displaying stub quotes that are never intended to be executed. Officials announced that new trading curbs , also known as circuit breakers , would be tested during a six-month trial period ending on December 10, By Monday, June 14, 44 had them.
By Tuesday, June 15, the number had grown to , and by Wednesday, June 16, all companies had circuit breakers installed.
On May 6, the markets only broke trades that were more than 60 percent away from the reference price in a process that was not transparent to market participants. A list of 'winners' and 'losers' created by this arbitrary measure has never been made public. By establishing clear and transparent standards for breaking erroneous trades, the new rules should help provide certainty in advance as to which trades will be broken, and allow market participants to better manage their risks.
In a article that appeared on the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the anniversary of the "flash crash", it was reported that high-frequency traders were then less active in the stock market. Kaufman and Michigan senator Carl Levin published a op-ed in The New York Times a year after the Flash Crash, sharply critical of what they perceived to be the SEC's apparent lack of action to prevent a recurrence. In high-frequency traders moved away from the stock market as there had been lower volatility and volume.
Trading activities declined throughout , with April's daily average of 5. Sharp movements in stock prices, which were frequent during the period from to the first half of , were in a decline in the Chicago Board Options Exchange volatility index, the VIX, which fell to its lowest level in April since July These volumes of trading activity in , to some degree, were regarded as more natural levels than during the financial crisis and its aftermath.
Some argued that those lofty levels of trading activity were never an accurate picture of demand among investors. It was a reflection of computer-driven traders passing securities back and forth between day-trading hedge funds. The flash crash exposed this phantom liquidity. In high-frequency trading firms became increasingly active in markets like futures and currencies, where volatility remains high. However, the growth of computerized and high-frequency trading in commodities and currencies coincided with a series of "flash crashes" in those markets. The role of human market makers, who match buyers and sellers and provide liquidity to the market, was more and more played by computer programs.
If those program traders pulled back from the market, then big "buy" or "sell" orders could have led to sudden, big swings. It would have increased the probability of surprise distortions, as in the equity markets, according to a professional investor. The U. According to a former cocoa trader: ' "The electronic platform is too fast; it doesn't slow things down" like humans would. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. May 7, The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on May 9, Retrieved May 9, CNN Money. Retrieved May 8, December 6, ETFs are scaring regulators and investors: Here are the dangers—real and perceived".
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 7, Journal of Financial Markets.
The Fed raised rates from the unusually low level of one percent in to a more typical 5. And way is to make it simpler and less prone to break down it means that leverage of positions should be confined. But the software that had been developed to manage patient records and collect insurance reimbursements became the basis of Athenahealth. Housing prices nearly doubled between and , a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Investors spend a ton of time vetting ideas and building their thesis around that idea. The real question we should be asking is - is there a way to align the inevitable actions of the margin-seeking reality of the financial engineer with the needs of the real economy?
Retrieved August 22, Retrieved August 25, Financial Post. Archived from the original on June 18, Retrieved May 30, Retrieved October 1, Archived from the original on October 21, Retrieved October 28, Archived from the original on October 4, Retrieved October 29, The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, The Atlantic. Archived from the original on August 17, Retrieved August 26, Financial Times. September 4, Archived from the original on September 4, Retrieved September 4, Maybe Not.
The Huffington Post. October 1, Archived from the original on August 27, Archived PDF from the original on October 10, Retrieved October 2, Washington Post. Retrieved November 2, Popper, Nathaniel October 1, Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 10, Younglai, Rachelle October 5, Archived from the original on October 8, Spicer, Jonathan October 15, Archived from the original on October 18, Bowley, Graham October 1, Spicer, Jonathan October 1, Lauricella, Tom October 2, Archived from the original on October 7, Retrieved November 5, Accessed June 30, Archived Journal of Financial Markets, forthcoming.
Lopez de Prado, and M.