Slashdot Mirror


Futures Trader Arrested For Causing 2010 'Flash Crash'

New submitter dfsmith writes: Apparently the "Flash Crash" of the stock market in May 2010 was perpetrated by a futures trader in the UK. The US Justice Department alleges that he used a "dynamic layering scheme" of large-volume sell orders to confuse other buyers, hence winning big in his futures trades. "By allegedly placing multiple, simultaneous, large-volume sell orders at different price points—a technique known as 'layering'—Sarao created the appearance of substantial supply in the market. As part of the scheme, Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them. When prices fell as a result of this activity, Sarao allegedly sold futures contracts only to buy them back at a lower price. Conversely, when the market moved back upward as the market activity ceased, Sarao allegedly bought contracts only to sell them at a higher price."

19 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. So? by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just smart trading. I know 100 guys that COULD do this, assuming they had the requisite margin. As long as you place trades on the book that you're willing to fill based on the rules of that market there's no reason why you should be called a 'crook' for that.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:So? by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Market manipulation is only legal when the big banks do it.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. This man's only crime was being small enough to prosecute.

      If one man manipulates the market, he gets arrested.

      If a large firm manipulates the market, the're a titan of wall street and get to have dinner with congresscritters.

    3. Re:So? by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they were doing was so blatantly illegal

      It wouldn't be, if spoofing weren't a crime. The US could have simply not made it a crime in this case and then it wouldn't be "blatantly illegal" for small traders to do.

      And notice how the problem is due to poor market design. Instead of fixing markets so that it isn't possible to "cancel before execution", they implement ridiculous rules and laws instead.

      Consider this analogy. How many people here think it's a good idea to modify US law just to protect the *IAA business models? So why is it acceptable to modify US law just to protect stock market business models?

    4. Re:So? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like it's a flaw in the NYSE and similar exchanges as well as greedy HFT algorithms. It seems like fixing these flaws is far more important than just arresting people who exploit them.

      Who was actually harmed by this crash? A bunch of wall street speculators running computer programs to trade faster than regular people. Who gives a shit. If anything, it exposes the vulnerability so it can be fixed.

      It's entirely possible to have an exchange where there is no unfair advantage given to people who have paid for faster access to trade offers. But this is the system Wallstreet wants, and I can't say I feel bad when crooks get cheated.

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think anyone's suggesting that your orders should sit there forever.

      What would seem reasonable is that there should be a minimum delay between submitting an order and cancelling it (or even submitting it and having it appear on the market), and that delay is of the order of 10ths of seconds rather than nanoseconds as is currently the practice of HFTs.

      A very easy way to achieve that is to put a great big loop of wire (i.e. several km minimum) between every brokers' order entry systems and the exchange's live market systems, such that there's an appreciable delay between the broker entering their orders and them appearing on the live market. If everyone's orders are forced to go through that big loop of wire before they hit the market, the opportunity for the few to frontrun the orders of the many is massively reduced.

    6. Re:So? by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read Flash Boys. There is an absolute metric fuckton of orders that are generated each day that are not intended to be fulfulled and are purely there to manipulate pricing.

    7. Re:So? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't think I should be able to cancel that buy order due to the new information?

      No, you shouldn't. You tried to profit from random events going your way, so now you just have to deal with the fact that your lottery ticket was empty.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:So? by zidium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A more fair way would be to levy a $0.01 tax on every open position. And $0.01 on every position close. This would make HFT unprofitable instantly.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    9. Re:So? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's your answer. He did exactly what they do, but did it cleverly enough to remove the speed advantage. As a result, the money flowed the 'wrong' way and so Wall Street's pet investigators must put a stop to it.

  2. Re:A Sympton of the Problem by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's stupid. You only need to delay settlement by seconds, force the buyer to hold for 6 minutes, and the HFT system is broken.

    Or you could levy a truly minimal transaction tax, even processing fee for orders executed in than 250ms from offer to buy to re-offer... Maybe.

    But thinking you should force holding stock for days means you need to suspend trading when any news breaks. Which halts the market.

    Just slow HFT by milliseconds.

    Oh, and audit brokers. If they persist in offering stock they actually don't have, perhaps that's a problem? This whole episode sounds like NASDAQ, except they seem to have the stock.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  3. Re:A Sympton of the Problem by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps, just maybe perhaps, something that is inherently broken should be broken. As a means by which to increase the prices of commodities, not to the benefit of producers or to the benefit of end consumers purely to create an artificial point by which disgusting individuals can insert themselves into the transaction and claim that price increase as profit for doing nothing other than speculating and seeking purposefully manipulate the price. It ain't stupid to try to eliminate the current commodities pricing scam.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Market Making by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is basically what Market Making is: Creating a bunch of pending orders that are never triggered to push the market away and into the direction they want.
    Only the biggest players on the block can get away with doing this because they have billions in equity.... such as the largest 12 banks on the planet.

    Always good to know that the value of all our commodities and currencies are controlled by them on a whim, isn't it?
    Also good to know that they make money by default and can't really lose the game.

    Go back to sleep everyone. Nothing to see here...

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  5. Meanwhile US fugitive bankers in Switzerland by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easily tracked and easily identified US "fugitive" bankers who caused the crash and have Interpol warrants for their arrest are living high and mighty in Switzerland meanwhile.

    (sources: Bloomberg, WSJ, and Marketwatch)

    So can we actually believe this "person responsible" is not just a sacrificial lamb who will end up pardoned anyway, without doing any actual jail time?

    Just saying.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Re:A Sympton of the Problem by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's stupid. You only need to delay settlement by seconds, force the buyer to hold for 6 minutes, and the HFT system is broken.

    Or you could levy a truly minimal transaction tax, even processing fee for orders executed in than 250ms from offer to buy to re-offer... Maybe.

    But thinking you should force holding stock for days means you need to suspend trading when any news breaks. Which halts the market.

    Just slow HFT by milliseconds.

    Oh, and audit brokers. If they persist in offering stock they actually don't have, perhaps that's a problem? This whole episode sounds like NASDAQ, except they seem to have the stock.

    The argument by HFT traders is that reduces the liquidity and efficiency of the stock market.

    They are right in the effect. However, you never see anyone take it to the next step. Do we NEED to market to be THAT liquid?

    I, personally, think that the market is currently too liquid if flash crashes can that easily take place on fake orders. It means that the HFT programs are reacting even before the trades have been completed. I agree that they need to be slowed down.

  7. Re:Allegedly by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    well allegedly they're not even certain why it would be illegal for him to have done so.

    the real problem isn't his tactic.. it's the way the markets allow for robo traders in the first place. if it was legal for him to do algorithmic trading, why this algo was illegal?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. Re:Allegedly by knightghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Same reason for all DOJ cases - Marketing and Politics.

    Futures and Shorts may stabilize markets in the short term but they are an incredible drain on long term investments.

  9. Re:Allegedly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other words he was using the system to make money. But because he's not one of the big players they're all crying because a little guy got in on their action.

  10. Re:Allegedly by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so the crime he was committing was making money for himself instead of for Goldman Sachs.

    I think it tells us everything we need to know about how corrupt our society has become.