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."

16 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 QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm far from a lawyer, but:

      As long as you place trades on the book that you're willing to fill

      The 'willing to fill' part might be key - as he had no intentions of filling the orders that led to the mini-panic, using them solely to affect the price for personal gain.

      Defendant willfully and knowingly, having devised and
      intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for
      obtaining money and property by means of false and
      fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises
      , did
      transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire
      communication in interstate and foreign commerce,
      writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the
      purpose of executing such scheme and artifice.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. Re:So? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So lets say I have a standing order to buy FooBar stock at $50 a share. Its current price is $55. So basically I'm looking to buy on dips.

      Tonight it comes out that the CEO has been falsifying all financial reports, and instead of making money for the last 3 years they've lost millions. You don't think I should be able to cancel that buy order due to the new information?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. 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.

    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!!
  2. 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
  3. 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! --
  4. Re:So was it illegal? by no-body · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...The markets aren't there for this sort of thing, they're primarily there to fund businesses.

    You are making me laugh - the joke of the day!
    Mark parent up as funny!!

  5. 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.

  6. Re:So was it illegal? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can buy a penny stock. You have a First Amendment right to talk it up on penny stock forums. You can then sell for a profit. No single step is illegal. But if the police prove you intended to pump and dump it you have committed a crime. The whole process, taken together, is a crime if they prove you were trying to convince a bunch of idiots to do something stupid (ie: buy your $.05 penny stock for $0.25) that a) cost them money while b) earning you money. You manipulated the market for your personal gain, and that's bad.

    This guy made a series of perfectly legal moves that had the effect of a) costing a bunch of idiots to lose money in the Flash Crash while b) he gained money.

  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 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.