Slashdot Mirror


'Flash Crash' Trader Navinder Sarao Faces US Extradition

mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from the BBC: Navinder Sarao, the trader accused of helping to trigger the U.S. "flash crash," can be extradited to face trial, a court has ruled. Mr Sarao traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange from his parents' home near Heathrow Airport in London. Mr Sarao, 37, is accused of contributing to events on 6 May 2010, when the Dow Jones share index briefly fell more than 1,000 points. The flash crash on 6 May 2010 temporarily wiped nearly $1 trillion off the value of shares. US authorities want Mr Sarao to stand trial on 22 criminal counts. They allege he is guilty of "spoofing" — the practice of placing large orders that manipulate the markets and then cancelling or changing them, allowing him to buy or sell at a profit. Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m), they argue. The charges that Mr Sarao faces carry sentences totalling a maximum of 380 years. Reader whoever57 links to a similar report at the New York Times, which notes "This is not the last step for Mr. Sarao, as the extradition must next be reviewed by the Home Secretary." "As the submitter," writes whoever57, "it's not clear to me how this man did anything different from the high-speed and algorithmic traders do every day."

156 comments

  1. Happy Wednesday from The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thank you for being a friend
    Traveled down the road and back again
    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    And if you threw a party
    Invited everyone you knew
    You would see the biggest gift would be from me
    And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

    1. Re: Happy Wednesday from The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're a pal and a confidante."

      Not a cosmonaut you dumb fuck.

  2. Guilty of shit.. by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like anything that happens in the corrupt UK or US, the only thing Sarao is guilty of is not already being a wealthy insider. Algorithmic traders do this exact thing a trillion times every trading day. Banks did soo much worse.. and yet none of the banking executives are sitting in jail.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Guilty of shit.. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      We don't use the decimal system over here. I say we kill them all, why leave the other nine around ? Currency manipulation, algorithmic manipulation and day trading are killing our country and hurting businesses in the long run.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    2. Re:Guilty of shit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck don't cut anyone with that edge.

    3. Re:Guilty of shit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the US and it's only 380 years, I'm not sure why he's bothering to fight it. Since it's a white collar, crime I'm sure they'll let him out after a fortnight if he promises not to do it again.

    4. Re:Guilty of shit.. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      We don't use the decimal system over here.

      Where are you exactly?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    5. Re:Guilty of shit.. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Like anything that happens in the corrupt UK or US, the only thing Sarao is guilty of is not already being a wealthy insider. Algorithmic traders do this exact thing a trillion times every trading day. Banks did soo much worse.. and yet none of the banking executives are sitting in jail.

      Algorithmic traders have yet to wipe off one trillion dollars and cause a 1000 point stock market crash. If they do, I would argue they would have done the same as this person and might well get a similar set of charges.

      Be aware that skating close to the line, like these traders do, and going over the line, like this person did, are probably not actions that are too far apart in terms of what they did, but what matters is the result, and not how close you are to one another.

      If you drive really fast on a road, you may or may not be speeding, depending on the road. Unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of speed, no one is going to suggest you spend 20 year in jail for that infraction.

      However, if you drive really fast and and then lose control and drive as little as a meter off the road, causing you to hit someone walking in the shoulder, you have incurred a world of criminal charges upon yourself. This is no different. We don't throw people in jail for doing something that could cause a crime, we throw them in jail for proving their recklessness by actually screwing something up.

      So, no, this is not the same thing. You're right to be wary of the influence of high speed traders, but you can be sure that they put effort an in to keep it on this side of the law. And that does matter. You can't call someone who obeys the law, even if barely, a criminal, or the objectivity of the law itself disappears. In that case, the issue isn't criminal, it is political. We need to generate legislation to make HST or AT practices illegal, or at least considerably more regulated.

      What HST or AT practices should not take away from is the gravity of the crime that this person is accused of. He did the equivalent of hitting someone with an out of control vehicle, and he needs to be made an example of, irrespective of the existence of similar practices in HST.

  3. Beat at their own game. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should know by now that sort of behavior is only tolerated at the highest levels. If a normal person figures out how the system works that's bad.

    1. Re:Beat at their own game. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Who's game? Market manipulation is illegal for all. Profiting on other people's manipulation is fair game, which is what most of the high frequency traders do.

    2. Re:Beat at their own game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profiting on other people's manipulation is fair game, which is what most of the high frequency traders do.

      No it isn't. Check out the story about the Norwegian trader exploiting a badly written robot..

      If you're small/retail you're the mark. Not so if you're a corporation, which can at any time disappear the very next day with all the money and assets.

  4. Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > They allege he is guilty of "spoofing" — the practice of placing large orders that manipulate the markets and then cancelling or changing them

    Isnt this standard practice now? Isnt that how most HFT makes money, and it's why retail investors are advised to never place market orders anymore.

    That bid for 4.00$? Nah man, j/k. Cancelled. Here's one for 3.99$ though.
    It's K? ROFL. Cancelled. How about 3.98$?
    Still K? kekekekeke. Cancelled. I'll offer you 3.97$
    Still K? huehuehue. Cancelled. 3.96. ...
    3.84$. Oh? You wont sell for 3.84$? No prob bro. Here's an order for 3.85$ that I already know that you will take because I just cancelled the order that you tried to fill.
    AND SOLD.

    K. Now... place a bid for 4.00$ and lets see who's selling.
    REPEAT.

    1. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would you go ahead and sell at $3.85 if your minimum price is $4.00?

      And if you do go ahead and sell at $3.85, but not at $3.84, then $3.85 is all that somebody should have ever had to pay you, since that's clearly the lowest price you were willing to accept.

    2. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot cancel a filled order, though. You cannot tell an order will be filled.

    3. Re:Spoofing by PPH · · Score: 2

      You place a bunch of orders, spread across a price range. When you see which prices attract bids/offers, you quickly cancel the less lucrative offers. That's the simple explanation for what is a very complex game.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re: Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exchange rules won't let your lower bids fill before your highest bid. You're also going to be competing with other participants for the same trade. So pretty much you're imagining a game with completely arbitrary rules leaned in your favor, while for the most part everyone is playing by the same rules.

    5. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't how HFT make money. HFT have the same restrictions about spoofing, they make their money by simply being in a position to react to changes in the market much faster (think Milliseconds) than the rest of the market.

    6. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is a simple explanation but also a wrong one. once a price has been offered and accepted you cannot cancel no matter how lucrative other prices are. You only get to change offers/prices that have not received anything.

    7. Re:Spoofing by lucm · · Score: 2

      You place a bunch of orders, spread across a price range. When you see which prices attract bids/offers, you quickly cancel the less lucrative offers. That's the simple explanation for what is a very complex game.

      No trading platform will let you do that. If you want to do something legitimate in that spirit you could consider bracket trading with a very low span, but unless you work for an investment bank your orders will be batch processed via one of the big brokers like KCG and that means at the very leasts a few seconds between submitting and processing (unless they have more errors in their batch files). You'll also need to put pretty big orders to make a profit after the double fee.

      Moreover if you trade a lot real quick without a power trader account you'll get red-flagged and your orders will probably end up in the manual approval queue which means you'll miss the boat.

      Based on past experience this kind of situation can lead to holes being punched in the wall of your home office so the conclusion here is that unless you can afford a high-frequency link (which you can't) don't try to play with the big boys, that's like trying to beat slot machines.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    8. Re: Spoofing by lucm · · Score: 1

      Exchange rules won't let your lower bids fill before your highest bid.

      I don't even think there's a trading platform available to the public that would let this kind of thing reach the exchange. That's like trying to wire negative amounts with e-Banking to steal money from someone; it would be surprising to see that kind of operation even reaching the clearing house.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    9. Re: Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a funny comment. I think he would not have been able to fool the gazillion robots into crashing the market if they did not want to play like this, so, I think we need to ask the question to the robots.

      Mr robot trader why the f* are you willing to sell at a stupid price?

    10. Re:Spoofing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Isnt this standard practice now?

      No

      Isnt that how most HFT makes money, and it's why retail investors are advised to never place market orders anymore.

      Also no.

      It looks the same but there's differences in the details. Your below example is one of finding a tolerable price. What he was doing is placing huge orders to intentionally manipulate the value of a stock and then cancelling.

      One is finding out how much something is worth to someone,
      The other is actively changing it's worth to everyone.

    11. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks. They aren't regulated or open to inspection (yet) and regulators do not have a good handle on what is actually going on.

    12. Re:Spoofing by careysub · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it isn't how HFT make money. HFT have the same restrictions about spoofing, they make their money by simply being in a position to react to changes in the market much faster (think Milliseconds) than the rest of the market.

      Milliseconds? Where are you? 1995? In a millisecond light travels 186 miles. Those high frequency traders rely on their trading systems being co-located in the same data center as the exchange systems (for which the exchange gets big bucks in rent). Every foot of distance adds a nanosecond to the trading time delay. They could save considerable money siting their trading computers half a mile away, but that would add 2.5 microseconds to the trade add knock them out of the running entirely. Those guys are playing against other high speed traders and the advantage they are seeking is measured in nanoseconds.

      Since the exchanges make the rules (legal restrictions are far more lax) they are in the game of authorizing cheating, and collecting a cut of the take.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    13. Re:Spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use any units you want to measure time, so it's kind of silly to make a big deal of the units.

      As it happens, exchange latencies are indeed on the order of milliseconds, and inter-exchange latencies are too, so that's a highly relevant timescale. Reaction times for, say, equity order book updates on same-exchange co-located algorithms need to act quite quickly compared to this, so while one might measure in nanoseconds the turnaround times (even with an FPGA) are likely to be many microseconds. In these special cases, a couple microseconds might matter (though I've never personally seen 2.5 micros be important) but nanoseconds would be at the noise level.

    14. Re:Spoofing by PPH · · Score: 1

      No trading platform will let you do that.

      No trading platform can tell the difference between a HFT system and a bunch of individual day traders, each with a slightly different estimate of equity valuation.

      'Power trader' accounts are easy to get. Every trading system and brokerage is falling over themselves to get a piece of the high volume, low margin business. Just start a rumor that your platform is throttling trades and business will go elsewhere.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Spoofing by lucm · · Score: 1

      No trading platform can tell the difference between a HFT system and a bunch of individual day traders, each with a slightly different estimate of equity valuation.

      Yeah, and also Gmail can't tell the difference between a spammer who sends one million emails from his Gmail account and one million Gmail users who each send a slightly different message. Technology is so mysterious.

      'Power trader' accounts are easy to get. Every trading system and brokerage is falling over themselves to get a piece of the high volume, low margin business. Just start a rumor that your platform is throttling trades and business will go elsewhere.

      Okay this kind of bullshit may work when you want to impress your teenage cousins at Thanksgiving dinner but my advice is, get some basic understanding of how retail trading works before you try to talk at the grown-up tables.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  5. If the system allows it.... by z0idberg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "the practice of placing large orders that manipulate the markets and then cancelling or changing them"

    If the market systems allow this behaviour then it is a problem with the system. Whether he is guilty of a crime or not is a separate issue (just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it is legal), but if the system allows it to happen then the system needs to tightened down to stop it.

    Unless of course those the exploit it regularly with impunity don't want it closed...

    1. Re:If the system allows it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like idiots complaining about camping with a sniper in game, or knifing in a gun game.
      If the developer didn't intend for you to play like that, they wouldn't have put in the option.
      If you don't want this to happen, don't give people the option to cancel trades.
      Basically he wrote a smart algorithm, the other algorithms reacted stupidly, and he is getting the blame.

    2. Re:If the system allows it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any order you put in the market carries with it some level of risk. Accepting risk with the expectancy of getting a reward is how we work at a very basic level.

      Trading the market like that is filled with risks; in this case, what if you put a massive order in the market (with intent of manipulating prices) and it gets filled? Getting any money with this strategy is hard and requires significant investment in infrastructure, technology and research. If you think its easy, free money, you are free to try....

      I don't know about the details of what the guy did, but I am guessing that he circumvented the exchange limit's somehow. CME only allows you to be long/short on X contracts, where X depends on the future. One way he could have done that would be by having several accounts under different identities or something.

    3. Re:If the system allows it.... by Teppy · · Score: 2

      Correct, there's a problem with the system. This system fixes it by charging non-refundable royalties when placing an order, and by awarding those royalties to traders that do leave market orders in place until they execute.

    4. Re:If the system allows it.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      how do you stop it though. Unless you know that the buyer or sellers intent is to manipulate the market how can you tell their order is fake or legitimate? being able to cancel an order is important. The issue here is placing of orders where their was never an intent to follow through on those orders. I am not sure I see a way to counter that except through rules or laws as no system can adequately judge the intent at the time of the order.

    5. Re:If the system allows it.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is both hard and carries risk does not imply it should be compensated or legal.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re: If the system allows it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you're allowed to trade on an exchange you agree to follow their rules. The CME and most US exchanges have rules against "painting the tape," as well as spoofing. If they come to the conclusion you're not following the principals they will fine you or worse.

      Still, some traders risk spoofing by posting absurdly *sized* orders on one side of the BBO. For the most part it confuses the novice algorithmic traders a little bit until they learn to filter it out.

      Navender almost certainly did not cause the flash crash, but there was a particularly bad analysts who decided certain quotes were the root cause. He also was not an HFT trader, so it's rather absurd HFT gets the blame for his behavior...

    7. Re:If the system allows it.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Why is the ability to cancel an order important?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:If the system allows it.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      because you may get information that changes your decision or a reason to alter the order to buy/sell more or less, as nothing has been purchased/sold yet you should be well within your rights to change your mind, only after a transaction has taken place should an order be irreversible. I regularly change outstanding orders I place. I have both buy and sell orders that sit their for weeks sometimes waiting for price triggers (e.g. Buy Share X at price Y), however I also sometimes change my mind, e.g. the price seems unlikely to hit so I want to lower/increase it or perhaps I hear news that makes me not want to invest in that company any more regardless of price.

    9. Re:If the system allows it.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Sure, if the order is sitting out there for weeks, that makes sense, For nanoseconds, not so much. We could only allow orders to be cancelled after the market is closed for the day, for instance.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:If the system allows it.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ahhh so if I decide in the morning to buy and then at lunch time news is issued that makes me change my mind for a purchase that hasn't actually been made yet then I am fucked? even though I haven't actually got the benefit of the shares in my portfolio or having actually made a contract of purchase. such changes benefit the rich and large investors the most (i.e. people that can afford to sit and watch the markets all day and make decisions as the market changes). I can agree with nanoseconds, perhaps even a few seconds, beyond that it you are basically taking away peoples ability to make legitimate decisions simply because of a few arseholes like those in the article.

    11. Re: If the system allows it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFT was blamed for the crash due to market makers being clumped together with HFT.
      When investment bankers caused the crash, they put a lot of pressure on the market makers. The market makers got a lot of position, so they needed to get rid of the position one side of the quotes had to be turned off, meaning that the prices on one side went to zero.

      Market makers are companies that trade with their own money, showing prices actually putting in quotes (like orders) on both sides of the book normally. They get refunds for transactions by the exchange in exchange for showing prices on many markets to add liquidity. But market makers have a limit on how much money they have so they can not "push against the wind" for very long.

      After the crash politicians blamed market makers that they didn't "push against the wind" for long enough. Some where saying it should be a law that market makers should push until they go bankrupt.

    12. Re:If the system allows it.... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're fucked. So am I. So is everyone else. Maybe some other news will come out at 11. Maybe you should just fucking hold on to the stock for a few weeks until it recovers. Seems fair to me.

      I thought stocks were about fucking investing. I can only change my fucking 401k once per day and even then they discourage that. On a majority of days it goes up. Some days it goes down. I'm vested in two funds which are vested in a bunch more stocks. On average, it goes up. Stop twitching to every breaking news story and fucking live with it.

      In fact, I even wonder if Black Monday (either of them) could have been softened or even prevented with a rule like GP is proposing in place. I mean, I was led to understand that stock markets represented a valuation of wealth, no some fucking casino. Of course, I realize now how fucking astray I was led by capitalist wage slave perpetually embarrassed millionaire brainwashing.

    13. Re:If the system allows it.... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      If you're upset about only being able to change your 401(k) once per day, you can easily solve that by opening a regular trading account and using that.

    14. Re:If the system allows it.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      what the hell has this got to do with 401k? this is regular trading.

    15. Re:If the system allows it.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      nanny state arseholes like you make me sick. this has nothing to do with 401k and is all about normal trading. What you are proposing as good changes turns the market into a fucking casino where once you make a decision, your money is locked into that decision without any benefit or ability to make informed decisions even though you haven't bought anything, all because you think it is more important to make laws and rules to protect people from themselves. Better ban guns world wide as you could shoot yourself, better ban cars as you could have a crash going to the shops. I am all for preventing illegal behaviour designed to fuck others over, but stop fucking everyone over because you want to act like there mommy and protect from them bad decisions.

    16. Re:If the system allows it.... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I brought up the 401k thing.

    17. Re:If the system allows it.... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I'll do that as soon as I have $10,000 laying around that I don't need to hang on to for sex change surgery.

  6. Who's making the money? Who's going to prison? by philovivero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, yes, the one fellow who wiped away a trillion dollars of value. What do you call it when something loses a trillion dollars of value, solely due to the actions of the people who hold full ownership of the thing? A bubble.

    It seems there's a small class of people from whom, if you shift value to yourself, will guarantee you become a criminal, even an international one. And another large class of people from whom, if you shift value to yourself, will guarantee wealth.

    The 2008 mortgage-backed securities fiasco contrasted against this case is very telling. Where's the list of names of who went to prison in 2008-2009? From whom did they make most of their money?

    1. Re:Who's making the money? Who's going to prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No way did he cause the flash crash, it was some hedge fund doing the same thing with hugely larger amounts in trades as has already been determined. He made 30 million pounds over a couple years and got singled out. What he did is wrong, but like all 18 million other commenters say, the system allows it. I put in orders and change my mind, but I am not spoofing anything. My orders don't get filled and I change my mind and cancel. He used a computer to do it 30 times a second. If everyone else weren't using the same system, his activities would have had no effect at all. I would find him innocent on any charges if I were on the jury.

    2. Re: Who's making the money? Who's going to prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And intentions don't matter in your court of law? The cancelling of legitimate trades is clearly different to creating trades with the intention of cancelling them in order to manipulate prices. Intentions are the difference between manslaughter and murder.

  7. The lesson here by mikeiver1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The lesson here is do not defraud the rich. They have the power of the government and the law to manipulate to their own benefit. You steal from the poor. You know, like the banks, investment houses, and the insurance companies did and continue to do to you and me. The government will even reward you for be so damn good at it!

    1. Re:The lesson here by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The lesson here is do not defraud the rich.

      I think the lesson here is "do not draw attention to the man behind the curtain". Whether or not he made any money is unimportant.

      The electronic/automated trading system is an accident waiting to happen and he made it clear to the general public.

    2. Re:The lesson here by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

      Agreed. The same lesson was demonstrated during the Madoff incident. Trillions of dollars lost by corrupt bankers selling toxic-waste MBS to unsuspecting pension funds yet the only person in the financial industry who did time for the entire financial crisis was the one guy who stole from Wall Street.

  8. Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amount of Leverage / Market Share. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-21/step-step-guide-how-crash-entire-market
    "orders represented approximately $170 million to over $200 million worth of persistent downward pressure on the E-mini S&P price and, over the next two hours, represented 20-29% of the entire sell-side of the Order Book. " for the S&P E MINI. This is not a broker making the market for a stock. This is the most actively traded future listed on the CME exchange.

  9. Navinder Sarao by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong race. If he had had a nice name like Goldman or Sachs, there would have been no crime.

  10. confused on the wrong issue by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "As the submitter," writes whoever57, "it's not clear to me how this man did anything different from the high-speed and algorithmic traders do every day."

    That's the problem you have with this? The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S. We supposedly can't re-try known murderer O.J. because of double jeopardy. but now anyone who does anything while outside the U.S. can be subject to U.S. extradition! Yea, I read the part about the trading being on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, but that just tells me that we should lock up the greedy bastards in this country that allow that to happen, otherwise we open our institutions to attack from China or any other nation that we can't extradite from. We have an abundance of crooks in the financial markets in this country that they should be going after who would be far better targets than this American abuse of power.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:confused on the wrong issue by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the problem you have with this? The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S. We supposedly can't re-try known murderer O.J. because of double jeopardy. but now anyone who does anything while outside the U.S. can be subject to U.S. extradition!

      Yeah, that too. But I think that the fact that what he did was no different from what a group of companies do millions (billions?) of times per day, with no criminal indictment in sight, seems to be the bigger issue. As other have pointed out, his real crime was merely taking part in the riches that the mega-wealthy indulge in.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:confused on the wrong issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say he instead sent a mail bomb from London to Chicago, and when opened it explodes and causes a panic on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Are you trying to claim that, because he mailed it from London, he should be immune from extradition?

      It's up to his government to decide if the charges are worthy of extradition. If they decide they aren't, he's free to stay home.

    3. Re:confused on the wrong issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We supposedly can't re-try known murderer O.J. because of double jeopardy" There is nothing "supposedly " about double jeopardy and I fail to see what double jeopardy is applicable in this particular case.
      "accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S."
      The US has reciprocal extradition agreements with many countries. The crime this guy is accused of effected an system located in the US. And there have been plenty of wealthy companies and individuals who have been arrested, massively fined, and jailed for breaking US laws regarding stock manipulations and using fraudulently using financial instruments. One recent example would be when Goldman Sachs was fined $5 Billion dollars over mortgage bonds. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup have all been fined almost $77 Billion dollars for improprieties in their financial dealings. There have been many high profile Wall Street investors convicted of crimes who have been fined and received jail time. The argument the US is charging this guy because he is upsetting the rich people is bull shit. The rich people are to busy covering their own asses to worry about this one case.

    4. Re:confused on the wrong issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not, since mailing a bomb in the UK is a crime in the UK

    5. Re:confused on the wrong issue by careysub · · Score: 1

      JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup have all been fined almost $77 Billion dollars for improprieties in their financial dealings. There have been many high profile Wall Street investors convicted of crimes who have been fined and received jail time.

      How many people at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup went to jail or at least received criminal convictions for those $77 Billion dollars for those "improprieties" (otherwise known as "law-breaking", aka "crimes" when ordinary people do them)?

      I believe the number is "zero".

      Interesting that the "high profile Wall Street investors convicted of crimes who have been fined and received jail time" comes with no counts, estimates, or actual names. Sorry, only people who were so convicted in the last 10 years count. The long-ago S&L scandal was back when breaking the law still carried some personal legal risk on Wall Street, another era entirely.

      Only in the financial-sphere can billions of dollars of crimes have no one responsible for committing them. Down on main street if you swipe an iPhone you have committed felony theft.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:confused on the wrong issue by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      That's the problem you have with this? The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S.

      That's called extradition, and extradition treaties have existed for hundreds of years. It's nothing new. Would you rather live in a world with no extradition treaties, where all a criminal had to do was make it across the border, or launch his attacks from the other side of the border and he/she gets away with it?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    7. Re:confused on the wrong issue by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      It is called jurisdiction. I don't like that I live in a world where if I burn a "holy book" or draw a picture that some religious nut job considers to be a "sacrilege" that I could be shipped of to some zealot controlled country just because our leaders negotiated a bad treaty and they don't want to risk not being able to extradite a terrorist some day or loosing face because they negotiated a bad treaty in the first place. The knife cuts both ways. If a person is guilty of a crime it should at the very least be a crime where they were when they supposedly did it, and they should be prosecuted in that country, not shipped off to some country that believes in torture and has abandoned all pretense of human rights.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    8. Re:confused on the wrong issue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S.

      He did it in the US (that's where the servers responding to his orders were). He was in England at the time. See also, why you can get extradited if you stand on the other side of the border while using a sniper rifle.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is no way to distinguish between an algorithmic trading failure and a cyber attack against the trading system.

    How can real world value change by billions of dollars on a scale of milliseconds? The only real world events that can make that happen are nuclear weapons or meteor strikes. Even a massive earthquake lasts seconds, and huge storms take hours to days to do their damage.

    High speed trading is a fictional construct because it creates a version of value that is decoupled from the real world. It is by definition a game that is only available to insiders. That's why incredible amounts of money are spent to build data centers as near as possible to trading hubs, since an advantage of milliseconds makes the difference between success and failure.

    It is the opposite of a level playing field. It creates a system where there is a vast gap between insiders and everyone else. There is no free market capitalism with this kind of division of access.

    For all the Libertards out there, being able to trade stock is not equivalent to high speed trading. High speed trading makes money on a millisecond scale. Trading outside that realm, even using computers is seconds behind which translates to trading in the past. First mover advantage is available only for the inside players. Free market capitalism doesn't really exist, it's just propaganda to keep the peasants from causing trouble.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demand that your 401-k only buy and sell on the Aequitas exchange, which forbids HFT.
      Or try Aquis in Europe.
      If your 401-k participates in an exchange that allows HFT, then you are part of the problem. Don't talk trash here unless you are willing to put your own money where your mouth is.

    2. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by lucm · · Score: 1

      If your 401-k participates in an exchange that allows HFT, then you are part of the problem. Don't talk trash here unless you are willing to put your own money where your mouth is.

      Exactly. People bitch and moan about this kind of stuff, or about those greedy corporations who only think about short-term profits, forgetting that the loudest voices that demand immediate profit are institutional investors, such as pension funds.

      There's little doubt that many people who lost their job to offshore workers or visa workers ultimately got fucked by the people managing their retirement money. People who are unhappy with the lack of innovation and quality in recent years at Apple or Microsoft are also in the same boat.

      It is very difficult to be part of the system without getting fucked by the system one way or the other. Unfortunately so far nothing else has proven to be a viable alternative. The best solution is to become wealthy enough for it not to matter.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not playing the game doesn't stop the insiders. And the money they make isn't magically newly created wealth, it is actually milked from the broader economy and hurts all of us.

    4. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all the Libertards out there

      Even if your post had merit, why would I take advice from an obvious teenager? Hint: if you want people to take you seriously, don't admit that you're still in high school.

    5. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by BringYourOwnBacon · · Score: 1

      You, like so many others seem to be under the impression that there was some 'golden age' of capitalism where stock market trading was a level playing field and anyone could waltz onto the NYSE floor and bid up some stocks. There have always been barriers to entry to directly trading on these markets, back then it was buying/renting a seat on the exchange. Now it's technology costs and fees to co-locate in the exchange's datacenter. And most exchanges these days will spool fiber within these datacenters so each entity has equal latency to the matching engines. Of course it's only the most serious players who can participate like this but then again, it was only the most serious players who bought seats on the trading floor in the good ol' days. The everyday Joe has always had to operate through a broker and it's no different today, except spreads are smaller and fees are cheaper.

      That's not to say there aren't problems with the current paradigm of algorithmic high-speed trading. I think there's significant risk in turning over billions of dollars to algos that may interact with each other in unpredictable ways that distort valuation before humans can intervene. But I take issue with people pretending these markets were somehow more fair to everyday investors before they became electronic, because that simply wasn't the case.

    6. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High speed trading is a crappy business model, built upon arbitraging markets over timescales of milliseconds. Just watch these company's business model evaporate like water in the desert at the least little change in the market.

      BTW the parent's posting was all cool until he started ranting about "Libertards". It detracts from the post and makes me wonder about the writer's fixation with the political spectrum. Remove that inappropriate and out of context word and the post looks like it comes from a normal human.

    7. Re:High Speed Trading is a Dangerous Fiction by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      The difference between the two is intent which is why, in the US, prosecutors often have to show "mens rea" In this case, the intent is pretty clear but prosecutors will still have to prove it.

  12. He should get an award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the bankers should be arrested and dealt with.

  13. Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do the high frequency traders engage in "spoofing?" Do they place orders and then cancel them? Or do they just place orders, complete them, and then place different orders (very quickly)?

    I am asking because I honestly don't know.

    1. Re:Is this the difference? by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No they don't, high frequency traders stay within the trading rules and don't spoof/make fake transactions. They merely exploit the advantage of being able to react to the market faster. They are still scum, but there goal is not to manipulate the market to make their gains like the piece of shit in this article.

    2. Re:Is this the difference? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Do they always complete those transactions? Or do they cancel them if the person they want to sell to either cancels their order or buys from another high speed trader?

    3. Re:Is this the difference? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      How do you cancel an order?

      I wouldn't have that option using the "trading" interfaces that poor sap retail investors get to use, would I ?

      Who designs a system where orders, once placed, are not locked in?

      Sounds like a design flaw in the trading system as a whole.

      If he figured out that the technical operation of the trading system is flawed, he should get a prize, and they should fix the friggin' thing.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    4. Re:Is this the difference? by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not what this article says. Only 3.2% of the orders placed in the stock martket actually go through. That was the second quarter of 2013, well after the 2010 flash crash. And on some exchanges a whopping 99.76% of orders is canceled.

      Quote from that link: "High frequency trading firms have been known to flood the market with orders, trying to determine the price institutional or retail investors are offering, then cancel 90% of them a split-second later. This can artificially alter the price of a security, netting high-frequency traders profits at the expense of their counterparties."

    5. Re: Is this the difference? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can usually cancel an order that hasn't gone through yet. I did it with a trade last year -- I wanted to sell at a particular price, and cancelled a day later when I changed my mind on the quantity. Of course, if you place a market order, you'll get whatever the market price is, so you won't likely have much time to cancel (during trading hours).

    6. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are orders types that are immediate-or-cancel. You send this order to the exchange and if it can not trade because there is no opposite order then it is automatically cancelled by the exchange. These orders are different from spoofing orders as immediate-or-cancel orders are not shown to the public unless they actually trade.

      If these cancelations are counted, then this number is very logical, since when over a hundred traders want to trade for a certain price, only one of them will succeed.

      Also other orders that are shown to the public but are not there for a good price won't trade for a long time, eventually those orders need to get another price (cancel the current order then create a new order on the new price).

      There is a generic rule that at least european exchanges hold to: "Any order that you send to the market is intended to trade". If they find traders that do not follow this rule then the trader gets a warning, if the trader does not change they will get fines or be banned from the exchange. Many exchanged have rules a lot stronger than the laws in those countries, and exchange rules have a bigger bite as the exchange can more easily punish traders.

    7. Re:Is this the difference? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes they cancel them if that happens. They don't spoof them and place them with the intent to cancel them. That is the difference.

    8. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If there are 10 high speed traders, they cancel their orders 90% of the time (whenever another trader fills the demand first). So why isn't that illegal?

    9. Re:Is this the difference? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You just select the order you want to cancel, and hit cancel, as simple as that. Normal individual investors can cancel an order they make, too (and the platform you're using is really bad if it doesn't allow you to cancel orders).

    10. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume that there are 10 high speed traders for every trade?

    11. Re:Is this the difference? by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      Do they even need to cancel? Don't they make an attempt to buy at a certain price and if someone else gets it first, they just fail?

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    12. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFT orders are dependent on the current market prices. If they don't cancel the order is still out there and might be filled. The market has moved since then so HFTs cancel the old order and send in new ones at different prices, reflecting where the market is now at.

    13. Re:Is this the difference? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they sometimes cancel transactions for various reasons. What they don't do is submit transactions with no intent of completing them.

    14. Re:Is this the difference? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I've used multiple retail trading platforms and I've cancelled plenty of orders. It's pretty hard to cancel a "market" order since they execute very quickly. But limit orders often cancel or expire.

    15. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin heister here

      What you do is to trade with both hands

      You put up buy orders and sell orders at the same time.

      Profit.

    16. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DUH. This discussion is like 8-9 years too late.

    17. Re:Is this the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and when they are caught doing that the relevant stock trading authority of which ever country though are in goes hunting for them.

    18. Re:Is this the difference? by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that algorithms that cancel trades are making offers without the 'intent' of cancelling them? Like.. the fucking computer program has an 'intent?' So, because a person did it, his 'intent' makes him guilty - but an algorithm's 'intent' makes it innocent? You're not making any sense.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
  14. Faint praise by guises · · Score: 1

    I realize that this is faint praise, but I'd just like to say how delighted I am to see phrases like "They allege he is guilty of "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]" and, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m), they argue."

    I've grown accustomed to things like this reported as, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m)." or, "He has been arrested for "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]". It doesn't seem like a big difference but it really is, and this should be a minimum for responsible reporting. Is this thanks to Britain's harsh libel laws? Maybe they're actually good for something.

    1. Re:Faint praise by lucm · · Score: 1

      Why are you delighted? It's like having a "may contain nuts" sticker on pretty much anything you buy at the grocery store just to cover the ass of the manufacturer. You may find it cute the first time but when you see it on tuna cans and such, it gets old real quick.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Faint praise by guises · · Score: 1

      You're suggesting that nothing short of convictions should be reported? Maybe that's for the best. The argument is that this invites corruption of the judicial system, but perhaps reporting on the corruption of the judicial system when and if it happens is a better solution than reporting on a whole bunch of stuff which might possibly be evidence of corruption somewhere down the line.

      Especially given the harmful nature of throwing around these sorts of accusations and the mandate of protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty.

    3. Re:Faint praise by lucm · · Score: 1

      No. What I suggest is that the press should report the arrest. "Mr X has been arrested for a Y charge".

      Unlike the "Mr X may or may not have been alleged to possibly have been said to have been involved in what some people might consider to be identified by the police as Y" approach which amounts to cowardly gossip.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Faint praise by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate not assuming guilt, "he has been arrested for X" is a fact. I've been charged with a crime (and entered a plea of not guilty), so it's perfectly reasonable to say that. I don't consider it reasonable to call me a criminal or say I committed a crime.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Obvious solution: have 10,000 people do he did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope he posted his software to github.. if Anonymous got ahold of it, there would be too many cases to prosecute and the financial industry would just have to fix things properly.

    When one person breaks an unjust law, they usually go to jail. When *everyone* breaks an unjust law, the law needs to be fixed.

    CAPTCHA: pleaded

    1. Re:Obvious solution: have 10,000 people do he did. by lucm · · Score: 1

      I hope he posted his software to github.. if Anonymous got ahold of it, there would be too many cases to prosecute and the financial industry would just have to fix things properly.

      Good idea. That way it will be just like with the Paypal thing where a bunch of noobs who didn't know better got caught for using a freeware DOS tool that doesn't hide their IP address.

      In this case who cares if a few people get 387 years of jail time; as a great man once said, "blood alone moves the wheels of history".

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  16. The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    "it's not clear to me how this man did anything different from the high-speed and algorithmic traders do every day." . He deliberately made orders that he had no intention of following through on in order to manipulate the market in a illegal manner. How the fuck is that hard to differentiate between that and high-speed traders? I don't like High frequency trading algorithms but they were well within the law and were exploiting their speed at reacting to market rather than deliberately manipulating the market. The difference is not small or subtle, one is clearly illegal market manipulation, one is ethically questionable and unfair but legal.

    1. Re:The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reacting to market rather than deliberately manipulating the market.

      Has anyone audited the codes to prove their legal behaviour? What about second order (and nth order) effects? The HFT algorithms have previously described to behave exactly in the illegal way many times in Slashdot, which is also know as The Cradle Of Truth.

    2. Re:The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      God yes the code is audited. There are endless, constant audits. Again, and again, and again.

      People seem unwilling to believe it, but understand clearly - HFT does not do what is described here. HFT looks for price discovery and is not directional. This one is a clear attempt to move the market in a particular way. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

      You may choose to dislike HFT. You may choose to dislike what this guy did. All fine. But please understand that the two situations are not the same thing. Should also understand that 'algo trading' and 'HFT' are not synonymous - the one is a subset of the other.

    3. Re:The dumb part of the summary by johannesg · · Score: 3, Informative

      High frequency traders do the ***exact same thing***: they place orders they have no intention whatsoever of following up on.

      The stock market needs a simple rule: every offer, every transaction, needs to come with a 24h cooldown period. That will wipe out the lot of them, and restore some order and sanity to the market.

    4. Re:The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24 hrs. is not needed. Add a 1 second delay that each order must remain "on-the-books" before cancellation, or a random time delay that an order enters the queue say between 100 and 500 milliseconds, and HFT would dry up, along with their volume.

      You decide if the vanishing liquidity is good or bad for the markets.

    5. Re:The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High frequency traders do the ***exact same thing***: they place orders they have no intention whatsoever of following up on.

      Untrue. I work at an HFT. Every order we send we hope to execute based on the current market prices, but prices move and that market changes, so we cancel those orders and send in new ones that reflect the new market prices. The majority of other HFTs are the same. Spoofing is very closely watched by regulators and all HFTs monitor for it.

      The flash crash was exacerbated because a lot of HFTs didn't understand the prices they were seeing so exited the market. Liquidity disappeared and prices fell, and sell further because stop-loss orders kicked in.

      I know HFTs are disliked but it is much due to ignorance than anything else. The biggest players don't spoof, they don't front run, they don't do the majority of what the general public think they do. They do what a bunch of humans would do if HFTs weren't there: they try make markets by placing orders going for the bid-offer spread like NYSE human specialists used to do, or they arbitrage prices discrepancies between related instruments. They just do it faster than humans can, and those bid-offer spreads are tighter because of it, meaning you'll get a better price on whatever stock you want to buy or sell when you want to do so.

    6. Re:The dumb part of the summary by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'll bite then. _How long_ is each offer made by your company open? And how long is the time delay any bidders can expect to incur while making that offer?

      Go on, I'll wait...

    7. Re:The dumb part of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the market price evaluations could only be made from the completed transactions? That should lessen the price distorting and pumping effect of the HFT.

  17. Arrest the institutional traders by Luthair · · Score: 2

    They're running the systems that saw larger orders/sales and actually crashed the system.

  18. He is a criminal by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like anything that happens in the corrupt UK or US, the only thing Sarao is guilty of is not already being a wealthy insider. Algorithmic traders do this exact thing a trillion times every trading day. Banks did soo much worse.. and yet none of the banking executives are sitting in jail.

    That's not what the guy did. What he did was place huge orders then cancel them to cheat on quick pricing fluctuations caused by his own fake transactions. This is not only dishonest, this is outright illegal, and it's not something legitimate investment banks do.

    Let's not make every story about thieves and scammers a general complaint about the financial services industry otherwise actual issues will get lost in the noise.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But had it been a big investment bank doing this nobody would be going to jail for 380 years. I bet it would be merely considered a glitch and the bank would agree never to do it again etc. Since this was an individual demonstrating that nobody actually needs those multi billion dollar monster banks, well the bankers just got scared. This Mr Sarao has to pay since in the eyes of our financial 0.01 percent banker overlords he is a very scary specimen indeed. Once he is in prison eating Bubba's dick everything is back to normal and the billionaire banker can order those 20,000 dollar escort hookers again without any worries.

    2. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Outright illegal? Not in the UK it is not, and that is the main problem with this.

    3. Re:He is a criminal by Snufu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His only crime was doing this faster, better, or with less obfuscation than the big wigs who thought they had purchased exclusive privilege to perpetrate high frequency trading scams.

    4. Re:He is a criminal by DamonHD · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Here's something I wrote on the topic:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    5. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are entirely wrong. People would be personally liable for this, and criminal prosecution would take place. Posted anonymously.

    6. Re:He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The hell it is.

      The computerised SYSTEMS themselves are what should be illegal.
      He just played them at their own game and made money because those idiots and their crap algorithms are twitchy and jump on bandwagons too easily.

      It most certainly is not illegal in the UK. Piss off America.
      The only reason he is being attacked by this extradition case is some rich bankers lost out and they want blood.

    7. Re:He is a criminal by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      That's not what the guy did.

      You're right. It's more like LIBOR or the Goldman Sachs aluminum business. Still dishonest, but not illegal, which is why legitimate investments banks do them.

    8. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol. So, who's gone to jail over LIBOR fixing?

    9. Re: He is a criminal by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But had it been a big investment bank doing this nobody would be going to jail for 380 years.

      Corporations aren't jailed. They are fined, and the SEC does hand out it's fair share to investment bankers too.

    10. Re:He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But honestly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and HFT, which is basically
      1) watch what people are buying and how much they are willing to pay
      2) decide if any of them are about to buy into a good deal
      3) beat them to the source and snatch that deal right out from under them, but not because you want it, but because you...
      4) turn right around and sell it to the person originally buying it, but for less of a deal
      5) pocket the difference.

      That would be like if you were an employee working at ebay. You have access to their backend database. You look at auctions that are about to end in the next 1 millisecond. You look for any auctions where the highest bidder is about to complete the auction for less than what his highest bid was. You then use your access rights to interject yourself into the auction, so that the seller still only gets the current bid price, but the buyer ends up paying his max bid, and you pocket the difference.

    11. Re:He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what the guy did. What he did was place huge orders then cancel them to cheat on quick pricing fluctuations caused by his own fake transactions.

      ....sitting at his computer and clicking with his mouse..... In the UK. No matter how many excel sheets this guy used, he in no possible way caused the flash crash

      This is not only dishonest, this is outright illegal, and it's not something legitimate investment banks do.

      It's not illegal. Actually, it's encouraged by the exchanges as their main business model is charging their HFT customers for the privilege of doing exactly this. Also, HFT firms engage in this activity and worse BILLIONS of times a day

      Sarao is a no-name, no-body trader who couldn't move a market outside of a penny stock. These charges are a joke, and more than a joke owing that they are explicitly a means to pin the blame for the flash crash on some poor schmuck instead of on whom the blame truly lies: High Frequency Traders, whose own algorithms went nuts and tanked the market during the Flash Crash, and in the now daily flash crashes since.

      At least with Assange and Snowden, the DoJ's vindictivness makes some political sense. But for Sarao, the DoJ is being petty in the extreme, and solely for the purpose of covering the asses of its cronies in the financial sector. That they are so naked about things -- prosecuting a literal parent's basement trader (from overseas) instead of even one Wall Streeter -- is the most disgusting and frankly disturbing aspect of all this.

      At this point, I can't believe the DoJ or SEC are even just clocking it in anymore. The cruelty is just too contrived and it's more likely the people running these institutions are knowingly, actively, and apparently gleefully corrupt.

    12. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different subject. This is the problem - people lump everything together. (and your answer is Tom Hayes anyway...). People are being prosecuted over that. People and organisations are picking up criminal charges. None of that is remotely to do with the subject we are discussing.

    13. Re: He is a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's quite the legal shield, isn't it. I have a corporate charter, so therefore I can do shithead things all day to make obscene amounts of money while creating absolutely no value whatsoever, and years after the fact the biggest punishment I'll face is a fine for far less than the money I took in doing the shithead things.

      Maybe the SEC should be able to ban companies from securities trading for a number of years depending on the offense. Think of it as jail for banks.

    14. Re:He is a criminal by lucm · · Score: 1

      Wrong. He *cancelled* his orders to manipulate price, that takes out the "trading" part of "high frequency trading".

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    15. Re:He is a criminal by lucm · · Score: 1

      Front-running and cancelling huge orders to artificially move prices are two different things. That's why this guy will go to jail and investment bankers who do HFT won't.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  19. Is This Similar to the Las Vegas Video Poker Case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A couple of gamblers learned how to push the buttons on a video poker machine in a specific sequence to make them pay off, exploiting a weakness in the software or "system" if you wish.

    One wonders is this fellow is in the same situation. He made trades he was legally allowed to make, in a sequence that made him money. Was he an insider? Did he know something someone else did not know? Was he in a position of fiduciary responsibility? We'll find out. But he could use this incredibly simple defense if he's clear of conflicts:

    "All these guys did is simply push a sequence of buttons that they were legally entitled to push"

    http://www.wired.com/2013/11/video-poker-case/

  20. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... briefly fell more than 1,000 points ...

    The Dow Jones IA did the same in August 2015 and the US DOJ did nothing.

    ... is accused of contributing to events ...

    Stock exchange trading systems crash every few years (see May 2012), but the stock exchange isn't accused of "contributing to events".

    ... placing large orders that manipulate the markets ...

    How does this differ from Knight Capital Group and friends, who also place large orders? (See August 2012.)

    "... faulty computer algorithms, which sold $4.1 billion worth of E-Mini Standard & Poor’s 500 futures contracts ... "

    Just like 'black Monday' (Oct 1987), most of the damage done during the 'flash crash' (May 2010) was caused by computer algorithms caught in a massive loop.

    1. Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knight Capital Group not only lost a lot of money from the trades, they were also fined for a huge amount of money do to those faulty transactions.

  21. I don't see anything illegal. by master_p · · Score: 2

    Since the system gives you the ability to cancel orders, I don't see what the guy did as illegal.

    It is within the rules of the game, so it is legal 100%.

    1. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he isn't in the special club that is allowed to exploit the flaws in the system, so he must be punished. Otherwise the plebs might start getting ideas above their station.

    2. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legality doesn't matter to the people that were losing the trillion dollars in seconds. They demand blood, and they still have the cash and influence to get it. That's why they're flying in a foreigner to serve as the scapegoat.

    3. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Since the system gives you the ability to cancel orders, I don't see what the guy did as illegal.

      It is within the rules of the game, so it is legal 100%.

      Assuming, you are American, you have free speech rights protected in the Constitution. But your Constitutional rights are not absolute. Even the late Justice Scalia said that the 2nd amendment didn't mean that there could never be any restrictions on guns. So to use the easiest example for you to understand, you have the right to yell "Fire!" at the top of your lungs. If you do that at home and nobody else hears you, then there's no problem. If you exercise this right in a crowded theater where there is no fire and cause a panic and people die from being trampled, you're going to jail. It's just not that hard to conceive of a situation where a legal action taken to an extreme becomes a crime. The US is charging that the guy in question wiped $1 trillion off the books to make about $40 million himself. As a stock holder (I'm not Warren Buffet but I do own some stocks), I probably lost some value thanks to what he did. I'm not personally impressed that he devalued my stock holdings simply to make himself rich.

    4. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      There is no special club. Everybody is allowed to submit orders that they intend to trade. What you can't do is submit an order without intent to trade it at the time it's submitted. It's not illegal for me to accidentally bump into you walking down a busy street. It is illegal for me to intentionally shove you. In this case, prosecution will have to prove intent. But I don't think it will be very difficult. HFT traders make money if and only if their trades execute. Otherwise they just pay insane costs. This guy had a strategy that would make money if and only if his trades failed to execute. The difference is night and day. If you think HFT is bad, try placing a bond order where there is no HFT on the other side. The spreads are huge between the bid/ask and half the time there is nobody willing to buy your bond at any price!

    5. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by Doghouse13 · · Score: 1

      Please - next time you get pulled up for speeding, trying arguing that the law allows you to accelerate, so you weren't doing anything illegal. Then come back and tell us how you got on - I'm sure we could all do with a good laugh.

    6. Re:I don't see anything illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember the case of another trader who was playing pump-and-dump, going on internet forums claiming certain securities were about to go up and apparently convincing enough people it was true that it drove the price up and then he dumped what he had at inflated prices.

      One could try to argue free speech, but IIRC he was still convicted. It basically amounts to fraud although I don't remember what the specific charges were.

  22. No high speed trading by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Why does the ability to trade at this speed even exist, apart from letting traders make profits over the backs of companies the stock market is supposed to fund?

    This guy placed high-speed order that he had no intent to keep.
    How is this different from regular high-speed traders place order stock without any intent to keep any of it?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  23. very well said, completely incorrect factually by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could be a political speech writer. Your post no doubt got some people a bit pumped up. Also like most political speeches, what you said is the opposite of the actual facts.

    I'm referring to the factual claims you make such as:
    > It is by definition a game that is only available to insiders.

    > It is the opposite of a level playing field. It creates a system where there is a vast gap between insiders and everyone else.
    > There is no free market capitalism with this kind of division of access.

    > For all the Libertards out there, being able to trade stock is not equivalent to high speed trading

    Those statements are simply false on the facts. If you want to put your money into high frequency trading trading, you can send it on over to Turner Spectrum or any of the other 200 or so trading funds you can find on Morningstar. I wouldn't recommend it, because HFT doesn't reliably perform any better than a plain index fund, due to the high transaction costs from buying and selling all the time.

    It feels good to rant about "Wall Street", yet the fact is, most of that money on Wall Street is someone's retirement savings, and when "a fund" makes money that simply means that the owner's of the fund, grandma and grandpa, have a few extra dollars to live on.

    If you think the best Wall Street traders have some special advantage, consider this. A really good trader who can make higher profit percentage will of course make alot more money trading with $100 billion than trading with $10 million. The big $100 billion fund can of course afford to hire the best of best to manage the fund. Therefore, the best traders tend to work for the biggest funds, where they can make the most money. The "biggest funds" include a bunch of Vanguard funds. Who are these insiders who are invested in Vanguard funds? Anyone with $500 savings, Vanguard invests the savings of millions of people, including me. There's the insider secret for you - invest the first 10% of your income with Vanguard and you'll get rich just like like their other millions of customers, slowly.

    * Yes, you could choose an fund that trades on milliseconds rather than a Vanguard index fund, but I wouldn't suggest it because the risk-adjusted returns aren't any better. A Vanguard fund has expenses around 0.08%, an HFT fund will have expenses 50 times higher.

  24. Oh save it FSS by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    When shares take a dive EVERYONE who owns shares suffers plus people who have pension and other policies that invest in the market.

    The financial system isn't a them and us - all of us in the western world rely on it and pretending its some boys club where only the rich suffer if the market tanks (they don't - they have a huge porfolio of other investments if they have any sense) is a lie. Its usually the little guy who relies on dividend payments once a quarter who suffers

  25. How can one cancel without penalty? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Why does the system allow someone to place a large order and cancel it without any penalty?

    If some lone wolf who got caught did that, what is the guarantee there are not others? What is the guarantee the others too are lone wolves?

    It stinks that all the wealth we think we have is in a system that is so vulnerable. Calling a colander a bucket does not make any less leaky!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  26. Possible Actions != Rules by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

    If every possible action was legal in a game, then there would be no need for any rules. Preventing actions that cause the game to fail is exactly why we have rules. This guy broke a rather clear rule, and now he is getting punished for it.

    BTW, his real failure was simply not being creative enough with his dishonesty. Libor, sub-prime, the Goldman Sachs aluminum scam, all demonstrate ways financiers have acted dishonestly without technically breaking a 'rule' and hence get to keep their billions and suffer no punishment. In a perfect world they would all at least lose their money for not playing to the spirit of the rules (like regular workers and small business owners have too), but we don't seem to do that, so they get to keep scamming us and this guy goes to jail.

  27. Wait WAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's sad is the sentences totaling 380 years. How many times do you hear about someone that pulled a dumbshit maneuver and got someone killed, maybe either drinking or just acting foolishly,or even deliberately, and they get 5-10, or 7, or some other such sentence....

  28. this is EXACTLY what hft(s) do!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that this guy's spoofing was manual vs automated/algorithmic in NO way refutes the fact that hft is nothing but an arms race to zero-latency automated front-running baited w/automated spoofing! the only differences between this guy and any hft shop are:

    1. his spoof appears to have been manual (no plausible deniability of "oops! my algo did it again...")
    2. it had a (brief) material impact on prices (vs quietly skimming in background like everyone else)
    3. he did not do it under umbrella of a "too big to prosecute" institution

    I will agree that macro insider driven/manipulated investment banking/hedge fund/private equity is a somewhat different (but related) animal than high-volume/low-latency front-running (aka "high-frequency trading") which is facilitated by (among other things) automated spoofing.

    op is fundamentally correct - had this guy done this in employ of goldman, jpm, etc he wouldn't be facing prosecution...

  29. It was illegal but did it cause the flash crash? by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    How does one guy placing orders cause a flash crash?

  30. Sarao's Mistake by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    If he'd been working for Goldman Sachs, he'd have gotten a bonus instead of an indictment.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  31. Re:very well said, completely incorrect factually by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

    Shoot, accidentally modded Redundant instead of Insighful, so I'm posting to undo that.

    raymorris' comment is the best in the whole thread.

  32. Inaccurate by Doghouse13 · · Score: 1

    No, algorithmic traders don't do what he's accused of. The accusation is basically that he routinely placed and then deliberately cancelled big buy or sell orders with no intent of completing them. The reason for doing that would be to bounce precisely those software traders into responses that he could predict and profit from. The facts don't seem to be greatly in dispute, but what's odd here is that, whilst what he's doing is an offence in the US. It's NOT, in and of itself, an offence in the UK. And the treaty under which extradition is being sought is SUPPOSED to only apply to behaviour that is illegal in both jurisdictions. The problem is that a court has ruled that he can be extradited, and it's normally hard to see that renowned bastion of individual freedom, the Honourable Member for Maidenhead (a.k.a. Theresa may, the Home Secretary) actually telling the US it can't have whatever takes its fancy.

  33. weak attempt at a joke... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    I am in the US, Arizona specifically right now, and of course we do use the decimal system. That was a weak attempt at a joke on our states less than enlightened view of education, math in particular. I can't remember which of our Reps issued a statement in regard to the rejecting of the common-core system to the effect that math that used letters was fuzzy and not needed. I figured he'd have the same view of 'numbers' that used a period in them.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:weak attempt at a joke... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      For all I knew, you could've been a Simpsons character, and used the octal system. :)

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  34. Re:He is a criminalFTFY by zlives · · Score: 1

    Front-running and cancelling huge orders to artificially move prices are two Artificially different things.

  35. Re:very well said, completely incorrect factually by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    s. A really good trader who can make higher profit percentage will of course make alot more money trading with $100 billion than trading with $10 million.

    Assuming facts not in evidence. Vangard funds charge a lower rate. And, IIRC those much bigger funds have many more people to split up the commissions between.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  36. a lot more people splitting the costs, yes by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > those much bigger funds have many more people to split up the commissions between.

    They have a lot more people paying commissions, splitting the costs of a good manager. Figure about 4 million people in one of the Vanguard funds. If each pays $2 management commission per year, that's $8 million dollars for the fund, which will buy a pretty darn good manager or three. On the other hand, contrast small fund with 1,000 investors. If each investor pays a hundred times as much, that's $100K. Which do you think can atttact better management, $100,000 salary and bonus, or $8 million?

    1. Re:a lot more people splitting the costs, yes by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      A small hedge fund may have 100-300M AUM. Their commission will run something like 3% + 5% of profits (so lets call it 4%). That's 4M - 12M in commissions.

      Further, that hedge fund will voluntarily close, refusing to take more assets in, because hiring the extra people to do the extra management results in less dollars.

      Also, you assume all $8M goes to the manager or 3. There's a lot of overhead/dealing with customers. And it takes more than 3 people to maneuver 1B+ dollars.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!