Max Bowie: Do Crisis Closures Make Redundancy Redundant?

Aside from its tragic and destructive impact on the inhabitants of parts of New York and New Jersey, October’s Hurricane Sandy proved two key things for the financial markets: First, the business-continuity plans of datacenters where most marketplaces and trading firms host their trading engines and servers proved effective in keeping everyone’s systems running; and second, in spite of this, the markets still closed for two days because of old-fashioned physical issues that these centers were, in part, designed to eliminate.
The New York Stock Exchange initially planned to open for electronic trading as usual, anticipating that its physical floor would be closed following the storm—as indeed it was, re-opening after two days on generator power, though the floor was never flooded, contrary to some news reports—but changed its mind after discussions with other US exchanges and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Ultimately, all US equities markets remained closed for a full two days—an occurrence not experienced in decades. And while at time of writing, thousands of New Yorkers remain without power, the US financial markets could have largely continued unhindered.
According to Plan
This is testament to the integrity, security and policies of the datacenter facilities constructed by vendors such as Equinix, Telx and Savvis in recent years—veritable digital fortresses designed to withstand all manner of attacks, whether they be caused by humans or nature. Though new facilities tend to be built to take power from two power grids, most in the New York and New Jersey area experienced outages and had to run on generators during and after the storm. To ensure this could happen smoothly, datacenter operators tested generators beforehand, ensured fuel supplies, arranged hotel rooms for staff near facilities, even bringing cots and ready-to-eat meals into their datacenters, in some cases. This aspect of the markets worked fine, although it does raise the questions of whether so many critical markets should operate from the same datacenters—an outage at Equinix’s NY4 facility, which many markets have found offers the best connectivity to client firms and other venues, for example, could throw multiple markets into disarray—and what impact the changes in latency introduced by switching over to a backup location would have on firms’ trading strategies and routing decisions.
What failed, though, is that in spite of having increasingly electronic, automated and virtual markets, these still rely to a large extent on a legacy physical infrastructure overseeing them—an infrastructure of human administrators and operations staff, whose ability to do their job is limited by, say, flooding at their place of work, subways not running, or trees blocking roads. To a large extent, it seems that the market closures were a result of infrastructure supporting the people who manage the markets not being as resilient as the infrastructures that actually run them. Or perhaps, to look at this from another point of view, people didn’t trust the systems designed to run the markets to do their job without human oversight.
Limits
Some of these limitations cannot be overcome: Storms will always cause havoc. But other factors can be: Administrative and supervisory functions can be automated to the same extent as the markets they oversee, and can be performed as remotely and virtually as the infrastructures of the trading firms they monitor—even possibly by putting the logic to perform these functions on satellites to eliminate the risk of running these from a geographical location subject to disruption.
To a large extent, it seems that the market closures were a result of infrastructure supporting the people who manage the markets not being as resilient as the infrastructures that actually run the markets.
But the more systematic issue at stake has little to do with the systems that support the markets, and more to do with the system that governs them: Under what circumstances should all markets be forced to close, if the systems of some—or all—are able to keep running? After all, aren’t technology and reliability supposed to be differentiators? And what does it say about our confidence in these systems—or the system—if we feel the need to pull the plug when we can’t be in the room?
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Emerging Technologies
DeepSeek success spurs banks to consider do-it-yourself AI
Chinese LLM resets price tag for in-house systems—and could also nudge banks towards open-source models.
Standard Chartered goes from spectator to player in digital asset game
The bank’s digital assets custody offering is underpinned by an open API and modular infrastructure, allowing it to potentially add a secondary back-end system provider.
Saugata Saha pilots S&P’s way through data interoperability, AI
Saha, who was named president of S&P Global Market Intelligence last year, details how the company is looking at enterprise data and the success of its early investments in AI.
Data partnerships, outsourced trading, developer wins, Studio Ghibli, and more
The Waters Cooler: CME and Google Cloud reach second base, Visible Alpha settles in at S&P, and another overnight trading venue is approved in this week’s news round-up.
Are we really moving on from GenAI already?
Waters Wrap: Agentic AI is becoming an increasingly hot topic, but Anthony says that shouldn’t come at the expense of generative AI.
Cloud infrastructure’s role in agentic AI
The financial services industry’s AI-driven future will require even greater reliance on cloud. A well-architected framework is key, write IBM’s Gautam Kumar and Raja Basu.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 310: SigTech’s Bin Ren
This week, SigTech’s CEO Bin Ren joins Eliot to discuss GenAI’s progress since ChatGPT’s emergence in 2022, agentic AI, and challenges with regulating AI.
Microsoft exec: ‘Generative AI is completely passé. This is the year of agentic AI’
Microsoft’s Symon Garfield said that AI advancements are prompting financial services firms to change their approach to integrating AI-powered solutions.