Rob Daly: Where Mifid II Goes Wrong on HFT
A few weeks ago, the European Commission released its second draft of its Financial Instruments Directive, Mifid II, and, according to Rob, the proposed regulations look designed to fail.
Have you ever known from the outset that a business plan wouldn’t work? Either those who developed it did not think through the process entirely or they made assumptions that are totally detached from reality. The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive review (Mifid II) makes me wonder what regulators were thinking when it comes to high-frequency trading. In the entire 196-page document, high-frequency trading is mentioned a total of seven times in only four sections of the text.
First, the European Commission wants all organizations providing market accesses to high-frequency traders, as well as the trading venues themselves, to implement the appropriate safeguards to “mitigate disorderly trading and ensure the resiliency of their platforms.”
Member states must have their regulated markets put systems in place to “reject orders that exceed pre-determined volume and price thresholds” and clearly erroneous trades if there is a significant price move in the instrument on that market or related markets during a short period of time.
The Commission also will require markets to have in place systems and procedures to make sure those algorithmic trading systems “cannot create or contribute to disorderly trading conditions on the market” and that they are able to slow down these trade flows if there is a risk of the trading system reaching capacity. The regulated markets will also need to set appropriate standards regarding risk controls for those trading via direct electronic access to the market, and be able to stop the order flow if necessary.
Indecent Proposal?
Another proposal is that member states must ensure that their regulated markets provide a transparent, fair and nondiscriminatory fee structure for their respective co-location services.
Finally, the Commission will observe the effects the new regulations have on high-frequency trading by examining the number of new authorized firms operating under the new regulations as well as tracking the amount of “disorderly trading” that can be sourced to high-frequency trading firms.
It seems to me these proposals can best be described as noble but impractical to implement on a state-by-state basis. The first issue—and this is an area you would assume the Commission would have spent a significant amount of time on—is that there isn’t a definition of high-frequency trading in the entire Mifid II document.
Coming up with a threshold that is a ratio of executed and canceled trades is a good way to detect the typical signs of high-frequency trading. But will the regulatory onus be on the individual broker-dealers who are executing high-frequency trades on behalf of their clients, or will it be the trading venues’ responsibility to see which participants are passing the threshold? I assume it will be the former, since only the venues know broker-dealers’ identities and if they slowed down the executions of the broker-dealers, that could affect non-high-frequency traders as well.
Harmonization
The most important issue I see is the simple harmonization of these standards across the member states. Given how uneven the original rollout of Mifid was in November 2007, I see nothing but late-adopting states gaming their “early” counterparts in order to attract firms and liquidity to their markets. Of course, I could be cynical and think that the EC officials hope that the national regulators make a total hash of the implementation of Mifid II so they can use their power under Article 290 of the Treaty of Lisbon to dictate all the details to the member states and their respective market regulators.
Not that this would ever happen—never. A supra-national regulator would never inflict unnecessary pain and grief onto its member states in order to consolidate its power. I’m not sure what I was thinking!
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 Regulation
BlackRock, BNY see T+1 success in industry collaboration, old frameworks
Industry testing and lessons from the last settlement change from T+3 to T+2 were some of the components that made the May transition run smoothly.
How ‘Bond gadgets’ make tackling data easier for regulators and traders
The IMD Wrap: Everyone loves the hype around AI, especially financial firms. And now, even regulators are getting in on the act. But first... “The name’s Bond; J-AI-mes Bond”
Can the EU and UK reach T+1 together?
Prompted by the North American migration, both jurisdictions are drawing up guidelines for reaching next-day settlement.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 293: Reference Data Drama
Tony and Reb discuss the Financial Data Transparency Act's proposed rules around identifiers and the industry reaction.
Clearing houses fear being classified as DORA third parties
As the 2025 deadline looms, CCP and exchange members are seeking risk information that’s usually deemed confidential.
Industry not sold on FIGI mandate for US reg reporting
Banks’ and asset managers’ tortured relationship with Cusip numbers remains tortured, as they tell regulators to keep the taxonomy in play.
T+1 shift sees out-of-hours human resourcing costs spike by as much as 20%
New research finds that trading firms are experiencing increased labor costs—which could be a boon for outsourced trading.
CBOE and Aquis to make bid for European equities tape
The challenger exchanges have plans to become the second public bidder for provider of the European equities tape, following EuroCTP’s incorporation last year.