scholarly journals Moore's Law versus Murphy's Law: Algorithmic Trading and Its Discontents

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei A Kirilenko ◽  
Andrew W Lo

Financial markets have undergone a remarkable transformation over the past two decades due to advances in technology. These advances include faster and cheaper computers, greater connectivity among market participants, and perhaps most important of all, more sophisticated trading algorithms. The benefits of such financial technology are evident: lower transactions costs, faster executions, and greater volume of trades. However, like any technology, trading technology has unintended consequences. In this paper, we review key innovations in trading technology starting with portfolio optimization in the 1950s and ending with high-frequency trading in the late 2000s, as well as opportunities, challenges, and economic incentives that accompanied these developments. We also discuss potential threats to financial stability created or facilitated by algorithmic trading and propose “Financial Regulation 2.0,” a set of design principles for bringing the current financial regulatory framework into the Digital Age.

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-395
Author(s):  
Petja Ivanova

Abstract In light of inevitable cross-border scenarios in today’s highly interconnected financial markets and since financial stability may be put at risk by the rising phenomenon of financial technology (known as fintech), the importance of developing effective ways to regulate fintech across borders cannot be neglected. The financial sector has changed from a traditional one marked by conventional financial intermediation structures towards an increasingly technology-affected one. Not only this change but anticipated developments too require if not extensively reconsidering the design of financial regulation,1 then at least not turning a blind eye to shaping developments. Whether the numerous recently sprouting bilateral fintech cooperation agreements are adequate transnational regulatory instruments to address fintech effectively across borders is for this paper to elucidate.


2012 ◽  
Vol 02 (11) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
Charles Kombo Okioga

Capital Market Authority in Kenya is in a development phase in order to be effective in the regulation of the financial markets. The market participants and the regulators are increasingly adopting international standards in order to make the capital markets in sync with those of developed markets. New products are being introduced and new business lines are being established. The Capital Markets Authority (Regulator) is constantly reviewing existing regulations and recommending changes to regulate the market properly. Business lines and activities are being harmonized by market participants to provide a one stop solution in order to meet the financial and securities services needs of the investors. The convergence of business lines and activities of market intermediaries gives rise to the diversity of a firm’s business operations to meet multiplicity of regulations that its activities are subject to. The methodology used in this study was designed to examine the relationship between capital markets Authority effective regulation and the performance of the financial markets. The study used correlation design, the study population consisted of 30 employees in financial institutions regulated by Capital Markets Authority and 80 investors. The study found out that effective financial market regulation has a significant relationship with the financial market performance indicated by (r=0.571, p<0.01) and (r=0.716, p≤0.01, the study recommended a further research on the factors that hinder effective financial regulation by the Capital Markets Authority.


Author(s):  
Arner Douglas W ◽  
Hsu Berry FC ◽  
Goo Say H ◽  
Johnstone Syren ◽  
Lejot Paul ◽  
...  

This chapter describes the overall legal and regulatory framework supporting financial markets in Hong Kong. This is developed in tandem with, and in response to, their characteristics. Regulatory reforms in the financial markets of Hong Kong have typically been developed after a financial crisis and market failure. However, while Hong Kong has not always had effective systems of financial regulation, it has been steadily strengthening its regulatory framework both for financial markets and institutions. This chapter argues that the increasing effectiveness of its legal and institutional regulatory framework has enhanced its development as an international financial centre over the past two decades and will be vital to its continued success in the future. The chapter concludes by outlining the common objectives of the Hong Kong financial regulators today.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 833-848
Author(s):  
Mariia Domina Repiquet

This article examines to what extent EU law is effective in preserving global financial stability and, therefore, preventing financial crisis. A difference between macro- and micro-approaches to financial regulation is explained. Whilst the former is concerned with the minimization of systemic risks and maintaining of the financial stability, the latter is focused on the effective regulation of all financial markets’ players, whatever the size of their portfolios. These approaches are the two sides of the same coin, that is limiting the possibility that future financial crises will occur. This paper argues that the effective regulation of investment firms, especially their duty of care, helps to preserve overall financial stability. The choice of the MiFID II as a case study is explained by its appreciation as one of the biggest achievements of EU policymakers in the context of financial law so far. How does a duty to ‘know your customer’ affect global financial stability within the EU? What is the role of soft law in preserving the financial system? These are the questions that this paper seeks to answer.


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-335
Author(s):  
Harald A. Benink ◽  
Reinhard H. Schmidt

AbstractThe turbulence in the international financial markets in the 1980s inspired the idea that independent academics might be in a position to make a contribution to the improvement of regulation and thus ultimately also to the stability of the national financial sector in the United States. This led to the creation of the US “Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee“, a group of academics and other independent experts working in the field of financial regulation, which meets regularly and issues statements concerning conceptual as well as current issues in financial regulation. Two years ago, a similar shadow committee was founded in Europe. It is composed of members from 11 different countries. The special problems of financial regulation in Europe, as well as the special features of the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee (ESFRC), derive from the fact that despite the trend towards economic and political integration, Europe is still a collection of different nations with different institutional set-ups and political and economic traditions. In this paper, Harald Benink, chairman of the ESFRC, and Reinhard H. Schmidt, one of the two German members, describe the origin, the objectives and the functioning of the committee and the thrust of its recommendations.


Author(s):  
Richard Deeg ◽  
Walter James

The regulation of finance is central to the growth and development of every economy. Financial regulation determines the overall character of the financial system, the relationship between borrowers and savers, the allocation of capital, and the macroeconomic performance of the economy. Financial market regulation is distinct from regulation of other sectors of the economy because of the essential infrastructural role of finance—all other sectors of advanced economies depend on the financial system. Despite its enormous importance, financial regulation normally has low political salience. Except in times of crisis, most voters—and therefore politicians—have relatively little interest in the matter. This can be attributed in part to the complex and technical nature of financial markets and regulation, which relatively few people understand well. Low political salience facilitates a regulatory process that is very heavily shaped by regulators (technocrats) and the industry they regulate, with only minor direction from elected political leaders. In the long history of capitalism, bank and financial system crises have been regular occurrences. Regulation, or regulatory failure, is often seen as a cause of crises, but regulatory change is also the response. Thus any given financial regulatory regime is never settled for long. After the Great Depression, advanced capitalist economies introduced highly restrictive financial regulatory regimes designed to minimize systemic risk from bank failures. In the postwar period, restrictive regulatory regimes were combined with capital controls that limited international movements of capital. The postwar Bretton Woods international monetary regime stabilized fixed exchange rates through such controls and, when necessary, lending by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to countries that could not pay for their external debts. Starting with the collapse of the Bretton Woods regime in the early 1970s, all the advanced economies started liberalizing financial market regulation and removing capital controls as part of a broader shift toward a neoliberal economic philosophy. These deregulatory measures brought about a dramatic transformation of domestic financial systems and the reemergence of a dynamic and rapidly growing international financial market. Such dynamic and internationalized financial market was, in large part, the root cause of the early-21st-century financial crisis. The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 precipitated widespread review and revision of financial market regulations at both the domestic and international levels. These revisions include a shift from private self-regulation to state-driven regulation of financial markets, the centralization of regulation at the level of the European Union, and a closer cooperation between states in forging international regulatory standards. Nonetheless, despite the dramatic growth of the international financial market and transnational efforts to coordinate regulation, financial regulation remains overwhelmingly a domestic affair.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 91-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. S. Khudyakova

Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 demonstrated the need for reforms in the system of financial regulation. An institutional mechanism was created under the auspices of the G20 with the purpose to implement a global reform. In the article results of the postcrisis global financial reform are analysed in contingent with review of the evolution of institutional mechanism, which specifics often determined success or its absence in particular directions of the reform. The author selects and reviews three main periods of development of the global financial regulation’s institutional mechanism. In the initial period – the first years after the crisis works were progressing in two directions simultaneously: a) co-ordination of activities of national financial regulatory bodies in coping with the crisis processes and neutralization of its consequences; b) development and reconciliation of major global standards of financial regulation. We can consider that period as successful because crisis processes were overcame in relatively short time, trade and currency wars were also avoided and at the same time international regulatory standards were widely agreed.The second period according to the author’s classification (approx. 2012–2015) – transmission to the implementation of agreed international standards at the national and supranational (EC) levels. That time a range of difficulties and contradictions between leading countries revealed. First of all these problems related to the spheres where the regulations of transnational activities of financial institutions had to be agreed. As the author shows exactly in that time a problem of the so-called asymmetrical sovereignty in the financial policy aggravated.The third period is continuing in the present time. During this period, from the one side, the global financial regulation expands its coverage according to emergence of new challenges, but from the other side the interest to the reform is being loosing and the trend to increase of the independence of the national financial regulators is expanding. So the threat to fragmentation of the international financial markets and revision of already agreed regulatory standards became not illusive.Special attention in the article was paid to analysis of the problem of regulating the shadow banking or non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI), which are till now largely outside of the regulatory mandate of the governance bodies. Rapid growth of transactions by the latter, according to the author’s opinion, is a threat to the global financial stability especially taking into account such factors as its close interconnectedness with traditional financial institutions (banks), exposure to the bank-like risks, the wide implementation of financial innovations for making new unregulated products.Investigating new challenges beyond the perimeter of the post-crisis reform the author came to the conclusion that implementation of financial technologies as well as the necessity to take into account ecological and social factors require serious transformation of the global financial system as well as it’s regulation. Taking into account the global nature of new challenges the need for international co-operation of financial regulatory bodies will be continued.


Author(s):  
Treleaven Philip ◽  
Sfeir-Tait Sally

This chapter considers the impact of fintech and regtech from a macro perspective. It demonstrates the depth of the changes and importance to consider in all the elements that are converging to create a new reality and a new economy. It also adopts the meaning of the term “fintech” as published by the Bank of International Settlements and the Financial Stability Board, which means “technology—enabled innovation in financial services”. This chapter describes the impact of fintech on financial services regulation. It provides a macro analysis on fintech solutions that are tested or implemented in financial services as they are directly applicable to stock markets and exchanges.


Author(s):  
Stefan Zeranski ◽  
Ibrahim E. Sancak

AbstractThe U.S. financial markets faced an unprecedented rapid decline and recovery on May 6, 2010, known as the May 6 flash crash. Roughly one trillion $ market value in less than thirty minutes vanished with the biggest one-day point decline in the history of the DJIA at the time. Since the market events took place in electronic markets, and algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading, parts of FinTech, played significant roles, we handle the May 6 flash crash from the FinTech, SupTech, and financial supervision perspectives. With the flashback method, we analyzed the reactions of market participants, media, and two financial supervisors, the SEC, and the CFTC, to the market crash. We find that the technological imbalance between financial markets or institutions and their supervisors drove the markets in uncertainty, hence in a fear and panic environment. Since the imbalance has not diminished yet, the same risks still exist. As a remedy, we introduce a new concept and model with a well-functioning SupTech system to cope with the May 6 type FinTech crises.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-190
Author(s):  
Anastasia Podrugina ◽  
◽  
Anton Tabakh ◽  

Nowadays the global financial system faces a triple challenge: the threat of a new systemic financial crisis at both global and regional levels; difficulties of constant adaptation of existing financial business and regulatory practices to intensive technological innovations; direct and hidden consequences of excessive political influence on the financial system through sanctions and selectively applied practices for sanction purposes. Improving the quality of financial regulation will require deeper cooperation between regulators of leading economies and a proactive position of the financial industry, as well as the decentralization of financial regulation. However, it is unlikely that this will happen at the global level. Financial stability became a key goal of global financial regulation in the post-crisis period. We consider financial stability as the «tragedy of commons». The article describes the main trends of financial markets regulation after the crisis: transformation of global financial architecture, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing practices (AML/ CT), financial sanctions. The article analyzes the existing failures of modern post-crisis financial regulation: credit crunch, reduction in the effectiveness of monetary policy, regulatory arbitrage, and increased compliance costs (AML/CT legislation, tax legislation, and the sanctions regime). In the future we expect simultaneous trends of harmonization and standardization of requirements in traditional sectors of financial markets (including traditional institutions of the shadow banking sector), but at the same time regulatory arbitrage1 will induce new financial technologies in order to reduce regulatory costs. The crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 despite its non-financial nature will almost inevitably have a major impact on financial markets and their regulation. Possible steps to eliminate failures in the financial regulation system are proposed, including recommendations for international organizations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document