High-frequency stock trading of little value to investors, general public

Jan 10, 2013
High-frequency stock trading leads to an increase in order cancelation but little else of value to investors and the general public, says research co-written by University of Illinois business professor Mao Ye, left, and graduate students Chen Yao, center, and Jiading Gai. Credit: L. Brian Stauffer

The increase in the speed of stock trading from microseconds to nanoseconds leads to an increase in order cancellation, but little else of value to investors and the general public, says research by a University of Illinois business professor.

According to a forthcoming study by Mao Ye, a professor of finance at Illinois, the arms race in speed at the sub-millisecond level of is a "purely positional game" in which a trader's payoff depends on transaction speed relative to other traders.

"There are lots of extreme views about high-frequency trading, but if you look at high-frequency trading scientifically, you would see that's it's neither good nor evil," Ye said. "Although some people think it's good, and others, necessarily, think that it's really bad, our paper shows that neither extreme view is correct. So are investing heavily in order to play what's really a zero-sum game."

According to the research, co-written with Jiading Gai and Chen Yao, both graduate students at Illinois, since the current exchange fee structure only charges for executed trades, and not order cancellations, legitimate traders and investors essentially subsidize high-frequency traders who purposefully cancel orders, reflecting a wealth transfer from low-frequency traders to high-frequency traders.

"If you increase the speed of trading from micro- to nanoseconds, which is a 1,000 percent increase in speed, there's really no social value to that," Ye said. "There is, however, a lot of private value in that for traders."

The research shows an increase in the cancellation-execution ratio of orders, as well as a corresponding increase in short-term volatility and a decrease of market depth.

"We found that an increase in the speed of trading does increase the liquidity of the market, but it also doesn't decrease market liquidity," Ye said. "But considering the huge investment these exchanges have made in speed, you really have to question the social benefit to doing that."

The research also finds evidence consistent with "quote stuffing," a practice that involves submitting an extraordinarily large number of orders followed by immediate cancellation for the sole purpose of creating congestion in the market.

"Quote stuffing is certainly an externality-generating activity – the equivalent of noise or pollution in financial markets," Ye said. "We've found evidence that's consistent with quote-stuffing, and the economic incentive for that is pretty straightforward. If only relative speed matters, then people invest heavily to increase their speed. But firms have invested a sufficiently large amount of money simply to max out their speed, which in essence has created a positional arms race in the markets."

The researchers say the study is one of the largest computing efforts ever conducted in academic finance.

"From a computational standpoint, this paper involved calculations that were both data-intensive and computing-intensive, which represented a special challenge," Gai said.

"One year of trading data is equivalent to if you were to digitize all of the books in the Library of Congress – and the majority of that data is cancellations," Ye said. "On an average trading day, a stock like Microsoft has over a million messages – and the majority are cancellations. Cancelling trades is taking over the system and monopolizing resources."

So how do you create "speed bumps" in the market speed so that trade cancellations don't overtake the system? There needs to be a level-playing field so that no one can game the system, Ye says.

"Mary Shapiro, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wants to impose a minimum quote life," Ye said. "But let's ask an extremely simple question: What's the distribution of a quote life now? Well, no one really knows, because to draw a summary statistic from that data takes lots of computing power. Without a scientific approach, the debate has become based on ideology, on whether you think high-frequency trading is inherently good or bad."

As a result, a restriction on trading speed should only be imposed unilaterally by an outside authority, which means slowing down everyone by the same amount, Ye says.

"What that means is that you can't push the order and then cancel it within 50 milliseconds," he said. "What do orders less that 50 milliseconds contribute to liquidity? I don't think anyone has looked at that. Considering the investment that was made, that wasn't really the best allocation of resources. There's a lot of debate over that, and we have some concerns about that. If you continuously increase the speed, our results indicate that the benefits do not justify the costs, because it only slightly increases volatility."

But it's probably not a good idea to remove high-frequency traders' profits in the current market just yet.

"Let it continue to grow because they're eventually going to hit a speed wall, and at a certain point there will be no value to it," he said.

Explore further: Less-numerate investors swayed by corporate report presentation effects

More information: "The Externality of High-Frequency Trading," papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… ?abstract_id=2066839

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US imposes new rules on high-speed traders

Jul 26, 2011

US regulators on Tuesday announced new rules aimed at shedding light on the secretive industry of computerized high-speed trading, which has been blamed for destabilizing financial markets.

Wall Street's super traders come under fire

Sep 09, 2010

A handful of traders who master stock markets using ultra-fast computers may soon face a clampdown by US watchdogs as they try to prevent freak electronic glitches.

Algorithmic trading to replace humans in the stock market

Sep 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The UK Government’s Foresight panel, led by Dame Clara Furse, has released a working paper that points out that algorithmic trading, or high frequency trading, will soon replace human decision making when it comes to the stock ...

High-frequency stock trade risky, unfair: experts

Sep 21, 2012

The increasing power of computerized high-frequency trades on US markets has been assailed in Congress as dangerous and unfair, as pressure builds to reel in the powerful industry.

Recommended for you

Migrant employment on the rise

Oct 20, 2014

Skilled migrants are enjoying better jobs and higher levels of employment thanks to a shift in policy, according to a new study by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Squirrel
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2013
"But it's probably not a good idea to remove high-frequency traders' profits in the current market just yet." Why not?
AWaB
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2013
First the article says:
but if you look at high-frequency trading scientifically, you would see that's it's neither good nor evil

and then:
legitimate traders and investors essentially subsidize high-frequency traders who purposefully cancel orders, reflecting a wealth transfer from low-frequency traders to high-frequency traders


Individual investors have pulled large sums out of the markets in recent years and highspeed trading is one of the reasons. People feel that the game is rigged and this sort of thing is one of the reasons they feel that way.