Limit Up–Limit Down: an effective response to the “Flash Crash”?

Author:Viktoria Dalko
Position:Department of Finance, Hult International Business School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Pages:420-429
SUMMARY

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s new regulation, Limit Up-Limit Down (LULD), against the background of manipulative high-frequency trading (HFT). Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the background of HFT and related manipulative tactics by reviewing 43 articles of empirical research. It also examines areas in... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
Limit Up–Limit Down:
an effective response to the
“Flash Crash”?
Viktoria Dalko
Department of Finance, Hult International Business School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA and Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s new
regulation, Limit Up–Limit Down (LULD), against the background of manipulative high-frequency
trading (HFT).
Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the background of HFT and related
manipulative tactics by reviewing 43 articles of empirical research. It also examines areas in which
LULD is effective and those in which LULD fails. The assessment of LULD is completed with a
comparison between computerized regulation and legal enforcement in the contemporary reality of
electronic trading platforms.
Findings – The paper points out the effectiveness of LULD in regulating wild price volatility as well as its
insufciency when facing orderly but fast price momentum ignited by manipulative HFT such as “spoong”.
Practical implications The ndings may provide assistance to lawmakers and regulators to
improve LULD regulation.
Originality/value This paper is the rst attempt to assess LULD regulation against a
comprehensive background of manipulative HFT. The paper is of value to other researchers concerned
about the instability to the equity market that manipulative HFT can create. The paper is also of interest
to policymakers in designing effective regulation in the high-frequency era.
Keywords Manipulation, Computerized regulation, Flash crash, High-frequency trading,
Limit Up-Limit Down, Spoong
Paper type Research paper
In today’s complex electronic markets, we need an automated and appropriately calibrated
way to pause or limit trading if prices move too far too fast.
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair, Mary Schapiro (SEC, 2015).
1. “Flash crash”
Equity investors and traders in the US stock exchanges watched in shock when the
“Flash Crash” occurred on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on May 6, 2010. At
2:42 p.m., the Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) was down more than 300 points; the
index then started to fall at faster speeds. In the next 5 min, it lost more than 600 points.
The author thanks Dr Xin Yan for inspiration and Dr Michael H. Wang for helpful discussions.
The author gratefully acknowledges the insights provided by Editor John Ashton and the
anonymous reviewers.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
JFRC
24,4
420
Journalof Financial Regulation
andCompliance
Vol.24 No. 4, 2016
pp.420-429
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/JFRC-04-2016-0040

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL