Pwc High Frequency Trading Dark Pools

An objective look
at high-frequency
trading and
dark pools
May 6, 2015
www.pwc.com/us/InvestorResourceInstitute

PwC
High-frequency trading has been in the news a lot over the past few years. The
“Flash Crash” of 2010—when the Dow Jones Industrial Average experienced one
of its biggest one-day point declines (of almost 1,000 points) in its history—was
followed by the 2014 publication of Michael Lewis’s bestselling nonfiction book,
Flash Boys. As a corollary to this story, and equally controversial, dark pools have
been sought by investors who are looking to avoid interacting with aggressive
liquidity, usually from high frequency trading firms. What’s the big deal?
An objective look at
high-frequency trading
and dark pools
1 “Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,” Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the
Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, September 30, 2010.

1An objective look at high-frequency trading and dark pools
Source: “Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,” Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC
to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, September 30, 2010.
Figure 1.1: E-mini Volume and Price
E-Mini Volume and Price
Volume(contractsperminute)
Price
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1,020
1,040
1,060
1,080
1,100
1,120
1,140
1,160
1,180
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
Volume
Price
SPY volume and price
Figure 1.2: SPY Volume and Price
SPY Volume and Price
Volume(sharesperminute)
Price
10,000,000
0
1.000.000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
Volume
Bid Price
The “flash crash” selloff
E-Mini volume and price
The two most active stock index
instruments traded in electronic
futures and equity markets, the E-Mini
S&P 500 futures contracts (E-Mini) and
the S&P 500 SPDR exchange traded
fund (SPY), suffered steep declines
during the May 6, 2010 “Flash Crash.”
The E-Mini dropped to $2.65 billion
from nearly $6 billion—55%—and
the SPY fell to $220 million from
$275 million, a 20% decline.1

2 PwC
Just the facts
Background
Prior to the 1990s, the manner in which stocks were traded in the US was
relatively simple: an investor made a decision to buy or sell and conveyed this
information to a broker, who then routed the order to an exchange, where bids
and offers were matched and a trade was executed. All parties had access to the
same information about a stock’s bid-ask spread.
Today’s trading is a lot more complex and frequently involves little human
intervention. Most importantly, trading is done in microseconds—less than
a blink of an eye. The dramatic increase in the number of available trading
platforms, along with significant technological advancements, makes the process
by which orders are handled, routed, and executed much more complex. Broker-
dealers use algorithms to route different portions of an order to different venues
in various sequences, taking into account many factors (including minimization
of market impact, minimization of information leakage, immediacy of execution,
and cost of execution).
Traditional/simple stock transaction flow
Make
decision
to buy/sell
Investor
Route order
to exchangeBroker
Match bids
and offers
to execute
trade
Exchange
Market data
What do you know about high-
frequency trading?
By trading with
information that is
milliseconds away
from being disclosed in
a stock’s public price,
high-frequency traders
violate US insider
trading laws.
False: Current insider trading laws
apply to trading on information
that is confidential and has been
obtained through some violation of
a duty to protect the information.
While high-frequency traders are
able to access (and then trade on)
various forms of data more quickly
than other investors, most legal
scholars agree that this does not
represent “insider trading.”

Principles of today’s Smart Order Routing (SOR)
With these innovations came changes to the accessibility of information
among all market participants. Requests for more liquidity in the markets
and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) adoption of a number
of regulations aimed at modernizing the market structure—including
decimalization, regulation of alternative trading systems, and Regulation
National Market System (Reg NMS)—further set the stage for high-frequency
trading (HFT) and dark pools.
What is high-frequency trading?
There’s no definition for HFT in the securities laws or regulations. So what is it?
HFT is not a trading strategy as such but applies the latest technological advances
in market access, market data access, and order routing to maximize the returns
of established trading strategies.
In this example, each line out of SOR (Smart Order Routing) represents orders to different venues/markets: The
SOR is routing 0 shares to Venue A, 600 shares to Venue B, and 400 shares to Venue C.
Source: High Frequency Trading, Gomber, Arndt, Lutat, Uhle Goethe University.
SORBuy order:
1000 shares
Venue A
Bid Ask
50 @ 96€
—
100 @ 100€
—
Venue B
Bid Ask
90 @ 95€
—
600 @ 98€
20 @ 100€
Venue C
Bid Ask
80 @ 97€
—
400 @ 99€
50 @ 101€
Real-time data
400 shares
Real-time data
0 shares
Real-time data
600 shares
frequency trading?
High-frequency trading
provides essential
liquidity to the equity
markets.
Sometimes: This is a key area
of disagreement between those
who support and those who
oppose high-frequency trading.
In our view, while some liquidity
provided by high-frequency
trading is illusory (when based
on, for example, pinging, layering,
or spoofing techniques), other
strategies (e.g., passive market
making) create valuable liquidity
to our markets.

4 PwC
E-Mini midpoint
SPY midpoint
Attributes of HFT often include the following:
• use of extraordinarily high-speed programs for generating, routing, and
executing orders
• use of “co-location” services and individual data feeds offered by exchanges
and others to minimize network and other types of latencies
–– What is “co-location?” A co-location service is an arrangement with
trading centers (or third parties that host trading centers’ matching
engines) to rent space to market participants so that these participants
can physically locate their servers in close proximity to a trading center’s
matching engine. This close proximity saves microseconds of latency.
• very short time frames for establishing and liquidating positions
• submission of numerous orders that are canceled shortly thereafter
• ending the trading day in as close to a flat position as possible
Gone in 250 milliseconds
Bid-ask midpoints of the E-Mini and SPY over the course of trading on August 9, 2011, at one minute and 250 milliseconds
Minute 250 Milliseconds
frequency trading?
High-frequency trading
represents a growing
share of US securities
trading volume.
False: While high-frequency
trading volume increased
significantly up until 2009, since
then levels have decreased. Even
so, some estimate that more
than half of every day’s volume
of transactions is represented by
high-frequency transactions.2
Source: Budish, Eric, Cramton, Peter, and Shim, John, “The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch
Auctions as a Market Design Response,” February 17, 2015.
Figure 1.1: ES and SPY Time Series at Human-Scale and
High-Frequency Time Horizons
E-Mini midpoint
IndexPoints(E-Mini)
IndexPoints(SPY)
13:51:00 13:51:15 13:51:45 13:52:0013:51:30
Time (CT)
1,114
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,120
1,122
1,124
1,126
Figure 1.1: ES and SPY Time Series at Human-Scale and
High-Frequency Time Horizons
IndexPoints(E-Mini)
IndexPoints(SPY)
1,117
1,120
1,119
1,118
1,123
1,126
1,125
1,124
13:51:39.500 13:51:39.550 13:51:39.600 13:51:39.650 13:51:39.700 13:51:39.750
Time (CT)
2 “Equity Market Structure Literature Review Part II: High Frequency Trading,” Staff of the Division of Trading
and Markets1 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, March 18, 2015; accessed on April 16, 2015
https://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/research/hft_lit_review_march_2014.pdf.

HFT is not a homogeneous practice but instead includes a wide variety of strategies:
• Market making: Passive market making primarily involves the submission
of non-marketable resting orders that offer (or “make”) liquidity to the
marketplace at specified prices and receive a liquidity rebate if they are
executed. Incoming orders that execute against (or “take”) the liquidity of
resting orders are charged an access fee. The strategy is to make money on the
bid-ask spread; HFTs place bets on both sides of the trade by placing a limit
order to sell slightly above the current market price or to buy slightly below the
current market price, thereby profiting from the difference. Most, but not all,
market makers use HFT or other form of algorithmic trading.
• Arbitrage: An arbitrage strategy seeks to exploit momentary inconsistencies
in rates, prices, and other conditions among exchanges or asset classes. For
example, the strategy may seek to identify discrepancies between the price
of an ETF and the underlying basket of stocks and buy (sell) the ETF and
simultaneously sell (buy) the underlying basket to capture the price difference.
• Structural: Some proprietary firms’ strategies may exploit structural
vulnerabilities in the market or in certain market participants. For example,
by obtaining the fastest delivery of market data through co-location
arrangements and individual trading center data feeds, proprietary firms
theoretically could profit by identifying market participants who are offering
executions at stale prices.
• Directional: Neither passive market making nor arbitrage strategies generally
involve a proprietary firm taking a significant, unhedged position based on an
anticipation of an intra-day price movement of a particular direction. There
may be, however, a wide variety of short-term strategies that anticipate such a
movement in prices. Some “directional” strategies may be as straightforward
as concluding that a stock price temporarily has moved away from its
“fundamental value” and establishing a position in anticipation that the
price will return to such value. These speculative strategies may contribute
to the quality of price discovery in a stock. Two particular types of directional
strategies, however, have been identified as potentially presenting problems to
market integrity: order anticipation and momentum ignition.
“Traders using algorithms employ a variety of low-latency tools, including
(1) co-located servers in exchange data facilities and (2) direct data feeds
from exchanges rather than the consolidated data feeds. Much of the recent
public focus has been on high-frequency trading firms, but it is important to
remember that the exchanges are required to make these low-latency tools
available on terms that are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, and
that agency brokers are as likely to use these tools on behalf of their customers
as high-frequency trading firms are to use them for their own accounts.”
Letter from SEC Chair Mary Jo White to US Rep. Tim Johnson
and US Sen. Mike Crapo (Dec. 23, 2014)3
3 SEC Chair Mary Jo White to The Hon. Tim Johnson and Sen. Mike Crapo, December 23, 2014, viewed
on April 18, 2015 http://securitytraders.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JOHNSON-CRAPO-EQUITY-
MARKET-STRUCTURE-ES152784-Response.pdf

6 PwC
What role do dark pools play?
In the current market structure, high-frequency traders leverage dark pools.
What are dark pools? They’re a form of alternate trading system, which means
they are regulated as broker-dealers rather than as exchanges. Dark pools
operate with limited pre-trade transparency. The prices of orders entered into
the dark pool are not displayed to other market participants and are matched
anonymously against contra-side orders. Once trades are executed, they are
immediately reported to the consolidated tape, which provides public post-trade
transparency. Dark pools are operated by both large broker-dealers (who may
match client order flow against their own accounts) and independent platforms.
In general, dark pools offer trading services to institutional investors and others
that seek to execute large trades with as little market movement as possible,
thereby reducing trading costs.
“…High Frequency Traders (HFTs) did not cause the Flash Crash [of May
6, 2010], but contributed to it by demanding immediacy ahead of other
market participants. Immediacy absorption activity of HFTs results in price
adjustments that are costly to all slower traders, including the traditional
market makers. Even a small cost of maintaining continuous market
presence makes market makers adjust their inventory holdings to levels
that can be too low to offset temporary liquidity imbalances. A large enough
sell order can lead to a liquidity-based crash accompanied by high trading
volume and large price volatility—which is what occurred in the E-mini S&P
500 stock index futures contract on May 6, 2010, and then quickly spread to
other markets.”
Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A., Samadi, M., Tuzun, T., “The Flash Crash:
The Impact of High Frequency Trading on an Electronic Market,”
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1686004, viewed on April 15, 2015.
What do you know about dark pools?
Dark pools allow traders
to hide their activities
from regulators.
False: US regulators [including the
SEC, Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA)] are able to monitor
transactions within dark pools and
can initiate enforcement actions
when warranted.

Competing perspectives
Both dark pools and HFT have recently received significant attention from
regulators, lawmakers, investors, and other market participants, with some
wondering whether the innovations have outpaced a regulatory structure designed
to foster confidence in market integrity. Others point to the reasons why these
techniques developed—to provide greater market liquidity, enable large trades at
lower costs, facilitate faster trades, etc.—and caution against making overly broad
or emotional generalizations. Objectively, we believe that aspects of HFT and dark
pools can potentially both positively and negatively impact the markets.
• Lower trading costs
• More easily sell lower-volume
securities
• Trade without triggering
potentially unfavorable price
movements
• Harms overall price discovery process,
particularly in a security in which a
significant portion of that security’s
trade volume is in the pools
• Lack of transparency to public
investors, eroding confidence in the
public quote system
• Increased liquidity
• Lower market volatility
• Reduced bid-ask spreads, thereby
lowering trading costs
• Reduced execution time
• Better price discovery
• Much of liquidity is “phantom” and
not dependable
• Exacerbates market fragility
• Increases the market’s systemic risk
• Certain strategies may manipulate
the market
• Creates two-tiered trading markets
that benefit investors with access to
faster trading data, arguably at the
expense of other investors, which in
turn erodes investor confidence in the
securities markets
Potential
positives
Potential
negatives
HFTDarkpools

8 PwC
Securities regulatory response
In January 2010, the SEC issued a Concept Release on Equity Market Structure through which it sought comments on a broad
range of issues, including HFT and dark pools. In December 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White responded to a congressional
inquiry into the status of the Commission’s review of these issues, detailing a long list of both completed and contemplated
actions.4
Chair White’s letter included actions by the SEC, FINRA, and the exchanges. These actions include:
Adopted Under development or consideration
Timestamp: Beginning in April 2015, exchanges will add a
timestamp in consolidated data feeds to indicate when a
trading venue processed the display of an order or execution
of a trade, thereby providing more information about latency
Anti-disruptive trading rule: Address the use of aggressive and
destabilizing trading strategies in vulnerable market conditions
when they could most seriously exacerbate price volatility
Exchange transparency: Exchanges now disclose how they
are using consolidated and direct data feeds
Regulatory authority:
• On March 25, 2015, the SEC proposed rules to require that
broker-dealers trading in off-exchange venues become
members of a national securities association (such as FINRA)
• FINRA is separately considering expanding registration
requirements to broker-dealer employees responsible for
crafting or supervising algorithmic strategy
Off-exchange transparency: In May 2014, FINRA began
disseminating aggregate information on the trading volume of
individual alternative trading systems (ATSs)
Off-exchange transparency: FINRA is considering expanding
transparency initiative to include non-ATS over-the-counter
trading (thereby covering all off-exchange venues)
Systems compliance & integrity (Reg. SCI): Exchanges, ATSs
that exceed certain trading volume thresholds, and certain other
entities are now required to have comprehensive policies and
procedures in place for their technological systems. The new rules
also provide a framework for these entities to take corrective action
when systems issues occur; provide notifications and reports to the
SEC regarding problems and changes; inform members and
participants about systems issues; conduct business continuity
testing; and conduct annual reviews of their automated systems
Risk management rules: Improve firms’ risk management
of all types of trading algorithms and enhance regulatory
oversight of their use
Limit up-limit down pilot: Generally prevents trades in
exchange-listed stocks from occurring outside of a specified
price band around the current market price (generally 10% for
less liquid stocks and 5% for all others) [Unless extended—as it
has been several times since approved in 2012—the pilot is set
to expire Oct. 23, 2015.]
ATS operational information: Expand the information that
ATSs disclose to the SEC about their operations and make that
information available to the public
Order routing practices: Set out minimum disclosures about
order routing and execution quality that institutional investors
could request from their brokers
Order types: Exchanges are developing rule changes, to be
published for comment, clarifying the nature of their various
order types, how they interact with each other, and how they
support fair, orderly, and efficient markets
4 Ibid.

The SEC has also significantly expanded public transparency around market data
and related analysis that has been drawn from the SEC’s Market Information and
Data Analysis System (MIDAS). Launched in 2013, MIDAS collects and processes
data from the consolidated tapes as well as from the separate proprietary feeds
made individually available by each equity exchange. Through its website (see
www.sec.gov/marketstructure), the SEC is providing the public with data
highlights and research papers derived from MIDAS, including information on
the speed of trading, the nature and quality of liquidity, and the nature of order
cancellations. Chair White has pointed to this data and analysis as underpinning
future regulations affecting equity market structure.5
5 Ibid.

Additional information
To have a deeper conversation about how
these issues may affect you, please contact:
Kayla Gillan
Leader, Investor Resource Institute
(202) 312 7525
kayla.j.gillan@us.pwc.com
Joanne O’Rourke
Managing Director, Investor Resource Institute
(703) 918 6017
joanne.m.orourke@us.pwc.com
Emmanuel Chesnais
Director, Financial Services Regulatory Practice
(646) 313 3178
emmanuel.chesnais@us.pwc.com
© 2015 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. a Delaware limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the United States member firm, and may sometimes
refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information
purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. . MW-15-2117 JP
www.pwc.com/us/InvestorResourceInstitute

Pwc High Frequency Trading Dark Pools

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Pwc High Frequency Trading Dark Pools (20)

More from PwC (20)

Pwc High Frequency Trading Dark Pools