Can this be considered manipulation?

TraDaToR

TraDaToR

Imagine you trade in a fairly illiquid market with, for example, a 10 tick spread( Let's say Bid @10, Fair value @ 15 and Ask @ 20). You are waiting for a fill at bid and you get a nasty market making algo submitting a new best bid everytime you want to improve best bid( getting in front of you...). That nasty algo is dumb and don't calculate fair value but improves as long as the spread is wide enough.

Is it manipulative to improve his ask and drive it below FV to finally hit him with a buy order?

I think that what the Swedish traders were doing to Timber Hill, but can it considered manipulative by CFTC?
 
I think it's unlikely that an automated system like that would be "dumb" and not have it's own vol skew and fair value. As a customer, as long as you are putting yourself at the risk of the market, I'm not aware of any violation. Let's call that IMO.
 
If they try and bust you, just say your proprietary models said that it was a buy @ 15 but a sell @ 16. So you tried selling @ 16 but then an offer @ 15 (the autobot) made it a buy. Of course, that doesn't mean the powers that be won't try and prosecute. Just look at all the idiotic spoofing cases being brought to court lately.
 
If I ask, it's because I found such an algo this week. On a few occurrences you can push it past FV...To me , It is hard to compare to spoofing which is really detrimental to the market place. Here you just take advantage of a lazy program...Nobody is hurt except the institution behind the annoying algo...
 
Yes it can be considered manipulation. Everytime you put an order you have to make sure you want to get filled. If the sell orders you put were solely sent in order to drive the algo ask down (and the true intention was to go long the stock) that can be considered manipulation. Now if your intention was to get filled above (for shorts) or bellow fair value (for longs) with no priority over the side, then its fine
 
Daal said:
Yes it can be considered manipulation.
More...

I think the true manipulation here is when autobots autopenny orders. The only strategy that will work against them is to spoof them. And anything that harms autobots is okey-dokey in my book. How come autobots have free reign in the markets but the one way to hurt them consistently is considered illegal? It really is b*llsh*t to the highest degree. Did I mention that if you attempt to spoof and you get filled on a spoof order that you actually have that deal with that position? It is not like it is a risk-free strategy. Who deemed spoofing to be illegal but autopennying to be so great? I think they should be jailed.
 
sprstpd said:
I think the true manipulation here is when autobots autopenny orders. The only strategy that will work against them is to spoof them. And anything that harms autobots is okey-dokey in my book. How come autobots have free reign in the markets but the one way to hurt them consistently is considered illegal? It really is b*llsh*t to the highest degree. Did I mention that if you attempt to spoof and you get filled on a spoof order that you actually have that deal with that position? It is not like it is a risk-free strategy. Who deemed spoofing to be illegal but autopennying to be so great? I think they should be jailed.
More...
What you are saying is true however the rules weren't set by people with resonable standards. Sending orders with no intention of having them filled can be considered manipulation by the SEC. I'm told that some prop firms are even warning their traders against doing that because it does violate the rules
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top