New York AG Puts Top BrokerDealer Dark Pools In Cross-Hairs (Again)

BrokerDealer.com blog update courtesy of multiple news sources.

NY AG Eric Schneiderman

NY AG Eric Schneiderman

Less than two months after N.Y. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman levied charges against Barclays that it deliberately misled investors in its dark pool, regulators are reportedly looking into operations at five more investment banks. No specific allegations have been revealed, but several firms have confirmed that either Schneiderman’s office or another agency is investigating their practices.

The latest additions to the list of firms under scrutiny by the N.Y. attorney general’s office are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, according to The Fox Business Network, which cited people with direct knowledge of matter as sources. Neither firm has publicly acknowledged an investigation, but they also would not deny the scrutiny, according to the report.

Press officials at both firms as well as at the N.Y. attorney general’s office all declined comment.

One week ago, Credit Suisse revealed that regulators have asked the firm for information about its alternative trading system (ATS) as part of an investigation into dark pools. Credit Suisse said it was cooperating with “various governmental and regulatory authorities” regarding its ATS but would not specify which regulators were investigating, according to the Wall Street Journal. The bank further said that it is one of 30 defendants named in lawsuits related to high-frequency trading or other alleged violations filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Days earlier, UBS and Deutsche Bank disclosed that they were the subject of inquiries. UBS said that it was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the N.Y. attorney general’s office and other regulators as part of an industry-wide investigation, according to the New York Times.

“These inquiries include an SEC investigation that began in early 2012 concerning features of UBS’s ATS, including certain order types and disclosure practices that were discontinued two years ago,” the firm said, according to the New York Times article.

At the same time, it was reported that Deutsche Bank separately disclosed it had been contacted by regulators. Deutsche Bank did not reveal which regulators had contacted the firm, but the New York Times report cited an unnamed source familiar with the matter as saying that the N.Y. attorney general’s office was investigating.  Deutsche Bank and UBS both said they were cooperating with authorities.

Electronic Exchange Venue IEX’s Corporate Communication Exec Speaks Out re: BrokerDealer.com Blog Post

As a professional courtesy, BrokerDealer.com blog is happy to post the following comment sent to us by IEX media representative Gerald Lam in response to our July 7 post, which merely extracted snippets from a July 7 WSJ article profiling the latest announcement from IEX, the electronic trading venue for block equities trading whose “anti-HFT” notoriety has spread far and wide thanks to the book “Flash Boys”

From: Gerald Lam <[email protected]>
Date: July 9, 2014 at 6:26:32 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Contact email from Gerald Lam

I work at IEX, managing media & communications. I read your blog post on us from Monday, July 7 with concern.

Unfortunately, Bradley Hope’s article was misleading. And some of his inaccuracies have bled onto your piece.

For one thing, the “scheme” as you put it, is nothing new. We’ve offered it since the day we launched: October 25th, 2013.

Secondly, your second paragraph is wrong. Broker-dealer orders would not jump to the top of the order book over orders submitted by buy-side investors. Every buy-side investor (retail included) must be represented by a broker-dealer at IEX. There are no broker-dealer orders competing with non-broker-dealer orders here because every order at IEX is submitted by a broker-dealer.

Who does get “jumped”? Orders from other broker-dealers who are not providing both buyer and seller for a particular order at a particular price.

At the same time, investors (i.e. retail, mutual funds) who are represented by the internalizing broker-deal stand to benefit when they’re represented by the internalizing broker-dealer…their orders receive priority on the order book!

The bigger picture here is liquidity fragmentation — namely it’s detrimental impact to the investor experience. Our feature Broker Priority was designed to encourage brokers to internalize in once central, neutral (i.e. not owned by broker-dealers) venue.

I hope this sheds light on where the WSJ article got it wrong. I’m happy to talk through any of these issues.

I’d be grateful if you could address these clarifications in your blog.

Thank you,
gerald

BrokerDealers To Trade For Free in IEX Stock Exchange Proposal: The Death of Dark Pools?

As reported by Bradley Hope in today’s WSJ, upstart equities trading venue IEX, the “dark-pool buster” profiled in the Michael Lewis book “Flash Boys,” announced today a new market structure scheme that would provide commission-free execution for orders submitted by brokerdealers.

According to the proposal, which is “expected to be submitted imminently” to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with IEX’s plan to move from its current status as an ECN (electronic communications network) and towards becoming a full-blown stock exchange, broker-dealer orders would receive priority in the IEX order book, meaning those orders would jump to the top of the order book if the price to buy or sell a stock was at least equal to the prevailing orders entered by non broker-dealers aka buy-side investors that include high-frequency trading firms, mutual fund firms and retail investors. In addition to brokerdealer orders being provided priority over other same-priced orders sent to the platform by non BD’s, broker-dealers would be able to execute commission-free.

In a move that is purposefully intended to disrupt the current market structure status quo and challenge the viability of loosely-regulated and so-called “dark pools,” in which pricing transparency is purposefully hidden so as to mitigate gaming of orders submitted by large institutions, IEX is embracing an approach that has become widely-embraced in Canada’s equity marketplace, whose primary equities trading is administered by TMX Group, that country’s largest stock-exchange provider. Noted TMX Group CEO Thomas Kloet, “The virtue of having more bids and asks consolidated in a few order books, rather than scattered across dozens of venues [such as what takes place in US markets) makes markets more transparent and provides for greater price efficiency.”

The IEX proposal comes close on the heels of recent events in which dark-pool operators have been accused by regulators and law enforcement agencies of various charges, including accusations filed against Barclays PLC by New York State Attorney General which alleges Barclay’s misleads its clients about the way its dark pool favors high-tech “high frequency traders.” Barclay’s system “Barclays LX” was the industry’s largest dark pool used by a broad universe of investors and competing banks, until those charges were filed last month. Since that time, Barclay’s has supposedly experienced a large exodus of clients using their platform, presumably because of concerns they too will be on the receiving end of New York AG subpoenas.