The big meltdown risk
Overhanging this rapid-fire environment is the risk it could create a serious market meltdown by accident. HFT systems trade huge volumes at stunning speeds, and that's a recipe for potential disaster, believes James Angel, professor of finance at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. There's no way humans can screen for errors."We have no real-time circuit breakers for our nanosecond market," he says. "Our markets are dangerously unprotected from when somebody's algorithm misfires."
If you think it can't happen, remember the October 1987 market crash that included Black Monday, when the Dow and S&P 500 each lost 20% of their value.
The quick plunge occurred in part because so many investors relied on the same sort of algorithms computer trading systems use to sell off part of a portfolio after a certain level of losses.
Today, the meltdown risk is compounded because high-frequency traders deliberately probe across various markets -- from currencies to bonds and commodities -- in exchanges around the world. So a meltdown in one market could quickly spread to another, and existing protections like those on the NYSE could never keep up.
This doesn't mean we should ban high-frequency trading. As former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt points out, high-frequency trading also helps everyone by adding liquidity to the market, making it easier to buy and sell stocks.
But Angel and others argue for better automatic circuit breakers that kick in when stocks or markets move quickly by a preset amount, to avoid the meltdown scenario. "Our regulators are being seriously negligent by ignoring this risk," he says.
Indeed, regulators missed Madoff and the excessive use of leverage and complex debt instruments that contributed to the mortgage meltdown we're still suffering from. It's hard to believe they'll protect us from this danger.
At the time of publication, Michael Brush did not own shares of any company mentioned in this column.
< previous | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Rate this Article




