Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
'Flash crash' hearing told spoofing does not justify trader's extradition to US
Haha... the question was a bit provocative, I know, but I'm interested in this kind of views... we all know trading is definitely not a gentleman's club and deceit is an integral part of the game.
Seasoned traders swear that spoofing is alive and well - despite what the regulators might say (or when it's convenient saying it) - so it would be useful to see what opinions there are, both about spoofing and on Sarao's case, for those who followed it.
"Navinder Singh Sarao, the British futures trader accused of contributing to the so-called stock market “flash crash” of 2010, has lost his court battle and will be extradited to the US.
A judge ruled that Mr Sarao, 37, should be sent to the US to face trial on 22 charges ranging from wire fraud to commodities manipulation on US futures markets over a four-year period. The offences carry sentences totalling a maximum of 380 years.
US prosecutors claim that Mr Sarao was heavily engaged in a type of market manipulation known as “spoofing” that played a role in one of the most spectacular moves ever seen in US equity markets."
Trading: The one I'm creating in the present....Index Futures mini/micro, ZF
Posts: 2,311 since Nov 2011
Thanks Given: 7,341
Thanks Received: 4,518
Here is the CME rules created in May 28 2013 to address spoofing, quote stuffing and general depth manipulation.
This, as I can understand it currently, is based on intent. Seems to me if you are a very wealthy person, 20 million and up say, the court system (in whatever country lets just say) would have an easier time proving just what your intentions were back when you were sitting at your platform and "spoofing" or manipulating the depth. And harder for you to claim you were a lousy trader that just keep changing their mind all the time and basically had zero correct or worthwhile ideas about the markets.
On a lighter note......
I have thought for a long time now that a good spy movie could work into its plot a way for spies to communicate with HQ (...lol... cracking myself up over here...) via spoofing "signals" at the edge of market depth on different market instruments.
Here is the full 11 page CME pdf....
Ron
...My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy...
The steed of this Valley is pain; and if there be no pain this journey will never end.
Buy Low And Sell High (read left to right or right to left....lol)
Thanks Ron, yep I too understand it to be based on intent. Trouble is, allegedly it's very difficult to prove intent when spoofing because who's to say the order I cancelled was not cancelled because I saw something that made me change idea? I think this can be particularly true of scalpers.
It is also difficult for prosecutors to extract too much information from traders who may be having an established and effective modus operandi and hence may be treating their own processes as intellectual property.
Clearly, when gathering large amount of data (as it must have been the case with Sarao), certain patterns will probably lead to the conclusion that the spoofer is, in fact, spoofing, but I understand it's not easy to spot.
Intriguing your bit about spies.... maybe someone's already doing that... lol.
You make a good point about his emails... as for the 97%, I know there's HFT firms that cancel a very high number of trades (don't have the percentage at hand), but they are not prosecuted... again I think it's about being able to prove that your intent was never to execute them...
Trading: The one I'm creating in the present....Index Futures mini/micro, ZF
Posts: 2,311 since Nov 2011
Thanks Given: 7,341
Thanks Received: 4,518
So 97% of the limits he placed he pull. Yeah that sounds like he was trying to manipulate.
I'm not sure one guy could of caused the Flash Crash of May 6 2010. Actually I know one can't. But it seems this guy is a spoofer from what I know, have heard.
Ron
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy...
The steed of this Valley is pain; and if there be no pain this journey will never end.
Buy Low And Sell High (read left to right or right to left....lol)