skip to main content
10.1145/3194770.3194771acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

On fairness in continuous electronic markets

Published:29 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Most of the world's financial markets are electronic (i.e., are implemented as software systems) and continuous (i.e., process orders received from market participants immediately, on a FIFO basis). In this short position paper I argue that such markets cannot provide 'racetrack fairness' to their participants, yet this form of fairness seems to feature quite prominently throughout the large, multi-jurisdictional body of law governing financial markets. What seems to follow from this is that electronic batch-style markets are not only a desirable replacement for continuous ones---as a number of economists have recently argued---but a necessary replacement.

References

  1. James J Angel and Douglas McCabe. 2013. Fairness in financial markets: The case of high frequency trading. Journal of Business Ethics 112, 4 (2013), 585--595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Dimitris Bertsimas, Vivek F Farias, and Nikolaos Trichakis. 2012. On the efficiency-fairness trade-off. Management Science 58, 12 (2012), 2234--2250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Anna Bogomolnaia and Hervé Moulin. 2001. A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic theory 100, 2 (2001), 295--328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eric Budish. 2017. AEA/AFA Joint Luncheon - Will the Market Fix the Market? https://goo.gl/dWEiCa. (Jan. 6 2017). Accessed Jan 8 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Eric Budish, Peter Cramton, and John Shim. 2015. The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. Q. J. Econ 130, 4 (2015), 1547--1621.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. CME Group. 2014. Slides from New iLink Architecture Webinar (Part I). https://goo.gl/mWdDa9. (2014). Accessed Sep 4 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eurex. 2017. Insights into trading system dynamics: Eurex Exchange's T7. https://goo.gl/wySDaP. (March 2017). Accessed Dec 31 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhananjay K Gode and Shyam Sunder. 2000. Designing electronic markets: on the impossibility of equitable continuously-clearing mechanisms with geographically distributed agents. https://goo.gl/dx2wpi. (2000). Accessed Jan 15 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Larry Harris. 2013. What to do about high-frequency trading. Financial Analysts Journal 69, 2 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Roger D Huang and Hans R Stoll. 1992. The design of trading systems: Lessons from abroad. Financial Analysts Journal (1992), 49--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Richard C Larson. 1987. OR forum-perspectives on queues: Social justice and the psychology of queueing. Operations research 35, 6 (1987), 895--905. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hayden Melton. 2017. A fairness-oriented performance metric for use on electronic trading venues. In CSCI'17. IEEE, Las Vegas NV, 1027--1030.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hayden Melton. 2017. Market Mechanism Refinement on a Continuous Limit Order Book Venue: A Case Study. SIGecom Exch. 16, 1 (Sept. 2017), 72--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hayden Melton. 2017. Understanding and improving temporal fairness on an electronic trading venue. In ICDCSW. IEEE, Atlanta GA, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayden P Melton. 2015. Systems and methods for quantifying temporal fairness on electronic trading venues. US Patent App. 14/930,499. (Nov. 2 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hervé Moulin. 2004. Fair division and collective welfare. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Roel Oomen. 2017. Execution in an aggregator. Quant. Fin. 17, 3 (2017), 383--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. John Ray. 1670. A collection of English proverbs. John Hayes, Cambridge, UK. Available via https://books.google.com/books?id=NhUsAQAAMAAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Roberto Rojas-Cessa. 2016. Interconnections for Computer Communications and Packet Networks. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Robert A Schwartz. 2010. Comment Letter to the SEC: Regulation of Dark Pools and Other Trading Interests (File No. S7-27-09). https://goo.gl/6sis8t. (Feb. 22 2010). Accessed Mar 11 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Robert A Schwartz, John Aidan Byrne, and Eileen Stempel. 2017. Rapidly Changing Securities Markets: Who Are the Initiators? Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2016. In the Matter of the Application of Investors' Exchange, LLC for Registration as a National Securities Exchange: Findings, Opinion, and Order of the Commission (Release No. 34-78101; File No. 10-222). https://goo.gl/cjzJtE. (2016). Accessed Mar 6 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Charles Tresser and Daniel Sturman. 2001. Fair and scalable trading system and method. (May 23 2001). US Patent App. 09/864,015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mao Ye. 2017. Who provides liquidity and when: An analysis of price vs. speed competition on liquidity and welfare. (2017). Available at SSRN 2900521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    FairWare '18: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness
    May 2018
    56 pages
    ISBN:9781450357463
    DOI:10.1145/3194770

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 29 May 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper

    Upcoming Conference

    ICSE 2025

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader