{"title":"Regulation of Algorithmic Trading: Frameworks or Human Supervision and Direct Market Interventions","authors":"Joseph Lee, Lukas Schu","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper identifies the regulatory gaps that currently exist in algorithmic trading and provides a framework for machine learning regulation in finance. It compares the regulation of algorithmic trading in the capital markets by both human supervision and direct market intervention in the UK, the EU and the US to identify techniques they have in common, as well as local differences. Section II sets out what algorithmic trading is, how it is defined, which of its functions have a positive effect and which are negative for risk and impact. Section III examines how trading risks can be managed by human supervision. Section IV looks at how direct market intervention can mitigate the risks of algorithmic trading, focusing on the circuit breaker requirement. Finally, the liability of the parties involved (traders, firms, and trading venues) are examined and the possible enforcement actions that regulators may take are set out.\nAlgorithms, high frequency trading, machine learning, financial regulation, MIFIDII, ESMA, FCA, SEC, circuit breaker, systemic risk","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This paper identifies the regulatory gaps that currently exist in algorithmic trading and provides a framework for machine learning regulation in finance. It compares the regulation of algorithmic trading in the capital markets by both human supervision and direct market intervention in the UK, the EU and the US to identify techniques they have in common, as well as local differences. Section II sets out what algorithmic trading is, how it is defined, which of its functions have a positive effect and which are negative for risk and impact. Section III examines how trading risks can be managed by human supervision. Section IV looks at how direct market intervention can mitigate the risks of algorithmic trading, focusing on the circuit breaker requirement. Finally, the liability of the parties involved (traders, firms, and trading venues) are examined and the possible enforcement actions that regulators may take are set out.
Algorithms, high frequency trading, machine learning, financial regulation, MIFIDII, ESMA, FCA, SEC, circuit breaker, systemic risk
期刊介绍:
The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.