The Share-Trading Scam

Published in Investing on 11 June 2012

It was only a matter of time...

Maybe I am showing my age, but I remember the good old days. Days when the phone rang and you would rush to answer it, because you were certain it would be from someone you knew.

Days when you would open your letters in the expectation that they would contain important information. Days when people were straightforward; when they offered important services, which we paid for in good faith.

Now when the phone rings, I pause, unsure whether this is yet another recorded message or whether it is genuine. When letters land on my doormat, I brace myself to wade through the junk to find the one letter that is worth my time opening.

Wherever you look these days, there seems to be a scam -- they are the modern-day affliction. 

Scams are everywhere

These days, there are so many spam and junk emails that email software has had to be designed to filter out as many of these as possible. For me, the phone calls are worse, as we have yet to develop a technology to efficiently filter out 'spam' phone calls. You either end up missing important calls, or you have to listen to endless recorded adverts or cold calls from foreign call centres.

There are scams about car insurance. There are scams about payment protection insurance. There are scams about personal injury. The list goes on and on.

I guess it was only a matter of time before we had a scam in share trading and, lo and behold! Here it is, with a vengeance: it's called high-frequency trading.

Win-win? I'm afraid not

Defenders of high-frequency trading say that it adds to the liquidity of the market. They argue that these rapid-fire, millisecond trades should not make any difference to the ordinary investor like you or like me.

I disagree. Investment banks and hedge funds make billions of pounds a year from high-frequency trading. They make so much money that they are willing to spend £200 million to increase the speed of their trades by six milliseconds.

Now, I don't think these institutions are plucking money out of thin air. They haven't discovered the financial equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

No, they are making money at the expense of investors -- either directly through the shares we buy, or through unit trusts and pension funds. I think that high-frequency trading substantially increases volatility and can lead to events such as flash crashes, which can be very expensive for investors.

I don't think it is coincidence that stock markets in recent years have been so incredibly volatile, with rally followed by crash followed by rally. If this is the future of equity investing, then count me out.

Charlie gets it in one

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B.US) vice chairman Charlie Munger got it in one when he compared high-frequency traders to rats in a granary. Just as we should get rid of rats in a granary as soon as they appear, so we should eliminate the scourge of high-frequency trading, too.

After all, where's the social utility? Where's the benefit to humanity? I'm sorry, but I just can't see it. And Charlie doesn't mince his words about what he thinks should be done about it, saying: "If you let me write the laws, it wouldn't happen... I wouldn't allow anyone to make money in short-term trading. I might have Tobin taxes. I would do something. I think if we change the incentives a lot of this regrettable behaviour would go away."

Scams are what happens when the free market and capitalism goes crazy; when creativity and lateral thinking goes hand in hand with immorality. It is what Edward de Bono has described as "ludacy" -- playing the game to an extreme extent, without any thought about benefits to humanity and to society.

As Munger says, we should tax or ban high-frequency trading, just as we should all scams. Once the incentive disappears, you will be surprised how quickly the scam does, too.

David Kuo challenged his Motley Fool analysts to pinpoint the attractive sectors of 2012 -- and they delivered! Discover the industries they selected in this new Motley Fool guide -- "Top Sectors Of 2012" -- while it's still free!

Further investment opportunities:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

inijames 11 Jun 2012 , 10:41am

Aren't crashes the friend of the savvy investor, though? Buffet says he and Munger got rich by buying shares when they are cheap - that job's made easier if there are frequent crashes.

OsbieFeel 11 Jun 2012 , 11:06am

I don't see volatility as a threat per se. It can throw up some lovely buying opportunities. As long as you're in a position to sell when you choose, it shouldn't be a major problem.

Also, I suspect high-frequency traders make most of their money from other high-frequency traders, rather than the likes of you and me. This game creates losers as well as winners. Witness the spectacular decline of Man Group as an example.

Finally, the bit about "social utility" and "benefit to humanity" made me narrow my eyes. The market is a morally neutral entity. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm investing to make money for myself ... are any of us in a position to claim the moral high ground?

UrbanDreamer 11 Jun 2012 , 12:09pm

Finally, the bit about "social utility" and "benefit to humanity" made me narrow my eyes.

I couldn't agree more. While we are improving the morality by attacking high frequency traders why not ban the buying and selling of the likes of Diageo, BAT and BAE? Then again what about DRAX, not only does it sound like a Bond villain but according to some what they do will depopulate countries.

IMHO it's a very slippery slope to go down. By all means act how you wish and advise as you see fit, but dictating how others act? Isn't the name for that Dictatorship?

As for your use of the word "Scam", I'd like you to explain what you mean. The dictionary defines it as a fraudulent or deceptive act. How do you define the word, because if you have evidence of such then the correct place to start is the FSA.

OxonianCambion 11 Jun 2012 , 1:23pm

Saying the market is morally neutral does not absolve oneself from their own responsibility.

I believe that in 200 years' time we will look back at the arms trade like to do the slave trade now.

I myself would never directly invest in an arms company though I do accept the small slice invested via my trackers. Perhaps I shouldn't. A decent option is investing in an ethical fund in a large fund house (so others will notice the trend.)

As for HFT, while the article is a bit hyperbolic, I do feel they are leeching money from someone, which pretty much always ends up as the great masses, probably via the government of whatever countries they outwit. Such a waste of talent. Great minds giving a net negative contribution to the world rather than improving it, purely in the devotion of Mammon.

ANuvver 11 Jun 2012 , 4:02pm

Cardinal sin - have not yet read the article. Will do.

But seeing as this concerns scams, I thought I'd rush to notify Fools about emails relating to PayPal payments to Skype. I like to think I'm cute and I nearly fell for it, until I noticed that the messages had been sent to all my accounts, not just the one I used to register.

Let's be careful out there.

UncleEbenezer 12 Jun 2012 , 12:41am

Retail investors pay 0.5% stamp duty. That would wipe out the profits in HFT, and frankly I'd rather the government openly creamed off 0.5% of my purchases than that bankers operating smart software took it by stealth. And if it means slightly higher spreads that's fine.

mackeson29 12 Jun 2012 , 11:09am

'I wouldn't allow anyone to make money in short-term trading'

Oh dear, nothing sadder than successful people pontificating, as if their own success gives them a platform to dictate other peoples lives.

Always happens in the end - people believe their own hype.

Next we'll have multi-millionaires travelling around the globe infinitum, telling me I'm killing the planet & I need to hand my money over......oh, hang on a minute.

Kingfisher55 13 Jun 2012 , 3:47pm

And the impact of Stamp Duty form every trade on the economy of the country would be what if the number of trades was reduced?

Kingfisher55 13 Jun 2012 , 3:48pm

Ooops form = from

castil 13 Jun 2012 , 6:27pm

Wikipedia entry for flash trading refers to "front running".
As I understand it this is the main reason. for opposing it.
High speed orders can be placed to ascertain whether a large buyer or seller is coming into the market. The price can
then be moved to against that large buyer or seller before his order goes through. See Max Keiser video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWhAih5Q8E

snoekie 14 Jun 2012 , 12:32am

Only today I had a call from some brokers, or whatever, about Lonmin, in which I hold some shares, inherited on the breakup of the original Lonrho.it was obviously a spiel, to get me to buy reports, but I didn't want o waste my time,and they tried to make out that it was a follow up call.finished the call in 30 secs, without being rude, but it did tick me off.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.