That argument is a bit like calling all sex rape, because someone having sex is doing the same thing as a rapist does, they just happen to have consent.
The reason front running is illegal is because it is a violation of a fiduciary duty. Third parties do not have a fiduciary duty, therefore it's not illegal. "It's front running, but without the violation of the fiduciary duty" is like "murder, but without the killing someone", or "fraud, but without the deception".
> What would you rather have them call it? They can't call it nothing.
Not everything needs a name. Since what you seem to be describing is "reacting to the public actions of other market participants", does it need a name?
Alternatively, if you think something serious is going on, why don't you define it, and then we can name it?
> The reason front running is illegal is because it is a violation of a fiduciary duty.
And nobody is calling this kind of "front running" illegal.
> like "murder, but without the killing someone", or "fraud, but without the deception".
In a murder analogy, you'd keep the killing but change something else, maybe it's properly manslaughter but people will still call you a murderer.
For "fraud without deception", let's look at what that entails. You lie. The victim knows you're lying, no deception involved, but they rely on your word. The victim is harmed. I think that's close enough to allow people to call it fraud, even if legally it's slightly different.
> "reacting to the public actions of other market participants"
The reason people dislike it is because it's not just 'reacting'. They're getting in their own action before the thing they're reacting to has finished.
> why don't you define it
Darawk defined this version for us. "front-running. Which is me seeing your order on exchange A and buying ahead of you on exchange B before your order arrives."
> The reason people dislike it is because it's not just 'reacting'. [...] Darawk defined this version for us. "front-running. Which is me seeing your order on exchange A and buying ahead of you on exchange B before your order arrives."
Seeing a completed order on exchange A, and speculatively purchasing stock on B in the hopes that the buyer might later buy stock on B sure sound reactive to me.
> also interrupting. People dislike the interrupting.
So your argument is...what?
Hypothetically: Let's say I have an inventory of stock A, which I think is worth X, and which try and sell whenever the market price climbs above X. Now there's some new public knowledge that materially impacts my estimation of the value of that stock (eg, a large hedge fund has started buying large blocks of this stock): I no longer think it's worth X, but actually Y, and I'd like to stop selling it whenever the price climbs above X, and instead wait until the price climbs above Y.
So you're saying that's okay, and I can price my inventory however I want, but only if I give the hedge fund a chance to buy a bunch of underpriced stock first? This raises some questions such as:
1) Why on earth is that a good rule?
2) How much time do I need to give the hedge fund? Do they only need a few seconds? Should they get a day? A week? At what point am I allowed to change the price I'm selling stock A for without it "interrupting" the hedge fund? Do they need to announce that they're done, or is their a timeout period after which I can just assume? Can I change the price I charge other people if I still let the hedge fund buy at the old price, or does everyone get the discount?
3) Or is it not about time, but about amount? Does the hedge fund have some divine right to buy as much stock as they want without it driving the price up? Why? And how come nobody else has that right? Do you have to be a hedge fund to get the right to name your own price, or do normal people get to do that too?
4) Or is it somehow okay if I'm selling, but not buying? Is it's okay for me to raise the price I'm willing to sell stock A for if I find out a hedge fund is investing, but not okay for me to raise the price I'm willing to buy stock A for? What happens if I find out a hedge fund is liquidating their position instead? Do I get to lower the price I'm willing to buy and sell it for, or just one of them? There's no laws or SEC regs about this; is there a list of rules somewhere? Is it in the bible?
5) Does this only count market actions? If the hedge fund gives a Bill Ackman style press release about how some company is terrible and should be prosecuted, can I change my prices immediately, or do I need to wait in case I'm interrupting some hedge fund strategy? I mean, maybe they were planning on giving the press conference and then buying a bunch of stock; if I think their arguments are bollocks and I buy a bunch first, is that interrupting them?
And so on. The entire argument seem awfully focused on why large hedge funds and investment banks should be able to ignore basic market rules. I'm sure they'd like to; I'm still waiting to hear why they should. (One of my favourite scenes for Lewis's Flash Boys was when a trader expresses outrage that his very large order in a thinly traded stock caused the price to move against him. How terrible; if only there was a law that required people to trade with him at the price he chose...)
For this particular case I can make the answer very simple. How about waiting half a second.
Can you not see how it's bad in the specific case where they already issued the order to all exchanges but your order gets processed first because you used a different cable? Ignore the more ambiguous cases for the moment.
Why is protecting the interests of hedge funds and investment banks important enough it needs a special rule? This isn't a rule that will benefit the little guy; it strictly benefits the biggest fish.
> Can you not see how it's bad in the specific case where they already issued the order to all exchanges but your order gets processed first because you used a different cable?
To be clear, your concern is strictly that if a hedge fund is buying a very large amount of stock, this will cause the price to move against them as people react to it, and you think they should get a full half second (an eternity at the speed of the modern market) to buy as much as they want before people are legally allowed to react?
That sounds like a terrible idea, and in the specific case you list: No, I don't see why that's bad. I don't see why anyone except a large hedge fund or investment bank would.
Further: Once the order hits the market, you're saying there should be a half second window during which no one can do anything except the hedge fund. But as soon as that half second window closes, there will be a race to (finally) react. Which will be won by...the HFT firms, right? Won't they be able to, hypothetically, get their rSo even if we accept your premise, isn't this just shifting the victims around without fixing anything?
"Half a second" was not meant to mean "enforce a delay of precisely 500000 microseconds". The point is that the problem would be solved if traders would chill out for the blink of an eye. The fact that it's hard to force people to chill out is a completely separate issue.
> To be clear, your concern is strictly that if a hedge fund is buying a very large amount of stock, this will cause the price to move against them as people react to it,
> in the specific case you list: No, I don't see why that's bad.
The original scenario has nothing to do with order size. The scenario is that X sends a simultaneous order to multiple exchanges, but while it's still in transit to most of the exchanges Y reacts to the order and submits their own on a faster cable, getting there before the order they're reacting to. I think such an outcome is clearly bad. I won't suggest a fix to avoid distraction. Do you disagree with it being bad? Picture it happening to an old lady if you have no sympathy for hedge funds.
The reason front running is illegal is because it is a violation of a fiduciary duty. Third parties do not have a fiduciary duty, therefore it's not illegal. "It's front running, but without the violation of the fiduciary duty" is like "murder, but without the killing someone", or "fraud, but without the deception".
> What would you rather have them call it? They can't call it nothing.
Not everything needs a name. Since what you seem to be describing is "reacting to the public actions of other market participants", does it need a name?
Alternatively, if you think something serious is going on, why don't you define it, and then we can name it?