Jul 24, 2012
Tick size reforms for US mid-caps “frightening”
Proposals by US industry body the Security Traders
Association (STA) for wider tick sizes to improve liquidity in small- and
medium-cap stocks could having a detrimental effect, potentially “turning the
clock back 20 years”, according to market participants.
Earlier this month, the STA published a comment letter
in response to the ‘Tick Study’ requirement outlined in the Jumpstart Our
Business Startup (JOBS) Act, which recently passed into law in the US. Under
the act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must examine
decimalisation’s impact on the number of IPOs, its effect on the liquidity of securities
in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and whether there is ”sufficient
economic incentive” to support trading operations in these securities in penny
increments.
The association, which represents securities trading
professionals globally, argues that decimalisation of stock trading has
seriously damaged the depth of markets for micro-, small- and mid-sized
companies, where displayed quotes for less than 100 shares at any given price
level are common. The number of IPOs has decreased in recent years, while market
fragmentation across multiple trading venues and price points has only exacerbated
the situation, says the STA. In addition, the multiplicity of price points due
to the introduction of penny increments has increased costs for long-term
investors and especially when investing in SMEs.
“The aggregation of volume that would occur at wider minimum
price variations would improve market transparency by showing the real depth of
the market at any price and would also lower the cost per share to settle and
clear trades,” stated the STA document.
Taking issue
However, market participants have expressed scepticism
that the proposals to introduce wider tick sizes would have a beneficial impact
on market liquidity. Instead, some observers have cast the proposals as
backward looking and unworkable to work in practice.
“This paper is both interesting and frightening,” said
Kevin Callahan, CEO at long-term investor-focused trading venue the AX Trading
Network. “It advocates forcibly turning the clock back 20 years – to mandate
companies to trade in nickels rather than pennies – in the hope that an
outmoded business model will return. Forcing investors to buy and sell in
nickel increments, when every other service they buy in the economy is
available in pennies, is a strange concept that goes against basic consumer
choice.”
The STA suggests that a two-year pilot scheme should
be implemented, to test out the possibilities for improving liquidity in small-
and medium-cap stocks by introducing mandatory nickel price increments for
SMEs. But while Callahan agrees that improving liquidity in SMEs should be a
capital markets priority, he insists that more regulation is not the solution.
He also disputes the notion suggested in the paper that a widening of tick
sizes might help reduce volatility in small- and mid-cap stocks because
high-frequency traders will be less attracted to those stocks.
“We don’t need more rules and restrictions that add
cost for end-investors,” he said. “We need innovative solutions that use
technology to create and improve liquidity in small- and mid-cap companies. If
you’re trading in nickels, that’s a higher percentage of the value of each
company – so volatility almost by definition is going to increase in these
stocks.”
With much market making activity currently dominated
by large, sophisticated electronic market making firms that have made
significant investments in technology, Callahan believes that a return to
traditional market making practices is unlikely in current market conditions.
“Asset correlation has reached a very high level, to
the point where only such large firms have the sophistication to make markets
effectively,” he said. “You’re not going to bring traditional market makers
back into the market with a rule change – it’s still going to be dominated by
large-scale high-frequency trading firms. All that would achieve is to fatten
their profits.”
Constructive criticism
Other market participants have suggested that the SEC
should consider alternative ways of boosting SME investment, such as improving
the accountability of market participants, providing incentives to reduce
odd-lots, and broadening the number of variables taken into consideration when
assessing liquidity levels for SMEs. Robin Strong, market strategy director for
the buy-side at technology provider Fidessa, says reducing tick sizes in the US
market had been seen as beneficial to liquidity for all market participants
prior to the introduction of decimalisation – underlining the difficulty of
making any single metric a key component of reform.
“There are other options than forcing a change in the
pricing increment,” he said. “I don’t see how widening the tick size would
stabilise the market. Institutional investors are concerned about their market
impact and they rely on breaking up their orders. If regulators mandate wider
spreads, that will just hurt liquidity – and that’s not in anyone’s interests.”
Instead, Strong suggested that it would be better for
the SEC to consider introducing market maker obligations for high-frequency
trading firms, to ensure that reliable quotes are posted and market
participants feel confident enough to trade in size. While some investors might
fear high-frequency traders sweeping the book, reliable market making should allow
institutional-sized trades to go ahead, he added.
Following he flash crash, in conjunction with a ban on
stub quotes, registered market makers are required by the SEC to submit quotes
no more than 8% away from the best bid or offer for stocks covered by the
circuit breakers implemented in reaction to the event (+/-30% for other
securities).
Elliott Holley
+44 (0)20 7397 3820
elliott.holley@information-partners.com