Trading in financial markets changed substantially with the growth of new informationprocessing and communications technologies over the last 25 years. Electronic technologiesprofoundly altered how exchanges, brokers, and dealers arrange most trades. In some cases,innovative trading systems are so different from traditional ones that many political leaders andregulators do not fully appreciate how they work and the many benefits that they offer toinvestors and to the economy as a whole.In the face of incomplete knowledge about this evolving environment, some policymakers nowquestion whether these innovations are in the public interest. Technical jargon such as “dark liquidity pools,” “hidden orders,” “flickering quotes,” and “flash orders” appear ominous to thosenot familiar with the objects being described. While professional traders measure systemperformance in milliseconds, others wonder what possible difference seconds—much lessmilliseconds—could have on capital formation within our economy. The ubiquitous role of computers in trading systems makes many people nervous, and especially those who rememberthe 1987 Stock Market Crash and how the failure of exchange trading systems exacerbatedproblems caused by traders following computer-generated trading strategies. Strikingly, themechanics of the equity markets functioned very well during the financial crisis, despite thewidespread use of computerized trading. Indeed, much of the focus of computerized tradingduring the financial crisis has been on offering liquidity (“market-making”) and shifting liquidity(“arbitrage”) rather than as in 1987 in consuming the market’s liquidity (“portfolio insurance”).This paper discusses recent innovations in trading systems and their effects on the markets.Using non-technical language, we show that investor demands for better solutions to the tradingproblems that they have traditionally faced —and will always face—largely drove theinnovations. The introduction of computerized trading systems and high-speed communicationsnetworks allowed exchanges, brokers, and dealers to better serve and attract clients. With theseinnovations, transaction costs dropped substantially over the years, and the market structurechanged dramatically.The winners first and foremost have been the investors who now obtain better service at a lowercost from financial intermediaries than previously. Secondary winners have been the exchanges,brokers, and dealers who embraced electronic trading technologies and whose skills allowed themto profitably implement them. The big losers have been those intermediaries who did notinnovate as successfully, and, as a consequence, became less competitive, and ultimately lessrelevant.Not all developments in financial market trading have been in the public interest. We identifyseveral problems that regulators should consider addressing to ensure that our markets continue toserve well both investors and the corporations that use them for raising capital. For example,systemic risks can arise because poorly capitalized broker-dealers allow electronic traders to
To better inform parties interested in understanding innovations in market structures, Knight Capital Group, Inc.commissioned the authors to write a paper describing new market structures and the resulting effects on the markets.This article presents our analyses and opinions only and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the sponsor of this project. The authors retained full editorial control over the content and conclusions of this report.