On Thursday August 22, 2013 the Nasdaq stock exchange went
down, leaving a flood of investors unable to execute trades. As a result the SEC has renewed a push to
implement new accountability rules.
Below is the original article as reported by Reuters.
Thirty
minutes into the crippling outage that hobbled the Nasdaq stock market on Thursday afternoon, stopping all trading in
$5.9 trillion worth of U.S. equities, exchange officials had the problem fixed.
It was another two-and-a-half hours,
however, before they were ready to flip the switch and turn the all-electronic
market back on.
Most of the 191 minutes that the
exchange was dark was spent in sometimes frantic conversation with scores of banks,
brokers, investment companies and rival exchanges who wanted Nasdaq's assurance
that a restoration of trading would be orderly and would not lead to panic.
"We had to make sure all the
exchanges were connected to us successfully and if the firms on the outside
could get in," said one Nasdaq official who spoke on condition of
anonymity.
Meanwhile, banks'
trading desks were cautioning Nasdaq, operated by Nasdaq OMX Group Inc, not to
rush to reopen, fearing that a restart full of technical errors would only sap
more confidence from rattled markets, according to three sources at
brokerages and banks who declined to be identified.
In the end, the reopening of trading
did go relatively well.
Transactions first restarted at 3 p.m.
EDT (1900 GMT) in a single microcap stock, Atlantic American Corp, a test case picked for its
front-of-the-alphabet ticker. Twenty-five minutes later, the rest of the market
opened, and, according to a Nasdaq statement, "The trading day finished in
normal course."
Shares of Nasdaq itself, which
initially fell by more than 5 percent when trading resumed, recovered some of
their lost ground to close the day 3.4 percent lower. The widely tracked Nasdaq Composite Index gained nearly 1.1 percent.
PERSISTENT GLITCHES
While the worst case scenarios may have
been averted, the outage still stands as among the most serious in a series of
recent technological failures to hit the U.S. securities business, including a software issue at the Chicago Board Options
Exchange this spring that delayed the start of trading there for half a day.
It was also the latest black eye for
Nasdaq, which in May agreed to pay $10 million, the largest penalty ever
against a stock exchange, to settle SEC civil charges over its mishandling of
Facebook's initial public offering in 2012.
Late Thursday Nasdaq identified the
problem as a "connectivity issue between an exchange participant and the
SIP," or Securities Information Processor - essentially the system that
receives all traffic on quotes and orders for stocks on the exchange.
This problem "led to degradation in
the ability of the SIP to disseminate consolidated quotes and trades,"
Nasdaq said in a statement. "The cause of the issue has been identified
and addressed."
Whether it has been addressed to the
satisfaction of regulators is another question. U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Chair Mary Jo White called for a meeting of Wall Street leaders to
help insure the "continuous and orderly" functioning of securities
markets.
The incident "should reinforce our
collective commitment to addressing technological vulnerabilities of exchanges
and other market participants," she said.
Thursday's outage could well give White
fodder to press ahead with new rules, proposed in March, that would hold
exchanges, clearing agencies and certain "dark pool" trading venues
more accountable for taking steps to prevent potential systems disruptions.
The rules, if adopted, would replace
the current regulatory model in which exchanges rely on voluntary guidance
known as "Automation Review Policies" to address security and
stability issues with their systems.
The SEC rushed to roll out its proposal
as a direct response to several high-profile software problems last year,
including Nasdaq's debacle with the Facebook IPO and a near-collapse at Knight
Capital, a major Nasdaq market maker, as well as the two-day shutdown of the
U.S. equity market due to Superstorm Sandy.
Exchanges, including Nasdaq and rival
NYSE Euronext, parent of the New York Stock Exchange, pushed back, citing a
number of concerns, including costs and an "unduly broad" requirement
to disseminate information to member firms about certain incidents. "This
requirement would likely have a chilling effect on communications," they
wrote.
The SEC agreed to extend the comment
period on the rule, effectively delaying it, but late Thursday after this
latest incident, White said she will push to get it completed.
AVOIDING THE 'DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
The problems surfaced at 12:14:03 p.m.
(1614 GMT), when all traffic through Nasdaq stopped abruptly.
During the shutdown, trading of shares
not listed on Nasdaq continued, but transactions could not be executed on the
Nasdaq platform. Options trading was also halted. All rival exchanges agreed to
halt trading of any Nasdaq-listed issue.
In Nasdaq's Transaction Services
division, it was quickly emergency mode as soon as the outage struck, the
Nasdaq official said.
The team focused primarily on whether
the exchange should reopen trading as the clock ticked toward the regular 4
p.m. close. They raised the "doomsday" scenario of reopening and not
being able to execute a flood of orders.
"We asked all the what-if
questions," the official said.
As frustrated as Nasdaq customers were
by the outage, they were more concerned that the exchange have all its ducks in
a row before attempting to restart.
"The general feedback given to
Nasdaq was, 'Don't rush back to fix it. It will be 10 times worse to come back
online in a rush than to take time and get it right,'" said one source.
At Nasdaq, coordination was tight
between the exchange's technology staff, rival exchanges that had halted their
trading of Nasdaq stocks, brokerage firm members and the firms' major
customers.
"It's not an excuse, but anyone
who understands the complexities of the trading and matching systems and the
difficulties of having multiple exchanges operating and trading the same stocks
can understand how difficult this was," the Nasdaq official said. "It
worked. It looks like the customers and the public did not get hurt."
Not all will agree with that
assessment, but it could be some time before the size of losses, if any, can be
determined. And Nasdaq faces a reputational risk that could damage its listings
business.
"If you're advising companies to
really go public, are you advising them to go public on Nasdaq?" said one
source.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment rules:
All comments must contribute to the conversation
All comments should be civil
No comment should include any personal attacks, however minor, on the author or other commenter.
Do not hawk your own website unless its a specific reference to the article
If you post anonymously, please give some identifyer
I will delete any comment which doesn't fit this criterea