Layering — this is a high frequency trading strategy, where does the trader do, and then cancels orders, which they never intend to carry out in the hope of influencing the share price. For example, to buy shares at a lower price, the trader first places orders to sell at or below the market price High Frequency Trading, depending on the strategies used, has a different effect on the market condition. Some of them are draining liquidity from the market, other — add liquidity to the market. Many of them are the cause of sudden unexpected movements in market quotations., and also generate new borderline methods of unethical, and sometimes illegal income generation on stock exchanges. Such a controversial practice is the layering method., the essence of which is to create the possibility of artificially shifting the quotations of purchases and sales of securities in order to force the rest of the exchange market participants to make a profitable deal for the manipulator.

Почему в России не наказывают за манипулирование рынком Почему в России не наказывают за манипулирование рынком 3

Why Russia is not punished for market manipulation

Unlike the USA in Russia 75% part, related to the use of inside information, do not end in courts and multimillion-dollar fines, but by prescriptions Another case of manipulation of financial instruments at the Moscow Exchange trades was revealed by the Bank of Russia or at least loudly announced about it. This time, under the gun of the Central Bank investigation was the company "Finam". On Tuesday, 27 august, regulator announced that, what in 2012-2016 years of structure, associated with "Finam", made many transactions on the market with UC Rusal shares, Polyus Gold and others. Deals, according to the Central Bank, made no economic sense, which means, were committed by prior agreement with the aim of market manipulation. As expected, Finam denies everything. Introduced into the law on combating the illegal use of insider information and with its loud statements, the Central Bank is trying to show, that is determined to combat market manipulation. But in 75% cases related to this case end only with an order to prevent similar violations in the future. Why?

Scroll up