Schaeffer's Outside the Box Blog
Stocks quoted in this article:

Is there no end to SEC bias? If it's not the new NCAA playoff, it's the advantages conferred to a few favored "traders."

Hedge funds and other rapid-fire investors can get access to market-moving documents ahead of other users of the Securities and Exchange Commission's system for distributing company filings, giving them a potential edge on the rest of the market.

Two separate groups of academic researchers have documented a lag time between the moment paying subscribers, including trading firms, newswires and others, receive the filings via a direct feed from an SEC contractor and when the documents are publicly available on the agency's website.

The studies found a wide variation in the lag time, from no delay to one lasting more than a minute -- a considerable advantage for computer-driven traders.

Let me get this straight: Algos can execute orders far faster than humans for a variety of reasons. So, they can react to news before you can anyway, even if they get the news at the same time. That's not enough of an edge, though. They now can literally see the news before you can. A second early might as well be an hour. A minute early is like a year.

Look, there should be some earned advantage to those with the brainpower and capital to create and invest in technology that can read and react to news events. I traded for years on a floor. I understand how the system works, in the sense that entities pay up to see information quicker. Back before it went all "algo," it was in the form of "soft dollars." Maybe you help a broker with a less desirable order so as to get an earlier look at a more desirable one.

Essentially combining these two edges is beyond the pale. And we're not talking about a broker looking to make a living. This is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Its job (in theory, of course) is to protect the interests of all investors.

How do they get this advantage?

The studies focus on the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system, or Edgar, which was launched in the 1990s to disseminate earnings reports and other documents filed to the agency. Investors know Edgar as the name on the website they visit to retrieve public filings.

Less widely known is the fact that filings also are transmitted to a group of roughly 40 paying subscribers, including newswire services such as the one owned by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, according to people familiar with the matter. Subscribers currently pay about $1,500 a month to an SEC contractor -- hired to run the Edgar system -- in order to receive all Edgar filings, according to one subscriber and public documents.

When a company submits a document, the contractor forwards it to the Edgar subscribers and to the SEC website "at the same time," according to the SEC. But, the studies suggest that the SEC website can take anywhere from 10 seconds to more than a minute to post the documents, giving an advantage to the Edgar subscribers or their customers, who are often professional investors. Mom and pop investors can download the documents from the SEC website, but the information may already be known to others in the market, the studies indicate.

It's good to know that news organizations knew this was going on, seeing as they got this information early as well. No one ever said we have a level playing field, but this just all goes too far.

Again, people will fork over dollars to get early looks at everything. It's the fact that the SEC makes this all possible that causes this particular allegation to stand out, in my opinion.

Disclaimer: Mr. Warner's opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent the views of Schaeffer's Investment Research.

permanent link
Stocks quoted in this article:

Steven Sears takes on an interesting topic in The Striking Price column (subscription required) this week: Should the OCC go public?

At a time when almost everything on Wall Street is valued and traded, Options Clearing Corp. remains an exception. The OCC, which issues and settles all U.S. options contracts, is a true monopoly that remains privately owned. Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), CBOE Holdings (CBOE) Nasdaq OMX Group (NDAQ), and the International Securities Exchange unit of Deutsche Borse (DB1.Germany) are the owners.

In years past, the OCC has been discussed as an initial-public-offering candidate. The OCC says it has no plans for a stock offering, but how to maximize the organization's value is a topic worth revisiting.

My opinion? Noooooooo!

I do agree that it could grow profits by going public, much in the same way all of its owners listed above turned into coin-minting businesses. There are questions about serving the greater good, though, and it's hard to see how turning the OCC into a bottom-line-oriented company serves those needs.

As (the one and only) Steven Sears notes, it's a total monopoly now. For starters, you'd really need to open up the clearing business to competitors. If not, then a public OCC might start charging $50 or $500 to clear some trades. So, let's say we do open up clearing to competitive bids, then what?

Well, the companies will compete on the pricing end, which is great for everyone. But, they'll also have to compete on the servicing end (i.e. -- making good on transactions). Any trade you make now is effectively not with the party on the other side of the transaction. Rather, you're each technically trading with the OCC, which is acting as a guarantor. It's a gigantically important function in that it protects the system from collapsing in case a firm somewhere goes bad and causes a domino effect of defaults.

For this service, they extract a relatively small fee. Think of it as insurance.

To me, having OCC as a quasi-public utility serves this goal way better. Nothing is ever totally guaranteed. If memory serves me correctly, fears about the ultimate solvency of the OCC hit the radar screen in the 2008 meltdown. Then again, fears about every institution cropped up. It just feels like in times of crises, we're better served with an entity like the OCC having ultimate loyalty to the system and not the shareholders.

Now, of course, OCC would need heavy regulation under any structure. Banks have heavy regulation too, which serves as an endless topic for debate. They always want less -- which makes perfect sense given that they're public companies, driving for profits. Which gets back to my whole point that that's not really the battle you want to see a public OCC waging somewhere down the road.

Disclaimer: Mr. Warner's opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent the views of Schaeffer's Investment Research.

permanent link

Partner Center

© 2015 Schaeffer's Investment Research, Inc. 5151 Pfeiffer Road, Suite 250, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 Phone: (800) 448-2080 FAX: (513) 589-3810 Int'l Callers: (513) 589-3800 Email:

All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction of any SIR publication is strictly prohibited.

Market Data provided by | Data delayed 15-20 minutes unless otherwise indicated.