SEBI’s bold move, at the expense of appearing unfriendly to foreign institutions, is commendable. I really hope that the SEC will wake up from its slumber and start investigating the tactics used by Citadel and its kind.
SEBI wasn't bold at all. They saw them do this in January, told them in February to stop, and they persisted until they finally shut the operation off. They were tipped off as early as November 2024 that this was happening. If anything SEBI was incredibly slow at reacting lol
No, India does not view things exactly the same way the west does re: the rule of law vs. institutional power. The regulator has broad authority to stop market manipulation and support from the public that we do not want HFT style manipulation skimming money from everyone else in our markets. SEBI does not need to wait for a precisely worded law for every single type of market manipulation that will take years to pass and then be sidestepped in months on some technicality. They stopped bad activity quickly only because they have some actual power to make judgements and enforce them.
I don't think this exactly the takeaway of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. It just means judges have more power to weigh in with their own opinions when there is ambiguity involved, not that all the specifics of implementation _have_ to be specified to mean anything.
I'm not sure how this is related. The so-called "Operation Choke Point 2.0" (which as far as I can tell is just a term used by the Trump administration to describe behavior of the Biden administration) is about bank regulation, which is not under the purview of the SEC.
Literally the case in question here is a crystal clear example of manipulation? What possible value does this trade provide to any other market participant, and where do the profits come from if it doesn't provide value?
More importantly, there is a lot of debate around what value HFT provides to markets, all I'm saying is that in general the Indian public does not believe its a net positive and SEBI acts accordingly. Maybe you disagree, that's fine.
Do you have any evidence of it reading like a tin foil hat? Otherwise it reads like someone doing that practice or servicing someone doing that practice and skirting responsibility
We can survive traders of questionable morals, especially if there's proper government; having a wall-street-asshole-tier immoral regulator is a one way street.
