The optics of selling financial information

By Felix Salmon
July 8, 2013

Thomson Reuters (my employer, but I’m not speaking on their behalf here) pays the University of Michigan a seven-figure sum every year. In return, it gets the distribution rights for the university’s closely-followed bi-monthly consumer confidence survey. It’s an arm’s-length commercial transaction: free enterprise in action. But it’s also controversial.

Up until now, Thomson Reuters has orchestrated the distribution of the data using a three-tiered system. The top level of high-frequency traders pay a reported $6,000 per month to get the information at 9:54:58am. The next level of Thomson Reuters subscribers, paying substantially less, get the data two seconds later, from a conference call which takes place at 9:55am. Finally, at 10:00am, the report is made freely available on the web.

As of this Friday, however, the first tier will be eradicated. You can still pay to get the data five minutes early, but you won’t be able to get the data five minutes and two seconds early. Thomson Reuters didn’t want to make this move — it has said repeatedly, and accurately, that it’s entirely kosher for news and information companies to distribute non-governmental data to fee-paying subscribers. And as Henry Blodget says, Thomson Reuters is hardly alone in this: there’s a massive marketplace out there of information providers charging hedge funds enormous sums for timely access to various datasets.

So what’s going on here? The first thing to note is that the only official investigation, here, is being led by Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. His office is important, because it means he can wield the Martin Act; the SEC can’t do that, and the investigation is not, legally, centered on Reg FD or any kind of insider-trading statute. The Martin Act is an incredibly broadly-written statute dating back to 1921, and allows New York’s attorney general to prosecute just about anybody on Wall Street for just about anything, so long as the behavior in question can be construed to be “contrary to the plain rules of common honesty”. (Quoting the appeals court decision in People v. Federated Radio Corporation, 1926.)

The second thing to note is the way that Schneiderman’s investigation is being linked to high-frequency trading: after all, the ability to make money in the space of two seconds is pretty much by definition limited to high-frequency traders. The hedge funds who paid for that two-second head start never bothered to filter the information through a human being: they just got their computers to receive the information directly, and set them loose on the market. Again, that’s entirely legal, although there is something rather dystopian about it as well.

Of course if your main target is high-frequency traders, then going after the pre-release of a consumer confidence index is silly: it’s like attacking the use of guns by banning the sale of paper targets. But it makes sense to me that Schneiderman is concentrating just on the two-second window, rather than the five-minute window: while charging human beings for information is a normal and established part of the U.S. economy, there’s something qualitatively different about HFT algobots.

What’s more, there’s one big difference between the University of Michigan consumer confidence data, on the one hand, and the valuable proprietary information which is bought and sold every day, on the other: the UMich data is valuable precisely because it is made public, and the act of making it public moves the markets. (Sometimes.) The people who buy early access to the data don’t particularly care about the data itself, and wouldn’t pay nearly as much money for it if it wasn’t about to be made public. What they care about is the market reaction to the data: they want to be able to position themselves, in the market, so as to be able to profit from that reaction.

The UMich consumer confidence data in no way qualifies as “inside information” under the SEC definition of the term. But it is market-moving information. And the distinction between the two seems to be slowly being erased. As I wrote last year, there seems to be a general feeling, somewhere in the air, that if a medium-sized group of financial professionals get simultaneous access to potentially market-moving information (the people who subscribe to the 9:55am conference call, for instance, or the people who dial in to Lehman Brothers squawk-box calls), then that’s fine. But if an even smaller group of financial professionals gets the information even earlier, then a line has been crossed.

None of this makes much logical sense. But you don’t need a tightly-argued jurisprudential philosophy to bring a Martin Act prosecution; all you need is to convince a court that something is not fair. Call it principle-based regulation, if you must. Under the letter of America’s insider-trading laws, no one did anything wrong here. But put the law to one side; look at the way that the public reacted to the news of what Thomson Reuters was doing. To my eyes, it looked like a diluted version of the reaction to the news of what Henry Blodget was doing at Merrill Lynch, when Eliot Spitzer went on the warpath against him. Grizzled and cynical Wall Street types said, basically, “everybody knew this was happening, what’s the big deal” — but the broader public and news media was genuinely shocked, and that shock was all that Spitzer needed to extract a big settlement.

So I think that Thomson Reuters is smart to suspend the top tier of access to the UMich data, at least until Schneiderman finishes his investigation. The two-second window is entirely justifiable on legal grounds — but when you start talking about algobots paying large sums to get a eye-blink head start on market-moving information, potentially making millions of dollars while doing so, then an aggressive New York AG has all he needs to start making lots of hay. It’s probably best to sacrifice the two-second window, at least temporarily, lest Schneiderman start drawing a bead on the five-minute window, next. No one wants him to start getting ideas about the multi-billion-dollar market in financial information more broadly.

10 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I take your point, but there is something unseemly about a state supported public institution “selling” the right for selected individuals to profit from information at the expense of others. No doubt the University of Michigan is acting within its legal rights as well, it’s just a reminder that the public pays for things one way or another. Seriously, UM should at least consider cutting out the middle man.

Posted by rb6 | Report as abusive

The multi-billion-dollar market in financial information is headed for drastic change, one way or another. It’s not lawsuits or regulators that will reshape it; it’s competition from free alternatives.

The entire financial data industry was built in an era where the act of collating, cleaning and distributing information was tedious, labor-intensive and difficult. That era is ending. High-quality financial data has never been more easily available. When your business model is built on the scarcity of a resource and that resource suddenly becomes ubiquitous, you’ve got a problem.

The incumbents — Reuters, Bloomberg and others — have responded to this problem by proactive copyrighting, by placing strict limits on what subscribers can do with their data, and by various tiered dissemination models. Some of these may prove sustainable. Most will not.

Interesting times ahead — that’s for sure!

(See http://qndl.co/1aTtcQ9 for a fuller version of the argument above).

Posted by qatenary | Report as abusive

High frequency trading is legal but morally wrong. The fact that a politician goes after it using ‘unfair’ yet also legal methods is pot and kettle behavior.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive

Good thing astuteness in’t taken into account or you would be paying the pot $ f. How much do I have to pay for .005 secs from U of Idaho? Really?

Posted by Woltmann | Report as abusive

I agree with the poster above; if the defence of this practice is “well, it may look extremely unfair but it is technically legal”, then it requires a bit of chutzpah to complain of Eric Schneiderman that he’s prosecuting it under a use of the Martin Act which may look unfair, but which is technically legal.

Posted by dsquared | Report as abusive

Felix asked: “So what’s going on here?”

the answer is easy: grandstanding populist politicians…

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

dquared – I will make a position much stronger than “it may look unfair but is technically legal.” This practice is absolutely 100% legal, and Schneiderman is a grandstanding fool, like seemingly every other New York AG. Is he going to try to make it illegal to short (or buy) a stock and then publicly disclose the reasons for doing so? Taken to its logical conclusion, Schneiderman’s position would raise all sorts of problems for any subscription-based investment research* or financial news. Matt Levine has a great piece making just this point at Dealbreaker.

The only decent argument I can see against this practice is rb6′s, about Michigan’s involvement, but that’s a decision to be made by the university with no legal relevance to Schneiderman.

A major underlying problem here is that public perception has been shaped by statements that the SEC and prosecutors make in insider trading cases. They go on and on about a “level playing field”, which actually has precious little to do with the legal theory of why insider trading is a crime. What really defines insider trading is misappropriation of information – i.e., if I’m an employee then I’m misusing information that belongs to my company (and ultimately its shareholders), and same idea about my client if I’m a lawyer or banker.

* I am speaking here of an independent provider of investment research. FINRA members / broker-dealers are subject to more stringent rules about selective disclosure to favor some clients over others, which generally makes sense.

Posted by realist50 | Report as abusive

Felix – should the NY AG shut down Seeking Alpha Pro too?

http://kiddynamitesworld.com/will-the-ne w-york-attorney-general-shut-down-seekin g-alpha-pro/

if you say “no,” isn’t it ironic/conflicting/troubling/inconsisten t that you think it’s ok to have 24 hour advance release, but not two second advance release?

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Weeelllll …. when you say:

“FINRA members / broker-dealers are subject to more stringent rules about selective disclosure to favor some clients over others, which generally makes sense.”

you’re kind of agreeing that if Reuters was a FINRA member, then this policy would be very much the sort of thing that would look like it was falling foul of the selective disclosure rules. So I would disagree about “100% legal”. I’d save that designation for things like mowing your lawn, or buying a latte, or other stuff that’s definitely and unquestionably legal whoever does it.

I’d also disagree with you that “what really defines insider trading is misappropriation of information”. That’s true in the USA, but Americans all too often assume that this is because of a fundamental principle of fairness or market efficiency, whereas it’s actually a local quirk. Nearly everywhere else in the world, the offence is “market abuse” and the criterion is “material non-public information” – there’s nothing in there about where you got it.

So I’d say that Reuters were doing something that was heading for a gray area – it seems to me to be legal because the US law is how it is, and because Reuters isn’t a regulated provider of research. But … that’s what the Martin Act is for! New York State decided in the 1920s that it needed a catch-all provision for the attorney-general to go after financial scandals which didn’t break any statue law but which seemed a bit hinky.

This one … well, I don’t know what to make of it myself, but everyone, including many well-connected traders, was surprised. I think Schneiderman is firing a shot across the bows, to send the message that news is news and brokerdealing is brokerdealing, and that someone who wants to be treated as one should put a nice thick bar of clear blue water between their business model and that of the other.

Posted by dsquared | Report as abusive

Erratum – “selective disclosure” above should be “selective dissemination” of course.

Posted by dsquared | Report as abusive