 |
|
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has recently taken a significant step by issuing a preliminary order against Jane Street, a prominent New York-based trading firm. The accusation is serious: orchestrating large, synchronized trades across various market segments, including cash, futures, and options, with the intent to manipulate equity index levels. This alleged manipulation resulted in substantial profits for Jane Street while simultaneously causing losses for numerous retail investors in India. The regulator's response was marked by strong condemnation, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of the market and the faith of millions of small investors from what it deemed an untrustworthy actor. SEBI has taken decisive action by banning Jane Street from participating in India's securities markets and impounding a considerable sum, Rs4,843 crore, representing alleged unlawful gains. The outcome of this case is of considerable interest, particularly given the Indian judicial system's reputation for sometimes allowing wrongdoers to evade punishment. However, the episode also raises fundamental questions about the structure and dynamics of India's derivatives market. Common reformist suggestions, such as increased surveillance, higher margin requirements, restrictions on expiry-day trades, and investor education, are deemed sensible but ultimately peripheral to the core issue. To understand the underlying problem, the author invokes the Roman legal principle of 'Cui bono?' - who benefits? This question leads to a stark realization: the derivatives market, particularly futures and options (F&O), consistently benefits a specific group, regardless of whether traders win or lose. SEBI's own study from 2025 revealed that over 91% of individual traders experienced losses in F&O trading in FY25. The regulatory response to this alarming statistic was limited to pop-up warnings on trading platforms, a measure considered largely ineffective. The analysis points to the 'rent collectors' of the stock market system, who also happen to be the rule-makers, as the primary beneficiaries. These entities are identified as the state (through securities transaction tax), the exchange (primarily the National Stock Exchange or NSE), and the regulator (SEBI). The article posits that there are limited incentives for meaningful reform within this system, as each of these entities derives significant revenue from the high volume of trading, even if the majority of traders are losing money. The central government benefits immensely from the securities transaction tax (STT), which has seen exponential growth, with a significant portion attributed to F&O trading. The NSE, with its near-monopoly status, generates substantial revenue from derivatives, estimated at Rs15,000 crore–Rs16,000 crore in FY24-25, accounting for a large proportion of its total income. The regulator, SEBI, also benefits from turnover-based fees, largely driven by the F&O segment. The author questions the socio-economic benefits of the current derivatives market, arguing that it does not contribute to efficient price discovery or improved market liquidity, and that hedging represents only a small portion of the trading activity. The article highlights the disproportionate volume of derivatives trading compared to the underlying cash market, suggesting that India has created a highly speculative market that has propelled it to the top of global league tables in derivatives trading volume. The author concludes by questioning whether India has inadvertently built the world's most energetic casino in the name of financial development. The article asserts that until the fundamental question of who truly benefits from India's F&O market is addressed, meaningful reform will remain elusive.
The article's core argument revolves around the inherent conflict of interest within India's derivatives market ecosystem. While SEBI's action against Jane Street highlights potential instances of market manipulation, the author contends that this is merely a symptom of a larger, systemic issue. The problem is not solely about preventing manipulation or protecting retail investors from losses; it's about questioning the very purpose and socio-economic value of the current F&O market structure. SEBI's stated objectives for the F&O market include efficient price discovery, improved market liquidity, and risk management for investors. However, the author challenges these assertions, arguing that the parallel existence of the cash market negates the price discovery function of F&O, and that only a small fraction of investors utilize F&O for genuine hedging purposes. The overwhelming majority of trading activity is characterized as socially harmful, speculative froth. The statistics presented paint a concerning picture. Stock derivatives volumes are significantly higher than those of the underlying cash market, indicating a highly speculative environment. India's NSE has become the world's largest derivatives exchange by volume, a statistic that the author finds ironic given the country's socio-economic realities. The article questions the ethical implications of a system where a significant portion of the population relies on government food rations while the financial markets are dominated by speculative trading. The incentives within the system are misaligned. The government benefits from increased STT revenue, regardless of whether traders profit or lose. The NSE profits from high trading volumes, incentivizing them to expand the casino rather than regulate it. SEBI, as a regulator, also benefits from increased turnover-based fees, creating a potential conflict of interest between its regulatory role and its financial interests. The author critiques the regulatory responses to the high rate of losses among retail traders, pointing to the ineffectiveness of pop-up warnings on trading platforms. These measures are seen as superficial attempts to address a deep-seated problem. The article also touches upon past instances of misconduct within the NSE, such as the co-location scam, further highlighting the challenges in ensuring market integrity. The author argues that a fundamental shift in perspective is required to address the issues plaguing India's derivatives market. This shift involves questioning the assumptions underlying the current market structure and evaluating its true contribution to the country's economic development. Until this question is honestly confronted, the author believes that meaningful reform will remain elusive and the speculative wheel will continue to spin.
The crux of the issue, as the author presents it, is that the Indian derivatives market has evolved into a self-serving ecosystem where the primary beneficiaries are the government, the exchange (NSE), and the regulator (SEBI), while the vast majority of retail investors bear the brunt of the losses. This system is fueled by high trading volumes, driven largely by speculative activity in futures and options (F&O). The author doesn't shy away from using strong language, comparing the market to a 'casino' and labeling the revenue streams generated from it as 'rent'. This highlights the parasitic nature of the system, where value is extracted from the market without necessarily contributing to broader economic benefits. The article implicitly criticizes the prevailing mindset that equates high trading volumes with financial development. While India's ascent to the top of the global derivatives trading league tables might be seen as a positive achievement, the author argues that it's a 'peculiar badge of honour' for a country with significant poverty and inequality. The focus on speculative trading diverts resources and attention away from more productive economic activities. The comparison to a casino is particularly apt because it captures the element of chance and the potential for significant losses, especially for inexperienced retail investors. The article suggests that many of these investors are drawn to the market by the allure of quick profits, often without fully understanding the risks involved. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by the limited effectiveness of current investor education initiatives. The regulatory response, characterized by measures like pop-up warnings, is seen as inadequate and insufficient to address the underlying issues. The article proposes a fundamental re-evaluation of the derivatives market's role and purpose within the Indian economy. This re-evaluation should focus on determining whether the market is truly contributing to efficient price discovery, improved market liquidity, and effective risk management. If the answer is no, then the article suggests that more radical reforms are needed to realign the market's incentives and ensure that it serves the broader interests of the economy, rather than just the interests of a select few. The author acknowledges that such reforms would likely face resistance from the vested interests that currently benefit from the status quo. However, the article concludes with a call for a more honest and critical assessment of the derivatives market, arguing that this is the first step towards achieving meaningful change.
Source: Derivatives Market: Why the Casino Must Thrive with or without Jane Street