The rapid expansion of algorithmic high-frequency trading has prompted widespread calls among legislators for a novel regulatory framework specifically targeting autonomous market participants. Regulators must resist this pressure and instead apply existing antitrust jurisprudence to curb algorithmic market manipulation. The foundational principles of anti-competitive behavior, such as price collusion and quote stuffing, remain conceptually identical regardless of whether they are executed by human floor traders or autonomous software. Furthermore, drafting a bespoke regulatory regime specifically for algorithms necessitates rigidly defining computational boundaries, an endeavor that intrinsically lags behind technological development. Consequently, any newly engineered algorithmic code of conduct will inherently contain definitional loopholes that sophisticated financial entities can effortlessly exploit.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
- Existing antitrust laws, rather than new, bespoke regulatory frameworks, should be used by regulators to combat market manipulation by trading algorithms.Cevap
- BAny newly created regulatory framework specifically designed to govern algorithms will inevitably contain definitional loopholes.
- CThe foundational concepts underlying anti-competitive financial behavior remain identical regardless of whether human traders or software execute the trades.
- DThe recent surge in high-frequency trading has made it necessary for legislators to draft a novel regulatory framework for autonomous market participants.
- ESophisticated financial entities are more likely to successfully exploit definitional loopholes in newly engineered algorithmic codes than in existing antitrust jurisprudence.