That's the role of shareholders AFAICT, to hold their board and the company accountable. Fail to do so and lose your shareholding seems the right direct risk.
The fines could also be a lot larger, because there is minimal risk of bankrupting a business from diluting existing shareholders. A 1% shareholder hit would be $4B at current market cap. Make it 5% and really make shareholders pay.
Either way you've lost 1%, but you can decide whether to hold the upside exposure and voting control.
I think the key is the size of the fine. $1B to JPM is not really a whole lot. Maybe scaling the fine according to the size of the entity might make sense, but then there's a question of why everyone else at JPM is getting fined simply for doing their job in the same building as the guys who did this.
Edit. On second thought I guess you mean there will be a restriction on buying back the shares?
Shareholders can change corporate behavior lik Carl Icahn but here it seems like it was very opaque to even monitor, the other way they can enforce good behavior is to sell the stock.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder
The sibling comments have an interesting worldview: can't fine management cause it's not their firm, can't fine shareholders cause it's not their fault, its nobody's fault.
It's annoying to see, but not a big deal per se: your order book imbalance features just get weighted less heavily and you move on. ofc spoofing is illegal in tradfi, but if it wasn't, I kind of doubt it would even matter: market participants would adapt and the world would move on.
It's completely legal. If big financial institutions would risk fines and prosecution to do this is a market where it's illegal, what on earth makes people think it wouldn't happen in markets where it's legal?
> There are even tier 1 tradfi market makers who heavily engaged in not just spoofing but quote stuffing as well across crypto markets.
I assume you're alluding to Cumberland/DRW?
Exactly, in a similar manner that the PDT 4 trades in 5 days rule is implemented.
>Michael Coscia in 2013.
>Coscia was sentenced to three years in prison for spoofing futures markets using a specially designed computer program, making an estimated $1.6m (£1.2m).
It's not exactly a secret that some market participants work out some kind of imbalance measure, and of you've ever implemented a system like that, like I've done, it will have crossed your mind that you could shove a load of orders in that mask the imbalance for everyone else. But you have heard of the spoofing rules and you don't do it. If we want a functioning market without a reputation for sharks, there's some rules to be followed.
Iirc they got a guy thrown in jail for this? Sarao or something like that? He had someone build him a spoofing machine and made a lot of money, though it's not clear to me how much was from doing this specifically.
In case you're wondering about that intention to cancel phrase, of course there are participants like market makers who do cancel a lot of orders. In that case it's a matter of them following the market in providing liquidity, they are not doing it to fool everyone.