According to VentureBeat sources, the “exchange participant” rebooted its system several times—and by several, they mean more than 30 times.
This created a backlog of data from the participant that eventually flooded the Nasdaq SIP when the exchange participant finally got its system back online. As a result, the SIP was paralyzed from the overload, and because prices for Nasdaq-listed securities couldn’t be disseminated, the shutdown occurred.
There are a number of issues that we need to focus on here.
I appreciate Nasdaq’s willingness to take responsibility for the three-hour halt, but I’d be lying if I said I was satisfied.
If one of the culprits of this meltdown was truly an exchange participant, then that party needs to be revealed and should also take responsibility.
Secondly, the processing capability of the SIP is something of concern. I don’t consider myself anything close to a hacker, but the SIP’s recent overload is awfully reminiscent of a denial-of-service attack (DoS).
For those that don’t know, a DoS attack is an attempt to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its users. It’s usually done by saturating the target machine or server with external communication requests—so many that the server can’t respond to legitimate requests.
I’m not one to speculate as to whether Nasdaq was hacked, but the nature of the SIP’s shutdown does bother me. It’s not that far-fetched to imagine a scenario where someone could shut down the exchange again by means of overloading the SIP with data from another trading venue.
Frankly, I don’t believe the SIP should be managed by Nasdaq. Rather, regulators should manage and reinforce the SIP. Especially in a day and age where investors are increasingly concerned about who has access to such data and when they receive said data relative to the rest of the market. The fact of the matter is the system is outdated.
The worst aspect of this recent meltdown is that market structure failed where it should have excelled. It was once thought that competition among exchanges would give investors options and the ability to access liquidity however they pleased.
However, this recent episode has taught us that this is far from the truth—no one could trade the PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQ | A-59), the Nasdaq 100 ETF, or any other Nasdaq-listed ETF, on an alternative venue.
That’s just unacceptable, and hopefully, this serves as a wake-up call.
At the time of this writing, the author held no positions in the securities mentions. Contact Ugo Egbunike at [email protected]. Follow him on his Twitter handle at @UgoEgbunike.