Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Don Owens, Deputy Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7767

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Nicholas Florko, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch
w. (202) 454-5108

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


Sept. 20, 2012  

Senate Banking Hearing Highlights Dangers of High-Frequency Trading, Underscores Need for Financial Speculation Tax

Note: The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment is holding a hearing at 10 a.m. today titled, “Computerized Trading: What Should the Rules of the Road Be?” in 538 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The implementation of a financial speculation tax could help counteract both the predatory practices and the instability that are rampant in the market as a result of high-frequency trading, Micah Hauptman, financial campaign coordinator for Public Citizen said in written testimony submitted to lawmakers today.

A miniscule financial speculation tax on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and derivatives, such as one called for by the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act (S. 1787, H.R. 3313), introduced by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would “throw sand in the gears” of high-frequency trading operations by making their activities less profitable, ultimately reducing the likelihood of such operations distorting markets, Hauptman said.

High-frequency traders often pay exchanges for the ability to receive information at a faster rate than other market players. They are then able to exploit these advantages using high-powered computer technology to capture profit. Just last week, the New York Stock Exchange agreed to pay a $5 million settlement to the Securities and Exchange Commission for providing such an unfair advantage.

 According to the testimony, high-frequency trading carries several risks, including potential harm to traditional investors such as those holding mutual funds. High-frequency traders exploit technology to gain an advantage over traditional investors, sometimes even manipulating the prices of equities by making millions of false transactions. A financial speculation tax could protect the millions of investors whose retirement savings are held in such investment vehicles.
 Another serious concern highlighted in the testimony is high-frequency trading’s potential for instability. Events such as the May 2012 “flash crash” and the more recent Knight Capital debacle show the potential for danger when the complex computer algorithms used in high-frequency trading go awry. A financial speculation tax would slow down high-frequency operations to a more controllable level.

Also, a financial speculation tax has the potential to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scores the Harkin-DeFazio bill as generating more than $350 billion over 10 years. In this time of fiscal hardship, the revenue that a financial speculation tax could raise must not be overlooked.

“High-frequency trading contributes to a misallocation of resources, encouraging short-term speculation while stifling productive long-term investment,” said Hauptman. “We urge Congress to consider a financial speculation tax. With altered incentives, short-term speculative trading would decline and traditional long-term investment would flourish.”

To read Hauptman’s full testimony, visit http://www.citizen.org/documents/hauptman-testimony-on-computerized-trading.pdf.


Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.