SEBI Expands Investigation into Jane Street Trading Practices
SEBI's action stems from claims that Jane Street engaged in manipulation of stock indices through derivative positions. This move follows a regulatory ban imposed on the firm in early July, which temporarily barred it from conducting any trading activities in Indian markets. The ban was issued after SEBI's preliminary findings suggested that Jane Street had used complex strategies to artificially influence the performance of key stock indices.
As part of the ongoing investigation, SEBI is focusing on obtaining detailed trading records from exchanges including the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India. The goal is to determine whether the firm's activities, particularly its use of derivatives, involved any illegal practices that could have distorted market prices or harmed retail investors.
ADVERTISEMENT
Industry experts suggest that the regulator's heightened interest in Jane Street reflects a broader concern about the role of large institutional traders in shaping market dynamics. Derivative positions, often leveraged and high-risk, can be used to exert significant influence on the underlying stocks, especially in a market as liquid as India's. By examining data from exchanges, SEBI aims to clarify the extent of Jane Street's trading strategies and assess whether they align with Indian securities laws.
The investigation is seen as a key test of SEBI's ability to enforce its regulations on foreign firms operating in India's rapidly growing financial markets. Despite the firm's global operations, Jane Street has a significant presence in India, with its trading strategies often tied to the country's major stock indices. The firm's complex use of derivatives, particularly index futures, has drawn scrutiny from both regulators and market participants, who have raised concerns about potential market distortion.
Jane Street, which is based in the United States, has yet to publicly comment on SEBI's request for trading data or the investigation itself. The firm has previously maintained that its activities are compliant with global market regulations, including those in India. However, the SEBI inquiry underscores growing concerns among global regulators about the tactics employed by large-scale traders in emerging markets.
The investigation into Jane Street is part of a broader initiative by SEBI to strengthen its oversight of foreign investment in India. Over the past few years, SEBI has been increasingly focused on improving market transparency and curbing potential manipulative practices, particularly in high-frequency trading and derivative markets. While foreign firms play an essential role in providing liquidity to Indian markets, their influence has raised alarms about potential market imbalances.
Market analysts point out that the use of derivatives and other sophisticated financial instruments by international trading firms has brought India into closer alignment with global financial markets. However, the rise of algorithmic and high-frequency trading has led to concerns over market stability, especially in volatile times. In response, SEBI has ramped up its efforts to ensure that such trading does not compromise the fairness or integrity of the market.
In the wake of SEBI's actions, some market participants have called for more stringent regulations governing the use of derivatives in India. While derivatives are legal and widely used, their impact on the underlying markets can sometimes be opaque, especially when large institutional players use them in tandem with other strategies to influence stock movements. Calls for greater transparency and stricter enforcement mechanisms are expected to intensify as the investigation continues.
The timing of SEBI's investigation is significant, as it comes at a time of heightened global scrutiny on market manipulation and the role of high-frequency traders. In the wake of high-profile cases involving market abuses in other jurisdictions, regulators are under pressure to ensure that trading practices do not undermine investor confidence or market integrity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Etihad
12 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Why has India vowed to protect its farmers in the face of tariff threats?
1 Aug 2025 14:13 MUMBAI (REUTERS)US President Donald Trump on Thursday slapped a 25% tariff on Indian goods after prolonged talks that got bogged down over access to India's labour-intensive agricultural sector, which New Delhi has pledged to protect. Why is India opposing the products the US is lobbying for? The United States is pressing India to open its markets to a wide range of American products, including dairy, poultry, corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, ethanol, fruits and nuts. While India is willing to provide greater access for US dry fruits and apples, it is holding back on corn, soybeans, wheat, and dairy products.A key reason for this resistance is that most US corn and soybeans are genetically modified (GM), and India does not permit the import of GM food crops are widely perceived in India as harmful to human health and the environment, and several groups affiliated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are opposing their introduction. The commercial cultivation of a high-yielding GM mustard variety that India developed itself is currently not allowed due to an ongoing legal GM crops, dairy is also a highly sensitive issue, as it provides a livelihood for millions of farmers, including many who are landless or smallholders. The dairy industry helps sustain farmers even during erratic monsoon seasons, which can cause significant fluctuations in crop India, where a large proportion of the population is vegetarian, food choices are strongly influenced by cultural and dietary preferences. Indian consumers are particularly concerned that cattle in the U.S. are often fed animal by-products - a practice that conflicts with Indian food is self-sufficient in most farm goods, with the exception of vegetable oils. After liberalising cooking oil imports over three decades ago, the country now has to import nearly two-thirds of its supply to meet demand. India does not want to repeat this mistake with other basic foods, which account for nearly half of its consumer price agriculture makes up just 16% of India's nearly $3.9 trillion economy, it is the lifeblood for nearly half the country's 1.4 billion people. Four years ago, this powerful voting bloc forced Modi's government into a rare retreat on a set of controversial farm in power fear a flood of cheaper US imports would bring down local prices. New Delhi is also worried that a trade deal with the US could force it to open its agricultural sector to other countries. How does farming in India and the US differ? The vast disparity in the scale of farming makes it difficult for Indian farmers to compete with their US average Indian farm is 1.08 hectares (2.67 acres), compared to 187 hectares in the US. For dairy farmers, the difference is even more dramatic - a small herd of two or three animals versus hundreds or more in the Indian farmers also rely on traditional, unmechanised techniques, while American agriculture has developed into a highly efficient, tech-driven industry. Why is India hesitant to use US ethanol in its biofuel programmeOne of India's key goals with its Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) programme is to reduce energy imports and support domestic farmers by using sugarcane and corn for biofuel production. Indian companies have invested heavily in new distilleries, and farmers have expanded corn cultivation to meet the rising demand. India recently achieved its ambitious target of a 20% ethanol blend in petrol. With state assembly elections approaching in Bihar - a major corn-producing state in the east - allowing US ethanol imports would lower local corn prices. This would probably anger farmers and also undermine the growing distillery sector.
Filipino Times
15 hours ago
- Filipino Times
PH set to boost maritime ties with India with of Marcos visit
The Philippines is looking to expand its maritime cooperation with India as President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. prepares for a state visit to New Delhi and Bangalore next week. 'Part of our ongoing relationship with India is in maritime cooperation activities. So we look forward to expanding these,' said Assistant Secretary Evangeline Ong Jimenez-Ducrocq of the Department of Foreign Affairs–Office of Asian and Pacific Affairs (DFA-ASPAC) during a pre-departure briefing on Friday. The President's visit, scheduled from August 4 to 8, comes at the invitation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Marcos will meet with Indian leaders and business groups in both cities to explore further cooperation in various sectors. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) earlier announced that the Philippine Navy and the Indian Navy will conduct their first-ever joint maritime cooperative activity in the West Philippine Sea. 'The joint activity will be the first of its kind in the West Philippine Sea—a region increasingly central to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific,' the AFP said in a statement. India's Eastern Fleet flotilla, composed of guided-missile destroyer INS Mysore (D60), anti-submarine corvette INS Kiltan (D30), and replenishment vessel INS Shakti (A57), is currently docked at the Port of Manila for goodwill activities ahead of the joint maritime exercise.
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
After Trump's 25 Per Cent Tariff On Indian Exports, There Is No Cause For Panic
By Dr. Nilanjan Banik Before the August 1 deadline, the U.S. President Donald Trump decided to impose a 25% tariff on Indian exports. He also talked about an additional penalty on Indian exports, which could go up to100% as a surcharge, targeting countries that continue trading oil with Russia. Trump seems to care less about 'friend' India, as trade with India accounts for a much smaller share compared to U.S. trade with China. Because of U.S. interests, China is likely to get a better trade deal than India, for instance removal of restrictions of U.S. chip-design software exports to China. This is not the first time Trump has taken a hard line on India. During his earlier stint at the President not only did Trump label India as the 'tariff king', but he also removed the country from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Under the GSP, established by the Trade Act of 1974, US policymakers allowed imports of around 3,500 products from designated beneficiary countries—primarily low-income nations—at a preferential duty-free (zero-tariff) rate. The aim was to help these countries increase and diversify their trade with the US. According to the World Bank, a 'low-income' country is one with a per capita income of less than $1,045 per year in 2024. As U.S. remains India's largest export destination, it is only natural to feel the pressure with increasingly restrictive trade measures in place. Around 18% of India's total exports are directed to the US, with a value of $77 billion in 2023, and $78 billion in 2024. However, if previous restrictive trade measures, including the withdrawal of GSP, are any indication, then the impact has been relatively modest. A quick review of the items qualified under the GSP reveals that they primarily fall under categories such as textiles and apparel, watches, footwear, work gloves, automotive components, and leather apparel. Among these key export categories, some items within textiles and apparel and automotive components were included in the GSP list. Additionally, exports of organic chemicals, steel, and certain engineering goods—such as nuclear boilers, machinery, and mechanical appliances—were also impacted by the withdrawal of GSP benefits. However, the value of these items as a proportion of total Indian exports to the US is relatively small. India's exports to the US are mainly comprised of diamonds (19%), packaged medicaments (14%), refined petroleum products (8.9%), automotive components (2.1%), and textiles and apparel (3.7%). The percentages in parentheses represent the share of India's exports to the U.S. as a percentage of India's total exports. The recent signing of the India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is expected to help offset some of the negative effects of excessive tariffs in the long run. Indian policymakers had anticipated a tariff around 20%, but Trump ultimately imposed a 25% rate. Thanks to the India-UK Free Trade Agreement, India stands to benefit from zero tariffs on 99% of its exports, particularly in sectors like textiles, jewellery, pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, and information technology services – areas that commentators fear could be negatively impacted by higher U.S. tariffs. Indian exports to the U.S. are also likely to be less affected in relative terms, since Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on countries whose exports compete with India in the U.S. market. For example, Bangladesh (35%), Thailand (36%), Vietnam (20%), Indonesia (19%), Malaysia (25%), and the Philippines (19%) – some of India's competitors in leather, textiles, and machinery – are equally impacted, with the numbers in parentheses indicating their respective tariff levels. To better withstand external shocks — whether from protectionist tariffs or even war — India should focus on making its manufacturing sector/exports more competitive and focus on its domestic economy. The Indian economy benefits from a strong domestic sector, with domestic consumption, government spending, and private investment together accounting for nearly 80% of the country's GDP. However, the contribution of manufacturing value added to GDP remains stagnant at 17%, indicating no significant improvement in manufacturing competitiveness. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), a key driver of technology transfer and manufacturing competitiveness, is declining, with gross FDI flows dropping to just 1% and net FDI falling to 0.6% in the first half of the 2023-24 financial year—levels not seen since 2005-06. Rigidities in the business environment, the inverted duty structure (IDS), and India's decision to terminate bilateral treaties are to be blamed for discouraging flow of FDI. A study by CUTS International of 1,464 tariff lines across textiles, electronics, chemicals, and metals reveals how the IDS is hurting competitiveness, with 136 items from textiles, 179 from electronics, 64 from chemicals, and 191 from metals most affected. For example, apparel items priced below $14 (Rs 1,000) are subject to a GST of 5%, while those exceeding $14 are taxed at 12%. For textile manufacturers, there are also significant investments required in value-added services such as marketing, warehouse rentals, logistics, courier services, and other fulfilment costs. However, these additional services are subject to a higher GST rate of 18%, making the products less competitive in the international market. The India budget 2025 has addressed the issue of IDS; for example, the government has increased tariffs on Interactive Flat Panel Displays from 10% to 20%, while reducing tariffs on Open Cells and related components to 5%. This trend needs to continue, and policymakers must implement further reforms to enhance the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. While tariff negotiations is an ongoing process, India could consider strengthening its position by increasing purchases of U.S. oil and defense equipment. During his last tenure, Trump positioned himself more as a major arms dealer, focusing on selling more weapons and oil. India has contracted for nearly $20 billion worth of US origin defense items since 2008. This trend is likely to continue in a potential Trump 2.0. India, for its part, should focus less on tariffs and more on addressing domestic distortions. (IPA Service) (The author is Professor, Mahindra University).
