Minds and Machines

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 609–624 | Cite as

Ethical Issues for Autonomous Trading Agents

  • Michael P. WellmanEmail author
  • Uday Rajan


The rapid advancement of algorithmic trading has demonstrated the success of AI automation, as well as gaps in our understanding of the implications of this technology proliferation. We explore ethical issues in the context of autonomous trading agents, both to address problems in this domain and as a case study for regulating autonomous agents more generally. We argue that increasingly competent trading agents will be capable of initiative at wider levels, necessitating clarification of ethical and legal boundaries, and corresponding development of norms and enforcement capability.


Autonomous agents AI ethics Financial trading 



Based on motivations and developing concepts of our ongoing project “Understanding and Mitigating AI Threats to the Financial System”, supported by a Grant from the Future of Life Institute.


  1. Aldridge, I. (2013). Market microstructure and the risks of high-frequency trading. Technical report, ABLE Alpha Trading, 2013. Available at SSRN, 2294526.Google Scholar
  2. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637–654.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352, 1573–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Budish, E., Cramton, P., & Shim, J. (2015). The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 1547–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, M., Kumiega, A., & Vliet, B. V. (2013). Ethics, finance, and automation: A preliminary survey of problems in high frequency trading. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 851–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duffie, D. (1992). Dynamic asset pricing theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Easley, D., López de Prado, M. M., & O’Hara, M. (2012). The volume clock: Insights into the high frequency paradigm. Journal of Portfolio Management, 39(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gatev, E., Goetzmann, W. N., & Rouwenhorst, K. G. (2006). Pairs trading: Performance of a relative-value arbitrage rule. Review of Financial Studies, 19, 797–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, M., & Gelles, D. (2015). A phantom offer sends Avon’s shares surging. New York Times.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, R. (2011). The Fear Index. Paris: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  13. Hull, J. C. (2000). Options, futures, and other derivatives (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kearns, M., & Nevmyvaka, Y. (2013). Machine learning for market microstructure and high frequency trading. In D. Easley, M. López de Prado, & M. O’Hara (Eds.), High frequency trading: New realities for traders, markets and regulators. Risk Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kurzweil, R. (2006). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Kyle, A. S., & Viswanathan, S. (2008). How to define illegal price manipulation. American Economic Review, 98, 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ledgerwood, S., & Carpenter, P. R. (2012). A framework for the analysis of market manipulation. Review of Law and Economics, 8, 253–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Louis, B., & Hanna, J. (2015) Swift guilty verdict in spoofing trial may fuel new prosecutions in U.S. Bloomberg News.Google Scholar
  19. Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. In V. C. Müller (Ed.), Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Magazine, 36(4), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schuldenzucker, S. (2016). An axiomatic framework for no-arbitrage relationships in financial derivatives markets. Technical report, University of Zurich,Google Scholar
  22. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2013). In the matter of Knight Capital Americas LLC, order instituting administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings. Release, 70694.Google Scholar
  23. Tonkens, R. (2009). A challenge for machine ethics. Minds and Machines, 19, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Varian, H. R. (1987). The arbitrage principle in financial economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(2), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wah, E., & Wellman, M. P. (2013). Latency arbitrage, market fragmentation, and efficiency: A two-market model. In Fourteenth ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 855–872).Google Scholar
  26. Wah, E., & Wellman, M. P. (2015). Welfare effects of market making in continuous double auctions. In Fourteenth international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 57–66).Google Scholar
  27. Wallach., W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsh, T. (2016). The singularity may never be near. In IJCAI-16 workshop on ethics for artificial intelligence.Google Scholar
  29. Wang, X., & Wellman, M. P. (2017). Spoofing the limit order book: An agent-based model. In AAAI-17 Workshop on Computer Poker and Imperfect Information Games.Google Scholar
  30. Yampolskiy, R. V. (2013). Artificial intelligence safety engineering: Why machine ethics is a wrong approach. In V. C. Müller (Ed.), Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence (pp. 389–396). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations