For many in the industry, market structure has been such an huge issue over the past two years that it's hard to see the significance of the Sunday New York Times article called "Clamping Down on Rapid Trades in Stock Market."

To be sure, the article hit on such issues as the regulatory response to the May 6 Flash Crash, various ideas to reign in the high frequency traders with taxes, the need for dark pool for traditional investors and the like. The article also noted the charges by FINRA against Trillium over a practice called layering, which calls for mass numbers of quotes to be issued to create a false sense of demand-and then cancelled, allowing the perpetrators to get better prices for their trades. That case was announced more than a year ago. None of these are new issues.

But the Times offers something of a bully pulpit when it comes to market structure issues. Recall that when it put an article about flash orders on the front page, it sparked a massive public reaction, one that eventually led many firms to stop the practice. Are we in for a repeat? It doesn't appear that way.

The issues are hardly cut and dried when it comes to market structure. It's easy to vilify the high-frequency traders, but the evidence to back up various claims isn't definitive. There's plenty of people who think the group has been good for the market, narrowing spreads and reducing other costs. It's hard to blame the withdrawal of retail investors on any one factor. That said, when an issue lands on the front page, above the fold, of the Times, it does mean something. Powerful people tend to take note.

For more:
- here's the article

Related articles:
Mutual funds, institutions fear overregulation of dark pools  
Market structure issues have retail investors leery of stock market