Nithin Kamath, founder and CEO of Zerodha, has raised serious concerns about the possible repercussions of proprietary trading firms scaling back their operations in India, particularly in the wake of market regulator SEBI’s recent action against Jane Street. The New York-based hedge fund, accused of market manipulation, has been barred from Indian markets and had Rs. 4,843 crore in gains impounded. With Jane Street contributing nearly half of all options trading volumes, its exit could significantly disrupt retail activity, which accounts for approximately 35% of the segment. The fallout may pose challenges for both exchanges and brokers dependent on high derivatives volume.
Jane Street’s Market Exit and Its Implications
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed strict sanctions on Jane Street, a prominent U.S.-based proprietary trading firm, for alleged market manipulation involving simultaneous positions across cash and derivatives markets. The firm reportedly made Rs. 36,671 crore in net profits during the period under investigation—January 2023 to May 2025—by exploiting price movements in Indian indices.
SEBI’s action includes a market access ban and the confiscation of Rs. 4,843 crore in earnings deemed illegal. This enforcement has already sparked significant debate across the financial ecosystem, particularly concerning the broader implications for market structure and liquidity.
Nithin Kamath: A Cautionary Note on Market Fragility
Zerodha’s chief executive Nithin Kamath took to social media to underscore how reliant Indian derivatives markets have become on high-frequency, high-volume trading from proprietary desks like Jane Street. According to Kamath, proprietary traders contribute nearly 50% of total options trading volumes, a staggering figure that reflects their dominance.
"If these firms retreat, the ripple effects could be profound," Kamath warned. "Retail participation—currently contributing roughly 35%—could be impacted as liquidity evaporates and spreads widen. The exchanges and brokers, who benefit from transaction-based revenues, may also see declining income."
Kamath pointed out that this situation highlights the structural fragility of the current system, which relies heavily on a few major players to sustain high volumes and low spreads in futures and options (F&O) markets.
Market Manipulation Allegations and SEBI's Enforcement
The crux of SEBI’s case against Jane Street lies in the allegation of deliberate manipulation. The fund allegedly placed large bets in both cash and derivatives segments to influence index prices and reap arbitrage profits. Despite prior warnings, Jane Street reportedly continued these practices—a move that Kamath described as "brazen" and potentially reflective of the firm's comfort with looser U.S. regulatory environments.
He further criticized practices like dark pools and payment for order flow—common in the U.S.—as exploitative mechanisms that wouldn’t pass muster in India’s relatively stricter regulatory framework.
“You’ve got to hand it to SEBI,” Kamath said. “India’s regulatory architecture does not allow the kind of opaque practices prevalent in other markets. This action sets a precedent and should serve as a deterrent.”
Liquidity Risks and Retail Sentiment
The immediate concern following Jane Street’s removal from Indian markets is the potential drying up of liquidity, particularly in index options—a segment that thrives on tight bid-ask spreads enabled by algorithmic trading firms. A contraction in volumes could deter retail traders, whose participation has been on a steady rise in recent years due to the ease of online trading platforms and growing financial literacy.
This could create a cyclical downturn: reduced institutional volume impacts spreads and execution, which in turn affects retail experience, leading to a drop in overall participation.
A Broader Lesson for Market Structure
The incident also prompts a deeper look into the composition of India’s derivatives market. A healthy financial ecosystem requires diversity in participation—retail investors, institutions, proprietary desks, and mutual funds alike. Over-reliance on any one cohort introduces systemic risk. The Jane Street episode is not just about one hedge fund being penalized—it is about assessing the resilience of India’s market architecture in the face of external shocks.
It also reinforces the importance of regulatory vigilance. SEBI’s swift action sends a clear signal: market manipulation, irrespective of a participant’s size or global standing, will not be tolerated.
Conclusion: A Tipping Point for Indian Derivatives Markets?
The removal of Jane Street from Indian markets could serve as a watershed moment. While SEBI’s proactive enforcement is commendable, it also reveals just how dependent market structures have become on a handful of high-frequency traders. As stakeholders brace for potential short-term volatility, this moment also offers a chance to recalibrate market participation strategies, promote broader institutional involvement, and strengthen safeguards against manipulation.
Retail traders, brokers, and exchanges will be watching closely in the days ahead to see whether derivatives volumes hold—and whether the Indian market can emerge from this test more balanced and resilient.
Comments