Tag Archives: International

High Frequency Trading and ‘Market Rigging’

My interview and debate on CNBC about High Frequency Trading.

By my colleague and friend Mike Earlywine @MEWINO, senior trader and options expert:

As you may have heard Michael Lewis has a new book out called Flash boys.  It is about High Frequency trading,(HFT) and it is creating quite the fire storm in the financial media and among the various market participants.

Michael Lewis has been in the press promoting his book by saying that the market is rigged.  Surprisingly, for how easy as it is to vilify wall street, there has been some push back.  Part of the problem is that HFT means different things to different people.  It is often confused with computer based trading or algorithmic trading.  Often it is spoken about in conspiratorial tones that make is sound illegal or something out of a bad Hollywood movie.  But his claim that the market Is rigged has galvanized many people to defend what is right about our market.  Either way,  It is a complicated topic and I hope this summary helps.

In the first part I use the Open letter from Charles Schwab to opine on what I think the real concerns are, and in the second part I give an example of HFT in its truest and simplest form

The controversy –

Like many I think the current market structure is flawed and rife with unintended consequences but I am hesitant to vilify the firms that take advantage of the fragmented market that has evolved over the past 10 years.

This letter from Charles Schwab really sets out in detail what a lot the controversy is actually about.

* My comments on the letter are in inverted commas.  http://www.aboutschwab.com/press/issues/

  • Advantaged treatment: Growing numbers of complex order types afford preferential treatment to professional traders’ orders, most notably to jump ahead of retail limit orders.
  • Unequal access to information: Exchanges allow high-frequency traders to purchase faster data feeds with detailed information about market trading activity and the specific trading of various types of market participants. This further tilts the playing field against the individual investor, who is already at an informational disadvantage by virtue of the slower Consolidated Data Stream that brokers are required by rule to purchase or, even worse, the 15- to 20-minute-delayed quote feed they have public access to.
  • Orders that jump ahead? What are these order types? I am still working with limit and market orders?!? There are no special order types just for HFT, but there are many SEC approved order types that are only used by the HFT type traders.  It can cost upwards of $50mil to put the infrastructure in place that would make some of these order types useful.

  • Is this what people mean when they say HFT guys can see an orders coming?  Are they monitoring the high-speed feed and then transacting in front of it against what are about to be stale quotes? YES that is exactly what they are doing.  The SEC is aware of and allows exchanges to sell this different feeds. After consolidating the ticker plants the high speed feeds are only 1.5milliseconds faster than the regular, but that is enough for these guys to pick off stale quotes.  (this is why co-location is so important. Every millisecond counts when your stealing fractions of a penny).

 

  • Inappropriate use of information: Professionals are mining the detailed data feeds made available to them by the exchanges to sniff out and front-run large institutions (mutual funds and pension funds), which more often than not are investing and trading on behalf of individual investors.
  • Can’t fault firms for taking advantage of all the information they are buying… but just what are they buying? How detailed and what data points are in there.  I can sniff out big order just watching the tape so I’m not sure how hard it would be to do if I was getting special data points. But whatever it is, it is not illegal or even surprising.

 

  • Added systems burdens, costs and distortions of rapid-fire quote activity: Ephemeral quotes, also called “quote stuffing,” that are cancelled and reposted in milliseconds distort the tape and present risk to the resiliency and integrity of critical market data and trading infrastructure.  The tremendous added costs associated with the expanded capacity and bandwidth necessary to support this added data traffic is ultimately borne in part by individual investors.
    • Posted shares don’t accurately reflect what can be truly transacted – HFT have a very low risk tolerance so they fade any move. They don’t stand still, they only transact when their model says they can get the offset.  I am the same way, I only transact when I think it benefits me, but I think in 5 and 10 cents increments. HFT math is done in fractions of a penny and includes rebates – my math leads to finding other intuitions with different opinions or a different urgency on timing.  Their math leads to small trades with little valuation component – rather it is based on their ability to close out the trade at a profit or flat.

    • I am constantly trying explain how I can struggle to buy 100k shares of a stock that has traded 1mil on the day.. but HFT can have that kind of effect, both through fading and because their activity can move a stock to a price level where the institutions don’t want to transact.  For example, it is not uncommon to see a stock move multiple percentage points on  HFT like activity, but when I come in to sell at that price there really is no contra side (there was no real price discovery, it was instead a temporary price inflation due to mechanical HFT strategies.)

  • This is the part that drives me crazy – I think it is probably market manipulation -They try to overwhelm the system in an effort to push the market to certain levels.  BUT the worst part of this gets little attention. By quote stuffing they are excluding participation by other investors. It is no longer about finding the right price or taking advantage of what you consider mispricing it is more about protecting turf and bending the rules to protect their access to liquidity.  The original rules of the NYSE included a rule that held an order up for a specific time so traders could match and bid or offer. It was just 1min and  allowed anyone to participate in the trade. It was there to make sure the biggest and fastest didn’t monopolize the exchange…they had it right and we have lost something in our quest for instant execution.

  • An Example and some further comments on this point:

Basic HFT example– a simplistic look at HFT trader strategy – This is an example of what they do, but it’s not what is causing the controversy

 

  • Exchange A pay a few basis points if you take liquidity  – business model promotes activity

Exchange B pays a few basis points for posting trades – business model incentives providing liquidity

 

Example

 

My super-fast computer sees that Exchange A   has  100 ABC offered at $20

 

HFT – step one –  buy the 100 from exchange A  get paid fractions of a penny on rebate

HFT – step two – offer 100 shares of ABC on exchange B at the same price or a higher price depending on my strategy and or risk tolerance

HFT – step three – hopefully someone buys those shares and I get paid again because exchange B pays for liquidity

HFT – step four – repeat thousands of times a day in hundreds of different stocks

 

NEED for SPEED

 

  1. Once I open a position I need to get in the front of the book to post my closing position to reduce my risk exposure
    1. No free lunch I am still exposed to the market and could lose money
    2. My models might have all kinds of stats on likely hood of execution  but I still need to be first to market to get paid
    3. I am competing not so much against traditional institutions but against other HFT players!
      1. I have to compete to buy or sell the opening position and I have to complete to close it too
      2. Being late can expose me to market risk that my strategy is not designed to manage

CO2 collapses 41% MTD

CO2 2014

CO2 continues to collapse (-41.8% MTD, -16% YTD) after the EU intervention has failed to address the massive oversupply of free credits  and demand continues to fall.  CO2 trades at €4.5/mt (31st March 2014). It traded as high as €35/mt in 2008. -87.7% from the peak, or a massive -30.7% per annum for a “politically designed” commodity created to desincentivize CO2 emissions.

Same story over and over: Oversupply meets falling demand:

–  Oversupply: The market reserve mechanism was introduced by the EU because even once CO2 backloading is applied, the oversupply of CO2 in the EU ETS will trough at around 1.5bn credits. The reserve mechanism will be used when the total number of allowances in circulation, defined for a single year as all the allowances and international credits issued from 2008 to that year, less the total emissions produced and any already in the reserve (basically the oversupply of the system) is above a certain level. This means that oversupply of emission rights in any given year will continue to be around 2bn tons of CO2 to 2020 in the most optimistic scenario. The supply of CO2 (EUAs) has exceeded demand by at least 20m Mtons almost every month since 2010. 

– Demand down: In the EU, 2013 verified emissions for the EU-ETS will be 3.8% lower yoy, and will reach 1.79bn tCO2, while ETS demand for 2014 is expected to fall another 3%. 

According to SocGen, CO2 emissions for the largest four sectors in the EU-ETS comprise nearly 95% of all emissions, historically. Combustion installations are by far the largest contributor, emitting over 70% of all CO2 in Europe. Verified emissions for combustion installations in 2012 were 11% lower than their 2007 peak, mirroring similar decreases in electricity consumption across Europe. Emissions from energy-intensive industries, like mineral oil refineries, pig iron/steel, and cement clinker/lime production have essentially stagnated since 2009, after a material drop coinciding with the beginning of the recession.

The European Union is 30% of the emissions of the world, but (hold on) 100% of the cost as no other country has adhered to emission trading schemes. Therefore, a slowdown in industrial production and a debt crisis that could delay the extremely aggressive and optimistic plans for a low carbon economy announced for 2030, added to the slow but sure slowdown in power demand is proving that a system that was artificially created is causing the demise of a government-forced scheme that ultimately was only a tax.

CO2 (as I mentioned in 2009) is a “fake commodity” artificially invented, where demand and supply are imposed by political entities… and it still does not work. Neither the Copenhagen, or Cancun summits, or the efforts of several investment banks and environmentalists have helped to raise the price. Interventionists were rubbing their hands at the prospect of increasing the price of CO2 through more than questionable environmental policies, and now they need to find inflation through imposition.

Unless we see a much more drastic approach from the EU to address the oversupply of EUAs the picture is not positive. But at the same time, a drastic approach attacks the economic recovery and adds a burden to industries all over Europe, so I would not count on it. According to Citi it would require a 14% increase in power and industrial demand to start to address the oversupply of EUAs.

In summary, lower industrial demand is driving emissions lower, and a miscalculated free rights scheme continues to show a massive oversupply.

See more at: https://www.dlacalle.com/why-co2-collapsed-20-in-two-days/

Further read: https://www.dlacalle.com/co2-collapses-to-all-time-low/

 

Conference “Is Spain on the Road to Recovery?” London School of Economics 19/3/2014

LSE

Conference with Luis Garicano, Emilio Saracho and Pablo Zalba moderated by Ferdinando Giugliano at the London School Of Economics on 19th de March 2014

Conferencia con Luis Garicano, Emilio Saracho y Pablo Zalba moderada por Ferdinando Giugliano en la London School Of Economics el 19 de marzo de 2014

Photos: 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.650354208367712.1073741825.111595245576947&type=1&l=79ce02a329

Podcast:

http://youtu.be/QBx1VyaiGec

Why is Copper collapsing?

Copper  has collapsed -12% so far this year and is trading below 2011 lows. Copper is a risk indicator of the weakening Chinese economy and the slowdown in global industrial production.

Reasons:

– Much of the low-quality loans in China use copper as collateral, up to 30% according to HSBC, as it is an indicator of industrial activity and closely linked to Chinese growth. When the market begins to question the debt repayment capacity of many Chinese companies in difficulties, margin calls are triggered and copper falls with it.

– It’s the most common commodity linked to industrial production. Copper price is a good indicator of the global economy as fluctuations in price are determined by industrial demand.  Given that Chinese demand represents approximately 39% of global copper demand, the slowdown  of its  economy  has a big impact on the price.

It’s a double impact: Financial and demand-led. What was supposed to be a good hedge is actually a double risk on the economic slowdown.

Lower demand, supply rises

The estimated surplus of refined copper was revised up from 327 thousand tons to 369 thousand tons for 2014 and is forecast to exceed 400 thousand tons in 2015.

Chile, China, Brazil, Peru and Mongolia seek to increase production in 2014 and 2015. Global production is expected to grow by 5.2% and 5.5% in 2014 and 2015.

In 2011, Chile accounted for 34% of the world’s copper production, approximately 19% of the revenues for the country. USA is the fourth largest copper producer in the world, after Chile, Peru and China, and Australia is fifth. All these countries aim to increase production and produce more. When prices fall producers seek to increase production to maintain revenues, a typical -and misguided- attitude of pro cyclical commodity producers.

China accounts for 39% of copper demand, followed by Europe 17%, other Asia 15%, U.S. 9%, Japan 5%. The rest are minor consumers.

A moderation in  growth in demand for refined copper in China, from +8.5% to +6.5% for 2014 and 2015, along with the lower European demand, means that overcapacity increases by nearly 81,000 tons annually. China has seen its stockpiles of copper grow by 4.6% to 207,320 tonnes. It is estimated that the total copper stored in China exceeds 725,000 tons.

Demand down, supply up and a financial hedge gone wrong… Domino effect.

Copper