SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ftth who wrote (34847)8/7/2010 6:32:01 AM
From: axial2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 46821
 
Apologies for the late reply. Not sure how to answer, so bear with me...

"I thought they found a strong link to some structural deficiencies in the way the markets deal with (or don't deal with) high volumes of ETF trades. Weren't 70% (or there 'bouts) of the most volatile trades in ETF's?"

Answer: "High frequency trading is attributed with generating over 70% of the volume of trades on our equity markets. Similar statistics are not available for forex markets, but speculating disguised as commercially necessary trades have been reported to be over two-thirds of the volume. Liquidity and pricing transparency are the benefits offered by its advocates, but regulators and other market participants who disagree with this positive assessment are presently discounting these benefits."

epchan.blogspot.com

"So, let’s do some quick math, $800 billion x 0.52% = $4.16 billion. This is a huge market and ETF providers need the HFT market makers so that they can keep pumping out more ETF’s. Without HFT “liquidity”, the ETF market would probably not have seen its dramatic increase in size. But we ask, at what cost does this liquidity come? Are unsuspecting ETF investors actually the ones that have been unknowingly funding the HFT industry? Please also remember that two thirds of the Flash Crash Disaster erroneous trade names were ETF’s; there alone is the HFT smoking gun and footprint."

blog.themistrading.com

---

Theoretically, there shouldn't be a causal link between ETFs and HFT failures. Actually, there is. The public, believing ETFs are designed to track the underlying, hasn't been informed of concurrent realities:

"I'm not saying they don't work, I understand that stat arb firms are exactly what makes ETFs more efficient. The point is that as the case of the UNG/USO show... it presents a situation where flows are attracted into them not due to the prospects of the underlying asset, but whether they are likley to be a good play for stat arb firms. And in the case of the USO and UNG their growth in smaller markets then risks taking over and influences the market itself. All that time, retail investors think they're getting a simple product that tracks the underlying. My "con" reference is that ETF development was just as much about attracting institutional flows as retail flows ... but they're made out to be retail products mostly.

ftalphaville.ft.com

---

There are other ETF risks, such as rollover in commodities. Any knowledgeable investor knows that commodity ETF performance can be a disaster:



The point: ETFs were sold to the public as one thing, while they represent something else - a profit generating mechanism - to HFT market players.

---

We've spoken of systemic risk and HFT upstream; the recent flash crash was a perfect example.

In evaluating recent regulatory "reforms" most commentators gave poor marks to the outcome:

Wall Street Reform: Politicians Lie, Media Applauds, America Suffers

ritholtz.com

---

Among many reputable others Benoit Mandelbrot has consistently warned of the dangers in current forms of modeling and trading. HFT compounds these risks.

Beyond HFT are other systemic risks that the financial sector assures us they can control: derivatives, leveraging, TBTF, etc.

"A systemic risk is the risk of a phase transition from one equilibrium to another, much less optimal equilibrium, characterized by multiple self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms making it difficult to reverse."

macroblog.typepad.com

Cascades. Dominoes. No wonder people are fleeing markets.

Jim



To: ftth who wrote (34847)8/7/2010 8:35:06 AM
From: axial  Respond to of 46821
 
bloomberg.com

ftalphaville.ft.com



To: ftth who wrote (34847)8/7/2010 12:41:37 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio  Respond to of 46821
 
This is a way-too-interesting discussion, which is why I've been quiet, since I've become inundated with work-related matters these days. As a general observation, however, w.r.t. a secondary area of concern that you stated about being denied access to full-length articles in the publication in question, I have generally found that if I come across such a sampling that is truncated and accompanied by a subscription ad, I can simply scrape the headline of the article off the come-on page and search it, and among the search results will be at least one result pointing to the full length article. Try this with the article in question and see if it works. The only doubts I have about this is that I may still have cookies that enable me to do this from the time when I actually was a subscriber, which was prior to the publication's regime change.

------



To: ftth who wrote (34847)6/21/2013 10:12:16 PM
From: axial  Respond to of 46821
 
The ETF Market Kind Of Broke Yesterday

'Yesterday's big selloff exposed a weakness in one of Wall Street's darling products, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), the FT reports, and no one really saw it coming.

[...] The problem wasn't just that ETFs got swept up in the general panic of the moment. It was that as traders sold off and ETFs got cheaper, the discount between the price of the ETF and the assets that made it up widened. Suddenly, everyone wanted to redeem those underlying assets from banks like Citi and State Street.

Now you can imagine what happened next (from FT):
  • One Citi trader emailed other market participants to say: "We are unable to take any more redemptions today?.?.?.?a very rare occurrence due to capital requirements we are maxed out on the amount of collateral we have out."
  • A person familiar with the situation said it was a temporary suspension affecting only some clients, caused by the significant amount of sell orders. Citi declined to comment.
  • State Street said it would stop accepting cash redemption orders for municipal bond products from dealers.
In short, people couldn't get their money, and there is fear that this selloff will continue.

While all of this was unexpected, it wasn't necessarily unheard of. In 2010, the Kauffman Foundation put out a report saying that ETFs were more dangerous than even high frequency trading (this was in the aftermath of the Flash Crash) and cause a flash crash themselves.'

Continued: businessinsider.com

Jim