RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeHigh Frequency Trading: Point-Counterpoint
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 17th, 2009 6:12 PM |
High frequency trading activity has become a very hot topic both on and off Wall Street. My trading instincts tell me that this activity is not productive for the long term health and well being of the market. I have referenced the work of Joe Saluzzi and his colleagues at Themis Trading in making the case for the prosecution.
In an attempt to present a case for the defense, I searched and found commentary written by Sang Lee, managing partner at Aite Group. Lee recently wrote for Advanced Trading, In Defense of the High Frequency Trading Community:
Various potential regulations, including the reinstatement of the uptick rule and transaction tax directly threaten the business model of the high frequency trading community.
Sense on Cents counterpoint: The uptick rule required short sellers of stock to only transact at a price higher than the previous trade. Our friendly Investing Primer, Investopedia, informs us:
This rule was introduced in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Rule 10a-1 and was implemented in 1938. The uptick rule prevents short sellers from adding to the downward momentum when the price of an asset is already experiencing sharp declines.
The rule worked fabulously for almost 70 years before being discontinued in July 2007. It was discontinued in an attempt to promote trading volume on the exchanges and in turn increased fees.
Sang Lee writes further in making his point:
In recent years, growth of alternative electronic trading venues has been driven by a multitude of factors: the introduction of decimalization; the adoption of FIX as the main protocol for electronic communication; the availability of technology for developing market infrastructure conducive for electronic trading; the rapid adoption of electronic trading; the adoption of algorithmic trading; and the availability of co-location services.
Sense on Cents counterpoint: Fairly obvious with all of the technological advancements that we are not looking at your grandfather’s “buying 100 shares of IBM.” Modern day trading activity is both fast paced and high energy. Little wonder why it has become so much more driven by technical analysis than fundamental valuations. (more…)
Multiplication Isn’t Stimulating and Stimulus Isn’t Multiplying
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 17th, 2009 12:31 PM |
What 3rd grade kid ever really enjoyed the multiplication tables? Every youth in Boston would race through those tables in order to get outside and play some street hockey, a much more stimulating experience!!
In a slightly perverse way, I think many participants on our economic landscape would prefer some form of youthful entertainment because President Obama’s Stimulus Plan is not creating any sort of multiplier for our economy.
Bloomberg takes the offensive in reporting, Obama Stimulus Fails to Reboot Economy as No Multiplier Effect:
The debate over whether the $787 billion stimulus package is sufficiently large or efficiently designed obscures a broader question, some economists say: Can any fiscal measure pull the economy out of the recession?
With credit still crimped and the outlook for consumer demand gloomy due to rising unemployment and increased personal saving, no amount of government intervention will be able to stanch the hemorrhaging of jobs and quickly ease the U.S. out of its deepest recession in a half-century, they said.
Why hasn’t the government stimulus gained traction, attracted significant private capital into the economy, and spurred the economic multiplier? In my opinion, for the following reasons:
1. Obama’s basic economic premise is the redistribution of wealth implemented across virtually every economic program and proposal. He won the election and he is entitled to put forth his plans. Whether the plans work or not is for the market to decide. So far, that question remains unanswered but the Stimulus is receiving very poor grades.
2. The markets, whether for housing or other assets, are not being allowed to clear. What does that mean? Assets are not being transferred from weaker hands to stronger hands backed by private capital in a timely fashion. Why? Uncle Sam is propping up individuals and institutions which could not now, nor should they ever, have financed the purchase of these assets. The result is that prospective buyers of these assets are compelled to hold off injecting new private capital because the overhang of current supply and future supply is weighing on the market. (more…)
Uncle Sam:Geppetto as Citi and BofA:Pinocchio
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 16th, 2009 1:32 PM |
If you did not think we are entering into a Brave New World of an Uncle Sam economy, then today is a day which should help change your mind.
Independent Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, would like a return to business as usual. Their outsized profits are nothing more than “to the victors go the spoils.” They will fight and lobby to make sure they get to take home these 
profits in the form of compensation.
Meanwhile back in the toy shop, Geppetto (in the form of Uncle Sam) is pulling the strings and watching Pinocchio (in the form of Citigroup and Bank of America) dance along. While Geppetto has been exceptionally busy, the taxpaying public has been kept very much in the dark. We see evidence of Geppetto’s ‘dark workroom‘ on three fronts today.
1. The Wall Street Journal offers Lawmakers Spread Blame on Merrill Deal:
House lawmakers lambasted former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis on Thursday, suggesting officials looked the other way as major mistakes at the bank required a $20 billion bailout of the firm at the expense of taxpayers.
“While all of this was going on, the American people, investors and the Congress were kept in the dark,”(LD’s highlight) said Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.), suggesting negotiations over the bank completing its deal for Merrill Lynch & Co. was a “good, old-fashioned Brooklyn shakedown.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio), citing internal Federal Reserve documents obtained by the committee, said Mr. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke ignored evidence that bank management had withheld material information from shareholders, as well as indications that Mr. Lewis’s management of Bank of America “was seriously deficient.”
While Paulson is being grilled, there is little doubt that he believes he did what was in the best interest of the country and the economy – – if not necessarily the interests of Bank of America shareholders. Paulson offered that he was not qualified to provide a legal opinion on his engagement with Lewis.
2. If there were ever any doubt about Geppetto’s lack of confidence in Ken Lewis (aka Pinocchio), it is brought to bear today by news of a ‘secret regulatory sanction’ imposed upon him and the BofA board. The WSJ highlights U.S. Regulators to BofA: Obey or Else:
Bank of America Corp. is operating under a secret regulatory sanction that requires it to overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management, according to people familiar with the situation.
Rarely disclosed publicly, the so-called memorandum of understanding gives banks a chance to work out their problems without the glare of outside attention. Financial institutions that fail to address deficiencies can be slapped with harsher penalties that include a publicly announced cease-and-desist order.
The order was imposed in early May, shortly after shareholders of the Charlotte, N.C., bank stripped Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis of his duties as chairman. Bank of America faces a series of deadlines, some at the end of July and others in August, these people said.
3. In the final act of today’s puppet show, we also learn from the Financial Times Citi Close to Secret Deal with Regulator:
Citigroup is close to a secret agreement with one of its main regulators that will increase scrutiny of the US bank and force it to fix financial, managerial and governance issues.
The proposed agreement requires, among other things, that Citi strengthens its board and governance, improves asset quality, better manages expenses and provides more information to regulators on its capital and liquidity, these people added.
The regulator’s action highlights concern over Citi’s financial health, governance and the strength of its management team, led by Vikram Pandit, chief executive. The FDIC is known to be frustrated with the slow pace of Citi’s “toxic” assets sales, its losses and the lack of commercial banking experience at the top.
What are we to learn from all of these developments? Very simply, do not accept anything at face value at this stage in our new economy. There is a reason why Geppetto is working in the dark. That is, the embedded losses in these institutions would sink these firms if not the entire economy.
Historical measures of value and economic behavior need to be looked at in the context of how Geppetto is pulling the strings!!
Enjoy the show!!
LD
Economics Blogosphere Exploding
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 16th, 2009 10:41 AM |
Where can one go to truly find out what is going on in the economy and the markets?
More and more people are headed to the internet and the world of blogs. The Wall Street Journal highlights this development today in reporting, The New Stars in the Blogosphere:
Americans trying to understand the nail-biting financial trauma of the past several months are flocking by the millions to a surprisingly lively source of enlightenment: blogs written by economists.
Such blogs are thriving in this recession, driven by intense interest from policymakers, investors, academics and people like Zina Poletz, a Minneapolis public-relations executive who says she had little interest in economics before the financial crisis intensified last fall. “I never thought I’d be sitting up late at night reading what [Federal Reserve chairman] Ben Bernanke thinks, but now I do,” she says.
For many people, economics has never seemed so captivating, or so relevant. The enormous appetite for information and guidance right now is hardly a surprise: Even those with a basic knowledge of supply and demand have struggled to keep tabs on the global downturn.
I sensed this growing demand last Fall while writing at NoQuarter and was driven to launch Sense on Cents as a result. My hopes and expectations in launching this blog have far exceeded my expectations. The gratification stems purely from helping people. As Simon Johnson, founder of Baseline Scenario, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and former chief economist of the IMF says:
“I think there’s a big market for explaining to people what the heck is going on in a global context”
I totally concur. I am additionally heartened by this WSJ review because I believe Sense on Cents actually differentiates itself even further given my real world career on Wall Street as a trader, salesman, and sales manager. I am encouraged by feedback from other outlets on the web. Combining economic analysis along with market based instincts hopefully helps people understand the financial landscape along with day to day market movements, on both a macro and micro level.
For newer readers, please avail yourself of the Career Planning material, links to Financial Primers, links to Economic All-Stars (my favorite economists and money managers), and the library of material embedded in my posts (almost 600 highly original and hopefully value-added posts, the bulk of which have been written in the last 5 months).
The WSJ graded a number of blogs in terms of Originality, Geekiness, and Readability. My competitive juices are driving me to be the BEST blog by all these measures.
While selfishly I hope more and more people feel that coming to Sense on Cents provides them truly insightful perspectives on the economy and market, I will let the chips fall where they may and simply focus on putting forth the best product possible.
Please never hesitate to share thoughts, comments, questions, criticisms on any topic. You will be helping me achieve my goal in the process.
I thank you for your support!!
LD
Random Thoughts on CIT
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 16th, 2009 4:25 AM |
What are the ramifications of CIT going into bankruptcy? Will it hurt our economy? Will businesses suffer? Will there be a ripple effect? Will credit be available? Are there unintended consequences? Are there any outfits who benefit from CIT’s bankruptcy?
Bloomberg reports, U.S. Cites ‘High Threshold’ for Aid as CIT Denied Assistance.
As I think this situation over, I am compelled to shed further light on this institution.
1. Just what exactly was CIT’s niche and role in the economy? CIT provides an overview of The Vital Role of CIT.
2. Will the economy suffer if CIT declares bankruptcy? Of course. Anytime an outfit the size of CIT goes under, it hurts. CIT is a 100 year old company with deep and longstanding relationships well developed over time. Those relationships and financial exposures are not recovered immediately.
3. What business lines did CIT have? CIT Businesses include: corporate finance, trade finance, transportation finance, vendor finance, CIT Bank, Insurance Services.
Additionally, my instincts tell me the following:
1. Looking at that lineup of businesses, what other companies have these same business lines? GE Capital, Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG. Other commercial banks and insurance companies have them as well, but my point is that companies with significant support from Uncle Sam should actually benefit from CIT’s downfall. Don’t think for a second that Washington has not been talking to these companies telling them to immediately engage traditional CIT customers.
From a similar standpoint, who benefitted from the downfall of Bear, Lehman, and Merrill Lynch? None other than Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan simply due to lessened competition.
If and when CIT fails, and other financing outlets as well, I think it is highly likely that firms currently ‘too big to fail’ will only get bigger. What does that mean for our future economic landscape? This scenario with CIT is likely to play out with plenty of other smaller financing firms as well.
In layman’s terms, do the ‘too big to fail firms’ have all the leverage, literally and figuratively?
2. It is not widely broadcasted, but CIT had gotten involved in sub-prime financing over the last 4-5 years. They were certainly not one of the larger players but their presence is just another indication of how companies were chasing profits wherever possible.
3. Who within the government would have borne the brunt of losses from CIT if Uncle Sam had chosen to backstop the company? Sheila Bair and the FDIC. Sheila has been picking and choosing her spots with her support knowing that there are plenty more banking institutions poised to fail.
4. Does Uncle Sam have any exposure currently to CIT? Yes. CIT Bank, formed last year, was provided $2+ billion in TARP funds. In a bankruptcy proceeding, the taxpayer will likely only get a return of some small percentage of that money.
5. Is this a win for capitalism? Yes and no. Yes, if in fact the playing field was currently level. No, from the standpoint that the playing field is not level.
I have very mixed feelings. On one hand, I am not in favor of bailouts. On the other hand, how do companies compete with other institutions flush with Uncle Sam’s cash and backing?
Thoughts and comments always welcome.
LD
Federal Reserve Statement July 15, 2009
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 15th, 2009 3:50 PM |
The minutes of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee meeting from June 23-24 were just released. Let’s not take anything on face value, so bring some tools as we review and continue navigating our economic landscape.
For the diehards in the audience, here are the actual minutes, including voting results, for your reading pleasure.
For those who may choose a synopsis complete with graphics, I submit the Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections.
What do we learn? For those not familiar with Fed policy and procedures, the target goals of the Federal Reserve are maximum employment and stable prices. Where do Fed governors think the economy stands now and where are we headed? They measure our economic health in terms of output growth, that is GDP (gross domestic product), unemployment, and inflation.
Output Growth Projections
>FOMC participants generally expected that, after declining over the first half of this year, output would expand sluggishly over the remainder of the year.
>Almost all participants viewed the near-term outlook for domestic output as having improved modestly relative to the projections they made at the time of the April FOMC meeting, reflecting both a slightly less severe contraction in the first half of 2009 and a moderately stronger, but still sluggish, recovery in the second half. With the strong adverse forces that have been acting on the economy likely to abate only slowly, participants generally expected the recovery to be gradual in 2010.
>Participants’ projections for the change in real GDP in 2009 had a central tendency of negative 1.5 percent to negative 1.0 percent, somewhat above the central tendency of negative 2.0 percent to negative 1.3 percent for their April projections. Participants noted that the data received between the April and June FOMC meetings pointed to a somewhat smaller decline in output during the first half of the year than they had anticipated at the time of the April meeting.
>Participants expected, however, that recoveries in consumer spending and residential investment initially would be damped by further deterioration in labor markets, the continued repair of household balance sheets, persistently tight credit conditions, and still-weak housing demand. They also anticipated that very low capacity utilization, sluggish growth in sales, uncertainty about the economic environment, and a continued elevated cost and limited availability of financing would contribute to continued weakness in business fixed investment this year. Some participants noted that weak economic conditions in other countries probably would hold down growth in U.S. exports. A number of participants also saw recent increases in some long-term interest rates and in oil prices as factors that could damp a near-term economic recovery.
Unemployment
>Even though all participants had raised their near-term outlook for real GDP, in light of incoming data on labor markets, they increased their projections for the path of the unemployment rate from those published in April. Participants foresaw only a gradual improvement in labor market conditions in 2010 and 2011, leaving the unemployment rate at the end of 2011 well above the level they viewed as its longer-run sustainable rate.
>Their projections for the average unemployment rate during the fourth quarter of 2009 had a central tendency of 9.8 to 10.1 percent, about 1/2 percentage point above the central tendency of their April projections and noticeably higher than the actual unemployment rate of 9.4 percent in May–the latest reading available at the time of the June FOMC meeting. All participants raised their forecasts of the unemployment rate at the end of this year, reflecting the sharper-than-expected rise in unemployment that occurred over the intermeeting period. With little material change in projected output growth in 2010 and 2011, participants still expected unemployment to decline in those years, but the projected unemployment rate in each year was about 1/2 percentage point above the April forecasts, reflecting the higher starting point of the projections.
Inflation
>The central tendency of participants’ projections for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation in 2009 was 1.0 to 1.4 percent, about 1/2 percentage point above the central tendency of their April projections. Participants noted that higher-than-expected inflation data over the intermeeting period and the anticipated influence of higher oil and commodity prices on consumer prices were factors contributing to the increase in their inflation forecasts. Looking beyond this year, participants’ projections for total PCE inflation had central tendencies of 1.2 to 1.8 percent for 2010 and 1.1 to 2.0 percent for 2011, modestly higher than the central tendencies from the April projections. Reflecting the large increases in energy prices over the intermeeting period, the forecasts for core PCE inflation (which excludes the direct effects of movements in food and energy prices) in 2009 were raised by less than the projections for total PCE inflation, while the forecasts for core and total PCE inflation in 2010 and 2011 increased by similar amounts.
Overall, I read this sumamry as an admission by Fed governors that the economy has currently achieved a degree of stability with risks still skewed toward slower growth. In regard to unemployment, it is likely we will have a protracted level of heightened unemployment for a sustained period. On the inflation front, we have some concerns about increasing inflation although it is not imminent.
Over and above these consensus opinions, it is notable that the range of opinions amongst Fed governors is extremely wide. That to me spells real uncertainty as well.
On the topic of the Fed’s balance sheet, the governors do not believe they will need to implement more quantitative easing.
Staff projections suggested that the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet might peak late this year and decline gradually thereafter.
Taken in totality, our economic patient is certainly not dead nor a vegetable. That is the good news. However, in reading these minutes, the patient’s quality of life remains in serious question.
LD
So What About CIT?
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 15th, 2009 10:20 AM |
Still so many questions on the CIT front. As Bloomberg highlights, CIT Presses U.S. Regulators for Aid to Forestall Cash Crunch:
CIT Group Inc., the small-business lender with $1 billion in bonds maturing next month, pressed for more aid from regulators who are reluctant to use taxpayer funds for a company that may not be a risk to the financial system, people familiar with the matter said.
Treasury officials have indicated in talks that they are reluctant to deploy funds from the $700 billion bank-rescue program, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. continues to balk at debt guarantees, the people said. As of late yesterday, the Federal Reserve was considering granting permission to shift some CIT parent assets to its bank, two people said. That could boost the amount New York-based CIT could borrow from the Fed’s discount window, affording more time to restructure its debt.
The course of the talks may still change, and analysts have pointed to the potential political implications of letting a lender to thousands of borrowers at smaller businesses go bust after bailouts for some of the biggest Wall Street firms. CIT’s case underscores calls for new federal powers to allow an orderly wind-down of a bank holding company.
“CIT represents a difficult policy issue for Washington as there is sentiment to punish the fat cats and greed matched by what potential damage could be done against an economy struggling to regain momentum with all of its possible political fallout,” said Scott MacDonald, head of research at Stamford, Connecticut-based Aladdin Capital Management LLC.
Sameer Gokhale of Keefe Bruyette & Woods discusses possible outcomes on Bloomberg News:
As I questioned last week in my initial post about CIT, “Where do you draw the line?”
LD
Can We ‘TRACE’ JP Morgan’s Business?
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 17th, 2009 9:09 AM |
On Wall Street, information is everything!! Access to the information is invaluable. Why? Given the speed with which markets move, any early hint of developing news is priceless in terms of the ability to transact quickly and profitably.
Why is ‘high frequency program trading’ viewed with such skepticism? Select participants with advanced computer programs gain access to market flows prior to other participants and are able to act on it. That playing field is not level. I shared my disdain for this practice in writing, “Why High Frequency Program Trading Smells.”
What other battles are being waged by Wall Street firms looking to defend their turf at the expense of consumers and investors? Credit cards and credit derivatives. Which Wall Street firm has the greatest combined exposure to these businesses? None other than JP Morgan Chase.
The Financial Times highlights how JP Morgan Chief Hits at Credit Card Rules:
While Mr. Dimon is railing on new legislation aimed to protect consumer interests in the credit card space, he conveniently avoids mentioning how both JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America are already implementing procedures to skirt that legislation. How might these financial behemoths do that? Shift from fixed rate credit cards to variable rate. I exposed this maneuver a few weeks back in writing, “Banks Build Better Mousetrap.”
Dimon continues his defense of JP Morgan’s franchise:
In regard to derivatives activity, JP Morgan has a dominant position in the market. Why? Their strong capital position, enormous balance sheet, and strong credit rating make them an attractive counterparty for customers. Make no mistake, JP Morgan has a license to ‘print’ money, and a lot of it, across the entire derivatives platform.
While Washington will tout how they are increasing regulation of the derivatives space, this business is truly multi-pronged. There are plain vanilla derivatives in more highly liquid sectors of the market. These ‘standardized’ derivatives will most certainly move to an exchange to create total transparency. Value added for customers will be minimal only because these markets are already fairly well defined and exposed. JP Morgan and other Wall Street firms will cede this ‘standardized’ space while they fight tooth and nail to maintain their enormously advantageous position in the area of ‘customized’ derivatives.
There is little to no transparency in the world of customized derivatives and as a result the bid-ask spreads are very wide. Cha-ching, cha-ching. Jamie and his friends on Wall Street are working extremely hard to keep it this way.
In their defense, it is likely not functionally feasible to move many customized derivatives to an exchange. What should regulators compel them to do? JP Morgan and every other financial firm on Wall Street should have to report every derivatives transaction to a system known as TRACE, which stands for Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. This system currently only covers transactions within the cash markets and not derivatives. What does that mean for investors? No transparency and price discovery for investors in the customized derivatives space. As such, Jamie and friends can keep those bid-ask spreads nice and wide and ring up huge profits in the process.
I won’t make many friends on Wall Street, and perhaps lose some of my current friends, but TRACE should be implemented across all product lines. For those involved in the markets, please access the TRACE system to gain a wealth of pricing data while keeping your brokers and financial planners honest!!
LD
Tags: access to information on Wall Street, Bank of America credit card business, Bank of America variable rate credit cards, CDS business on Wall Street, credit card business, credit card industry, credit card legislation, does high frequency program trading add liquidity, high frequency program trading, how does high frequency program trading work, how does JP Morgan make money in derivatives, how does TRACE work, how is information hoarded on Wall Street, information is everything, is high frequency program trading front-running, is information evenly distributed on Wall Street, is Wall Street a level playing field, Jamie Dimon comments on credit cards, Jamie Dimon comments on derivatives, Jamie Dimon defending JP Morgan's franchise, Jamie Dimon fights back, Jamie Dimon flexes muscle, Jamie Dimon hits at credit card rules, Jamie Dimon speaks about derivatives regulation, JP Morgan CDS franchise, JP Morgan Chief Hits at Credit Card Rules, JP Morgan credit card business, JP Morgan derivatives franchise, JP Morgan's business, JP Morgan's strengths, lack of transparency on Wall Street, plain vanilla derivatives versus customized derivatives, price discovery within derivatives, proposed Wall Street regulations, standardized derivatives versus customized derivatives, TRACE brings price discovery, Trade reporting and Compliance Engine, tranparency within derivatives, variable rate credit cards, Wall Street CDS franchise, Wall Street defends turf, Wall Street derivatives business, Wall Street lack of transparency, Wall Street lobbying continues, Wall Street lobbying on derivatives front, Wall Street reforms in derivatives, what financial products does TRACE cover, what is TRACE, where can I access price information on financial products, why is JP Morgan so strong, will new Wall Street regulations bring transparency
Posted in Bank of America, Banking Institutions, Credit Card companies, General, Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan, regulation | 2 Comments »