UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: yodaorange Big red star, 1000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 455329  
Subject: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/3/2012 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 61
WARNING: Long post ahead, even by Yoda’s standards

This Sunday, 5/6/12, will be the 2nd anniversary of the “Flash Crash.” The Flash Crash will be remembered for seeing the Dow 30 lose about 1,000 points in a matter of minutes, then recovering in a matter of minutes. The round trip down then back up took about 20 minutes. The day was also interesting because many stocks traded at the lower “stub quote” price of 1 cent per share. A few issues traded at the upper stub quote of “99,999.99” per share. Wikipedia has a nicely written history of the day, plus different theories and explanation for what occurred. [1] The official explanation written jointly by the SEC and Commodities Futures Trading Commission largely blamed a large trade by mutual fund company Waddell-Reed. [2] I took strong issue with their explanation of the crash. [3]


A few days after the Flash Crash, I posted a “High Frequency Trading Tutorial” which was the best knowledge I had at the time. [4] Rimpynths replied: “This post is filled with so much misinformation; I don't even know where to begin.” Clearly he thought I got a lot of things wrong.

As I reflect back on that post, one point still stands out. There is almost a total absence of hard facts about what HFT is and does. I portrayed HFT one way, Rimpy portrayed it another way. Neither one of us could produce any kind of hard documentation at the time that conclusively proved the case. The same situation exists today. This is very different from a lot of topics that were/are discussed on METAR. Interest rates, stock prices, exchange rates, GDP etc are hard facts that everyone can agree on. To my knowledge, NOBODY has or can produce similar hard facts on HFT. I think the main reason for this is that everyone that is making money using HFT does not want to come forward and tell the world exactly how they do it. Plus if they are doing anything marginally legal, they sure do not want to broadcast that. With that disclaimer, this post contains what I think are facts surrounding HFT. At the end, I will include some 100% speculations on what I think HFT’s might be doing. I will attempt to keep them separate. If Rimpy is still around, he very well might take issue with my version of the facts. Rimpy and I probably agree that HFT’s are blamed for more problems than is fair. I do think the public has an unduly negative view of HFT’s in some regards.

Before we get into HFT’s, it is important to briefly review “old” stock trading BEFORE all of the electronic trading started. This is a KEY piece of the puzzle that explains a lot of what HFT is/does today. If you do not understand how trading used to be done, you will not appreciate how trading works today.



Stock Trading- “The way we were”

In the “old” days, nearly all US stock trading was done on the New York Stock Exchange. This was before NASDAQ opened for business in 1971. Each stock on the NYSE had a “specialist” in charge of insuring orderly trading. The specialist had a physical location called “the trading post.” If you wanted to buy or sell that issue, you went to the trading post. The specialist would match up buyers and sellers. In those days, stocks traded in fractions of dollars, instead of decimals. It was common to have the bid-ask spread be “1/8th- 12.5 cents or “1/4” 25 cents per share. For example you might buy IBM for 10.00 per share and sell it for 9.75 per share. Aside from the very high commissions, this bid ask spread made short term trading very difficult for the small investor. If you lost 25 or 50 cents every round trip, it would rapidly add up.

As part of the specialist’s role, he also bought and sold for his own account. Nominally, he would step in to be the buyer or seller of last resort. Specialist trades were on the order of 5% to 10% of the trading volume. It was an open secret that occasionally specialists traded opportunistically even when they were NOT the last resort. If the specialist bought at 9.75 and sold at 10.00, he could make a nice profit. The specialist could also short a stock if he wanted to.

I have heard specialists from that era comment that you “really had to mess up to lose money.” Typically they would lose money one or two days PER YEAR. If they lost money on more days that two, they were doing something very wrong.

“Front running” is where you know FUND XYZ is about to buy a large number of say IBM shares. If you recognize that situation, you would attempt to buy IBM before the fund, then resell your shares for a quick profit. This type of front running was and is 100% legal. In the old days, “floor traders” working for other firms would attempt to front run anybody and everybody. Specialists certainly had the ability to front run orders also, despite the fact that it was against the rules. Off the record, specialists would give you a wink and a nod if you asked them if they ever did this. They only had to do it every once in a while to make a nice profit. Had they done it on every single trade, they would have gotten in trouble.

Bottom line of “old” trading was that floor traders and specialists were pulling off some percentage of your profits at every opportunity.

Stock Trading- “The way it is”

Other than the incredible improvements in technology, two large changes have occurred in stock trading.

Conversion from fractions to decimals occurred in 2001. [5] All of a sudden, stocks were trading in 1 cent increments. This as a large part of why/how the bid-ask spread for stocks shrank. Before decimalization, the smallest allowed increment was 1/16th or 6.25 cents although most spreads were 1/8th or larger.

Regulation National Market System (aka Reg NMS) [6] which became effective in 2007. Between the “old” days and the “new days”, you could trade stocks on many different electronic systems aka ECN’s, SRO’s, exchanges. In round numbers there are about 50 different electronic exchanges/ECN’s where a stock can trade today. One of the main points of Reg NMS was to require all of the exchanges to have the same bid and ask prices. This is known as the National Best Bid and Offer aka NBBO.

Before Reg NMS became the law, it was common to have different bid/ask prices on different exchanges. For example, the IBM bid/ask on the NYSE would be 9.99/10.00. On say the Pacific Stock Exchange, it might be 10.05/10.06. You can see what happened. A company with fast technology could buy shares on the cheaper exchange and sell shares on the expensive exchange. In theory, Reg NMS ended this practice. The goal of reg NMS was to insure that investors got the best pricing, regardless of which exchange executed the trade.

Winners and losers

1) Winner- High Frequency Trading that is faster than everyone else for arbitrage. In the real world, it takes some amount of time for all 50 exchanges to match bid and ask prices. If you had the fastest system, you could constantly monitor prices on all of the different exchanges. When they got out of sync, which would occur every single time the NBBO changed, you could legally front run the change. This is one reason why having the latest, greatest, fastest technology is so important.

2) Winner- High Frequency Trading, automated front running detection. In the old days, you had humans attempting to front run large buyers and sellers. These days, you have sophisticated algorithms running on “co-located” computers attempting the do the same thing. Long story short, sell side programs attempt to hide/disguise their trading patterns so that nobody can tell they are trying to sell a large quantity. Buy side programs are constantly studying each and every trade, attempting to ascertain when the sellers are trying to move a large position. If your HFT algorithm is better than the next guys, you can pick up some easy money.

3) Winner- High Frequency Trading- news scanners. There are a number of sophisticated programs that are constantly scanning news sources and tweets looking for breaking news. For example, if you knew that Warren Buffet was going to buy XYZ, a few seconds before everyone else did, you could front run that stock. Once again, there are a lot of PHD’s working on algorithms to detect this and act on it. Think about the IBM Jeopardy computer guessing on stock news.

4) Winner- Average long term investor- Without a doubt, the bid ask spreads have come down, in addition to commissions. IF you are a long term investor, you win, but at the same time, over the long term this should not amount to much. So you save 12.5 cents per share, but hold the shares for 10 years. Big deal.

5) Winner- Day traders. Like it or not, trading in one cent increments, plus HFT makes this entire industry possible. It is clear cut that day trading is a losing proposition overall with a reported 90% of day traders losing money. For that lucky 10%, HFT makes the trading possible.


6) Winner- High Frequency Trading- “liquidly rebates.” Long story short, the exchanges pay the HFT’s for “providing liquidity.” The rules have many moving parts, but for example the NYSE pays 0.3 cents per share for providing liquidity. This is ONE of the primary ways that HFT’s make money. Obviously, the more shares they can trade while providing liquidity, the more they can make. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, .3 cents here and .3 cents there and pretty soon you are talking real money. If you are interested, you might read this NYSE ARCA link [7]

7) Winner-Average investor- liquidity. Probably 99.9% of the time on 99% of the issues, an investor will always find a willing buyer and/or a willing seller at a reasonable bid-ask spread. This is the definition of a highly liquid market

8) Loser- Average investor in illiquid market. For the .1% of the time, like in the Flash Crash, the HFT programs are TURNED OFF. There are NO willing buyers and/or sellers at any price. In theory, this would not occur if the specialist system was still in place. In the October 1987 crash, NYSE issues remained fairly liquid. NASDAQ issues which are more similar to the HFT systems of today were a disaster. There were no buyers or sellers of last resort on many NASDAQ issues then.

9) Loser- Small investor psychology- Without a doubt, many small investors were terrified that the flash crash was even possible. They could NOT rationalize how the Dow could drop that far, that fast. Some percentage of investors have given up on equities due to fear.

10) Largest LOSER- NYSE specialists- The public does NOT understand this point at all. The last figures I saw, showed that NYSE specialists used to skim about $4 billion per year off of stock trades. Specialists have gone the way of the dinosaurs. They are now called DMM’s- Designated Market Makers. Their role in stock trading is dramatically reduced. Essentially all of the electronic stock trading is directly at their expense. My guess is that their $4 billion in skimming’s has directly gone to the HFT guys.

11) 100% Speculation Winner- HFT front running. I will use my favorite whipping boy Goldman Sachs as an example. Goldman’s computers know about every customer order that is placed. Technically it would be trivial to program Goldman’s’ HFT computers to front run customer orders. Recall that Goldman is simultaneously trading for their own account, in addition to handling customer trades. I and many others suspect the Chinese wall between proprietary trading and customer trading has a few holes in it. If Goldman skimmed a penny per share per trade it would add up. Goldman had several quarters in 2011 when their proprietary trading was profitable EVERY SINGLE DAY. I don’t care how many MENSA members you employee, I do NOT think this is possible unless you are front running or using some other nefarious trick. 100% profitable days is not exactly a Gaussian distribution.

12) 100% Speculation Winner- HFT traders that cause different exchanges to become out of sync. For example, if you could force the price in Chicago to be different from the price in New York, you could quickly make a lot of money. The small garage shop NANEX has laid out a convincing case that this occurred on the Flash Crash. Some of the exchanges got out of sync, causing all Hades to break loose. I and others suspect that some HFT’s attempt to cause this situation to occur on purpose. The theory is called “quote stuffing.” NANEX has documented how some HFT customers request 25,000 quotes PER SECOND!


BOTTOM LINE is that the individual investors are NOT harmed as much as commonly thought by High Frequency Trading. On the other hand, the NYSE specialists are now selling apples on the street corners for a living.

BTW, my apology for the length but this is the condensed version. I left out a lot of details for the sake of brevity.


Thanks,

Yodaorange


[1] Wikipedia article on the 5/6/10 Flash Crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash


[2] SEC- CFTC Report on the Flash Crash

http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf...


[3] Yodaorange response to SEC-CFTC report “SEC lays an egg on Flash Crash”

http://boards.fool.com/sec-lays-an-egg-on-flash-crash-287997...

[4] Yodaorange post after the Flash Crash “High Frequency Trading Tutorial:
http://boards.fool.com/high-frequency-trading-tutorial-28500...

[5] SEC Final decimalization rules

http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/decimalp.htm

[6} SEC regulation NMS final rule

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-51808.pdf

[7] NYSE- ARCA fees

http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSEArca_Equities_Fees.pdf
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wotdabny Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391118 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 2:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Conversion from fractions to decimals occurred in 2001. [5] All of a sudden, stocks were trading in 1 cent increments. This as a large part of why/how the bid-ask spread for stocks shrank. Before decimalization, the smallest allowed increment was 1/16th or 6.25 cents although most spreads were 1/8th or larger.

This was a pet peeve of mine at the time: Before decimalization shares of Cisco routinely traded in increments of 1/256th, as I recall, and others traded for 1/128th increments; none do now. Decimalization was much touted at the time to bring some kind of efficiency into the market, and surely there must have been some reason for its push, but there was zero technical reason for that to be true, then as now. I find decimalization convenient, in the same way that the metric system is better, yet American progress has not ground to a halt due to pre- or non-metric standards.

Does it really make sense that suddenly the lowest increment went from the teeny (1/16th) to the penny, just because the unit of measurement changed? Was everyone too stupid to realize this liquidity before, or suddenly enlightened after? Did market forces and the options available to market makers suddenly improve? Really?

I like decimalization, because I am a human, and among my human frailties are difficulties dealing with exponents and fractions. But as far as computers, the actual reality the numbers reflected at the time, and the ability of floor traders to deal with those numbers are concerned, it was a distinction without a difference, conferring no magical power to change spreads, the oil in my truck, my girlfriend's mind, or anything else.

Of course, I could be wrong; I have provided nothing in the way of support for these assertions. That's just how I remember it. Hell, I even seem to recall 1/1024ths scrolling across the bottom of CNBC, but I didn't get much sleep in those days, so who knows?

Wot

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391124 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 8:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I will eagerly read the full version of this post if you'd care to post it!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: captainccs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391127 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 9:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
High Frequency Trading: Does it matter?

I've been thinking about HFT for at least a year and I don't think it makes any difference to me. At least, none that I notice.

Without a doubt, pennies or eights can accumulate into fortunes and it comes out of the "ecosystem." Does that mean the other players starve or suffocate? Aside from the philosophic question of "social good," how are the earnings of HF traders any different from the earning of, say, McDonald's? Is the world better or worse off for McDonald's? Since this might seem a loaded question, let me explain why it's not.

Until recently (25 years?) economists tried to shoehorn the dismal science into the model of the hard sciences (because they didn't know better). With the advent of the science of complexity some economists are recognizing that the economy, being the product of living agents, is better described by biology than by physics. To me this makes a lot of sense. Based on this idea, I view the stock market as one might view the atmosphere or the oceans: billions of organisms use them to dump their wastes which becomes the food of another set of billions of organisms. Each organism, working solely for its own good, contributes to produce the ecosystem, an ecosystem that is not fixed in time but evolves with the needs and preferences of its members.

There is the interesting case of rattlesnakes. At one time they were considered pests and shooting them on sight was the "right" thing to do. But a funny (not so funny) thing happened, the population of rats and other vermin exploded because they are rattlesnake food. Kill off the rattlesnakes and the uncontrolled vermin population explodes.

HFT might be the rattlesnakes of the stock market and if one of them bites you directly, they can be very harmful. But on the larger scale, HFT is probably as beneficial to the market as rattlers are to the environment. One way to prevent getting bit is by always using limit orders. In the old days limit orders had an extra commission tacked on to them, but no more. Better yet, place some outlandish limit orders just in case you get lucky. It works rather nicely with options which area lot more volatile than the underlying.

Denny Schlesinger

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: FastMike Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391128 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"...The specialist would match up buyers and sellers..."

Dear Yoda :

That's just the point! The NYSE 'Specialist System' was designed to keep an orderly market. When there are bids and no asks, the specialist must sell from its' own inventory, but adds a 1/4 of a point; the markup profit. When there are asks and no bids, the specialist must buy, but at a 1/4 point discount. (Several Specialist Firms went out of business in the 1987 crash because they had to buy. That was their obligation.)

The Specialist was not an Investment Firm. The Specialist brokered transactions, providing liquidity in the process.

HFT is doing exactly that! They are brokering transactions. They are doing almost exactly what the specialist firms did, but much faster and most importantly without any obligation to provide for an orderly market. As you pointed out, in the flash crash, HFT servers stopped trading. In other words, they stopped providing liquidity!.

Whenever I hear a HFT spokesperson they seem to be quite proud of the fact that they provide liquidity. What they don't mention is that the liquidity can be shut off at their whim!

HFT should be regulated and licensed (by exchanges) as Broker-Dealers and then required to provide continuous liquidity as the specialist firms did. They should have capital requirements, adequate lines of credit and answerable to an exchange oversight board.

In a way the Specialist Firms should share a bit of the blame. They fell behind the curve and did not change with the times and technology. A Specialist HFT System would have been ideal solution for providing an orderly market in a lightning fast trading environment and most importantly, if the specialist (or market-makers) were the only gate keepers, markets would not only be orderly and liquid, but would have provided a "more level playing field" for all investors.

Lastly, there's something else that is being overlooked. And it also exemplifies how times have changed. Some time ago, I subscribed to the Value Line Survey and it's Options News letter. The options news letter would identify mispriced options. And it was all done by 'snail mail'.

In the world of HFT, I really wonder if it is possible for an option to remained mispriced for much longer than the existence of exotic atomic particles made in a collider. At that time that 1/4 advantage that might have lasted all week and thus put a covered call trader a leg up.

One way to look at it is that HFT is profiting on spreads. Another way is that they are profiting as unregulated Broker-Dealers and most importantly and in a bigger way, they are holding markets hostage with their control of liquidity in the market.

And this is a well established fact as mentioned in that Wiki article :

"...In the United States, high-frequency trading firms represent 2% of the approximately 20,000 firms operating today, but account for 73% of all equity orders volume..."

Let me add that a 200 ton freight train moving goods cross country at 80mph is a great benefit to the public as long as the engineer doesn't jump out when the brakes fail!

Your red-flagging Fool,
FM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: namkato Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391129 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 10:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
BOTTOM LINE is that the individual investors are NOT harmed as much as commonly thought by High Frequency Trading.
============================================

This was self evident. I never understood why people made such a big deal about it. Just another example of herd think.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391134 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
“Front running” is where you know FUND XYZ is about to buy a large number of say IBM shares. If you recognize that situation, you would attempt to buy IBM before the fund, then resell your shares for a quick profit. This type of front running was and is 100% legal.

Front running is generally a prohibited practice in the industry. I don't know if that applies to the Specialist.

For example, if you knew that Warren Buffet was going to buy XYZ, a few seconds before everyone else did, you could front run that stock.
In those cases, that is considered public information and not subject the the front running restrictions.

Goldman had several quarters in 2011 when their proprietary trading was profitable EVERY SINGLE DAY. I don’t care how many MENSA members you employee, I do NOT think this is possible unless you are front running or using some other nefarious trick. 100% profitable days is not exactly a Gaussian distribution.

With all the technology there is today, it seems like it would be easy for NASD to determine any illegal practices here. One has to wonder if this is a failure of enforcement or if such activities are really occuring.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391136 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/4/2012 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This was a pet peeve of mine at the time: Before decimalization shares of Cisco routinely traded in increments of 1/256th, as I recall, and others traded for 1/128th increments; none do now. Decimalization was much touted at the time to bring some kind of efficiency into the market, and surely there must have been some reason for its push, but there was zero technical reason for that to be true, then as now. I find decimalization convenient, in the same way that the metric system is better, yet American progress has not ground to a halt due to pre- or non-metric standards.

Does it really make sense that suddenly the lowest increment went from the teeny (1/16th) to the penny, just because the unit of measurement changed? Was everyone too stupid to realize this liquidity before, or suddenly enlightened after? Did market forces and the options available to market makers suddenly improve? Really?


Wow, I see this change as one of the biggest improvements to be made to the system. TPTB used to be able to skim $.25 - $.50 per each individual stock traded, on top of their commision and now they are lucky to get $.02 per stock - and you don't see this as a good thing for the bid ask system?

Hell, I even seem to recall 1/1024ths scrolling across the bottom of CNBC

That would have been rare for most positions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: brucedoe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 391203 of 455329
Subject: Re: High Frequency Trading: Winners and Losers Date: 5/5/2012 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
yoda

Bravo!

brucedoe

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement