Suppy Chain Trouble

If you go to the store for a shirt and they don’t have your size, you wait for the supply chain to find it.  There isn’t one to buy. Ever thought about that for stocks?

I just looked up a client’s trade data. It says the bid size is 2, the ask, 3.  That means there are buyers for 200 shares and sellers of 300.  Yet the average trade-size the past 20 days for this stock, with about $27 million of daily volume, is 96 shares.  Not enough to make a minimum round-lot quote.

That means, by the way, that the average trade doesn’t even show up in the quote data. Alex Osipovich at the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday (subscription required) that the market is full of tiny trades. Indeed, nearly half are less than 100 shares (I raised a liquidity alarm with Marketwatch this past Monday).

Back to our sample stock, if it’s priced around $50, there are buyers for $10,000, sellers of $15,000. But it trades in 96-share increments so the buyer will fill less than half the order before the price changes. In fact, the average trade-size in dollars is $4,640.

The beginning economic principle is supply and demand. Prices should lie at their nexus. There’s an expectation in the stock market of endless supply – always a t-shirt on the rack.

Well, what if there’s not? What if shares for trades stop showing up at the bid and ask?  And what might cause that problem?

To the first question, it’s already happening. Regulations require brokers transacting in shares to post a minimum hundred-share bid to buy and offer to sell (or ask). Before Mr. Osipovich wrote on tiny trades, I’d sent data around internally from the SEC’s Midas system showing 48% of all trades were odd lots – less than 100 shares.

Do you see? Half the trades in the market can’t match the minimum. Trade-size has gone down, down, down as the market capitalization of stocks has gone up, up, up.  That’s a glaring supply-chain signal that prices of stocks are at risk during turbulence.

Let’s define “liquidity.”

I say it’s the amount of something you can buy before the price changes. Softbank is swallowing its previous $47 billion valuation on WeWork and taking the company over for $10 billion. That’s a single trade. One price. Bad, but stable.

The stock market is $30 trillion of capitalization and trades in 135-share increments across the S&P 500, or about $16,500 per trade.  Blackrock manages over $6.8 trillion of assets. Vanguard, $5.3 trillion. State Street. $2.5 trillion.

Relationship among those data?  Massive assets. Moving in miniscule snippets.

Getting to why trade-size keeps shriveling, the simple answer is prices are changing faster than ever.  Unstable prices are volatility.  That’s the definition.

I’ll tell you what I think is happening: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are turning stocks from investments to collateral, which moves off-market. As a result, a growing percentage of stock-trades are aimed at setting different prices in stocks and ETFs. That combination is leading to a supply-chain shortage of stocks, and tiny stock-trades.

ETFs are substitutes dependent on stocks for prices. The ETF complex has mushroomed – dominated by the three investment managers I just mentioned (but everyone is in the ETF business now, it seems) – because shares are created in large blocks with stable prices. Like a WeWork deal.

A typical ETF creation unit is 50,000 shares.  Stocks or cash of the same value is exchanged in-kind. Off-market, one price.

The ETF shares are then shredded into the stock market amidst the mass pandemonium of Brownian Motion (random movement) afflicting the stocks of public companies, which across the whole market move nearly 3% from high to low every day, on average.

Because there are nearly 900 ETFs, reliant on the largest stocks for tracking, ever-rising amounts of stock-trading tie back to ETF spreads. That is, are stocks above or below ETF prices? Go long or short accordingly.

Through August 2019, ETF creations and redemptions in US stocks total $2.6 trillion.  From Jan 2017-Aug 2019, $10.1 trillion of ETF shares were created and redeemed.

ETFs are priced via an “arbitrage mechanism” derived from prices in underlying stocks. Machines are chopping trades into minute pieces because the smaller the trade, the lower the value at risk for the arbitragers trading ETFs versus stocks.

ETFs are the dominant investment vehicle now. Arbitrage is the dominant trading activity. What if we’re running out of ETF collateral – stocks?

It would explain much: shrinking trade-sizes because there is no supply to be had. Rising shorting as share-borrowing is needed to create supply. Price-instability because much of the trading is aimed at changing the prices of ETFs and underlying stocks.

Now, maybe it’s an aberration only. But we should consider whether the collateralization feature of ETFs is crippling the equity supply-chain. What if investors tried to leave both at the same time?

All public companies and investors should understand market liquidity – by stock, sector, industry, broad measure. We track and trend that data every. Data is the best defense in an uncertain time, because it’s preparation.

Spread Spoofing

I’ve never bet on sports, but the bulk of wagers is on the spread – whether the outcome will be above or below a range.

In the stock market spreads rule too, and data suggest market-makers are gambling on which things will move. The most shocking spread is the one between assets flowing to Exchange Traded Funds and the dollar-volume of ETF shares.

Wall Street Journal writer Akane Otani reported last weekend (subscription required) using data from Strategas that US equity ETFs saw about $36 billion of inflows to date this year, the majority into low-volatility strategies favoring defensive plays like large-caps and Utilities.

To accommodate these flows, ETF shares must be created. Data from the Investment Company Institute through August 2019 (the latest available) show a staggering $2.6 trillion of ETF shares have been created and redeemed this year.

Put another way, actual increases in ETF assets are 1.4% of total ETF share-transactions.  Talk about a spread.

I wonder what effect that’s having on the stock market?

First, let’s understand “creations” and “redemptions.”  We’ve written about them before and you can read our ETF white paper for more.  ETF shares are manufactured by brokers, which receive that right from Blackrock and other ETF sponsors in (tax-free) exchange for stocks and cash of equal value.

Say investors are buying Utilities ETFs because they want to avoid volatility. Communication Services sector stocks like Facebook and CBS are 84% more volatile on average over the past 50 trading days (we study that data) than Utilities stocks like Southern Co. and Duke Energy.

Brokers will find (buy, borrow, substitute) Utilities stocks worth, say, $12 million, and receive in trade from an ETF sponsor like State Street (XLU is the Utilities sector ETF) authority to create $12 million worth of ETF shares to sell to the eager investing public.

The data are saying the process of creating and redeeming ETF shares is vastly more peripatetic behind stocks than the actual dollars coming from investors.

Why? We’ll come to that.

Continuing the explanation, ETF shares are created off the market in giant blocks typically numbering 50,000 or more. The price does not move.  These shares are then sold in tiny trades – about 130 shares at a time – that move wildly, as do the prices of stocks exchanged for ETF shares.

There is, as the statistics folks would say, mass Brownian Motion (random movement) amid stocks – and the pursuit of profits via instability is leviathan.

We’ve done the math. An average of $325 billion of ETF shares are created and redeemed every month.  Barely more than a tenth of that has been invested in equity ETFs en toto in 2019.

What’s going on? What we’ve been telling financial reporters and the SEC for the last three years – to withering recrimination from ETF sponsors and resounding silence from the press and regulators.

ETF shares are being created and redeemed so short-term money can profit on the spreads that develop between stocks and ETFs (ironically, the same parties doing this are decrying short-termism).

Create ETF shares, and prices of ETFs will deteriorate versus stocks. Redeem (remove them) and prices firm. Contraction/expansion is relentless and way bigger than flows.

That’s not investing.  It’s gambling on (and fostering) spreads.  The math on its face says nearly 99% of creation/redemption volume is a form of gambling, because it doesn’t match investment-flows.

No doubt now there’s epithet-riddled screaming and shouting occurring across ETF trading rooms and ETF boardrooms.  Perhaps some part of the spread is legitimate.

But I’ll say again, regulators:  You owe the investing public a look into why trillions of dollars of ETF shares are created to serve billions of dollars of investment-flows. And we don’t know who the parties to creations and redemptions are, or what’s being exchanged.

It feels like spoofing – issuing and canceling trades to distort supply and demand. What effect is it having on the prices of stocks that both public companies and investors think reflect investment behavior?

I’ll wager there’s an answer.  Do you want to take the over or under?

Six See Eleven

What do you do in Steamboat Springs when autumn arrives at the Botanic Park? Why, have a Food & Wine Festival of course!

Meanwhile the derivatives festival in equities continues, thanks to the SEC, which through Rule 6c-11 is now blanket-exempting the greatest financial mania of the modern era, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), from the law governing pooled investments.

I’ll explain what this means to companies and stock-picking investors.

Look, I like Chairman Clayton, Director Redfearn, and others there.  But the SEC isn’t Congress, legislating how the capital markets work (one could argue that the people never delegated that authority to government through the Constitutional amendment process at all. But I digress).

The point is, the SEC is supposed to promote free and fair markets – not one purposely tilted against our core audience of stock-pickers.

The problems with ETFs are they’re derivatives, and they foster arbitrage, or profiting on different prices for the same thing. If arbitrage is a small element – say 15% – it can highlight inefficiencies. But thanks to ETFs, 87% of volume (as we measure it) is now directly or indirectly something besides business fundamentals, much of it arbitrage.

Do we want a market where the smallest influencer is Benjamin Graham?

ETFs in fact can’t function without arbitrage. ETFs have no intrinsic value.  They are a traded substitute for a basket of underlying stocks that depend on prices of those stocks for a derivative price applied to the ETF shares. So, unless brokers trade both ETF shares and stocks simultaneously, ETF prices CAN collapse.

That was an outlier problem until ETFs became the fastest-growing financial instrument of all time outside maybe 16th century Dutch tulip bulbs.

But collapse is not the core threat from ETFs. Arbitrage distorts the market’s usefulness as a barometer of fundamentals, warps the market toward speed, and shrivels liquidity.

How and why are these conditions tied to ETFs and arbitrage?  I’m glad you asked!

The motivation for arbitragers is short-term price-changes.  The motivation for investors is long-term capital formation. These are at loggerheads.  The more arbitrage, the faster prices change.  Price-instability shrinks the size of trades, and liquidity is the amount of something that can trade before prices change. It’s getting smaller as the market balloons.

If money can’t get into or out of stocks, it will stop buying them and start substituting other things for them. Voila! ETFs.

But.

We’ll get to that “but” in a minute.

ETFs are a fantastic innovation for ETF sponsors because they eliminate the four characteristics that deteriorate fund-performance:

Volatility. ETF shares are created off-market in big blocks away from competition, arbitrage, changing prices, that war on conventional institutional orders.

Customer accounts. ETFs eliminate asset-gathering and the cost of supporting customers, offloading those to brokers. Brokers accept it because they arbitrage spreads between stocks and ETFs, becoming high-frequency passive investors (HFPI).

Commissions. ETF sponsors pay no commissions for creating and redeeming ETF shares because they’re off-market.  Everyone else does, on-market.

Taxes. Since ETFs are generally created through an “in-kind” exchange of collateral like cash or stocks, they qualify as tax-exempt transactions.  All other investors pay taxes.

Why would regulators give one asset class, which wouldn’t exist without exemptions from the law, primacy? It appears the SEC is trying to push the whole market into substitutes for stocks rather than stocks themselves.

The way rules are going, stocks will become collateral, investments will occur via ETFs. Period.  If both passive and active investors use ETFs, then prices of ALL stocks will become a function of the spread between the ETFs and the shares of stocks.

Demand for stocks will depend not on investors motivated by business prospects but on brokers using stocks as collateral. Investors will buy ETFs instead of stocks.

If there is no investment demand for stocks, what happens when markets decline?

What would possess regulators to promote this structure? If you’ve got the answer, let me know.

And if you’re in IR and if you play guitar (Greg Secord? You know who you are, guitar players!), start a rock band. Call it Six See Eleven. Book some gigs in Georgetown. Maybe Jay Clayton will pop in.

Meanwhile, your best defense is a good offense, public companies and investors. Know how the market works. Know what the money is doing. Prepare for Six See Eleven.

Bad News

Markets swoon and again comes a hunt for why, because news offered no warning. The news has bad data, which makes for bad news. ModernIR warned. More shortly.

Meanwhile in Steamboat Springs the slopes are painted the palette of Thanksgiving, and a road leads to paradise.

We were in New York with the United Nations last week. Well, not with them. Navigating around them. On foot. We walked fifteen miles over two days of meetings. Trump Tower looked like a siege camp, loaded dump trucks lining the front and frantic 5th Avenue closed to traffic and so quiet you could stroll to the middle and snap a photo.

Wednesday we railed with Amtrak into Washington DC’s Union Station, and Thursday and Friday we trooped with the NIRI contingent up Capitol Hill. Strange time. The halls of congressional buildings Longworth and Rayburn vibrated in partisan division.

NIRI is flexing muscle, however. We had 50 people scattered through more than 30 legislative visits, and the SEC told us, “You’ve brought an impressive number!”

Numbers matter.  We keep that up and we might change the world. So next year, come along! NIRI CEO Gary LaBranche and team deserve all credit for ratcheting up our reach to regulators and legislators.

Now to the data that makes the news look bad. Last week in our piece called Curtains, we explained how market structure leads headlines around by the nose. Yes, news may be the feather that tilts a domino. But it’s not The Big Why.

Structural conditions must first permit daily chatter to move markets. Thus news one day is “stocks are down on trade fears,” and when they rebound as quickly, they’re “up on easing trade fears.”

We’re told the Dow Industrials dropped 340 points yesterday because the ISM Manufacturing Index dipped to a decade low. That index has been falling for months and slipped to contraction in late August. Yet the S&P 500 rose last month.

Anyone can check historical data. The ISM Index routinely bounced from negative (more than now) to positive during the go-go manufacturing days of the 1950s when the USA was over 50% of global output. It was lower routinely in the booming 1980s and 1990s. It was lower in the post-Internet-bubble economic high.

Lesson? Manufacturing moves in cycles. Maybe the data mean the cycle is shortening, as it did in past boom periods. You can see the long-range data here, courtesy of Quandl.

There’s rising and worrisome repetition of news that’s wrong about what’s behind market-moves. Many trust it for reasons, policy, direction. Decisions thus lack footing.

A year ago, ModernIR warned clients about collapsing ETF data in latter September related to the creation of the new Communication Services sector. The market rolled over. Headlines blamed sudden slowing global growth.

Since that headline splashed over the globe, US stocks have posted the best three quarters since 1997. But not before pundits blamed the 20% drop last December on impending recession and monetary policy.

Stocks surged in January 2019, regaining all the media blamed on what never happened.

Why don’t we expect more from the people informing capital markets? Shouldn’t they know market structure? If you get our Sector Insights reports (ask us how), you know what the data said could happen.

For the week ended September 27, selling outpaced buying across all eleven sectors two-to-one. Not a single sector had net buying. Staples, the best performer with gains of 2.7%, got them on outliers only. The sector had one buying day, four selling days, last week.

We asked: Could all that selling land with a splat in early October?

Remember, liquidity is so paltry – now 20% worse than in Sep 2018 – that what got on the elevator (so to speak) last week got off this week, leading the news, which watches the wrong data, to incorrect conclusions.

We saw a bigger behavioral change for ETFs last week than in late Sep 2018. I’ll ask again: If the data signal selling, or buying, and the data predicts where news reacts, why isn’t everyone, especially pundits, watching that data?

Are you?

If you’ve never seen market structure analytics, ask us. It’s the vital predictive signal now. That’s good news rather than bad.

Curtains

Curtains are window-dressing. Curtains loom. But not the way you think. I’ll explain.

Before that, here in New York it’s Indian Summer, and Karen snapped this midtown shot after we stopped in at The Smith before two busy days of client visits. Next up, Washington DC with the NIRI contingent at Congress and the SEC, as I wrote last week.

Back to curtains, the news cycle forces us to address it. Democrats hope developments are curtains for President Trump. The market fell today. One could say Democrat glee clashes with market euphoria. Impeachment talks snowballed and down went stocks.

Short-term traders can push the snowball where it may want to go, sure. But the DATA changed more than a week ago. Market Structure Sentiment™ topped between Sep 12-17. This is not mass psychology. Our Sentiment index measures whether the probability of prices to rise has peaked or bottomed.

The great bulk of stock orders – around 96% – feed through algorithms and smart order routers. When those systems using extremely high-speed techniques find diminishing probability that trades will fill at the rate, price, and cost desired, they stop buying.

We translate that condition into a sentiment measure on a ten-point scale. For single stocks it’s 10/10 Overbought. For the total stock market or key benchmarks within it (S&P 500, reflecting about 88% of market capitalization, Russell 1000 comprising 95% of market cap), 7.0 is Overbought, and topped. Readings below 4.0 are Oversold and bottomed, meaning machines can fill orders better than models show.

The stock market measured this way rather than by fundamentals, headlines, blah blah, was topped more than a week ago and thus unlikely to rise further.

On Monday, Sep 23, new options and futures on everything from individual stocks to currencies and US Treasurys and indexes began trading.  We feared that disruptions in the overnight lending market coupled with big currency volatility would alter demand.

What’s more, as we’ve written, there was no momentum to value shift by INVESTORS in the first part of September. It’s happening now only because business journalists have written about it so relentlessly that people are beginning to believe it.

What manifested in the data was a massive short squeeze on Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) market-makers, caught out by a surge in Fast Trading of VALUE stocks (and corresponding rejection of growth stocks) propelled by one stock, AT&T, where Activist investor Elliott showed. Machines duped humans. Spreads gapped, a squeeze formed.

What’s that got to do with curtains? I’m getting to it.  Stay with me.

Short-covering is a margin call. Margin calls drive up the cost of borrowing (it rippled through the overnight lending market, forcing the Federal Reserve to intervene), which meant the next time around, leverage would cost more.

That recalibration occurred yesterday, and behavioral change in ETFs exploded to near 30% – a black swan, three standard deviations from norms. You didn’t see it in price and volume. You can’t see it that way.

But with Sentiment topped, the market was destined to give us a swoon.  What if there’d been no news on impeachment? Which thing would have been blamed instead?

Behavioral change in markets is CAUSING pundits to cast about for reasons and incorrectly assign motivation.

Window-dressing, when passive money adjusts assets to reflecting benchmarks, has got to get done the next few days. Volatility skews benchmark-tracking.  Fear feeds through markets to investors. The cost of hedging continues rising.

And there’s a vital futures contract for truing up index-tracking that expires the last trading day of each month. That’s next Monday.

The needs of passive money, leviathan in stocks now, means the patterns of window-dressing stretch long either side of the last trading day. We’re seeing them already (and if you want to know what they say, use our analytics!).

What this means for both investors and public companies is that you must track the underlying data if you want to know what’s coming. It’s there. And we have it.

Headlines are being driven by data-changes behind stocks rather than the other way around (we warned you, clients, in a special private note Monday before stocks opened for trading that we feared just this outcome).

Curtains – window-dressing, the movement of money – are more important than the window, the headlines used to justify unexpected moves.

So every public company, every investor, should put MORE weight on the data than the headlines. We’ve got that data.

Reality Disconnect

In 1975, there were no electronic exchanges in the United States.  Now the average S&P 500 component trades electronically 17,000 times daily in 134-share increments totaling a mean of $500 million of stock.

Yet public companies still have a 1975 standard of shareholder disclosure from the SEC, called 13F filings, referencing the section of the Securities Act with instructions for investment advisors of specified size to report positions 45 days after each quarter-end.

It’s a reality disconnect. Retaining this standard says to executive teams and boards for public companies that “regulators and legislators want you to believe this is what’s driving your share-value.”

You can’t believe what the market is telling you on a given day, let alone over a quarter. We’ll come to that.

In 1975, there were no Exchange Traded Funds, no Fast Traders.  The first index fund open to the public launched Dec 31, 1975, from Vanguard, with $11 million of assets.

Today, index investing has surpassed active stock-picking in the US for assets under management. ETFs are the phenomenon of the era, with growth surpassing anything modern markets have ever seen. There is one ETF for each Russell 1000 stock now.

Total US market capitalization is more than $30 trillion, and 1% of it trades every day – over $300 billion of stock. By our measures, ETFs are responsible for roughly 60% directly or indirectly. ETFs are priced by arbitrage. Arbitrage blurs delineation between Fast Traders and ETF “market-makers.” Both make trade decisions in 10 nanoseconds.

None of this money we’ve just highlighted pays attention to earnings calls or reads 10-Ks and 10-Qs or press releases.  It’s rules-based investing. Asset allocation. Trading.

As money has shifted tectonically from Active to Passive, regulatory and disclosure costs for public companies – to serve Active investors – have gone the opposite direction.

We estimate costs related to quarterly and annual reporting, associated public reviews and audits, and Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank and other regulations total $5-6 billion annually. For the roughly 3,400 companies traded nationally, investor-relations budgets consumed by communications tools, travel, reports and services are $3-4 billion.

Unless the point of regulation is busywork, the rules are confusing busy with productive. As the money ceases to listen – there’s been a diaspora of sellside analysts from Wall Street to the IR chair because the buyside has gone passive – the chatter from companies has exponentiated.

The Securities Act says no constituency of the national market system including issuers is to be discriminated against. Failing to modernize data to reflect reality is a disconnect.

Summing up, public companies, beset by a leviathan load of regulatory costs for investors, which are moving in math-driven waves and microseconds, wait to see what funds file 13F records of shareholdings 45 days after the end of each quarter.

There’s more.  The average stock has four distinct trading patterns per month, meaning traders unwind and return, funds rebalance, derivatives bets wax and wane, in 20 trading days. Not over a quarter.

About 45% of all trading volume is borrowed. Another 45% comes from Fast Trading machines (with heavy overlap as machines are automated borrowers) that close out 99% of positions before the trading day ends.

All told, 87% of market volume comes from something other than stock-picking. The disclosure standard supposes – because it dates to 1975 – that all volume is rational.

The reality disconnect is so bad now that machines look like humans. As we wrote last week, the whole of financial punditry has been caught up in a vast reputed momentum-to-value shift.

Except it didn’t happen.

Sure, momentum stocks plunged while value stocks surged.  Yet as this story from Marketwatch yesterday notes (I’m a source here too), AAPL is a core component of flying value indices.  Isn’t AAPL a growth stock?

Here’s the kicker.  The principal reason for swooning momentum and soaring value was a rush by Fast Trading machines that spread through markets, and a corresponding short-squeeze for ETF market-makers, which routinely borrow everything but were caught out in ripping spreads between ETFs and component stocks.

What if today’s Federal Reserve monetary policy decisions reflect belief money has shifted to value?  What if investment decisions are incorrectly recalibrated?  What if observers falsely suppose growth is slowing and crow anew about impending recession?

The market is disconnected from 13Fs. How about modernizing them, regulators? I’ll be going to Capitol Hill and the SEC with the NIRI delegation next week to make this case.

Meanwhile, be wary of markets. The Fed was intervening yesterday and likely cuts rates today by 25-50 basis points, just as volatility expirations hit now, and before a raft of stock, index, ETF, currency, Treasury and interest-rate derivatives expire through Friday. And Market Sentiment is topped.

Maybe it’s nothing. But if the market rolls, there are data-driven reasons.  And it’s about time disclosures took a leap forward past the reality disconnect for public companies.

Rotation

There’s a story going around about an epochal rotation from momentum (growth) to value in stocks. It may be a hoax.

I’ll explain in a bit. First the facts. It began Monday when without warning the iShares Edge MSCI USA Value Factor ETF (VLUE) veered dramatically up and away from the iShares Edge MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM).

CNBC said of Monday trading, “Data compiled by Bespoke Investment Group showed this was momentum’s worst daily performance relative to value since its inception in early 2013.”

The story added, “The worst performing stocks of 2019 outperformed on Monday while the year’s biggest advancers lagged, according to SentimenTrader. This year’s worst performers rose 3.5% on Monday while 2019’s biggest advancers slid 1.4%, the research firm said.”

A tweet from SentimenTrader called it “the biggest 1-day momentum shift since 2009.”

It appeared to continue yesterday. We think one stock caused it all.

Our view reflects a theorem we’ve posited before about the unintended consequences of a market crammed full of Exchange Traded Funds, substitutes for stocks that depend for prices on the prices of stocks they’re supposed to track.

To be fair, the data the past week are curious. We sent a note to clients Monday before the open. Excerpt:

“Maybe all the data is about to let loose. It’s just. Strange.  Fast Trading leading. ETFs more volatile than stocks. Spreads evaporating. Sentiment stuck in neutral. More sectors sold than bought….Stocks should rise. But it’s a weird stretch ahead of options-expirations Sep 18-20.  It feels like the market is traversing a causeway.”

That stuff put together could mean rotation, I suppose.

But if there was a massive asset shift from growth to value, we’d see it in behavioral change. We don’t. The only behavior increasing in September so far is Fast Trading – machines exploiting how prices change.

What if it was AT&T and Elliott Management causing it?

If you missed the news, T learned last weekend that Activist investor Elliott Management had acquired a $3.2 billion stake in the communications behemoth and saw a future valuation near $60.  On that word, T surged Monday to a 52-week high.

T is the largest component of the MSCI index the value ETF VLUE tracks, making up about 10% of its value.  ETFs, as I said above, have been more volatile than stocks.

Compare the components of MTUM and VLUE and they’re shades apart. Where T is paired with VLUE, CMCSA ties to MTUM, as does DIS.  MRK is momentum, PFE is value. CSCO momentum, INTC, IBM value. PYPL, V, MA momentum, BAC, C, value.

Look at the market. What stuff did well, which did poorly?

The outlier is T. It’s a colossus among miniatures. It trades 100,000 times daily, a billion dollars of volume, and it’s been 50% short for months, with volatility 50% less than the broad market, and Passive Investment over 20% greater in T than the broad market.

T blasted above $38 Monday on a spectacular lightning bolt of…Fast Trading. The same behavior leading the whole market.  Not investment. No asset-shift.

What if machines, which cannot comprehend what they read like humans can, despite advances in machine-learning, artificial intelligence (no learning or intelligence is possible without human inputs – we’re in this business and we know), improperly “learned” a shift from growth to value solely from T – and spread it like a virus?

Humans may be caught up in the machine frenzy, concluding you gotta be in value now, not realizing there’s almost no difference between growth and value in the subject stocks.

Compare the top ten “holdings” of each ETF. Easy to find. Holdings, by the way, may not reflect what these ETFs own at a given time. Prospectuses offer wide leeway.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. What’s the difference between MRK and PFE? V, MA, and PYPL and C, BAC and, what, GM and DIS?

Stock pickers know the difference, sure.  Machines don’t. Sponsors of ETFs wanting good collateral don’t.  Except, of course, that cheap collateral is better than expensive collateral, because it’s more likely to produce a return.

Such as: All the worst-performing stocks jumped. All the best-performing stocks didn’t.

What if this epochal rotation is nothing more than news of Elliott’s stake in T pushing a domino forward, which dropped onto some algorithm, that tugged a string, which plucked a harp note that caused fast-trading algorithms to buy value and sell momentum?

This is a risk with ETFs. You can’t trust signs of rotation.

We have the data to keep you from being fooled by machine-learning.

Liquidity

Want a big ranch out west?

Apparently you don’t. The Wall Street Journal last month ran a feature (subscription required) on the mushrooming supply of leviathan cattle operations from Colorado to Idaho, legacy assets of the rich left to heirs from the era of Ted Turner and John Malone.

A dearth of demand is saddling inheritors with big operating expenses and falling prices.  Cross Mountain Ranch near Steamboat Springs, CO is 220,000 acres with an 11,000 square-foot house that costs a million dollars annually to run. It can be yours for a paltry $70 million, $320 an acre (I wonder if that price holds for a thousand?).

What have cattle ranches got to do with the stock market?  Look at your holders, public companies.  What’s the concentration among the largest?

The same thing that happened to ranches is occurring in stocks.  The vast wealth reflected in share-ownership came considerably from generations now passing on inheritance or taking required minimum distributions. The youngsters, at least so far, aren’t stockowners. They’re buying coffee, cannabis and café food.

Juxtapose that with what we’ve been saying about liquidity in stocks, and as the WSJ wrote today.

Liquidity to us is how much of something can be bought or sold before the price changes.  Those landed dynasties of western dirt are discovering people eschew large land masses and monolithic homesteads.

In stocks, the same is true.  Back up five years to Sep 4, 2014. The 200-day (all measures 200-day averages) trade size was 248 shares and dollars/trade was $17,140. Short volume was about 42%, the average Russell 1000 stock traded about $230 million of stock daily. And intraday volatility, the difference between highest and lowest daily prices, was about 2.2%.

Five years later? Average trade-size is 167 shares, down 33%.  Dollars/trade is down 26% to $12,760. Shorting is nearly 47% daily. Dollars/day is down 17% to $170 million. Volatility is up 32% to 2.9% daily.

But market-capitalization has increased by some 40%.  It’s as though the stock market has become a giant ranch in Colorado teetering over millennials loitering in a coffee shop. No offense, millennials.

Every investor and public company should understand these liquidity characteristics because they increase risk for raising capital or making stock investments.

Why is liquidity evaporating like perspiration out of an Under Armor shirt?

Rules and behaviors. Rules force brokers – every dollar in and out of stocks passes through at least one – into uniform behavior, which decreases the number capable of complying. Picture a grocery store near dinnertime with just three checkout lanes open.

In turn, concentration means more machination by brokers to hide orders. They break them into smaller pieces to hide footsteps – and machines become more sophisticated at interrupting trades in ever smaller increments to reveal what’s behind them.

And all the liquidity measures shrink. We see it in the data. A blue bar of Active Investment rarely manifests without an array of orange bars swarming to change prices, Fast Traders who have detected the difference in the data where human influence drives machine behavior.

What can you do, public companies and investors?  Prepare for bigger and unexpected gyrations (volatility erodes investment returns and increases equity cost of capital).

Examples: HRB reported results before Labor Day. The quarter is fundamentally inconsequential for a company in the tax-preparation business. Yet the stock plunged. Drivers?  Shares were 71% short and dominated by machines setting prices and over 21% of trading tied to short derivatives bets.

Those structural facts cost holders 10% of market cap.

Same with ULTA. While business conditions might warrant caution, they didn’t promote a 30% reduction in equity value.  Market structure did it – 58% short, 55% of total volume from machines knowing nothing about ULTA and paying no heed to the call.

We have the data. Market structure is our sole focus. No public company or investor should be unaware of liquidity factors in stocks and what they predict.

Put another way, all of us on the acreage of equities better understand now that vast tracts of value are tied up by large holders who don’t determine the price of your stocks anymore than your grandfather’s capacity to buy 100,000 acres will price your big Wyoming ranch now.

What does is supply and demand. And liquidity is thin all over.  Data can guard against missteps.

 

Beneath the Surface

I don’t think it should be overlooked that “Quants” and “Quasts” differ by only a letter.

Scott Patterson’s 2010 book, The Quants, is a great read.  You’ll be riveted by what was cascading beneath the market’s surface before the financial crisis.  Here’s a taste:

“That Wednesday, what had started as a series of bizarre, unexplainable glitches in quant models turned into a catastrophic meltdown the likes of which had never been seen before in the history of financial markets….

“Oddly, the Bizarro World of quant trading largely masked the losses to the outside world at first, since the stocks they’d shorted were rising rapidly, leading to the appearance of gains on the broader market that balanced out the diving stocks the quants had expected to rise.

“Monday, the Dow Industrials actually gained 287 points. It gained 36 more Tuesday, and another 154 points Wednesday. Everyday investors had no insight into the carnage taking place beneath the surface, the billions in hedge fund money evaporating.”

Key phrase:  Beneath the surface.

What the market appears to be saying may be the opposite of what gurgles in its depths.

It’s why we say price and volume are CONSEQUENCES, not metrics.  What’s causing price or volume to change?  This is the question every public company, every investor, should answer today (we have that data, so there’s no reason to go begging!).

Take the broad market Monday, with the Dow Industrials up 260 points. Cause? Risk Mgmt – counterparties to bets, covering their exposure.

And shorting rose. Yesterday, 47% of all volume marketwide was borrowed – short.  Intraday volatility, the average move from highest to lowest price, is 3%.

That’s 50% of market volume, combined. Can the market sustainably rise if half its volume depends on lower or fluctuating prices?  Well, it’s not impossible. But probability is poor.

High shorting doesn’t mean the market will tank. But short-covering is necessary for shares to rise.  Consider Jan 2018.  Shorting dropped, volatility vanished, stocks surged.

The VIX (coming volatility destroyed two synthetic ETFs), price and volume, gave everyday folks no clue to the looming maw.  But under the surface the gurgling hit a fever pitch. Market Structure Sentiment, our 10-point gauge of price peaks and troughs, topped Jan 19. Behavioral change was a black swan – more than three standard deviations from norms.

Behavioral change is the daily demographic evolution in the money behind price and volume. A surge is a stampede – with delayed effects. Sentiment usually says which way.

On Jan 22, the market’s Chernobyl core melted under a staggering six-standard-deviations move in behaviors.  The market continued to rise. Nobody on CNBC was warning people.

By mid-February, from peak to trough the S&P 500 fell over 10%.

On Sep 19, 2018, Market Structure Sentiment topped weakly, not even regaining 6.0 (the market trades between 4.0-6.0 most of the time).  Black swans crashed through behavioral-change Sep 14-19.  The market kept rising.

Sep 25-28, behavioral-change demolished every record we’d ever seen, cascading daily at an average six standard deviations over norms.  SPY, the S&P 500 ETF, hit 293.58 Oct 1, 2018.  Yesterday it closed at 286.87.

From its Oct 1 zenith to the Dec 24 nadir of 234.34, SPY declined 20.2%.

SPY reached an all-time peak Jul 15, 2019 as Market Structure Sentiment topped just over 6.0. And yup, you guessed it. Black swans flapped in Jul 31 and Aug 1. Another struck Aug 13.

Why has the market become so mathematical? Behaviors.  All trades must occur between the best bid and offer, and the bid must be lower. Somebody can make a half-penny on each side of the trade – the aim of Fast Traders.  Arbitrage.

ETFs have ten TIMES the assets they did in 2008 — $4 trillion in the US alone, the bulk in equities. There’s one ETF for every four companies. ETFs depend on arbitrage for prices.

Derivatives are an arbitrage trade. What is something worth now versus what it might be in the future?  Put these all together.  It’s 87% of volume. The market runs on arbitrage. Continuously differing prices.

It’s transformative to see, beneath the surface, why your stocks behave as they do.  Then what, public companies?  You have a duty to know what the money is doing and to understand when it’s story and when it’s not. That’s a puzzle solved only with data.

Investors, if you’re one day wrong, you can lose your gains.  Data are protection.

When you’re ready to go spelunking, let us know.

Interesting Year

“It’s going to be an interesting year.”

We wrote that phrase in the Jan 2, 2019 edition of the Market Structure Map. (By the way, we’re in Rhode Island this week visiting customers, and in Newport you’ll see the sea in everything.)

I don’t mean to suggest we’re amongst those arrogant buffoons quoting themselves. I do think we drew the right line from Dec 2018 to the future. We noted, and it’s worth reading, that the Federal Reserve had shut down the Maiden Lane financial entity used to buy assets from AIG. An epochal event.

We said it could mark a top for the inflationary arc in risk assets spawned by the flood of cheap central-bank money.  We’ve had no gains in stocks from Sep 20, 2018 to present.

In December last year, pundits blamed the market maelstrom on impending recession. It was false then and it’s false now. Sure, all economies contract – fall into recession.  It wasn’t a uniformly engrossing event before central banks, though.

The human propensity to borrow and spend on growth, which at some point slows, leading to the collapse of borrowers and lenders alike, is normal and not something we should be trying to eradicate by juicing credit markets.

The bigger the credit wave, the farther the economic surfboard skims, and everyone marvels at the duration of the expansion cycle. And then the wave dies on the shoals. We’re now riding it, wind in our hair, with a vast curl beginning to form overhead.

But that’s not what sparked the market’s volatile descent.

One client (thank you!) shared notes from a JP Morgan conference call on recent volatility. JPM says economic underpinnings are reasonably sound and no cause for market troubles. Hedging strategies leading to the consumption of fixed income securities and sale of equities generated market duress (and skyrocketing bond prices), says JPM.

What prompted hedging strategies to change?  The cries of “recession!” didn’t commence until the market had already plummeted.

The same thing happened last December. After the market tanked, people were searching for reasons – failing to consider the structure of markets today and once again errantly supposing rational thought was at fault – and decided that so large a drop could only mean economic contraction had arrived.

It had not.

Think about how incorrect premises cost public companies money. There’s lost equity value. Higher equity cost of capital on volatility. Time and money spent messaging to the market about recession defenses.

CNBC had data yesterday on the spiking occurrence of Google searches around “the R word,” as they say.  No doubt a chunk of readers were searching earnings-call transcripts and press releases for it.

Behavioral data show no evidence of rational thought behind the market’s decline. Passive Investment plunged 20% the week ended Aug 2.  Stocks cratered.

Further, our data show the same thing JPM discussed. At Aug 19, order flow related to directional bets is down 11% versus the 200-day average. Occurring with expiring August options and newly trading September instruments Aug 15-21, it’s telling. Bets and hedges have gone awry. Low volatility schemes have failed. Insurance costs are up.

Low volatility investing is the most popular “smart beta” technique used to beat general market performance with rules-based investments. The dominance of smart beta is largely responsible for the outperformance of Utilities stocks tied to smart beta Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs.). Those strategies failed in August.

Volatility bets like the VIX expire today, Aug 21.

We can often peg the amount a stock will fall on bad earnings news to the percentage of market-cap tied to derivatives. Why? If future prices become indeterminate, the value of the instruments predicated on them declines near zero.

Currently, 16.4% of market cap traces back to derivatives and leverage, such as borrowing, down from pre-August levels over 18%. Volatility clouds predictability. The cost of leverage and protection increases, while use diminishes.

What if the market fell because Passive money was overweight equities and overdue for rebalancing, and stopped buying stocks in late July, which caused a gut-lurching swoon, which in turn rendered hedges worthless?

Talk of recession is a consequence of the market’s decline. Not causality.  Think about your own stock, IR professionals. Do you understand what drives it?  Investors, if you weight your portfolio for a recession that doesn’t exist, you’ll be wrong.

Our premise Jan 2 was that the end of Maiden Lane was the end of a monetary era, and it had the potential to create an interesting year. So far, seems right.  We also know what kind of money is waxing or waning. You should too. It’s not just interesting. It’s essential to correct actions.