Tagged: congress

Long and Short

Here’s a riddle for you: What’s long and short at the same time?

Your shares, public companies (investors, the shares of stocks you own too).  You saw that coming, right.  The problem is you don’t know who’s long or short.

Let me rephrase that. You can know in 1975 fashion who’s long.  That year, Congress required investors to report holdings, amending the Securities Exchange Act with section 13F.  Investors with more than $100 million of assets had to report positions 45 days following quarter-end.  Back then, investment horizons were long.

The problem is we have the same standard. Why? Bigger question: Why aren’t more companies asking?  After all it’s your market. You deserve to know who owns your shares, who’s long or short, and where your shares trade.  You also should know what kind of money trades them since a great deal of your volume is for the day, not owned (this part we’ve solved!).

Back to ownership, Exchange Traded Funds post positions every day by law. Why doesn’t everybody else?

“Quast, come on,” you say.  “Investors need some time to buy and sell positions without everyone knowing, if they’ve got longer horizons.”

We’re market structure experts. I can assert: nearly every time investors try to buy or sell in the market, traders know it. That’s why we measure what traders know instead of considering them “noise” like everybody else.

Fast Traders detect buying or selling, often before it happens. I liken it to driving down the road on cruise control. Your exit is coming up so you tap the brakes or take your car off cruise.  Anybody behind you can conclude you’re planning to exit.

Fast Traders observe how behavior slows. It’s how we knew June 5 that the tech sector was about to decline. And they see algorithms accelerating to merge onto the freeway. There’s a buyer. Let’s start lifting the price.  We observe all this in patterns.

Back to the point. If the problem with disclosing positions is a desire to protect investment plans, why is the most popular investment vehicle of our era, ETFs, doing it?

“Those are models,” you say. “They track benchmarks.”

Yes, but all over this country boards and management teams are getting quarterly shareholder reports from 13Fs and concluding that these investors are setting prices.  They’re inexcusably out of step with how markets work.  Isn’t that our profession’s fault? It’s part of the IR job to inform management about equity drivers.

Congress is trying to inform itself. We don’t want to be trailing Congress!  Yesterday there was a big hearing about equity market structure in the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets.  They like long titles, you know.

Thanks to good friend Joe Saluzzi of Themis Trading, who testified live – read what he said – we were invited to offer written testimony from an issuer perspective on the state of markets and what would help issuers have fairer and more transparent participation.

It’s the first time ModernIR has been read into the official congressional record and I don’t whether to be elated over the opportunity or melancholy that it’s necessary.

You should read it. It’s how the market works today. In fact, read all the testimony. They say what we write here every week. Everyone’s in the know but the issuer community.

You deserve better, public companies. It’s your market and you’re excluded by those merchandising your shares from having a say in how it functions.

We made three simple proposals:  Move 13Fs up to monthly reports (we didn’t call for daily info!) and make them both long and short.  It’s been proposed before. Maybe this time we’ll get someplace.

We also proposed daily disclosure of trading data by broker. There’s no reason Fast Traders or anyone should be able to hide. Canada requires disclosure. Why do we have a lesser standard (none, in fact)? And we asked Congress to direct the SEC to form an issuer advisory committee so companies have a voice.

What’s central and imperative to this effort at better transparency for the IR job and the management of public companies?  Knowing how the market works.  We’re experts on it. That we were asked to offer an issuer perspective – nobody else from IR was – speaks to it.

The starting point is learning market structure. It’s a core part of the IR job in today’s market.  That’s the long and short of it. Ask us and we’ll help you help your executives.

Beyond Curiosity

Let’s talk about houses.

Let me explain. Twice yesterday I encountered an issue, not a new one though. We were discussing it on a conference call too, preparing for a market-structure session Sept 9 at the NIRI Southwest Regional Conference here in Denver – which if you care about market structure is not to be missed. A highlight, Rajeev Ranjan, central banker with the Chicago Federal Reserve and former algo trader, will explain why the Fed cares whether high-speed traders are gaming equities and derivatives.

Anyway, what issue am I talking about?  I continue to hear executives and investor-relations officers say, “I don’t see why short-term trading matters when we’re focused on long-term investors.”

I hear some of you groaning.  “Quast,” you moan. “We don’t want to keep hearing the same stuff.”  I get that. If you already know the answer, you can cut out of the Market Structure Map early today.  Catch you next week.

The rest of you, if you’ve got a tickling there in the back of your head like a sneeze forming in the nose that you really don’t want the CFO to ask you why market structure matters, then let’s talk about houses.

Big money tracks residential real estate – houses. Just this week we had or will have reports on new home sales, the Federal Home Financing Administration’s housing index, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, mortgage applications, and pending home sales. Decisions about construction, banking, credit-extension and more depend on these data.  They’re part of certain GDP components.

Now suppose it was unclear who was buying and selling houses, whether the sales were cash or financed, how much of the volume of new and existing home-sales were simply transactions between brokers trying to pump up volumes (suppose it were half!), whether mortgage applications were real or indications of interest that wouldn’t materialize, and 35% of all home-sales were in the dark with nothing more known about them save the net number. (more…)

Take and Make

What if exchanges stopped paying fast traders to set prices? Oh, you didn’t know? Read on.

Off Salt Island in the British Virgins is the wreck of the HMS Rhone, a steamer that sank in an 1867 hurricane.  Even if you’re a snorkeler like me rather than a diver, in the clear BVI water you can see the ribs, the giant drive shaft, the shadowy hulk of a first-rate vessel for its day, 70 feet below the surface.  A storm surprised the Rhone, and after losing an anchor in the channel trying to ride out the squall, the captain ran for open water, unwittingly slamming into the teeth of the tempest.

What’s a 19th century Caribbean wreck got to do with high-frequency trading?  What seems the right thing to do can bring on what you’re trying to avoid by doing it in the first place.

On July 15, Senator Carl Levin called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to end the “maker-taker” fee structure under which exchanges pay traders to sell shares.  I’ve long opposed maker-taker, high-frequency trading and Regulation National Market System.

We have Reg NMS thanks to Congress.  In 1975, that body set in motion today’s HFT flap by inserting Section 11A, the National Market System amendments, into the Securities Act of 1934, and instead of a “free market system,” we had a “national market system.” What a difference one word made.

The legislation mandated a unified electronic tape for stock prices. The NYSE claimed the law took its private property – the data – without due process.  Regulators responded with concessions on how exchanges would set prices for trading. The result: The Consolidated Tape Association (CTA).

Today, the CTA is comprised of the registered US stock exchanges.  Its rules governing quoting and trading determine how exchanges divide roughly $500 million in revenue generated through data that powers stock tickers from Yahoo! Finance to  E*Trade.  If an exchange quotes stocks at the best national bid or offer 50% of the time, and matches 25% of the trades, it gets the lion’s share of data revenue for those stocks. And the more price-setting activity at an exchange, the more valuable their proprietary data products and technology services become. Data has value if it helps traders make pricing decisions.

Here’s where history meets HFT. Reg NMS requires trades to meet at the best price. Exchanges have no shares because they’re not owned by brokers with books of business as in the past. They pay traders to bring shares and trades that create the best prices.  In 2013, NASDAQ OMX paid $1 billion in rebates to generate $385 million of net income.  Subtract revenue from information services and technology solutions ($890 million in 2013, built on pricing data) and NASDAQ OMX loses money.  Prices matter.  NYSE owner Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) opposes maker-taker presumably because it made $550 million in profit without the NYSE in 2012, and half that adding the NYSE in 2013. For a derivatives firm, equities are a tail to wag the dog. (more…)

The Empty Chair

There’s the old joke about camels. They’re horses designed by a committee.

Speaking of committees, for the second time in a month, that august federal legislative chamber the US Senate yesterday convened a hearing on markets. Replacing the Senate Permanent Subcomittee on Investigations was the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (none of these items appear in the Constitution under delegated congressional responsibilities, I observe) Committee calling a confab of big hitters from markets to explain why Michael Lewis has the bestselling investing tome in the USA (Flash Boys).

One weighty weigher-in was ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher, who testified: “The costs associated with maintaining access to each venue, retaining technologists and regulatory staff, and developing increasingly sophisticated risk controls are passed on to investors and result in unnecessary systemic risk.”

Quoted in a story by Bloomberg’s Sam Mamudi, another congregant before Congress, Dave Lauer of KOR Group LLC, said, “Regulation has created this monstrosity of a market, and it is only by peeling back some regulations and refining others that we can hope to simplify market structure and increase market efficiency.”

I must note: we’ve decried similarly for about the past seven years, before it was cool to do so and the subject of a New York Times bestseller.

Not everybody wants to rend the fabric. Said CEO Joe Ratterman of BATS Global Markets: “Whether it is banning the current maker-taker fee structure, limiting payment for order flow generally, or other attempts to alter the fundamental economics of trading, price controls are a blunt instrument likely to cause disruptions and consequences that are unforeseeable and potentially detrimental to all types of investors.”

There were witnesses from the Nasdaq, Invesco, Georgetown University and Citadel Derivatives. The empty chair? Somebody representing public companies. Not a one. We might as well hold hearings on beef prices and leave out cattle ranchers. (more…)

Public Companies, Pay Your Market-Makers

 Apparently, exchanges are not bastions of deep liquidity.

 In a bombshell dropped at a congressional hearing yesterday, top executives for the NYSE and the Nasdaq proposed – to borrow from humorist Dave Barry, we SWEAR we are not making this up – that you pay them fees, small-cap companies, which they will distribute to market-makers to incentivize trading in ETFs that trade your shares.

 Exchanges already incentivize most trades, but in the hundred most liquid names there’s great profit in the data off the consolidated tape. You small-caps offer no profit. So in addition to charging you listing fees, they now want to charge you market-making fees – but in the ETFs that hold your stocks.

 Congresspersons unfamiliar with how arbitrage works and how ETFs are principally one-day investment vehicles won’t see through this self-serving and patently ridiculous proposal. The SEC may also overlook the glaring contradiction to well-functioning capital markets and approve it. Public companies don’t read exchange proposals as they should and don’t comment on them.  No opposition? Approved.

 For more, we’ve asked permission to re-run a blog post today by Joe Saluzzi at Themis Trading: (more…)