Tagged: investors

Blunderbuss

Do stores sell coats in the summer? 

No, they sell bathing suits. They match product to consumer.  Do you, investor-relations professionals?

I’ll tell you what I mean.  First, here’s a tease:  I recorded a panel yesterday with the Nasdaq’s Chris Anselmo and Kissell Research Group’s Dr. Robert Kissell on How New Trading Patterns Affect IR.

It airs at 4p ET June 22 during the 2021 NIRI Annual Virtual Conference.  Root around in the couch cushions of your IR budget and find some coins and join us.  We’ll be taking questions live around the panel.  Sling some heckling if you want!  It’s a great program.

Now, back to matching product to consumer.  The IR outreach strategy for maintaining relationships with investors often resembles a blunderbuss. Unless you went to elementary school when I did and saw pictures of pilgrims sporting guns with barrels shaped like flugelhorns, you probably don’t know what I’m talking about.

You threw some stuff in the barrel and loaded it with powder and ignited it and hoped some of what belched out went in the general direction you were pointing.

Illustration 165213327 © Dennis Cox | Dreamstime.com

If you don’t have anything better I guess it works. But the IR profession shouldn’t be blunderbussing wildly around.

I get it, Tim.  Be targeted in our outreach.

No, I mean sell your product to consumers who’ll buy it.  Your product is your stock.  Your story is a narrative that may or may not match your product.

Huh?

Stay with me.  I’ll explain.  This is vital.   

Think of it this way. REI is an outdoors store.  It’ll sell you cycling stuff and camping gear in the summer, and skiing gear and coats in the winter.  The data analytics they use are pretty simple: The season changes.

In the stock market, the seasons are relentlessly changing but the temperature doesn’t rise and fall in predictable quadrants to tell you if igloos or swimsuits are in. But the BEHAVIORAL DATA wax and wane like many small seasons.

The Russell 2000 value index is up 30% this year. The Russell 2000 growth index has risen just 3.8%.  Is value more appealing than growth?  No, as both Benzinga and the Wall Street Journal reported, GME and AMC rank 1-2 in the index.

The crafters of the indices didn’t suppose that movie theaters in the age of Covid or a business built on selling games that have moved online were growth businesses.

They’re not. But the products are. These are extreme cases but it happens all the time.

CVX, market cap $210 billion, is in both Value and Momentum State Street SPDR (S&P Depositary Receipts) Exchange Traded Funds. It’s got both characteristics AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

AAPL, in 299 ETFs, is used for focus value, dividend strategies, technology 3x bull leveraged exposure, high growth, luxury goods, risk-manager and climate-leadership investing, among a vast array of other reasons.

Look up your own stock and see what characteristics are prompting ETF ownership.  That’s data you can use.  Don’t know what to do? Ask us. We’ll help.

How can ETFs with diametrically opposed objectives use the same stocks? That’s something every investor-relations professional needs to know. ETFs control $6 trillion in the US alone. They’re not pooled investments and they don’t hold custodial accounts like mutual funds.

Should the IR profession understand what the money is doing in the stock market?

Set that aside for now. There’s an immediate lesson to help us stop behaving like blunderbusses.  Stocks constantly change. I think rather than targeting specific investors, you should build a big tent of folks you know.

And you should RECONNECT with them in highly specific, data-driven ways.  If you just call investors you know to follow up, you’re doing IR like a cave man. Stop doing that.

The deck is already stacked against investors focused on story.  They need all our help they can get! I’ve explained it many times.  Rules promote average prices and harm outliers.  Passives want average prices. Stock pickers want outliers.

If we want investors interested in our stories to succeed, use DATA to help them.

Like this. We met with a Financials component yesterday.  The data show a big surge in Passive money in patterns.  You won’t see it in settlement data.  It never leaves the custodian because it the same money moving from indexes to ETFs and back.

But ModernIR can see it in near realtime.

The IR department should be calling core GROWTH names, even though it’s a value story.  That wave of Passive money is going to lift the stock. Growth money buys appreciation. Value money buys opportunity.

You want to move from blunderbuss to data expert in modern markets?  Ask us.  You don’t have to be way behind like the Russell indices.  You can be way ahead, like a modern IRO.

Get rid of that blunderbuss, pilgrim.   

Cash in Lieu

Public companies and investors, is the Federal Reserve using cash to hurt you?

What?  Quast, don’t you mean they’re inflating stocks?

To a point, yes. And then history kicks in. There’s no such thing as “multiple expansion,” the explanation offered for why stocks with no increase in earnings cost more.  If you’re paying more for the same thing, it’s inflation.

But that’s not what matters here. The Fed’s balance sheet is now over $7.7 trillion. “Excess reserves” held by member banks are $3.7 trillion, up $89 billion in just a week. In March 2007 excess reserves were about $5 billion.  I kid you not.

What’s this got to do with stocks?

The banks behind about 85% of customer orders for stocks, about 95% of derivatives notional value, and the bulk of the Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) shares trading in the market are the same.  And they’re Fed members.

Cash is fungible – meaning it can be used in place of other things.  Same with ETF shares. About $500 billion of ETF shares are created or redeemed every month.  ETF shares are swapped for stocks of equal value when money flows out of ETFs,  and when it flows in, stocks of equal value are provided by brokers to sponsors like Blackrock so the brokers can sell ETF shares to the public.

Follow? Except it can be cash instead.  Cash in lieu.

I mean, what is more abundant than cash now? There is so much excess money in the system thanks to the Fed’s issuance of currency that banks can find little better to do with it than leave it at the Fed for seven basis points of interest.

Or use it in place of stocks.

Buying and selling them is hard. They’re not liquid like $3.7 trillion of cash. There are transaction costs.  Suppose a bank needs to bring $10 billion of S&P 500 stocks as a prime broker to Blackrock to get it back in line with asset-allocations?  That’s a lot of work.

But what if Blackrock would be happy with $10 billion of cash, plus a few basis points of over-collateralization?  That’s cash in lieu. 

I’m not suggesting it happens all the time. But as the President would say, Come on man.  Imagine the temptation when creating and redeeming ETF shares for both parties to prefer cash.  It’s piled in drifts.

And you don’t have to settle any shares.  You don’t have to pay trading commissions.  And it’s an in-kind exchange of things of equal value. Cash for ETFs, or stocks for ETFs, either way. Tax-free.

Oh, and you won’t see any ownership-change, public companies.  

Don’t you wonder why stock-pickers – who enjoy none of these advantages – accept this disparity? Rules are supposed to level the playing field, not tilt it like a pinball machine.

Anyway, here’s the problem for public companies and investors.  These transactions aren’t recorded in cash. They’re in lieu, meaning the cash represents a basket of stocks. On the books, it’s as though Blackrock got stocks.

So, we investors and public companies think Blackrock owns a bunch of stocks – or needs to buy them. But it’s instead swapping cash in lieu.

The real market for stocks is not at all what it seems. Stocks start doing wonky things like diverging wildly.

Investors, I think you should complain about cash in lieu. It distorts our understanding of supply and demand for stocks.

And public companies, you wonder why you’re not trading with your peers? If you’re “in lieu,” you’re out.  There are more reasons, sure. But nearly all times it’s not your story. It’s this.

And it’s not fraudulent. It’s within the rules. But excess reserves of $5 billion would make substituting cash for stocks all but impossible. The more money there is, the more it will be substituted for other things of value.

It’s Gresham’s Law – bad money chases out good. Copernicus came up with that. Apparently he was known as Gresham (just kidding –Englishman Thomas Gresham, financial advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, lent his name to the rule later).  But it says people will hoard the good stuff – stocks – and spend the bad stuff.

Cash.

And so it is.

The Fed is distorting markets in ways it never considered when it dipped all assets in vast vats of dollars and left them there to soak. 

The good news is we can see it. We meter the ebb and flow of equities with Market Structure Sentiment and Short Volume (for both companies and investors). Broad Market Sentiment peaked right into expirations – telling us demand was about to fall.

It’s one more reason why market structure matters.

Moon Rules

We spent last week in Summit County, famous for Breckenridge and Keystone. With windows open and the sun set, the temperature at 9,000 feet drops fast, great for sleeping.

It’s not great for staying awake reading a Kindle but I worked through some exciting pages of Artemis, the new novel by Andy Weir, who wrote The Martian, made into a Ridley Scott movie starring Matt Damon.

And yes, Artemis got me thinking about market structure. Not because of the profanity, the ripping pace, the clever characters, the exotic settings.  It’s a book set on the moon, where scientific rules matter.

Weir’s genius is the application of science to clever storylines. On the moon, if you want to commit a crime to save the community, you better understand how to blend acetylene and oxygen in zero atmosphere. Fail to follow or understand the rules, you die.

It’s not life and death in the stock market but rules play the same supreme role in dictating outcomes. If as public companies you think your story will determine the outcome for your stock, the rules will humble you.  How much of your trading volume comes from Active Investment? You can and should know – and it’s not what you’d think. But that’s not the point of being public, is it.  So don’t be afraid.

If you’re an investor and you think fundamentals will pace you to superior results, think again. The amount of money choosing company financials has plunged, while funds indexing to markets has mushroomed. Rules helping models will eat your lunch.

What rules? Start with Regulation National Market System. It creates a marketplace that forces revenue-sharing among intermediaries. Professional sports like basketball in the USA also operate with rules that shift focus from playing the sport to managing salary cap (Denver just traded three Nuggets for that reason).

If you don’t know this, you’ll have a false understanding of what drives the sport. The “haves” must distribute funds to the “have nots.” Some owners in money-losing markets might choose to skimp on salary to scrape mandated distributions from teams making bank (I wonder what the NBA Cavaliers will do now?).

Right now, stock market sentiment reflecting not the opinions of humans but the ebb and flow of money and the way machines price stocks (the rules, in other words) is topping again as it did about June 12. Options expire today through Friday.  So, no matter what you expect as earnings commence, the market will have a propensity to decline ahead.

It’s like the rules on the moon.  In one-sixth of earth’s gravity, harsh sun, no atmosphere, success depends on knowing how stuff works. Investors and public companies, welcome to the moon. You can’t treat it like earth. Rules determine outcomes. If your actions don’t account for the rules that govern how markets function, outcomes will reflect it.

But it’s fun on the moon once you know what you’re doing. It’s fun knowing when the market is topped, and bottomed, on rules. It’s fun doing investor-relations when you know what all the money is doing.  So, come on up to zero atmosphere! It’s not scary.

Big Pillow Fight

I hope you enjoyed summer vacation from the Market Structure Map!

We skipped last week while immersed in NIRI National, the investor-relations profession’s annual bash, this year at the Wynn in Las Vegas, where at the ModernIR booth these passersby in feathers joined us for a photo (and Sammy Davis, Jr., whom I’d mistakenly thought had expired some time ago).

Speaking of feathers, a “big league” (bigly?) pillow fight has erupted over the SEC’s proposed Access Fee Pilot Program – we’ll explain – and the exchanges are stuffing the digital airwaves with nasal-clogging goose down over it.  How to blow the air clear?

Before we answer, you may be thinking, “Tim, didn’t you write about this June 6?” Yes. But I’ve had relentless questions about what the exchanges are saying.

The IR industry’s biggest annual event last week had nothing on market structure. Never has there been a session at NIRI National called “How Stocks Trade Under Reg NMS.”  You can earn an Investor Relations Charter designation, our version of the CFA, without knowing how stocks trade, because the body of knowledge omits market structure.

As one IR officer said to me, “It’s become acceptable today to not know how our stock trades, and that ought not be.”

No wonder our profession has officially taken a neutral position on something the listing stock exchanges generally oppose, and investors support – this latter lot the audience for IR, and ostensibly the buyers and sellers exchanges are knotting in matrimony.

Do you see?  We’re told the stock market matches investors with investments. Yet exchanges and investors have opposing views, and public companies, the investments of the market, are neutral. What could be more bizarre?

Well, okay. There are beings walking the hallways of casinos on the strip more bizarre than that. But follow me here.

As we explained last week, this trading study is intended to assess how fees and incentives affect the way stock-prices are set and how trades are circulated around the data network that our stock market has become today.

In 2004, when the current market structure was still being debated, the NYSE’s then CEO said trading incentives should be prohibited. The Nasdaq thought requiring a national best price would lead to “flickering quotes” and “quote shredding,” terms that describe unstable prices resulting purely from effort to set the price.

Step forward.  The exchanges are paying some $3 billion of combined (that includes amounts from CBOE, operator of four erstwhile BATS equity markets) incentives aimed at setting prices, and we have flickering and shredded quotes all over the market as evidenced by the SEC’s own data (Midas) on ratios of quotes to trades.

And both exchanges want these conditions to persist because both make money selling data – which is the byproduct of a whole bunch of prices.

This is the key point: Exchanges pay traders to set prices. Picture a table with marbles on it.  Exchanges are positioned at the corners. Consider incentives called trading rebates a weight that exchanges can lean on the corners to cause marbles to roll toward them.  The more rolling marbles, the more data revenue they capture.  So you see why exchanges want those payments to continue – and why they are pressing issuers hard for support.

Investors are the marbles. The incentives cause marbles to roll AWAY from each other, the opposite of what investors want. They want orders with big size and stable prices, a big marble pool.

The problem for issuers is that prices are set to create data revenues, not to match investors.  The culprit is a market that behaves like a flat table with marbles on it, when a market ought to encourage the formation of a big pool of marbles.

That the SEC wants to examine an aspect of this structure is itself encouraging, however.

Regulation National Market System, the Consolidated Tape Association Plan, and exchange order types coalesce to create the market we have now. We understand them.  Do your trusted sources of market information explain these things to you?  You cannot interpret the market without first understanding the rules that govern its function.

I don’t blame our friends at the exchanges for clinging to current structure. They have their own revenue streams in mind. Human beings are self-interested, the cornerstone of international relations from the beginning of time. But you should not count on unbiased information about your trading to come from trading intermediaries.

You can count on unbiased analytics from ModernIR, because we are the IR profession’s market structure experts.  If you want to see how your stock trades, ask us.

Enlist Investors

We assume investors know how markets work. What if they don’t?

Patrick Armstrong, new president of the Securities Traders Association of New York (STANY), told Traders Magazine yesterday that the buyside has been absent from the market-structure debate.

What debate? If you joined the IR profession in the past 15 years, you may be unaware that stocks today trade radically unlike any other time in the general history of capital markets. It’s not a technology question. Things change. Machines convert human processes to automated ones. That’s normal.

When steamboats flourished on the Mississippi River, what had been hard – rowing upstream – became an easy ride. Travel took on an aspect of leisure. It moved from essential to enjoyable (air travel has gone the other way, as I was reminded yet again flying yesterday from Denver to Newark). It was still travel, though.

What’s the purpose behind trading stocks today? Don’t listen to what somebody tells you. Look at the data – which you do if you use Market Structure Analytics. The data say that the purpose of trading markets is to move things around for profit. That’s 85% of your volume.

If the exchange listing your shares had told you that the fees you pay would give you access to a bunch of short-term traders moving your shares around so the exchange could profit on data revenues, would it have changed your view of the market?

“I want [the buyside] to tell me their opinion on the direction of our market structure. I believe that those who are for the status quo, those who say everything is fine, are the ones to be wary of,” Armstrong said. (more…)

How Quants Find Value

Prior to the 4th of July you might have heard us jeer, “That’s about as exciting as Iowa.”

Passing through last weekend, we had to concede that Iowa was in fact a place of surpassing and bucolic beauty, with its rolling corn-planted hills and manicured farms. The heartland at Independence Day reminded us that this land of ours and yours is jeweled.

Anyway, we’re a day late this week because it’s a long way from Bratenahl on Erie to the banks of the Platte.

Speaking of eerie, your management teams must be wondering what caused stocks to cross chasms today to the upside. Do you think investors suddenly decided stocks were cheap? To paraphrase Saturday Night Live…really? (more…)