WSJ : Behind the Market Swoon: The Herdlike Behavior of Computerized Trading

Behind the Market Swoon: The Herdlike Behavior of Computerized Trading
The majority of trades come from machines, models, or passive investing formulas that move in unison and blazingly fast

Behind the broad, swift market slide of 2018 is an underlying new reality: Roughly 85% of all trading is on autopilot—controlled by machines, models, or passive investing formulas, creating an unprecedented trading herd that moves in unison and is blazingly fast.

That market has grown up during the long bull run, and hasn’t until now been seriously tested by a prolonged downturn.

Since peaking in late September, the S&P 500 index of U.S. stocks has fallen 19.8%. The S&P is down 15% in December alone. It isn’t just stocks. Crude oil stood above $75 a barrel in October. By Christmas Eve it was below $43. Monday was the worst Christmas Eve for the Dow Jones Industrial Average in its history.

To many investors, the sharp declines are symptoms of the modern market’s sensitivities. Just as cheery sentiment about the future of big technology companies drove gains through the first three-quarters of the year, so too have shifting winds brought the market low in the fourth quarter.

Today, quantitative hedge funds, or those that rely on computer models rather than research and intuition, account for 28.7% of trading in the stock market, according to data from Tabb Group--a share that’s more than doubled since 2013. They now trade more than retail investors, and everyone else.

Add to that passive funds, index investors, high-frequency traders, market makers, and others who aren’t buying because they have a fundamental view of a company’s prospects, and you get to around 85% of trading volume, according to Marko Kolanovic of JP Morgan .

“Electronic traders are wreaking havoc in the markets,” says Leon Cooperman, the billionaire stock picker who founded hedge fund Omega Advisors.

Behind the models employed by quants are algorithms, or investment recipes, that automatically buy and sell based on pre-set inputs. Lately, they’re dumping stocks, traders and investors say.

“The speed and magnitude of the move probably are being exacerbated by the machines and model-driven trading,” says Neal Berger, who runs Eagle’s View Asset Management, which invests in hedge funds and other vehicles. “Human beings tend not to react this fast and violently.”

Among the traders today are computers that buy and sell on models, and passive funds that seek only to hold the same securities as everyone else does. Meanwhile, bankers and brokers—once a ready source of buying and selling—have retreated. Today, when the computers start buying, everyone buys; when they sell, everyone sells.

The market of 2018 is a creation years in the making, and would be hard to quickly unwind give how much is now baked into the system.

Troubles in financial markets, rather than in global economies, best explain the recent market losses, argues Michael Hintze, chief executive officer of $18.1 billion London-based CQS LLP, which manages two big hedge funds that were positive for the year through November.

Mr. Hintze says “the market’s new structure,” featuring less trading by investment banks and more by algorithmic-focused funds, has reduced the ease with which investors can get in or out of markets. As a result, normal year-end nervousness has been amplified, and selling that in the past would have resulted in measured losses leads to deep drops.

Markets were remarkably placid in recent years, even as machine trading came to dominate, suggesting that these approaches didn’t cause problems during the bull market, or even contributed to the market’s extended calm.

One reason the dynamic might have changed: Many of the trading models use momentum as an input. When markets turn south, they’re programmed to sell. And if prices drop, many are programmed to sell even more.

The robots didn’t trigger the decline, of course. But they devoured a stew of red signals in the second half of the year:

—A slowdown in growth in the economies of Japan, China and Europe, and suggestions the U.S. might be moderating a little bit too.
—The end of an era of low interest rates and easy money. In late September, the Fed pushed interest rates above the rate of inflation for the first time in a decade. This month, the ECB confirmed it would end its $3 trillion bond-buying program. For investors, higher rates mean something they haven’t seen in a while: You can earn money holding cash.

—A decline in the growth of corporate profits. In each of the first three quarters of the year, profits of S&P 500 companies rose about 25% from a year earlier, helped by the corporate-tax cut. According to FactSet projections, earnings growth for the S&P 500 in the fourth quarter will be less than half what it was earlier in the year. It will fall into single digits in 2019.
—Erratic politics in large parts of the world. The U.S. and China are embroiled in a trade dispute. President Trump is openly denigrating the Federal Reserve on Twitter. Britain is fumbling through Brexit and Italy through an economic drought with consequences for its giant bond market.

The bouts of automated selling have landed in a market ill-prepared for it.

One measure of this is liquidity, the ease with which buyers can find assets to buy and sellers can find people to take assets off their hands. When liquidity declines, prospective buyers have to offer more or prospective sellers have to accept less. That makes swings in market prices bigger. It works both on the way up and on the way down.

Signs of diminishing liquidity can be found all across the markets.
The number of contracts available to buy or sell S&P 500 futures at the best available price has dwindled in recent years and dropped 70% over the past year alone, hitting a decade low, according to Goldman Sachs.

Boaz Weinstein, founder of credit hedge fund Saba Capital Management LP, said the market had been underpricing uncertainty. Now it’s taking into account political issues “at the same time as the Fed is hiking, the economy is slowing, and a lot of people are feeling like the best days for markets are over,” he said.

Mr. Weinstein says there are dangers building in the junk-bond market. One worry, he says, is that so many junk bonds—he estimated about 40%—are held by mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that allow their investors to sell any day they like, even though bonds inside the funds are hard to sell.

When enough investors want to cash out, such a fund has to start selling bonds. But without much liquidity, finding buyers could be hard.

A selloff could start simply, he said. “It has its own gravity.”

There are no apparent signs, analysts and portfolio managers say, of the economic imbalances that fueled the 2008 meltdown, which started with a housing bust that went on to infect the banking sector and eventually morphed into a full-fledged financial crisis.
The depth and speed of the market downturn are forcing a re-examination of conditions in the global economy and comparisons to previous market downturns that took place without economic recessions.

Some analysts see similarities to the late 1998 pullback in U.S. stocks that followed a year of turmoil in emerging markets, punctuated by the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the Russian default of 1998 and culminating in the collapse of the highly leveraged Long Term Capital Management hedge fund.

Others point to the market shakeout in late 2015. Like the current episode, it lacked an obvious trigger and was accompanied by anxiety over the Federal Reserve’s plans to raise interest rates—in that case, the Fed’s first rate increase in nearly a decade. Like this year, the 2015 retreat featured a sharp decline in oil prices and a significant drop in the S&P 500.

In both those cases the market bounced back when investors regained confidence that the U.S. economic expansion was intact.

Most U.S. economic data and surveys of consumers and businesses are still optimistic. This month, the Federal Reserve moderately lowered its median projection of next year’s economic growth from 2.5% to a still-respectable 2.3%. Markets are telegraphing a darker message. Yields on 10-year Treasury bonds have fallen from 3.24% in early November to 2.74% just before Christmas, a sign investors think the economy won’t be solid enough to make steady interest-rate increases possible.

“There is a disconnect between what the financial markets are signaling about the economy and what the data are signaling,” said Catherine Mann, chief global economist at Citigroup.

Those sirens also include large drops in commodities like oil and copper, which hint at slowing global demand, and stress in the corporate-bond market. The spread between riskier high-yield debt and Treasury bonds widened to five percentage points from three percentage points in early October. Spreads moved at similar ranges between July and November 2007, one month before the most recent recession began.

Sentiment among chief financial officers, who help set budgets that will shape investment and hiring decisions, has also soured. Half of CFOs believe a recession will start within a year, and 80% think a recession will hit by the end of 2020, according to a Duke University survey.

“It’s not just about the equity market throwing a temper tantrum, it’s far deeper than that,” said David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto. “This is a much broader global liquidity story.”

Encouraged by signs of economic strengthening, the Fed has been gradually raising interest rates from rock-bottom levels and selling back the trillions of dollars in bonds it bought in the postcrisis years. The central bank says the roll-back of stimulus is smooth. Others aren’t so sure what comes next. There has never been such a huge stimulus, and one has never before been unraveled.

Some believe there's a hidden risk in debt that consumers and companies took on when borrowing was inexpensive. The Fed’s campaigns were “fundamentally designed to encourage corporate America to lever up, which makes them more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs,” said Scott Minerd, chief investment officer at Guggenheim Partners. “The reversing of the process is actually more powerful,” he said.

>>> Sheremetyevo Airport shareholders likely to sell 10% stake to foreign strate

Sheremetyevo Airport shareholders likely to sell 10% stake to foreign strategic investor in 2019 (translated)
26 DEC 2018
The private shareholders of the Sheremetyevo Airport will most likely sell a 10% stake in the airport to a foreign strategic investor in 2019, Russian news agency Prime reported.
Alexander Ponomarenko, Chairman of Sheremetyevo Board of Directors and co-owner, was quoted as saying that the private shareholders plan to sell a 10% stake in the Moscow airport next year to a strategic investor, most likely a foreign one.
Ponomarenko, quoted in both Prime and TASS news agencies, confirmed that the airport is in the final stage of signing an agreement with JPMorgan, to seek an investor for the sale of the 10% stake.
Ponomarenko noted that the value of the asset will depend on the growth trend of passenger traffic.
Sheremetyevo plans to increase the passenger traffic from 45m passengers in 2018 to 52m passengers in 2019, Prime further reported, citing Ponomarenko.
The Prime report said that a 66% stake in Sheremetyevo, Russia’s largest airport, belongs to Sheremetyevo Holding, which in turn is fully-owned by the Cypriot TPS Avia. In the latter, a 65.22% stake is owned by a trust of the Ponomarenko and Alexander Skorobogatko families, while 34.78% is owned by the businessman Arkady Rotenberg.
Russian federal agency Rosimushchestvo owns a 30.43% stake in Sheremetyevo, while minority stakes belong to national airline Aeroflotand VEB Capital.
On 25 December, Sheremetyevo CEO Mikhail Vasilenko and the Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsia) Head Alexander Neradko signed an agreement to transfer the entire airfield infrastructure to Sheremetyevo into a concession for 49 years, Russian daily Vedomosti reported today. The paper explained that currently, majority of Russian airports rent airfields from the government.
Sheremetyevo plans to invest RUB 61bn (USD 889.8m) in the airfield, the item reported quoting Ponomarenko's comments on the company plans.
The estimated value of Sheremetyevo was previously reported at RUB 150bn –RUB 170bn (USD 2.18bn-USD 2.47bn).

>>> Total in talks to acquire Uniper gas-fired power plants in France from EPH (

Total in talks to acquire Uniper gas-fired power plants in France from EPH (translated)
26 DEC 2018
French energy group Total [EPA: FP] confirmed it signed an agreement with Czech Republic’s Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH) to acquire two gas-fired power plants with around 400 MW each located in Saint-Avold Lorraine, France, French daily Les Echos reported.
EPH, through its wholly owned subsidiary EP Power Europe, announced earlier this week that it accepted to enter into exclusive negotiations with Germany's Uniper [ETR:UN01] for the acquisition of Uniper's activities in France, including (i) two gas-fired power plants with around 400 MW each in Saint-Avold (Lorraine), (ii) two hard coal plants, each with around 600 MW, located in Saint-Avold and Gardanne (Provence), (iii) a 150 MW biomass power plant "Provence 4 Biomasse" located in Gardanne, as well as (iv) wind and solar power plants with a combined capacity of around 100 MW.
Total said that the acquisition of the two plants from EPH would be effective on 1 January 2020. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

>>> What to look at today 25th & 26th of December 2018

Nikkei 225 sank 5 percent on Tuesday for the biggest single-day drop since November 2016, taking its cue from U.S. equities, which tumbled during a shortened trading day on Christmas Eve. Nikkei 225 Stock Average plunged below 20,000 and slipped into a bear market, declined 21% decline from a high on Oct. 2.
Today, Asian stocks saw a volatile session Wednesday, with Japanese equities closing higher on a wave of late buying after rising and falling through the session. U.S. stock futures also swung as investors gauge how much selling pressure remains after this month’s rout.
Contracts on the S&P 500 Index slumped earlier after CNN reported that President Donald Trump’s frustration with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is rising. Korean shares tumbled after a holiday there, and Shanghai stocks fell for a second day. Markets in Australia and Hong Kong were closed. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index traded near a 22-month low, with a small bounce today doing little to ease the pain of what’s been the most brutal month for global equities since 2008. The dollar was flat, Treasury yields ticked lower.

Nikkei +0.89% Hang Seng closed CSI -0.51% Shanghai -0.26% Shenzen -0.42%

Eur$ 1.1392 CNH 6.8938 CNy 6.8829 JPY 110.48 GBP 1.2699 VHF 0.9882 RUB 69.1034 TRY 5.2938 WTI$42.91 +0.89%

S&P +0.36% EuroStoxx Closed FTSE Closed Dax Closed SMI Closed

Macro :
- Trump Expresses Confidence in Fed After Reports on Firing Chair
- Trump Urges Buying the Dip After Stocks Sink on D.C. Dysfunction
- China May Cut Alternative Energy Car Susbidy by 30%: SEC. Daily (BMW / DAI)
- Chinese Cities Delay Stricter Auto Emissions Standards as Local Carmakers Struggle to Keep Up

Keep an eye on :
- AAPL US : Huawei to overtake Apple as world's No. 2 smartphone seller, Shipments in 2018 surpass 200m - Nikkei
- FER SM : Ferrovial to Transfer Holding Co. to Holland From UK: Expansion
- PHOR LI : PhosAgro to Merge Metachem and PhosAgro-Trans with Apatit
- RNO FP : Nissan Alters Governance Code, Won’t Rule Out Renault Stake Sale --> 7201 -5.07%
- RNO FP : Tokyo Court Grants Nissan’s Kelly Bail, Sets 70m Yen Bond: NHK -->
- RNO FP : Prosecutors Appeal Tokyo Court’s Decision on Greg Kelly’s Bail
- RNO FP / 4201 JP : Shiga, Possible Successor to Ghosn, Resigns Shiseido Board Role
- SHP LN : Takeda (4502 JP) -5.08%

>>> FED Watch Tim Duy’s

State of Play, December 26, 2018


It’s Christmas, and Mrs. Fedwatch isn’t really keen on me typing away on the computer. Hence, I will need to keep this brief and to the point, at least as much as I can. With that in mind:

Fed ends the year with a questionable rate hike. The Fed acted as expected and hiked rates last week. The data drove the decision; even with growth slowing, the pace of activity is expected to remain above the rate of potential growth, stoking inflationary pressures. In simple terms, the economy retains too much momentum heading into the economy for the Fed to hold back from pushing closer to their estimate of neutral.

What makes the hike questionable (in my opinion, an error) was that it felt like a model-driven decision much like the December 2015 hike. Both occurred despite market turmoil that had continued too long to be ignored. And both occurred in the context of low inflation. There was no pressing reason for a rate hike other than they insist on defining policy on the back of long-run forecasts and feel compelled to follow-through with that policy.

That said, if the hike was an error, it was a recoverable error. I think the Fed will follow the 2016 script and step off the stage for at least the first half of the year if not longer. They now have the yield curve flat as a pancake; continuing to hike rates threatens to invite an outright inversion. Why tempt fate when you can sit back and wait for the lagged impact of rate hikes to make itself evident? They can stop now, stand ready to ease if necessary, and still keep the expansion alive. There is simply nothing in the data that says a recession is right on top of us.

Trump’s war with the Fed was inevitable. We all knew how the Fed would react to a fiscal stimulus shock. A monetary offset was always coming down the pipeline. The Fed never fully embraced the story that tax cuts would induce a supply-side response (a story that looks at odds with the decline in very long-term bond yield back down to 3%), something very clear in the Fed’s forecasts. That monetary offset was destined to anger President Trump.

The Fed isn’t the only thing weighing on markets. I don’t think the Fed is helping with the December rate hike while the forecasts of an intention to tighten policy into the restrictive range only adds insult to injury. That said, equities prices are under stress from a variety of directions: The expected fading of fiscal stimulus (including losing the impact on profits from tax cuts last year), expected slowing growth, tighter profit margins due to tariffs and labor costs, external political factors (Brexit), the US government slowdown, and general Trumpian uncertainty about almost every aspect of US policy. FWIW, it’s reasonable to argue that a bear market without a recession is a buying opportunity.

Trump’s ire with Powell creates a dangerous situation. Trump has reportedly discussed firing Powell as well as Mnuchin, who he blames for hiring Powell in the first place. Even aside from central bank independence issues, it is obviously bad precedent for the President to fire his economic team at the first hint of trouble. What does this say about the reaction of the President to a recession or a real financial crisis? What does this say about the ability of the government to manage the economy in such an event? Nothing good – it says that Trump stands ready to let it all burn down unintentionally because he does not understand policy. It is unquestionably now a real risk for market participants.

I feel we need to place nontrivial odds on the possibility that Trump fires, or at least attempts to fire, Powell. Mnuchin too. Yes, Trump did say nice things about both Powell and Mnuchin on Christmas day. How long is that good will going to last if markets keep slipping? A day? And note Trump’smodus operandi.Threaten to fire repeatedly, say nice things after the news leaks of the threatened firing, and then fire by tweet. Trump never accepts fault for anything, if there is a problem it is always caused by someone else, and that someone needs to be fired. Needless to say, firing Powell would rattle markets.

We don’t know how the Fed would react to an effort by Trump to fire Powell. There is a widely held belief that the President can’t “fire” Powell; at most he can demote Powell from Chairman back to governor. But then Powell’s colleagues could just vote to retain Powell in his role as head of the policy making FOMC. Trump would go ballistic of course and want Powell gone. The Fed could send the whole issue to the courts to be sorted out and, in theory, should they be victorious, enhance the Fed’s independence. But it would come at the cost of protracted uncertainty as the court battle rages.

Trump’s war on the Fed is already damaging the Fed. The Fed will deny vociferously that politics plays any roles in its policy making decisions. That said, central bankers are humans and it seems unlikely to me that they can truly make decisions that are not impacted in some way, even if just subconsciously, by politics. We will never know if Trump prodded the Fed into last week’s rate hike subconsciously; pushing back on Trump would be at least icing on the cake. And if the Fed is forced to cut rates going in the months ahead, they will be accused of caving to Trump even if the data or a Trump-induced market meltdown drives the decision.

Trump is placing the Fed in a no-win situation. I understand that my belief that the Fed has substantial exposure here is someone controversial. I don’t think the Fed can escape the Trump years unscathed. When I say this, the response is that Trump can’t fire the Chair or that he can’t influence the voting FOMC members or that the Chair can just make nice with the Senate.

First, I don’t think Trump cares that he “can’t” fire the Fed Chair. In Trump-world, he hired Powell and can fire Powell. Second, the Senate hasn’t shown much backbone when it comes to standing up to Trump. Third, what wasn’t entirely expected is that Trump can make the Fed do his bidding by creating a crisis that forces a Fed response. Exerting Fed independence in such a situation only puts the economy at risk. Heads they win, tails you lose.

Bottom Line: I not naturally prone to hyperbole, but this whole episode has a distinctly emerging market feel. I of course could be wrong here, but I don’t think that Trump-induced volatility is going to end anytime soon. It will arguably only get worse when a Democratic House of Representatives starts issuing subpoenas. We appear to be caught in a doom loop at the moment with each drop in the stock market bringing about a Trump response that induces another drop in the market. That can’t happen forever of course, but it is not clear that anyone wants to catch the falling knife just yet. We don’t know how long Wall Street can remain under pressure before it bleeds over into Main Street. The Fed can’t stand back and watch that happen; ultimately, they will need to cushion Trumpian uncertainty.