Flash Boys

I saw him on CNBC today.

I can see how HFT puts frequent traders at a disadvantage, but I don't see how it affects long-term investors much.

Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
I bought my first bond when in high school, I've been seriously investing/trading for 30 years. During that time I've read about many Wall Street scandal, generally I think the media exaggerates the harm. I bought Lewis book yesterday and finished it today, a great read.

I can say.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO %*g@*^) FING PISSED AT THE PARASITIC C@#^@S&* BLOOD-SUCKING LEECHES (WITH APOLOGIES TO LEECHES) OF WALL STREET AS I WAS TODAY.


The 60 Minutes piece was good, and covered most of the main points. But what really got my blood boiling was collusion between the almost all banks and almost all Wall Street firms with the high speed trading firms to scalp their customers. It is is the same thing that guys at Vanguard, and other pension and mutual funds were livid about. The brokers and market market are suppose to try and get us the best price either as individual or when the VTI manager places an order. Instead they went out of their way to screw us.

The one criticism I have off the book is there is very little data about how much this is costing us (I'm sure the only people who know are the HTF firms.) But to use one example one study found there were 55,000 opportunities to front run Apple stock, each and every day. Now sure it is maybe only one or two cent/share. But Apple trades 10+ million shares a day if 50% are high frequency trades the pennies add up.

The cost of this front running/picking off slow exchanges is definitely in the billions (probably in trader bonuses alone for HFT firms) The value of the US market is roughly $20 trillion, so $2 billion in trading cost is the equivalent of one basis point. If the total cost is $10 billion that is the equivalent of doubling the expense ratio of the Vanguard (or Schwab) Total Market Index/Fund or $500/year for $1 million portfolio.

Generally if you look hard at Wall St. scandals you can find a silver lining, e.g. sub-prime mortgage let people buy houses. However, despite what the guy from the BATS exchange say these high frequency trades provide no economic benefit. They provide the illusion of liquidity but no actually liquidity.

By sheer coincidence today, I meet with my Schwab Rep, and one of their managed portfolio advisers. They had to spend the first 10 minutes about me ranting about this and very serious request that Schwab explain in some detail how my order is routed. Ideally I'd like to route every order to IEX. The Schwab adviser was a sharp guy, who's basic strategy was to write covered call or cash secured puts. Realistically I wasn't going to pay ~.75% to an adviser, but after reading Flash Boys, I am done trading options in a rigged system, so his pitch had no appeal.

I'll post more details later on why us option traders get really screwed..

But it is important to note the indexers get screwed. Imagine Vanguard Total Stock Market fund gets a a $50 million deposit from IBMs 401K quarterly contribution, while American Funds get a $50 million redemption request from teacher pension plan. Now ideally those two should meet up and exchange shares of Apple, Walmart, Google for cash etc.. but what actually appears to happen is both Vanguard and American fund get front runned and end paying too much.
 
Last edited:
... But what really got my blood boiling was collusion between the almost all banks and almost all Wall Street firms with the high speed trading firms to scalp their customers. It is is the same thing that guys at Vanguard, and other pension and mutual funds were livid about. The brokers and market market are suppose to try and get us the best price either as individual or when the VTI manager places an order. Instead they went out of their way to screw us. ....

I don't claim to follow all I've read on this, but that apparent collusion thing was weird and upsetting to me also. I've heard about 'dark pools' before, but from what they described in that article, WTF?

There needs to be more transparency here, and there should be no way that one person can see someone else's order before it gets placed. But it seems like these exchanges are getting a benefit from the HFT, so they seem to not be interested in doing anything about it.

So should Vanguard run all trades through the IEX? Are there other added costs associated with that?

-ERD50
 
This is a good 13 minute interview with Michael Lewis today. Very easy to understand I think.

One thing I Lewis says again is if you are buying stocks or ETF's, use limit orders not market orders. I've always used limit orders but didn't know they went a separate way into the system.

Link:
 
Guess the moral of the story is the market is more like Vegas than we thought :facepalm:

Sometimes I think buying at Amazon is rigged. Browse an item, put that in my cart..take out of cart, then see the price increase :(
 
Last edited:
As for me.... I do not trade, so a penny or less per share is not going to sway my decision....
I am still making sure I fully understand, still studying the topic.

But if you hold mutual funds, even index funds, they trade stocks on your behalf and probably get clipped by HFT, so it does affect every investor whether you trade directly or not. Someone correct me if that's wrong.
 
Retail Brokers have no interest in or ability to educate their customers

Last week I went to a seminar at Fidelity on ETFs. The presenter from a Fido regional office began by explaining the role of "authorized participants" in creating and redeeming etf shares. But it soon became clear that he had no clue. He asserted that whatever firm did this needed no capital, and took no risk, because they never owned anything. Huh? I realize that the goal of this kind of arbitrage is to buy the components and sell the package as near to contemporaneously as possible, but no period of ownership and no capital or borrowing needed? If this is true, I really wish he had explained how to enter this wonderful business. Soon enough people asked questions and he had to punt and say not that he really didn't know, but that it was just a detail and really didn't matter. Well. that's like saying it really doesn't matter how these MBS come into being, just know that they are wonderful and buy them! I don't see how this is materially different from investing while being front run. It is too opaque for us to take any protective steps except don't trade and also don't invest in funds that do .

Just take a seat, ladies and gentlemen, and put your money on the wheel of fortune.

Whenever I go to one of these things I ask how does Fidelity get paid, when the customer does not pay them? Blank stares, and "that's above my pay grade." Well, Fidelity is getting paid for sure, and it's customers are doing the paying either directly or indirectly. What really annoyed me was that this was treated as if it were a meaningless or immaterial question.

When I was 8 years old my mother sent me to buy some meat at an old fashioned butcher shop. I realized that I was a mark for them, but couldn't figure out what to do about it. When I got home and was told how I had been cheated, I vowed that that was very unlikely to happen again. Of course it did happen, the world is full of sharpies. It cant be prevented, but it can be minimized by having the courage to say bulls*t or walk away when some slicks are trying to get one past you. Just 2 weeks ago a clerk in downtown coffee house took my $50 and rang up the sale against a $10.
When I gave him the note I said this is a fifty. I told him again and he was about to close he drawer without correcting it, so I called out loudly, "Don't close the till, I gave you a fifty and you rang up a ten!" The manager walked over and made correct change, but no comment was made or explanation offered. Too bad, because the coffee was good and the place well located for my downtown errands but they have seen the last of me

Interesting thing about the Michael Lewis CNBC interview today is that the CNBC guys essentially were arguing big deal, the insiders are supposed to fleece the sheep as long as not too many of them are killed in the process.

Like Carl Perkins sang:

Well, you can knock me down,
Step in my face,
Slander my name
All over the place.

Do anything that you want to do, but uh-uh,
Honey, lay off of my shoes
Don't you step on my blue suede shoes.
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes.

Substitute being cheated for blue suede shoes, and this is how I feel.



Ha
 
Last edited:
I am still making sure I fully understand, still studying the topic.

But if you hold mutual funds, even index funds, they trade stocks on your behalf and probably get clipped by HFT, so it does affect every investor whether you trade directly or not. Someone correct me if that's wrong.
Today Michael Lewis explicitly said that this is correct.


Ha
 
As of 2009, studies suggested HFT firms accounted for 60-73% of all US equity trading volume, with that number falling to approximately 50% in 2012.
And if your AA includes equities in any form, you're not immune?
As for me.... I do not trade, so a penny or less per share is not going to sway my decision....
But if you hold mutual funds, even index funds, they trade stocks on your behalf and probably get clipped by HFT, so it does affect every investor whether you trade directly or not. Someone correct me if that's wrong.
Today Michael Lewis explicitly said that this is correct.
So does High-frequency trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - especially index funds since their rebalancing trades are predictable well in advance. Hmmmmmmmm...

And if Wall Street runs true to form, shouldn't we expect once they've exploited HFT as widely as possible, they will start to increase their cut more and more to keep the merry-go-round spinning? And they'll be the first to know when to get off. Sounds almost bubbleish...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
I think this guy is a bit late to the party! Back in the 70's/80's when I was a trader,hedge fund operator, front running was the VIG for inside knowledge. The exchanges wised up and instead of the VIG going to the brokers, the exchanges collect big bucks to let the HFT set up their computers right on the floor for first peek. Back in the 50's-70's security analysts for the streets first mutual funds told me they would get fired for not acting on inside information. Nowadays, you have to run for congress.
 
If you go back to that youtube video posted (above in this thread) today and listen after about 10:30 minutes into the video, Lewis says that
the complexity is a source of instability.
Lewis then says that Goldman wanted to get into IEX because the complexity is symptomatic of a worse problem. Goldman did not want to be blamed when there is a BIG flash crash (x10 flash crash as Lewis put it).

So that would be my biggest worry. The flash crash of May 2010 was over in a "flash". I would worry that it could get so bad that it would be a more permanent hit to stocks that could destroy confidence and hurt the real economy.

I'm hoping the fix (IEX type of exchange) is going to snowball in popularity and help us avoid a really bad shock.
 
Last edited:
I notice that the HFTH (high frequency talking heads) bunch is going nuts.

Of course. They wouldn't have jobs if things changed.
 
I'm hoping the fix (IEX type of exchange) is going to snowball in popularity and help us avoid a really bad shock.
I watched Michael Lewis on Charlie Rose for a full hour. He said new regs aren't the answer, Wall St will quickly find a way around them. Instead he suggested that unless investors in large numbers start demanding changes, nothing will happen. He also said that Goldman Sachs is having internal debates right now considering using IEX to avoid getting smeared if the X hits the fan WRT HFT. He said Goldman can't win the HFT game anyway because they are too big and slow, so they might be wondering if they can come off as the good guys by cutting out the HFT firms.

I'm not smart enough to know, just sharing what Lewis said.

And it's not just equities evidently.
 

Attachments

  • 20120225_SRC490.gif
    20120225_SRC490.gif
    22.7 KB · Views: 14
This is a good 13 minute interview with Michael Lewis today. Very easy to understand I think.

One thing I Lewis says again is if you are buying stocks or ETF's, use limit orders not market orders. I've always used limit orders but didn't know they went a separate way into the system.

Link:

Lewis is way better than me at making analogies so I'll summarize some of the collusion I read in the book, but watch this interview.

Exchanges Income
Primarily make money by charging a fee for executing a trade.
That fee is passed on to us retail investors above our $8.95 commission fee typical $.50 for sale, same thing for institutional investors.
Connection fee for brokers, whole seller, the faster the connection the fee increases exponentially.
Co-Location fee. They charge high speed trading firm huge bucks to locate their service in the same location as the exchanges servers...
Special order type fee. We are familiar with market,limit order, perhaps you've seen All or None,or Kill or Fill. But the high speed trading firm have paid exchanges to add an addition 150 types of order.
One is example is Hide and Slide which cancel a sell trade (for example) if the is bid size larger than ask size..
Generally speaking these order are only useful for high speed computerized trading.

Exchanges expenses: beside the normal computer office, cost a big expense for exchanges is providing rebates to brokers or banks who route orders their exchange. In many case these rebates make very little economic sense except for they enable the High Speed Trading firms to take advantage of their trading speed to pick off the profitable orders. Buy 1000 shares of UPS at 98.00 because they know they can sell it a few milliseconds later to some else at 98.02.

Brokers make money from collecting the rebates, also some brokers like E-Trade also owned (or use to) exchanges.

Banks: The book listed too many ways that banks hose their customers for me to go over. But the use of dark pool, which in theory are suppose to hide the trade of the large institutional firms but seem like they are really just design scalp them is one of the biggest.
 
Last edited:
Michael Lewis is a gifted writer and a great salesman of his books. But to look at his comment at face value - the stock market is rigged, is simply not true, but just a sales pitch.

Over the past 25 years everything has gotten better for an individual stock investor. Commissions have sunk to record low levels, and all the high level computing being thrown at the stock market makes this possible.

How was my purchase of Microsoft a year ago when I was loving that stock price rigged? What effect did the Flash Boys have on a thousand shares at 28? 2 cents per share? How do the flash boys effect the long term business of Microsoft? They don't. This is a lot to do about nothing, I remember when the bid ask was in 1/8 the and you paid a commission of $49 at a discount broker.

If there is a system that averages an 8 percent annual return and the cost of the transaction includes a HFT that is Malkeiling away a market inefficiency that exists in the short term, I am welcoming those to the party. If the HFT sunk the market so that people lost faith in them and dropped PE's permanently 50% I am all for that as well. I will gladly take a double on my dividend return purchases on all my stocks. If people want to go back to when mutual funds routinely had expenses of 2 percent, well then I guess we better eliminate all but the "necessary" trades.
Other than that something that causes a 0.02% cost to purchasing a stock is not worth wasting time even thinking about.
 
Last edited:
I too, saw Lewis on Charlie Rose last night. I think he does a good job of pointing out one nuance of the market (HFT front running) that may not be illegal but sure as hell is unethical.
 
Back
Top Bottom