Advertise | Bookmark | Contact Us | E-Mail List |  | Update Page | UraniumSeek.com 

Commentary : Gold Review : Markets : News Wire : Quotes : Silver : Stocks - Main Page 

 GoldSeek.com >> News >> Story  Disclaimer 
 
Latest Headlines

Gold Seeker Weekly Wrap-Up: Gold and Silver Gain Over 1% and 2% on the Week
By: Chris Mullen, Gold Seeker Report

Ira Epstein's Metals Video 11 17 2017
By: Ira Epstein

Next-Generation Crazy: The Fed Plans For The Coming Recession
By: John Rubino

COT Gold, Silver and US Dollar Index Report - November 17, 2017
By: GoldSeek.com

Gold Minersí Q3í17 Fundamentals
By: Adam Hamilton, CPA

Bonfire of the Absurdities
By: John Mauldin

The Social Security Inflation Lag Calendar - Partial Indexing Part 1
By: Daniel R. Amerman, CFA

Rob From The Middle Class Economics
By: Gary Christenson

GoldSeek Radio Nugget: John Williams and Chris Waltzek
By: radio.GoldSeek.com

The Metals Market Is A Mess And Will Likely Continue To Frustrate You
By: Avi Gilburt

 
Search

GoldSeek Web

 
The 10th Man: Floor Monkeys and Decentralization of Risk


 -- Published: Sunday, 2 August 2015 | Print  | Disqus 

By Jared Dillian 

As most of you know, I used to be a clerk on the floor of the old P. Coast options exchange in San Francisco. What a place. I could tell stories about that floor for weeks. The craziest things you ever heard.

But letís keep it professional. The funny thing about a trading floor like the PCX (or the NYMEX, or the CME) is that you have winners and losers. You have big winners and big losers. You have people who blow themselves up. You have people who blow themselves up so spectacularly, they take a chunk out of their clearing firm.

In very rare cases a clearing firm has gone down. But never, ever has a public exchange, a clearinghouse, blown up. Never happened. Probably never will happen. I feel pretty comfortable making that prediction.

It was intended that way. Letís say you have a crowd of 100 locals in a pit, and some hedge fund calls his broker with such a toxic trade that it blows up a few guys. But the risk is very decentralized. One trader isnít going to take out the exchange. Even a handful of traders arenít going to take out the exchange.

The cool thing about public exchanges and open-outcry pits is that they take big risk and turn it into small risk. Which is pretty much the opposite of how we do things todayówhere we take small risk and turn it into big risk.

Liquidity Providers

The whole business of providing liquidity (which is what floor locals used to do) has changed a lot in the last 20 years.

That is the understatement of the century.

Itís whatís turned the NYSE from a bustling marketplace into a glorified TV studio. Itís what turned the AMEX, the old curb exchange, intoÖ nothing. Not much left at the CME, except for some options pits in the grains and meats.

Naturally, things have become more electronic. Not everyone is happy about that development. I am.

Iíll dive a little bit into the high-frequency trading controversy. It was in 2003 that the NYSE had a massive front-running scandal that nearly resulted in criminal convictions of a few specialists. The futures pits at the various exchanges were known to have shady stuff going on all the time.

The reality is that when you have someone in a privileged position where they can see order flow and position themselves accordingly, they will surely take advantage of itóhuman or computer. For a number of reasons, Iíd rather have the computers.

Except for this: the problem with the current system where a few large firms, electronic trading firms, act as liquidity providers is that they actually centralize, rather than decentralize, risk.

They take small risk (a bunch of little orders) and turn it into big, concentrated risk. Now, electronic trading firms are not in the business of taking big riskóthey are in and out of it very quickly, so itís unlikely that theyíd willingly strap on a big position. But a few years back, Knight Capital had a catastrophic trading error that resulted in them having to be bailed out by a group of independent investors.

What if that happens againóeven bigger?

These scenarios are very unlikely, but it doesnít change the fact that we are centralizing risk, rather than decentralizing it. Not good.

Anti-Federalism

Itís actually a general principle that things work better when you break them down as small as possible. This is the principle the United States is founded onóthat states and municipalities retain political control.

Problem is, weíve been concentrating risk everywhere since the financial crisis. I donít care who you think was responsible for the crisis, the net result of our interventions is that the banks that were too big to fail in the first place are now even bigger. I donít think thatís progress. I donít think itís progress that if anything goes wrong, we put it on the governmentís balance sheet.

If I were in a position of authority in the government, Iíd spend my time looking for ways to break down risk to the smallest unit possible.

But thatís not what weíre doing. Weíre going around looking at things like mutual-fund companies and calling them SIFIs (Systemically Important Financial Institutions) and then regulating them, which will only make them more systemically important. Dumb, right?

What are the chances that we are going to have another big crisis as a result of this? 100%.

Iím not trying to say something splashy. Itís just true.

The target du jour is the corporate bond ETFs, like the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG). A liquid claim on an illiquid asset. But having traded ETFs for a number of years, the problem isnít with the ETF. Itís with the stupid regulations that constrain bond dealers from doing their job. Icahn is wrong.

LTCM

Remember the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998? Pretty good example of risk getting centralized.

But hereís the scary thing. That whole crisis was over seven billion dollars. Seven billion lousy dollars. Amaranth lost almost that much and didnít even flinch. For Bridgewater, thatís a bad day. Today, the world is a lot bigger and a lot more interconnected, which is why pipsqueak Greece had the macro implications that it did.

I wouldnít say Iím scared, but I have a general anxiety of ďsomething badĒ happening in the world. Something I didnít used to worry about 10 years ago. The risk of contagion is permanently higher.

The trading implications are that those upside VIX calls that people always waste money on might not be such a waste of money, probabilistically speaking. Shorter: tail risk might actually be underpriced.

Iím kind of disappointed with our profession, and humans as a species. What is it about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? When we intervene in places we donít understand, we always do the exact opposite of what we intended to do. Our efforts to ďfixĒ the financial system have actually made it worse.

Imagine that.

Jared Dillian
Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. Follow Jared on Twitter @dailydirtnap


| Digg This Article
 -- Published: Sunday, 2 August 2015 | E-Mail  | Print  | Source: GoldSeek.com

comments powered by Disqus



 



Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizeE-mail Link of Current PagePrinter Friendly PageReturn to GoldSeek.com

 news.goldseek.com >> Story

E-mail Page  | Print  | Disclaimer 


© 1995 - 2017



GoldSeek.com Supports Kiva.org

© GoldSeek.com, Gold Seek LLC

The content on this site is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of GoldSeek.com and/or the providers of the content under license. By "content" we mean any information, mode of expression, or other materials and services found on GoldSeek.com. This includes editorials, news, our writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the site. Please contact us for any further information.

Live GoldSeek Visitor Map | Disclaimer

The views contained here may not represent the views of GoldSeek.com, its affiliates or advertisers. GoldSeek.com makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including news, editorials, prices, statistics, analyses and the like) provided through its service. Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of GoldSeek.com, is strictly prohibited. In no event shall GoldSeek.com or its affiliates be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.