State Street On Liquidity Black Holes

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 16:29 | 9565 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Sorry off the topic but related:

Every Breath Bernanke Takes from Columbia Biz School:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJTqCbETog

Sat, 07/18/2009 - 16:38 | 9567 deadhead
deadhead's picture

Thanks for the article, great read and informative (though i have forgotten all the math stuff when the squiggles and  non numbers are utilized, lol!).

Sat, 07/18/2009 - 17:03 | 9574 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Damn It Feels Good To Be A Banka:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKN9-9TQcU

Sat, 07/18/2009 - 17:08 | 9580 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

interesting thesis whose policy implications
are not entirely clear.....i gather from the
article that the author believes that regulatory
agencies have systematically induced
homogeneity in decision rules across diverse
actors but it is not
clear to me where that is occurring and to what
magnitude...some
examples would be helpful.

if the regulatory agencies have not done so, then
how exactly is diversity supposed to be cultivated
without creating other equally undesirable
states?.....

diversity in decsion rules is probably inherently
anathema to regulators who often prefer
uniformity in policy and outcomes because they
usually abhor complexity and freedom. hence their
zeal in regulating markets to death. and yet they
fail spectacularly in enforcing regulations
regarding capital ratios,
ponzi schemes, front running, market concentration
and a host of other evils for which they have
been charged to foil.

it may be sufficient to recongize that liquidity
black holes exist and provide hedging solutions
to compensate than to suppose that diversity
can be enforced by fiat.

it's worthy of further discussion.

Sat, 07/18/2009 - 17:57 | 9593 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Ok. This is how the quants got clobbered. What kind of regulatory actions should be taken to increase diversity?

Sat, 07/18/2009 - 23:41 | 9769 Gordon_Gekko
Gordon_Gekko's picture

"The Too Big To Fail is a psychological construct which however does not have parallels in the market."

 

Truer words were never spoken. And extremely well put.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 01:45 | 9826 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Apocalypse Now-

Yes, too big to fail is clearly a state sponsored monopoly that sponsors the state (campaign contributions & lobbying).

I wonder how many of our bailout tax dollars will be used to repay those beneficent politicians.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 01:13 | 9815 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Apocalypse Now-

The wise know we are in a slow motion collapse and that macroeconomic conditions and demographics outweigh everything else.

Quotes like "we are out of money" from Obama tell the truth, and I think they are trying to ensure an organized fall instead of panic.
They are doing everything to save it, and I think they rallied the economists and talking finance heads to pick a date to just state the recession is over in an attempt to stimulate spending (back to normal) and convince businesses not to lay off any more workers. We are in a deflationary spiral, they want to pull the plane up, and are willing to state untruths (greenshoots) for a "good" cause.

What if the powers that be knew this diversity principle (likely) and also knew that if there was a fear of deflation all logical investors would pile into the few assets that perform well in deflation at the expense of all other asset classes killing diversity and liquidity at the same time and driving up the price of those few assets due to demand? Might they use their digital zeros and dark pools to buy up riskier assets (SLP) since investors always look at historic performance (although this is like driving your car forward by looking at the rear view mirror), it would avoid everyone piling into gold. This buying would also look completely illogical which is our current random walk situation. It could be worse than we think and the bots could be trying to save the system counter-intuitively (like Excel solver)?

Life will go on, although quality of life will change on the whole.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 18:28 | 10040 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Liquidity is provided by retail investors who buy when institutional investors sell and vice versa.

Where all institutional trades act in the same way potentially causing the so called liquidity black holes, there is always CNBC to stoke enough bids and asks from ma and pa who we all know have no way to define 'value'.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 18:41 | 10045 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

This site is a fucking joke run by a bunch of conspiracy loving idiots that have never made any real money trading stocks. It's read by another group of pathetic idiots who lose money and can only blame conspiracies for their losses.
High frequency trading benefits the marketplace. It is only possible because the costs of trading are so low now. Did any of you actually trade before the markets were entirely electronic? Do you remember what it was like to deal with asshole specialists that had an informational edge? The same assholes who made billions fleecing the public? The same goes for NASDAQ and the market makers? High frequency boxes do not get any quick peek at incoming order flow like their manual predecessors. Most of them simply front run and are market neutral.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 19:10 | 10053 Marla Singer
Marla Singer's picture

Glad you're enjoying the site!

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 23:10 | 10116 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

just because someone thinks that there is a
conspiracy does not mean that there is not one
any more than just because you're paranoid does
not mean that someone is not out to get you.

if the trading is all market neutral then why
would goldman sachs make huge profits on this
type of trading? it clearly has information
which others do not have to be exceptionally
profitable.

hft does not provide liquidity because it does
not provide diversity - it only intensifies the
direction of trade.

the conspiracy is that gs owns a huge % of
program trading, one definition of market
cornering or manipulation. that huge ownership
millitates against liquidity.

i wouldn't say that you are entirely wrong but
there is more to the story.

Sun, 07/19/2009 - 23:20 | 10121 Ben_the_Bald
Ben_the_Bald's picture

And the solution is? ....

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!