Why Be A Market Maker When You Can Just Be A HFT Scalper?

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the key underreported news from yesterday was this tidbit by the WSJ, which highlighted that the head of Interactive Brokers Group Inc. said that his firm's market-making unit may withdraw from some options markets or even convert into a high-frequency trading firm because of what the company views as an unfair regulatory regime. In other words, the current regime rewards HFTs and punishes standard prop traders. (As a reminder IB's Timber Hill market making algo is precisely what two Norwegians gamed in 2007 and 2008 to make enough profits to get them in court and facing a 6 year prison sentence). To an extent this should answer Michael Lewis' rhetorical questions posed yesterday in Bloomberg, as to why Wall Street firms are voluntarily eliminating their prop trading divisions. The simplest answer: everyone is entering the scalping business, with some already having a material advantage over others. As to what this means for the market, the answer is another virtually assured flash crash: "If [regulators] do not make it sufficiently attractive for us to continue as market makers, then we will probably selectively deregister," Peterffy said in an interview. "Potentially we could even become a high-frequency trading firm ourselves, and provide liquidity when it is in our interest." And it gets worse.

 "We are discontinuing some business where there is practically no trading," said Peterffy. "Once the SEC comes out with the new rules [for high frequency traders], we'll examine whether we need to make a bigger change, or not."

Peterffy said that Interactive Brokers continuously maintains about 500,000 bids and offers in various markets around the world. He said the firm sometimes finds itself at a disadvantage to smaller competitors that operate with fewer regulatory restrictions and are able to move more quickly.

When market conditions change, it takes Interactive Brokers some time to adjust all of its quoted prices, he said. High-speed trading shops that are not registered market makers are able to selectively choose where to trade and outpace firms like Interactive Brokers that carry obligations to be in many markets, according to Peterffy.

The cannibalization of profits courtesy of HFT means very soon everyone will be an HFT! And when that happens, virtually everyone will be on the same side of the trade, until there is a regime change and everyone rushes to the other side, which according to many is precisely what happened on May 6, when the market went bidless. So yes, this is exactly what will happen once again, as more and more of Wall Street realizes that this last loophole to eeking out a few extra pennies per trade is the only place to be. What happens next is anyone's guess, although as the following guest post from Wall St. Cheat Sheet explains, it won't be pretty.

Guest Post From Wall St. Cheat Sheet

Why Trade Prop When You Can Just High Frequency Trade?

In my recent writeup on the Myth of the Missing Volume
I included a prelude to one of my recent thoughts: the notion that
banks are abandoning proprietary trading not exclusively for regulatory
compliance under the new Dodd-Frank Bill, but rather because it’s a
failing business.  This is what I had to say:

As far as structural changes go, a funny thing happened
on the way to global economic meltdown: prop desks who flipped stocks
minutes at a time were replaced with computers who flip stocks by the
second.  Major institutions like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) are closing down their prop desks,
while their HFT shops continue to rake in the profits.  Don’t believe
all the rhetoric that this is solely a consequence of the Volcker Rule
in the new financial regulations.  A lot of that discussion is
political grandstanding in the quest for more favorable compromises out
of regulators. Prop desks enjoyed a great run in the midst of the epic
volatility storm that wreaked havoc on our economy; however, in the
storm’s wake, these desks have struggled mightily.  In reality, this
new transition has as much to do with the fact that proprietary trading
takes on more risk and results in lower profits than the high frequency
variety in today’s markets.  At the end of the day, it’s simply good business to shift to HFT.

Today, econ-journalist heavyweight, Michael Lewis is out with his own take on the “Mystery of Disappearing Proprietary Traders” that is absolutely worth a read.  The mystery begins as follows:

The 3 percent loophole amounted to an invitation for the
big banks to keep on doing at least some of what they had been doing —
which is why Levin felt compelled to remove it, and the banks fought so
hard to keep it.

Yet in just the past few weeks news has leaked that Morgan Stanley,
JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs all intend either to close their proprietary
trading units or to sell their interests in the hedge funds they
control.

So the banks had an opening to maintain a larger interest in
proprietary trading; however, despite that regulatory loophole the big
banks are not seizing the opportunity.  I repeat, DESPITE A LOOPHOLE,
the banks are not seizing an opportunity.  And this is a sizeable
opportunity to boot.  3% of capital for a big bank is a substantial sum.
  You know what passing on this “opportunity” means?  It means
obviously that there is not the opportunity there that many imagined. 
Lewis offers two possible explanations for why exactly that is:

No. 1 — Having not merely preserved but bolstered their
place at the heart of capitalism — with little banks failing everywhere,
the big keep getting bigger and stronger — the major Wall Street firms
have experienced an epiphany about their relationship to wider society.
They don’t need to screw people!

Newly able to raise their prices, they want to return to serving their customers, rather than exploiting them.

No. 2 — The big Wall Street firms have looked anew at proprietary trading and seen a dying business.

And I largely agree on both fronts, particularly with the second
point.  If the banks saw an opportunity to make money, they would seize
upon that opportunity despite the ability to garner increased revenues
from traditional investment banking operations.   I think to a
significant extent what is happening right now, at least in equity
markets in particular, is a transition from traditional “proprietary
trading” to the more vague “market-making operations.”

And by market-making operations I am specifically alluding to high
frequency trading.  A bank like Goldman can actually increase their VAR
(value at risk) while taking less “real” risk using HFT and can remain
as active as ever in equity markets without even having a proprietary
trading division.  There are many types of HFT strategies (I urge you
all to check out this great chart from Brandon on the six primary strategies of HFT)
and it’s rather difficult for market participants and regulators alike
to distinguish how exactly algorithmic volume is being dispersed across
markets.  Why engage in “proprietary” trading when one can conduct a
very similar business under the veil of “market making” and high
frequency trading?

Since this “mystery” is in the early stages of its evolution, it
remains to be seen exactly what big bank trading will look like in the
coming months and years, but don’t be fooled into believing that banks
are simply leaving the proprietary business because regulators told them
to.  The banks had the opening they needed to maintain that line of
business and that’s all it is to them: a line of business.  At the
moment it is a particularly risky business with diminishing profits, and
that alone is why banks are abandoning those operations.

Just a personal note to conclude my writeup for this morning: this
weekend I will be getting married to my wonderful fiance Emily.  For the
next two weeks the two of us will be off on our honeymoon; therefore,
my morning write-ups will be on hold until my return.  Have a great
couple of weeks!