The correction in the equity markets has brought the S&P 500 down close to a confluence of key technical levels.
"No one is trading unless they have to or have microwave circuits for brains.... the system’s foundation rests on a presumption of their expertise. It’s what allows the leaps of faith necessary for financial transmission functions to work. Grand experiments, like the insanity of negative rates, are seen merely as the latest in making it up as you go along."
“I don’t think there’s a whole lot from my generation that are still in the industry"..."The business has to be downsized,” said Keith Underwood, a foreign-exchange consultant who ended a 25-year trading career, including at Lloyds Banking Group Plc, in 2014. But it’s not easy “for people who have been in a market for many, many years to see that they’ve been replaced by an algorithm.”
We already suspected in mid 2013 (worrying about the market far too early as it has turned out in hindsight) that there were parallels to what happened in the late 1990s bull market, specifically near its end in the year 2000. However, in the meantime, even more such parallels have become noticeable.
The head of one of the biggest high-frequency trading companies has warned that there are several faultlines in the structure of increasingly electronic, automated financial markets that could lead to a “catastrophe” in the long run. "We’re creeping in the right direction, but unless we proactively address these issues, sometime in the next several decades we are going to experience a catastrophe due to runaway computerised trading,” Tower Research's Mark Gorton said.
While the biggest news of the night had nothing to do with either oil or China, all that mattered to US equity futures trading also was oil and China, and since WTI managed to rebound modestly from their biggest 2-day drop in years, rising back over $30, and with China falling only 0.4% overnight after the National Team made a rare, for 2016, appearance and pushed stocks to close at the day's high, US E-minis were able to rebound from overnight lows in the mid-1880s, and levitate above 1900. Whether they sustain this level remains to be seen.
Since granting IEX exchange status would lead to an immediate market structure disruption, one which would impair such embedded HFT players as Citadel which, as we have explained previously is the NY Fed's preferred "arms length" intermediator in the market to ingite momentum at critical downward junctions, we are very skeptical that when all is said and done, the SEC will grant IEX what it wants: after all there are too many status quo revenue models at stake, not to mention a potential threat to the Fed's preferred market "intervention" pipeline.
Did the BOJ’s out-of-the-blue reversal on its monetary stance which was refuted just weeks prior by Mr. Kuroda himself take place because after listening to the arguments, suggestions, as well as concerns, from the participants at Davos he concluded much like what the movie “Margin Call” depicted: It was all about to unravel? And if so: is this him deciding to be “first” and considered it his only choice?
It appears - for now - that the machines are losing control. Amid the chaos of the last few days in US equities, Johnny 5 and his ilk have been quote-stuffing in desperation at the highest rate in history... but it's not working!!
- Advanced training in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or other related fields
- Extensive programming experience with strong object oriented design skills and fluency in C, C++, or Java
- Expertise with algorithms and data structures
- Demonstrated ability to communicate complex ideas in a clear, concise fashion
- Ability to thrive in a complex, fast-paced, and highly technical environment
“We have come regretfully to the conclusion that the current algorithmically driven market environment is one which is increasingly incompatible with our fundamental, research orientated, investment process. The bear market in emerging market equities, which began in 2011, may eventually engulf developed markets too."
My overriding theme and the central drama for the coming year is that unexpected events can take on greater importance as the Federal Reserve ends its near-decade-long Zero Interest Rate Policy. Consensus premises and forecasts will likely fall flat, in a rather spectacular manner. The low-conviction and directionless market that we saw in 2015 could become a no-conviction and very-much-directed market (i.e. one that's directed lower) in 2016. There will be no peace on earth in 2016, and our markets could lose a cushion of protection as valuations contract. (Just as "malinvestment" represented a key theme this year, we expect a compression of price-to-earnings ratios to serve as a big market driver in 2016.) In other words, we don't think 2016 will be fun.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what "trading" has become.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. We were all told by the “experts” and the so-called “smart crowd” ad nauseam the economy and markets of 2015 were “ready for lift off.” Proclamations that GDP and other economic metrics were indeed going to be the unquestionable catalyst to help propel not only the markets themselves ever higher, but also, prove all the nay-sayers as well as data-deniers wrong. The problem? It was the exact opposite. 2015 exposed the sole overarching fundamental principle the “experts” refused to calculate into their qualitative analysis. That fundamental? Without the continuing interventionism of the Federal Reserve – there is no market. Period.
Repo Experts Stumped: How Could Fed Hike Without Draining ANY Liquidity: "This Is A Market By Decree"Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/19/2015 12:04 -0500
"The Fed didn't really drain any liquidity yesterday. They moved the IOER up to .50%, moved the RRP rate up to .25%, and the RRP volume came in at $105 billion, only $3 billion more than the day before. Where was the draining? But interest rates moved up anyway to reflect the tightening, without any fundamental change. Basically, the Fed decreed a rate tightening and the market moved rates higher.... I wonder how many economic interest rate models include "by decree" as a factor?"