Opinion

Felix Salmon

Chart of the day, flash-crash edition

By Felix Salmon
March 24, 2012

ZeroHedge has the chart of the day:

3079-2.jpg

What you’re seeing here is the price of shares in BATS, at 11:14 this morning. The white spots are trades: there are 176 of them altogether. They start just below the IPO price of $16, and then just fall lower and lower and lower until the stock is trading for mere pennies. But the key number you want to look at here is not on the y-axis. Instead, it’s the chart report at the very top:

Elapsed Time: 900 Milliseconds

This is what happens when stocks are traded by algorithms rather than humans. The parabolic trajectory of the share price is downright elegant; indeed, if you’re going to crash from $16 to 4 cents within 900 milliseconds, you could hardly do so in a lower-volatility manner. The scary thing here is the sheer speed involved, and the fact that no human intelligence was stopping to think whether these prices made any sense at all.

Of course it’s too early to work out exactly what happened here; a formal statement from BATS talks vaguely about “a software bug”. But the big picture is clear. Most people think there are only two stock exchanges in the US — NYSE and Nasdaq. And indeed those are the only two exchanges where stocks are listed. But there are more than 50 venues, including two different BATS exchanges, where stocks are traded; they all communicate with each other to work out what the best global bid and offer in any stock is at any given time. (This is known as NBBO, for National Best Bid/Offer.)

This fragmentation of trading venues is good for competition, but, as we saw first in the Flash Crash of May 2010 and then again today, when one of those venues encounters problems, very nasty things can happen.

BATS was meant — if everything had gone according to plan — to be the first stock listed on the BATS exchange. They’re not going to try that stunt again in a hurry; as finance professor James Angel told Bloomberg, this was “like seeing an airplane crash on takeoff”. On the maiden flight of a new airline. You can imagine how much appetite anybody would have to fly that airline thereafter.

One obvious similarity between today’s events and what happened in the earlier flash crash is that both involved exchanges declaring “self help” — basically saying that the information coming from some other exchange was so delayed or otherwise unreliable that it couldn’t be used any more as part of the NBBO system. When that happens, you can find order flow sloshing violently around various different exchanges; such moves don’t need to be accompanied by extreme price action, but they make such action much more likely.

There is some good news here. The first bit of good news is that no one was really harmed today: the BATS IPO has been pulled, and the institutions which were trying to sell their shares — foremost among them the estate of Lehman Brothers — will just have to hold on to them for a while longer. And the second bit of good news is that we have a lot of valuable real-world information about exactly how markets fail in today’s high-frequency precincts. I just hope that we’re going to be able to learn from what happened today, and put in measures to prevent it from being much worse next time. Can anybody say Tobin Tax?

Comments
9 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

And it will happen again and again because the tail risk was removed when the exchanges canceled trades the last time around.

No reason at all to supervise your trademaster4000. Heads you win… tails the trades get canceled.

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive
 

Presumably in a more active market, the same sort of thing happens, but is disguised by the noise of so many other players doing the same thing. All following some similar parabolic formula designed to profit the firm running the program. And without any connection to reality.

Scary really. No wonder LTCM went bust.

Posted by FifthDecade | Report as abusive
 

Parabolic trajectory? That’s not right…
That’s exponential, man.

Posted by Exponential | Report as abusive
 

Flash Crash or Cash In A Flash? The penny stock market is here to stay! Amen?

Posted by deadduck | Report as abusive
 

At least one manager on the IT staff at BATS should be getting fired because of this. This is why you do the most extensive testing you can before “go live” on a complex system, the costs of NOT catching a “software bug” are incredibly hard to calculate.

Is there any doubt that BATS, when they do IPO, aren’t going to get the share price that they originally wanted? What do you think the discount will be? 30%? Now, upper management should be asking themselves, why did we choose to take shortcuts and not do the testing that would have prevented this? Was saving that money and time worth a 30% IPO stock price discount?

Posted by Strych09 | Report as abusive
 

@FifthDecade: LTCM busted, in my opinion, due to leverage ratio and over confidence of the players. It is irrelevant to the same issue which happened here.

Posted by nico_hua | Report as abusive
 

“@FifthDecade: LTCM busted, in my opinion, due to leverage ratio and over confidence of the players.” (Nico, above)

Nick Leeson, Hamanaka, LTCM – they all made the rookie mistake of not dumping the losing trade fast, and instead doubled -down in it and rode it all the way to destruction in each case. Why not? Wasn’t like it was their money they were burning, was it?

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive
 

There’s a simple solution to all this, namely a 99% capital gains tax on all trades held less than x minutes/hours/days.

You wanna get rid of extremely short-term algorithmic trading…make it unprofitable.

Posted by mfw13 | Report as abusive
 

You are posting an important Penny Stock article. It’s most important for everybody.
Thanks
Kamrun Nahar
“top penny stock picks”

Posted by knahar1816 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •