Unstructured Finance

Although most investors have been pleased with the steadily rising U.S stock market over the past six months, funds that profit when markets are convulsing are licking their wounds.

With market stress at multi-year lows, volatility hedge funds returned just 1.16 percent in the first quarter, compared with 3.7 percent for the broader hedge fund group.

Some of the volatility specialists are doing better than others by capitalizing on major market moves in Japan, for example. And some are doing better simply because they are ‘short’ volatility funds – they tend to perform better when markets are calmer. But those funds are now few and far between.

“If I were to turn the clock back there were a lot more short volatility funds than long in 2004,” said Joshua Thimons, a portfolio manager at PIMCO. “There are fewer now – 2008 wiped most of the face of the map.” Short volatility funds earn a risk premium by selling volatility in the markets, capitalizing on the fact “that some managers use it as tail hedging,” he explained. “These funds have done better this year, but there are fewer of them.”

The problem the long volatility funds face right now– and long vol funds now make up the lion’s share of the strategy – is that, quite simply, there’s not a lot of volatility. Even the short volatility funds require some degree of movement in the market for there to be a relative value opportunity to exploit.

Not everyone agrees that using high-speed machines to trade stocks in less time than it takes the average person to blink is a bad thing, but the people who do might be heartened by the letter a congressman sent the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has waged a decades-long struggle against computerized trading sent the SEC a hint: The power to curb high-frequency trading has been within its grasp all along.

In his letter, Markey described a law he co-sponsored in 1989 to increase the agency’s power to regulate computerized trading, a precursor to HFT that employed computer programs to make trading decisions without the participation of conscious humans. The law lets the SEC “limit practices which result in extraordinary levels of volatility,” according to Markey’s citation.

By Sam Forgione

This week’s Weekend Reads may drive you back to the big news of the week: The Debates.

Just as the candidates’ tone and tenor seemed to drive judgments as to who won and lost, some stories were written about sparring between politicians and bankers, billionaires on whether a bankrupt Mexican company should be let off the hook, the banks and the foreclosed-upon, and the more milder subject of volatility investing. In the case of the Foreign Policy and DealBook links, the attitudes of the parties involved seem more important than their logic. And a winner and a loser probably won’t come to you. At least here, unlike in the voting booths, you can stay undecided.

From Foreign Policy:

Mohamed El-Erian writes that politicians and bankers should stop putting each other down and start averting the next crisis.

Here is the latest edition of Weekend Reads courtesy of Sam Forgione. Enjoy.

From Barron’s:

The managers of hedge fund Cassiopeia are teaching a lesson or two on trading volatility.

From Bloomberg Businessweek:

Matthew Philips addresses regulatory efforts to catch up with the glitch mob known as high-frequency traders.

From CFO:

The committee that regulates auditing practices may lend an ear to to alternative suggestions to plan for companies to rotate auditors.