Streetwise Professor

Dealer banks and the CME squared off in the pages of the FT today, arguing over the systemic risks of CCPs.  Each made some good points; each whiffed on a few; both overlooked the real sources of systemic risk arising from clearing mandates.

First, the banks:

“We are losing track of the nominal risk,” warned Jean-Pierre Mustier, head of investment banking at UniCredit and a former board member at London-based LCH.Clearnet. “We’re moving from a set-up where banks were interconnected, because they had transactions between them, to a system where very lowly capitalised entities, the clearing houses, are supposed to protect the banks from a problem.”

. . . .

Banks have voiced concerns to regulators in Europe and the US that central clearing houses are providing insufficient data on their own risks and demanding lower-quality collateral for swaps transactions. They argue the risks are too opaque, and getting riskier.

“It’s going in the wrong direction,” said the head of credit trading at a large US bank. “The race to the bottom is on.” He and other executives were critical of the CME’s decision to accept corporate bonds as collateral, a step down from the safer instruments usually required for margin.

There are reasons to be concerned about the expansion of the collateral pool to include more risky assets.  This is especially true inasmuch as these assets are likely to become less liquid precisely when a CCP needs to liquidate them: during a systemic even that causes the failure of a large, or several large, clearing members.  This problem could be mitigated by giving CCPs access to central bank liquidity, collateralized by the corporate bonds, etc., they take in as initial margin.  But the fundamental driver here is that clearing mandates have dramatically increased the need for initial margin, and it was inevitable that this would result in expansion of eligible collateral.  It’s not a competitive race to the bottom, it’s facing reality: indeed, CCPs in individual product spaces face relatively little competition.

Concern about initial margin methodology is also reasonable.  Under-margining leads to the mutualization of risk in excess of what CMs had anticipated: over-margining leads to inflated trading costs.  But the crucial problem with any CCP methodology is that it takes into account position risk only, and doesn’t vary margin with the balance sheet risk of the member firms.  This tends to lead to excessive trading by weaker clearing members, as they don’t have to post higher collateral, as their poorer credit would suggest they should.  This is pretty much an inherent feature of clearing, for informational and governance reasons, as I’ve discussed frequently here on SWP in the past.

Now to CME,  as represented by Chairman Terry Duffy:

Terry Duffy, executive chairman of CME Group, said the shift in moving more OTC derivatives transactions was more profound than just transferring the risk and exposure to a counterparty default from banks to clearing houses. “The difference is with a clearing house we do market-to-market [risk management], either twice daily or have the ability to do it much more often,” he said on a visit to London.

“What’s important is making certain the pays and collects are done on a risk basis and not a mark-to-myth or anything else. Because of that, we have a much easier time doing the pays and collects than the banks do if it was a bilateral transaction. In turn, I think some of the banks are just not used to the model of clearing.”

This relates to variation margin, which was/is often collected in OTC transactions (once exposure exceeds negotiated credit limits between the parties.)  Several points to make here.  First, variation margin is basically a way of keeping initial margin levels current.  This doesn’t really address the issue raised by the banks of whether initial margin levels are adequate, banks can determine that, and the quality of the collateral posted as initial margin (and whether the haircuts applied against this collateral are commensurate with the risks).  Second, you can go through the process of marking to market, but the protection provided by that process depends crucially on the quality of the prices.  That depends on market liquidity, trading activity, etc.  You need a market to mark to, and for many products that will be brought into clearing there are serious doubts about the reliability of the prices used for markets.  If there’s a liquid market, the prices it generates more accurate MTM in both bilateral and cleared trades: if there isn’t, both cleared and bilateral MTMs are dodgy.  Third, as I’ll discuss more in detail, the mechanical process of marking to market can actually create systemic risks.

The FT reporter, Phillip Stafford, also mentions that banks complain about the inadequacy of CCP capital, but notes that CCPs also have default/guarantee funds that they can call on to prevent a CCP default. But that’s exactly what the big banks are worried about.  Their exposure to CCPs comes first and foremost through their participation in these funds.   There’s only a thin layer of CCP capital separating a defaulter’s margin (and default fund contribution) from the non-defaulters’ contributions.  If the CCP under margins, that capital can be blown through very quickly, and expose banks to substantial losses.  These losses are most likely to occur, moreover, during stressed market conditions when banks are least able to afford the hit.  This wrong way risk is precisely what banks are complaining about.

Truth be told, although both the banks and the CCPs (to the extent Duffy is representing the clearing industry perspective) have some valid points, they miss the big systemic risks associated with clearing and clearing mandates.  I’m sort of in the middle of my Streetwise Professor Worldwide Personified Clearing Tour, in which I’ve given talks on the systemic risks of clearing in Chicago, Frankfurt, Osaka, Istanbul, DC, and the UK (London and Oxford), and will give another in Paris in September.  (Rough duty, I know, but somebody has to do it.)  Here are some of the greatest hits I play at each stop.

• Clearing, and in particular multilateral netting, basically redistributes credit risk from derivatives counterparties to other creditors of defaulting CCP members.  These other creditors may be as systemically important and vulnerable, or even more systemically important and vulnerable, than CCP members.  For instance, moving to clearing is likely to make runs on money market funds more likely even if it makes runs on dealer banks less likely.  It is not evident that this is a desirable trade-off.
• The variation margining mechanism in clearing is particularly rigid, and can create substantial demand for liquidity precisely when funding liquidity dries up.  This is what almost brought down the CME clearinghouse on the Day After Black Monday in 1987.  This is why rigid marking-to-market and variation margining can be a systemically destabilizing bug, not a stabilizing feature.
• Clearing does not eliminate interconnections between big financial firms: it reconfigures the network of connections.  Moreover, it does so in a way that is rife with wrong way risk.  As noted before, CCP members-mainly big banks-are connected via CCP default funds, and are most likely to incur losses during periods of market stress, when they are least able to afford it.

Regulators are becoming increasingly aware of these problems, and are responding by attempting to make CCPs virtually immune to failure.  But this brings me to another of my greatest hits: beware the fallacy of composition.  Yes, failure of a CCP would be catastrophic, but making one part of the financial system stronger-a CCP, for instance-does not necessarily make the system stronger.  One of the main effects of increasing the financial resources of a CCP is to redistribute credit losses from derivatives counterparties to other creditors of defaulting firms, and to redistribute scarce liquidity.   It is not necessarily the case that this redistribution makes the system stronger.

The analogy that I’ve made here, and that I make on tour, is that of the levee.  Building up the levee around a CCP reduces the likelihood that it will be inundated, but forces the financial flood elsewhere.  Again, it is not evident that it’s better for systemic stability to redistribute the water from CCP members to other parts of the financial system.

My closing number is that CCPs have been vastly oversold as a means of reducing systemic risk.  It’s virtually impossible to know what the net effects are, but it’s likely that CCP mandates reduce systemic risk under some scenarios, but increase it under others.  What’s more, the main systemic risk is not necessarily the failure of a CCP, as bad as that would be, but the spillover effects from clearing to other parts of the financial system.

That is, it’s necessary to analyze the systemic risks of clearing by analyzing the financial system as a whole.  Regulators haven’t done that, for the most part, and the debate between the banks and Terry Duffy doesn’t really do that either.  Their’s is a CCP-centric debate, and although that’s not irrelevant, it doesn’t get at the nub of the matter.  Meaning that the show must go on.

As changes in financial market regulation like Frankendodd lurch into effect (with phase two of the clearing mandate becoming effective a couple of days ago), it’s interesting to see the dawning realization about some of the implications.  Implications that I’ve discussed for several years here, or in my academic work.

One of these is the tension between the micro-prudential and macro-prudential roles of collateral.  Micro-prudentially, collateral makes sense for a lender: it increases recoveries in the event the borrower goes bust.  But collateral is much more problematic macro-prudentially, for a variety of reasons.  It can be a highly pro cyclical mechanism that intensifies the effects of financial shocks.  It can be a crisis accelerator.

Andrew Hauser of the Bank of England focuses on this tension in this speech.  Unfortunately, despite this and other evidence of growing attention to this issue, I still think it’s under appreciated and that will lead to problems down the road.

Another issue is one that I raised in my more cynical moments.  Scary thought, I know.  Specifically, I mused that one reason for the broad political support for clearing and collateral mandates, especially among government treasuries (e.g., Timmy!), is that these were a form of financial repression.  That is, a means of increasing the demand for government securities, in order to reduce interest rates and borrowing costs.  The mandates effectively require market participants to hold more government debt in their portfolios.

Bloomberg just noticed this:

New collateral rules for hedge funds, insurers and others in the $633 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market are poised to boost demand for U.S. Treasuries, potentially slowing rising yields as the Federal Reserve considers scaling back unprecedented stimulus.

Swaps traders will need to come up with $800 billion to $4.6 trillion to meet Dodd-Frank Act regulations requiring that the derivatives be backed by clearinghouses that collect upfront collateral such as cash or Treasuries, according to estimates from the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee. The regulations take effect today for the second group of firms designated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the market for interest-rate and credit-default swaps.

“This is going to be a new, very powerful engine that drives demand for Treasuries, so you have to expect it will impact yields,” said Ted Leveroni, executive director of derivatives strategy at New York-based trade-processer Omgeo LLC. “There are a lot of firms out there — I know because they’ve told me — that are concerned about having the available collateral.”

The rush for collateral may be an unintended benefit from swaps rules designed to protect against a cascade of bank failures

Um, unintended benefit for whom?  And who says its unintended?  I think it might have been quite intentional-just not acknowledged.

Now that the regulatory changes are being put into place, we’ll see how good my forecasting performance is.  Since I’ve predicted many unintended consequences, most of which are not good, y’all should hope that it’s not very good at all.  But it appears that others are making similar predictions now, at least on these two issues.

And now for something completely different.

HFT has been a bugbear for several years now.  The monster that would eat the equity markets, and then move onto derivatives for dessert. But HFT has apparently fallen on (relatively hard times).  HFT volumes are down.  HFT market shares are down.  And most interestingly, HFT profits are down, by about 50 percent on a per share basis, more on a gross basis because volumes are down.

This should not really be a surprise.  Basic economics predicts when profits in a particular activity are high that entry, the expansion of existing firms, and the development of competing technologies will dissipate those profits.

It’s interesting in this context to think about Schumpeter’s argument in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.  One motivation for the book was to examine whether there was, as Marx and earlier classical economists predicted, a tendency for profit to diminish to zero (where costs of capital are included in determining economic profit).  That may be true in a totally static setting, but as Schumpeter noted the development of new, disruptive technologies overturns these results.  The process of creative destruction can result in the introduction of a sequence of new technologies or products that displace the old, earn large profits for a while, but are then either displaced by new disruptive technologies, or see profits vanish due to classical/neoclassical competitive forces.

Whether it is by the entry of a new destructively creative technology, or the inexorable forces of entry and expansion in a technologically static setting, one expects profits earned by firms in one wave of creative destruction to decline.  That’s what we’re seeing in HFT.  It was definitely a disruptive technology that reaped substantial profits at the time of its introduction, but those profits are eroding.

That shouldn’t be a surprise.  But it no doubt is to many of those who have made apocalyptic predictions about the machines taking over the earth.  Or the markets, anyways.

Dark pools are under a regulatory and legislative assault, in Europe, Canada, and the US.  Scott Patterson wrote a long piece in the WSJ about FINRA’s scrutiny of Dark Pools:

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory body, last month sent 15 examination letters to operators of “dark pools”—lightly regulated, off-exchange trading venues that have been a rising concern for regulators and some investors as more activity shifts away from exchanges.

Finra is seeking details about how the increasingly popular venues operate, what they disclose to clients and whether they adequately police trades. It could bring enforcement action against dark-pool operators or issue recommendations for tighter oversight, depending on the answers it receives and additional examinations, said John Malitzis, executive vice president of market regulation at Finra. The letters are a follow-up to an initial round of questions the regulator circulated last fall.

“We want to understand whether [dark pools] are disclosing to their customers how their orders work [and] whether customers are informed who their orders will interact with,” Mr. Malitzis said in an interview. “A big part of this is to get an understanding of practices that may or may not be problematic.”

Here’s an interesting bit:

Dark pools don’t disclose traders’ buy or sell orders and only publish trade data after transactions occur. About 13% of all stock-market action takes place on dark pools, up from about 4% five years ago, according to Tabb Group, a market-research firm. Most dark pools are run by broker-dealers—firms overseen by Finra that buy and sell assets on behalf of customers as well as trade for their own accounts.

While dark pools command an expanding slice of trading volume, regulators still have little idea about how they operate since, unlike exchanges, they aren’t required to regularly disclose detailed information about their trading systems.

I see.  “more activity shifts away from exchanges”; dark pools “command an expanding slice of trading volume”; their volume has more than tripled in 5 years.  Growing volume! Growing market share!  That sounds sinister, doesn’t it?

Note that the possible nefarious practices under investigation, if they occur, would result in the users of dark pools are getting screwed.  If that’s true, why are they flocking to the pools in increasing numbers?  The most plausible explanation for a growing market share is that dark pools offer better value-not worse-to those who have the opportunity to choose where to trade.

I am particularly skeptical about the idea that dark pools are hugely exploitive because sophisticated buy side firms are among the most extensive and loyal users of dark pools.  Buy side firms analyze their execution costs with considerable detail.  They evaluate execution costs in lit and dark markets, and slice and dice the data in sophisticated ways, uncovering the circumstances under which it is cheaper to execute in one venue or another, and allocate their trades accordingly.

In other words, if they decide to execute more in dark markets, it’s because they have decided after thorough analysis that they are more likely to get screwed in broad daylight on exchanges.

This isn’t rocket science.

There is a potentially more intellectually reputable case against off-exchange trading.  Dark pools utilize a variety of techniques that are designed to screen out informed, or opportunistic, traders.  Uninformed traders-firms or individuals trading for portfolio balance or cash flow or hedging reasons-suffer losses when dealing with the informed.  They can reduce execution costs by trading in venues where there is a lower likelihood of dealing with a better-informed trader.

But this “cream skimming” of uninformed order flow by dark pools that screen out the informed increases the trading costs of those uninformed traders who for whatever reason cannot avail themselves of dark markets: those left behind have a higher likelihood of dealing with someone with better information, and incur higher trading costs (due to adverse selection).

Dark pools free ride off the price discovery in lit markets, and cream skimming impairs price discovery.  Thus it is possible-possible-that this externality reduces welfare.

Possible, but not necessarily so.  The free riding externality reduces welfare if there is no other inefficiency in the lit markets.  But that is not necessarily the case.  As I pointed out about 15 years ago, there are other sources of inefficiency on exchanges.  For instance, exchanges may exercise market power.  In this case, second best considerations imply that the free riding externality may improve welfare because the benefit of increased competition for order flow from the dark market may more than offset the cost of degraded price discovery.  I have produced formal models that show that this can occur under conditions that have existed in securities and derivatives markets.

As another example, much informed trading can be a form of rent seeking.  Market participants expend real resources to produce information because this allows them to profit at the expense of the uninformed.   This profit is a transfer from the uninformed, and unless there is some external benefit arising from more informative securities prices, the real resources expended to gain this transfer are a pure waste.  By reducing the profitability of informed trading, dark pools reduce this rent seeking and improve welfare.

Both of these analyses are applications of the theory of the second best, which says if there are multiple departures from “perfect” conditions (perfect competition, no externalities), eliminating one imperfection may actually make things worse, not better. In the dark pool case specifically, if there are other imperfections (imperfect competition on and between lit markets, rent seeking informed trading), dark pools’ ability to free ride on exchange price discovery may improve welfare because it mitigates these other inefficiencies.

Determining the welfare impacts of dark pools in the presence of these various departures from first-best conditions is devilish hard.  For instance, it is arguably impossible to determine the costs and benefits of informed trading.  It is also difficult to determine the degree of imperfect competition in lit markets, and the costs of this market power.

But what can be said is that the kinds of things FINRA is looking at are totally irrelevant to addressing these issues.  FINRA is focusing on activities that would be agency problems, or fraud.  But it is hard to square the proposition that these problems are widespread with the observation that dark markets are growing relative to lit ones, especially given that most of the patrons of dark markets are quite sophisticated, and devote considerable attention to evaluating the cost and quality of the services that they obtain.

So what is going on here?  Quite likely political economy, capture, and rent seeking.  For the past couple of months exchanges have been importuning regulators to do something about dark pools, precisely because they are bleeding business.  This headline from Bloomberg says it all:

Stock exchanges seek curbs on dark pools to curb exodus.

In other words: exchanges are losing a competitive battle, and are recruiting regulators and legislatures to hamstring the competitors that are eating their lunch.  A very, very, very old story.

I have to give the exchanges credit.  They have done a marvelous job of shaping the narrative, playing skillfully on the quite different connotations of light and dark.  The exchanges are like a Scout master telling a ghost story beside a campfire, his face scarily illuminated by a flashlight.  They have proven masterful at scaring regulators into action against the evils lurking in the dark

My bottom line?  It is possible that dark pools are, on net, inefficient, but the case has not been made.  Moreover, their commercial success should be considered as evidence that they actually enhance welfare.  Indeed, their commercial success is almost impossible to reconcile with claims that dark pools are somehow deceiving or defrauding those who trade on them, especially given that these traders are often quite sophisticated, and quite on guard against getting screwed.

So don’t be afraid of the dark.  Be especially skeptical about stories detailing the horrors allegedly stemming from the activities of entities that are gaining market share.  And always remember that incumbents are past masters at inducing regulators to crack down on inconvenient competitors.  Be afraid of what regulators do in the light, not what goes on in the dark.

A group of senators from western states, led by Diane Feinstein, have sent Gary Gensler a missive accusing the CFTC of violating the letter and spirit of Frankendodd by failing to register major energy companies (e.g., BP, Shell) as swap dealers.  Each paragraph of the letter is more risible than the one before.

They set the scene by recounting the western electricity crisis of 2000-2001.  This is utterly irrelevant to the swap dealer designation, because swaps had nothing to do with what happened then and there.  Indeed, at its core the crisis was driven by a combination of fundamentals and flawed market design, and even the suspect trading strategies involved physical market transactions rather than swaps.  For instance, none of the Enron strategies like “Fat Boy” or “Ricochet” involved swaps or OTC derivatives generally in any way, shape, or form.  (It’s also rather ironic that one of the things that wreaked havoc with California utilities was that they were precluded by law from engaging in forward transactions to hedge the short position forced upon them by the retail price caps in the restructuring legislation.)

Parts of the letter made me laugh.  Most notably, the senators attack the $8 billion de minimus exemption from the registration requirement.  Their “logic” is that since commodity swaps represent a small fraction (less than one percent) of total OTC derivatives activities, the de minimus level for energy swaps activity should be lower than for financial swaps. Not just lower: “vastly lower.”

They say this “stands to reason.”  Whenever anyone says something “stands to reason” s/he really means: “I can’t give you an actual reason, so I’ll just assert that my conclusion is obvious.”

This gets to the issue of just what the swap dealing designation is intended to achieve.  That’s always been somewhat hazy, but the most charitable interpretation is that swaps dealers are deemed potential sources of systemic risk that require extraordinary regulatory scrutiny.  The risk a particular firm poses to the financial system as a whole depends on its size relative to the entire financial system, rather than to any particular market, so even accepted the premises of Frankendodd the swap dealing designation should not vary by market.  (Indeed, from a systemic perspective, even $8 billion/year on a flow basis is ridiculously small.)

The senators also fret over the possibility that allowing the Shells and BPs of the world to escape the designation will limit the CFTC’s ability to deter manipulation and fraud.  Hardly.  Those things are still illegal, and swap dealing designation will have no impact whatsoever on the CFTC’s ability to detect and deter.  (Which may not be saying much, because all too often the CFTC wouldn’t know a manipulation if it hit the CFTC in the face with a waffle iron.)  (I consider it ironic that these Solons refer to the BP propane manipulation, which was discovered, prosecuted, and punished when the swap dealer designation was not even a twinkle in Barney Frank’s eye.  Bad mental image, I know.)

Relatedly, the senators worry about “transparency”, but all swaps trades will still be reported to central repositories.  The only way the dealer designation matters in this regard is it affects/determines who has to report.  (I shall pass over in silence the fact that the CFTC is at present utterly incapable of utilizing the data reported to the repositories, as Commissioner Scott O’Malia has repeatedly pointed out.)

But most importantly, the senators miss the elephant in the room.  No major energy firm has registered as a swaps dealer because energy firms have shifted trading from swaps to futures.  Another premise (flawed, but there  it is) behind Frankendodd is that swaps are somehow more dangerous to the system than futures.  The legislation and the rules under it imposed more onerous requirements on swaps than futures, in large part to encourage the movement of trading to futures markets.

So if these senators actually applied reason, rather than just hiding behind a stand-in for it, they should be overjoyed that no major energy firm has applied to be a swap dealer.  This should be a feature, not a bug.  It means that market activity has shifted to the venue that these very same senators and others who voted for Frankendodd considered to be the preferred model for trading derivatives: open, transparent, and subject to a rigorous regulatory regime.  Most notably, from a systemic risk perspective, futures are cleared, and one of the major requirements imposed on swap dealers is a clearing requirement.  So the specter of the swap dealing designation, with its associated burdens, has actually led firms to transfer trading activity from the satanic swaps markets to the sainted futures exchanges.  Yay!

But arriving at this understanding would require actual, you know, reasoning.  Not much, but some.

And that is a bridge too far when it comes to the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.  Which may be a correct description: if so, God save the world.

Okay.  I admit it.  I was wrong.

You’re shocked, I’m sure.

About what, you’re asking?

Well, I said that the RFQ provision of the SEF regulation was the worst of the worst of Frankendodd.  After further review, I’ve decided this is incorrect.  Instead, the “available for trade” rule is the worst of the worst.

The basic idea is that a swaps execution facility applies to the CFTC to list a swap contract as “available to trade.”  If the swap meets one (or more) of six rather vague factors, after receiving comments from other market participants, the CFTC will designate the swap as available.

That would be fine, I guess, if market participants had the choice to take advantage of this availability . . . or not.  But no choice is allowed.  (Choice, it is evident, is an anathema in Frankendodd.  DFA is all about making you eat your Brussels sprouts.)

Thus, once the CFTC designates something as available to trade on a SEF, all market participants subject to the SEF rule (i.e., pretty much everyone other than certain end users) must trade the contract on a SEF, or not trade it at all.  Thus, a SEF can effectively force all market participants to trade a particular instrument on a SEF, or eschew trading it altogether.

Great work, if you can get it.  The ability to make people use and buy your services.

This is beyond bizarre. The ultimate transactors internalize most of the costs and benefits of alternative means of executing a transaction.  But under the available to trade rule, they are not able to make the trade-off between these alternative means: once someone else lists a contract as available for trade, they must trade it on a SEF.  Note, moreover, that this someone else-the SEF operator-has an incentive to try to force business his way.  So the entity making the decision does not bear the full costs  and benefits of its action: indeed, it can profit from compelling others to do something that is against their interests.  That’s always a recipe for error.

Of course, the whole theory behind Frankendodd’s SEF mandate is that there is some sort of externality that leads transactors to choose inefficiently to trade bilaterally rather than on a transparent, order driven market. Just what that externality is is not obvious, to say the least: transparency is apparently a big part of that.  But even if you believe that theory, the SEF operator (a) is not going to internalize that externality, and (b) is not going to internalize the other  costs and benefits of forcing the ultimate transactors to use a particular mode of execution.  Thus, the incentives of the party that Frankendodd empowers to make the decision regarding how to trade are not aligned, even remotely, with the interests of the parties its decision affects.

Of course, a SEF must specify contractual terms of what it will make available to trade.  Market participants may try to avoid transacting something ill-suited for trading on a SEF by trading something similar, but with different terms.  But that can fall afoul of the anti-evasion provisions of Dodd-Frank.  Thus, the available to trade provision will result in (a) the coerced trading on SEFs of contracts unsuitable for it, (b) reduced trade (because market participants decide to trade less rather than trade in an inefficient way), (c) regulatory wrangling over whether some market participants are trying to evade the SEF mandate, or (d) all of the above.

Great.  Just great.

The economic justification for the SEF mandate is extremely shaky: that’s why I consider it the worst of DFA.  The implementation details only make it  worse.  These details presume either that (a) market participants don’t know their own interests, or (b) their interests are contrary to broader “social” interests.  (a) is risible, and (b) is highly dubious.  It is even more dubious to delegate to an agent that does not internalize these social interests the power to compel others who certainly bear many of the costs of the agent’s decisions to make choices they would not make voluntarily.

One last thing about the SEF mandate.  It will apparently determine the future leadership of the CFTC.  Gensler will not be reappointed, evidently.  (I shall pass over that in silence.  Need I say anything?) Relative newcomer Mark Wetjen had apparently been the frontrunner to replace him, but Wetjen’s opposition to Gensler’s obsession with RFQ5 has apparently killed his chances at becoming chairman.

My impression is that Wetjen is a serious and conscientious guy who arrived at his opposition to RFQ5 only after serious thought and efforts to determine whether the rule made any sense.  (Of course, since I think the idea made no sense, I believe he made the right call.)  But for some inexplicable reason, the RFQ rule became identified as a blow against banks, so opponents to it have become perceived as tools of the banks.* And that apparently sank Wetjen’s prospects for the chairmanship.

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world, folks.   A risible provision of the most inane aspect of Frankendodd will determine the leadership of a regulatory agency that wields incredible powers under that act.

Update: A shout out to Single Dealer Platforms (which is quite generous in linking to SWP), which expressed similar skepticism about available-to-trade before I posted this.

* The episode of my report on commodity trading firms shows pretty clearly that I don’t dance to the tune of big banks: indeed, a reporter told me that the banking group that hired me to do that report is “furious” that my report that contradicts their position has leaked out.  Yet I criticized heavily the RFQ provision.  Thus, being a bank apologist is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain opposition to the RFQ rule.

This story is very bizarre, and I can’t figure out what is going on, exactly.  Or put differently, what has put a bee in the CFTC’s bonnet about CME Clearport’s Exchange of Futures for Swaps (EFS) facility after all these years.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued a “special call” asking Wall Street banks and other traders to provide documents that would prove recent derivatives transactions known as “exchanges of futures for swaps” were legal. Lawyers at the CFTC enforcement division are also scrutinising the trades for possible violations.

. . . .

The new inquiry centres on whether large traders and market-makers used unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets to trade what were in fact futures, strictly regulated contracts that are economically identical to swaps.

Trading futures off an exchange is illegal, and regulators are concerned that traders may have used these deals, known as EFSs, to agree prices that did not reflect the market.

“They’ve made information requests to everybody that’s ever traded an EFS. They’re saying, ‘prove to us that the swap was legitimate’,” said a recipient of a CFTC document request

The only thing that makes sense is that the CFTC believes that market participants engaged in EFS transactions without having a legally binding swap agreement in place first, meaning that the parties would have engaged in futures trades off-exchange.  Or something.

Note that even if the parties had entered a swap, it may have been in effect a very short period of time-just as long as it took to execute the deal and submit it to Clearport for clearing.

I also find it curious that the article mentions that the CFTC is looking only at deals done post-Frankendodd, even though deals have been done this way since the 2002 time frame, if memory serves.  One explanation is that CFTC believes the alleged conduct was permissible under CFMA, but not under DFA.  Another guess on my part.

If there is a violation here, it seems to be a highly technical one.  The end result is pretty much the same if they did or they didn’t execute a binding swap first: each party has futures positions obtained at a privately negotiated price.

CFTC has a lot on its plate already: is this really a priority? Really?

Moreover, the party that usually screams the loudest about off-exchange trading of futures is the futures exchange.  But Clearport is a CME system, and EFS is a CME procedure, and it seems that CME is totally fine with this.  Actually, if the following quote relates to the EFS issue (and it’s not clear that that’s the case from the article), CME is actually hacked at this:

Terry Duffy, CME executive chairman, said in a letter to CFTC last week: “In our view, nothing is served by piling on duplicative reporting mandates.”

For certain, though, CME was perfectly satisfied with the way market participants were doing EFS deals.

So who is the victim here?

It’s actually ironic that EFS was the CME’s way of implementing clearing for energy and metals.  And the CFTC is rah-rah about clearing.  But it is looking askance at the CME’s way of implementing clearing.  I guess it’s a case of that was then, this is now.

CFTC also effectively killed EFS as a mechanism for facilitating OTC clearing by determining that a swap, no longer how short its existence before conversion into futures, counted towards a firm’s annual $8 billion (to be reduced to $3 billion) de minimus swap volume for the purpose of determining whether it is a swap dealer.  As a result, market participants are moving to block futures trades rather than EFS to clear energy transactions: block futures trades that are negotiated away from the central market, just as the allegedly phantom swaps were. So this is last year’s war.  If traders weren’t doing papering officially a swap deal, they were effectively engaging in block futures trades, which is what they are doing now.  If it’s OK now, other than the technical violation, was it so horrible then that it requires a full blown investigation?

So what’s up?  A burdensome, intrusive “Special Call” to investigate a possible technical violation that the exchange that would be hurt by a violation doesn’t seem to care about, and which is of little relevance going forward.

Wow.  That seems like a totally reasonable use of scare resources-resources Gensler claims he doesn’t have nearly enough of.

There are reports that the CFTC will vote on the SEF rule next week.  The rule had been in limbo for months due to Gensler’s insistence that the rule require those requesting a quote solicit them from five potential counterparties.  Gensler has apparently relented because he could not get the new Democratic commissioner, Mark Wetjen, to join with Chilton and Gensler to vote out the 5 RFQ rule.

The compromise will require users to solicit two quotes for the next two years, and then three thereafter.

Whatever.

On the 1 year anniversary of the DFA, I named the SEF mandate as The Worst of Frankendodd. I haven’t changed my mind on that, though the competition is fierce.  And the RFQ requirement is the Worst of the Worst.  It is defended as a way of  improving competition.

This is at best paternalistic.  It presumes that those who want to enter into swaps don’t know their own interests.  Perhaps Gensler thinks that the buy side suffers from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome after years of captivity to the dealer banks.

In reality, buy side firms-most of whom are extremely experienced and sophisticated-are making trade-offs between competition and information leakage.  They are trying to minimize cost of execution, and have the information and incentive to do that.  Note too that they are required to do this for every trade, regardless of instrument, size, and other factors that may influence the trade-off.  But nope, one size fits all. They should be allowed to make that trade-off themselves, without any guidance from Gary.

RFQ5?  How about RFQ0?

Here’s an analogy.  How would you like it if the government told you how many stores you had to visit before making a purchase?  You know, to make sure that you get the best price.  Call it the CS5 rule.  You have to comparison shop at five stores before making a purchase.  On everything.   Of course, when deciding on whether to shop at one store or five, you trade-off the potential savings (which will depend on the value of the purchase, the good you are shopping for, and other factors) from shopping around more, against the cost (which will vary with the value of your time, how hurried you are, your income, the price of gas, where you live, etc.)  But none of that matters under the CS5 rule.  Want to buy a quart of milk?  Shop at five stores.  For your own good.

Yeah.  It’s that bad.  CS2 would be bad, but not that bad.

Once the SEF rule goes into effect it will be interesting to see how the structure of the industry involves.  There will be a land rush of new SEFs.  I predict there will be a shakeout, and there may well be only a single dominant SEF for each major instrument.  The SEF rule does not, as I understand it, require a SEF to send an order to another SEF offering a better quote.  Which means that the network effects of liquidity will tend to cause trading activity to “tip” to a single SEF for products big enough to support order book trading.

But the whole SEF landscape will also be shaped by the margin rules, the Bloomberg suit over those rules, block trading rules, and on and on.  The rule is not the beginning of the end, it is barely the end of the beginning.

The most recent controversy over HFT stems from this WSJ story about the CME.  In a nutshell, computerized traders receive confirmations of their trades before information about those trades is disseminated to the market at large.  As in a few milliseconds before.  But in an electronic world, a few milliseconds can be decisive.

One example of a particularly informative trade is when an away-from-the-market limit order is executed.  This means that a market order of sufficient size to blow through the quote size at the inside market was submitted.  Given that orders and communicate information, and that the bigger the order, the more informative it is, knowing before anybody else that such an order has been executed can provide valuable information.

The implications of this depend on how the information is used.  A trader (or, more accurately, a bot) that gets this information can use it to take liquidity aggressively.  For instance, it can use information gleaned from a big, price-moving crude oil buy to submit an aggressive order in heating oil or RBOB, thereby picking off resting limit orders that cannot adjust to the new information.  Or, as the WSJ article suggests, the bot can use the information derived from the NYMEX CL trade to take liquidity from ICE Brent or NYMEX lookalike futures.

This kind of trading exacerbates information asymmetries, and all else equal, increases spreads, reduces depth, and increases trading costs for the uninformed.

But the “all else equal” part of the statement doesn’t necessarily hold.  This presumes that the amount of capital devoted to HFT is constant.  But that’s not true in the long run.  If these sorts of advantages generate profits, that will attract more capital into HFT.  Moreover, note that the strategy just outlined involves placing limit orders, and then reacting when those limit orders are executed.  Competition to get the information advantage will lead to more aggressive quotes, and quotes in bigger size.  In the long run equilibrium, this competition will dissipate the rents from the information advantage.

Therefore, if there is any reason to reduce this speed advantage (either by slowing down some traders or speeding up the dissemination of trade execution information to the market at large), it is to prevent the investment of excessive capital into HFT.  The effect on spreads and depth in equilibrium is ambiguous.

Moreover, there are other possible uses of the information advantage that are clearly socially beneficial.  An HFT market maker-who is likely making markets in a variety of contracts-can utilize the information to revise limit orders either in the market in which the execution occurred, or in other markets, especially those that are closely related (again, consider the CL/HO or CL/RB example).  Using the speed/information advantage in this way reduces the HFT market maker’s vulnerability to getting picked off, and makes it willing to supply liquidity more aggressively.  This tends to reduce trading costs, and does not lead to the rent seeking that in the long run equilibrium tends to result in an inefficiently large HFT presence.

We also need some perspective here.  I consider it beyond hilarious that the WSJ has a video embedded in the online version of the story that has many images from the floor.  (And these days, one of the floor’s main functions is to provide visuals for stories on trading-especially the trader’s-head-in-his-hands shot on days when the market falls a lot.  Pictures of servers aren’t nearly so dramatic.)

Why hilarious?  Well, the floor was the epitome of time and space advantages to a select few.  A select few who paid for the privilege.  I remember distinctly a trader telling me: “Why do I spend $500,000 on a seat? Because I get to see the price before anybody else.”

Exactly.  The floor was the meat version of colocation.  Or the carbon based life form version, if you like.  Those on the floor could see the execution prices, and bids and offers, and order flows, that those off the floor could not.  They profited accordingly.  Which is why the marginal guy on the floor-the least efficient trader-was willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases to get on the floor.

In 2002 or so I wrote a paper titled “Upstairs, Downstairs” (still a working paper) which showed that floor traders earned a rent as a result of their time and space advantage: upstairs traders could not supply liquidity as effectively as floor traders due to their information disadvantage, and this meant that floor traders faced limited competition in supplying liquidity.  Moreover, exchange limits on membership meant that entry could not dissipate these rents.  But by reducing the time disparities between liquidity suppliers advantage, electronic trading increased liquidity supply: upstairs traders were no longer operating under a time and space handicap.  Trading costs and rents decline. And that decline in rents is precisely why floor traders fought electronic trading so fiercely for years.

So yes, in today’s electronic markets some traders have a speed advantage.  But this disparity is nothing when compared to that which existed in the floor days.

Which is why I can’t really get all that spun up over the WSJ story, or most of the other stories about how unfair markets are.  Everything is relative.  No, the playing field isn’t perfectly level today, and along the lines of yesterday’s post, it may be in the interest of the CME to take measures to make it more level.  They say that they are.  But arguably the field is more  level than it has ever been.  It’s certainly far more level than in the heyday of the trading floors.  Don’t get nostalgic for the days when market makers were meat, not machines.  The table was tilted in their favor, bigtime.  Much more than today.

There are all sorts of proposals out there to rein in HFT.  The Europeans in particular-and in particular, particular, the Germans-want to do so.

I’ve long argued that there is good HFT and bad HFT, and that trading platforms have an incentive and the information to adjust fee structures and trading protocols in order to mitigate the latter.  For example, some exchanges have cracked down on excessive cancellations or the entering and canceling of orders far away from the current inside market.

Today’s FT reports another example, and a rather dramatic one.  One of the biggest FX trading platforms, EBS, is jettisoning the venerable time priority (“first come-first served) system with continuous trading.  Instead, it will collect orders that arrive during a period lasting a few milliseconds, and then execute them in a batch.  Instead of a continuous market, it appears to be a high speed sequence of call markets.  This eliminates the advantage of getting your quote in a millisecond sooner than someone else.  Perhaps it will also deter forms of gaming, such as strategies that (allegedly) attempt to create and exploit latency.

Will it work?  Who knows?  But that’s the point.  Markets facilitate the process of discovery.  Market participants compete to find solutions to problems.  EBS has identified a problem, and are trying to fix it using a fairly innovative change to the matching process.  If they’re right that some kinds of HFT are detrimental to market performance (and thereby reduces the demand for to trade on the platform), and their replacement of continuous trading with high speed calls impedes this detrimental HFT without impeding the good kind, they’ll make money.  And others will likely imitate, or take the basic idea and try to improve on it.

Or maybe it won’t work as planned. In which case they can try something else, or lose business to a platform that devises a better protocol.  The point is that a trading platform identified a problem with HFT, and is doing something about it, on its own.

All of this is far superior to top-down, one-size-fits-all government mandated “solutions” that are driven by political economy considerations first, efficiency considerations second . . . or third . . . or Nth.  Trading platforms may not internalize all the costs and benefits of better trading rules and fee structures, but their information and incentives are far better than regulators or legislatures.  Between competition among HFT firms, and the efforts of trading platforms to optimize the demand for their services, it’s likely that HFT’s rough edges will be smoothed out.  And if trading platforms don’t adopt such measures, you have to doubt seriously whether there’s a problem in the first place.  Because if there is a problem, they’d be the ones in the best position to know, and the best position to fix it.