RSS
Maybe you didn't know that the rogue trader at UBS AG (NYSE: UBS) who lost $2.3 billion last week was trading exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Or that Jerome Kerviel, another rogue trader at Societe Generale SA (PINK ADR: SCGLY) who lost $7.2 billion in 2008, was trading ETFs.
Maybe you didn't know that ETF trading accounts for 35% to 40% of all exchange volume, according to Morningstar Inc. (Nasdaq: MORN).
Maybe you didn't know that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Bank of England (BOE) are each concerned that ETFs pose potential systemic risks.
Maybe what you don't know can actually hurt you.
What these regulators and financial- stability oversight agencies are increasingly worried about is whether Wall Street's presumed good intention in creating these hugely popular investment vehicles is being undermined by unintended consequences.
But, let's not forget, we're talking about Wall Street, where unintended consequences are a rarity. The reality is that ETFs were originally conceived - and are increasingly being engineered - to ratchet up trading for the Street's own benefit.
And while you may not think that affects your investing or trading of ETFs, or your portfolio-diversification plans, you'll be surprised - and maybe even alarmed - to learn that you're wrong.
Let me explain ...
The idea was to offer products that mirrored benchmarks - and that traded all day, like stocks. The tradability of these instruments offers effective liquidity that conventional mutual funds lack , with the added benefit that ETFs would also be easy to short.
Product offerings multiplied quickly. In addition to exchange-traded funds based on stocks, product sponsors created ETFs that replicated oil-and-gas, gold-and-silver and diversified-commodities portfolios - all of which were based on futures contracts.
A lot of ETFs started out as a cheaper alternative to futures trading. Futures traders must cover high initial-margin deposits. And positions are marked-to-market daily, which requires immediate additional margin coverage when losses arise. The upshot: f utures trading is too expensive and too volatile for investors who are used to traditional stock market investing.
Today, investors can find exchange-traded funds that offer exposure to all kinds of risk instruments - from currencies and bonds, to thin slices of the yield curve and volatility. And there are even "leveraged" and "inverse" ETFs that multiply risk exposure and allow traders to make all kinds of directional bets.
Maybe you didn't know that ETF trading accounts for 35% to 40% of all exchange volume, according to Morningstar Inc. (Nasdaq: MORN).
Maybe you didn't know that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Bank of England (BOE) are each concerned that ETFs pose potential systemic risks.
Maybe what you don't know can actually hurt you.
ETFs: Growing Popularity, Growing Danger?
Just when you thought that exchange-traded funds were a simple, smart and safe way to diversify out of underperforming stock-and-bond mutual funds, along comes reality.What these regulators and financial- stability oversight agencies are increasingly worried about is whether Wall Street's presumed good intention in creating these hugely popular investment vehicles is being undermined by unintended consequences.
But, let's not forget, we're talking about Wall Street, where unintended consequences are a rarity. The reality is that ETFs were originally conceived - and are increasingly being engineered - to ratchet up trading for the Street's own benefit.
And while you may not think that affects your investing or trading of ETFs, or your portfolio-diversification plans, you'll be surprised - and maybe even alarmed - to learn that you're wrong.
Let me explain ...
Instruments of Diversification ... Or Disaster?
ETFs started out as tradable alternatives to mutual funds. Initially, product portfolios consisted of stocks, or baskets of stocks, that replicated such key indexes as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Standard & Poor's 500, or the Nasdaq Composite Index.The idea was to offer products that mirrored benchmarks - and that traded all day, like stocks. The tradability of these instruments offers effective liquidity that conventional mutual funds lack , with the added benefit that ETFs would also be easy to short.
Product offerings multiplied quickly. In addition to exchange-traded funds based on stocks, product sponsors created ETFs that replicated oil-and-gas, gold-and-silver and diversified-commodities portfolios - all of which were based on futures contracts.
A lot of ETFs started out as a cheaper alternative to futures trading. Futures traders must cover high initial-margin deposits. And positions are marked-to-market daily, which requires immediate additional margin coverage when losses arise. The upshot: f utures trading is too expensive and too volatile for investors who are used to traditional stock market investing.
Today, investors can find exchange-traded funds that offer exposure to all kinds of risk instruments - from currencies and bonds, to thin slices of the yield curve and volatility. And there are even "leveraged" and "inverse" ETFs that multiply risk exposure and allow traders to make all kinds of directional bets.
| New Report |
| The Next "Lehman Moment" Is Coming Fast |
| Sign up below to get the Lehman Moment Report and the latest from the Wall Street Insights & Indictments newsletter:. Enter Email Address Here: |
ETF volume has been growing at a rate of 40% a year for the past decade. According to BlackRock Inc. (NYSE: BLK), which bought the successful ETF product manufacturer, iShares, exchange-traded-fund assets exceed $1 trillion in the U.S. market and $321 billion in Europe.
On the surface, it all looks good. But behind this vast array of exchange-traded funds that retail investors rely on for diversification are thousands of traders - most of them institutional players. And those professionals trade these same ETFs - and they trade all the underlying securities, futures and derivative instruments that make up those funds.
And that's a problem - on several levels.
High-frequency trading (HFT) has become standardized practice across all major trading houses. And what are these outfits trading so frequently? That's right -- ETFs and all their underlying stocks and other component instruments are the building blocks of most HFT trading programs.
Not only has growth spawned more trading, more trading has exponentially elevated market volatility.
The frightening irony is that traditional retail investors are diversifying into ETFs to protect themselves from the stock-market volatility that's eroding long-term-investing horizons, and instead are becoming multiple-asset-class speculators.
And they don't even know it.
On Wall Street, ETF trading has become such a big business that significant space on Delta One trading desks goes to teams of ETF traders. Delta One, which is an options trading term that refers to how much an option price moves relative to its underlying instrument (a delta of 1 means the option moves on a 1- to- 1 basis with the underlying) is the name big banks give their trading desks that aren't supposed to be prop trading with the bank's money.
Rogue traders Kerviel from Societe Generale and Kweku Adoboli from UBS both were Delta One desk ETF traders.
That should tell you something.
The massive losses they incurred resulted from a failure to hedge out the risk of their positions properly; in other words, they weren't "delta neutral" - as they fraudulently pretended to be.
But the larger point is that t hese desks are flat out taking huge positions in ETFs. And if they are speculating in underlying futures, they are using ETFs to hedge.
The Delta One desks are actually a ruse. Their role is supposed to be one of facilitating customer order flow on big trades by taking the other side of institutional positions. They do this in their capacity as "market-makers" on behalf of their customers. But while they can hedge the positions they take with offsetting trades - hence the "Delta One" designation - they aren't actually doing that as often as they are supposed to.
These desks are nothing more than proprietary trading desks posing as market makers - while they're actually wagering the house's money to make big profits and bonuses. And they are increasingly using ETFs to make those giant wagers.
Most frighteningly, many exchange-traded ETFs and approximately 40% of European over-the-counter ETFs are based on "synthetic" portfolios. The underlying instruments in theses ETFs can be swaps, derivatives, and "referenced" securities (meaning they aren't even in the portfolio). Not only are these ETFs leveraged by the nature of their derivative-portfolio construction, they pose huge counterparty risk based on who is on the other side of the underlying instruments that have to pay up if their bets go wrong.
And we're now discovering that the huge increase in volatility that ETF trading has helped create isn't even the most serious problem we face.
The Financial Stability Board, an international oversight committee hosted by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), recently warned that "intensive recourse to securities lending by ETFs provides new challenges in terms of counterparty and collateral risk."
Here in the United States, the CFTC is taking a hard look at ETFs. The CFTC's chief concern is how, by concentrating instruments or assets in certain futures markets, ETFs exceed position limits - which has forced some funds to turn to derivatives and swaps to supplement commodity holdings.
And now the SEC is looking into whether ETF trading contributed to the unprecedented volatility we saw in August.
Given the evidence already presented here, I feel I don't even need to offer a comment on that.
The bottom line for ETF investors is that they need to be aware that these diversification tools are far more volatile and speculative than they realize. The interconnectedness of huge traders placing bets on all these products and their underlying securities and derivatives makes them prone to systemic risk, which somehow almost always goes against ordinary investors.
Don't ever buy an ETF without knowing exactly what it is, what makes up its portfolio, whether it's leveraged, who is behind it, and how volatile it has been historically. And, even then, don't lose sight of your positions, and use stop-loss orders for safety.
On the surface, it all looks good. But behind this vast array of exchange-traded funds that retail investors rely on for diversification are thousands of traders - most of them institutional players. And those professionals trade these same ETFs - and they trade all the underlying securities, futures and derivative instruments that make up those funds.
And that's a problem - on several levels.
From Rogues to Riches - Wall Street's, That Is
In order to create baskets of stocks, bonds, futures and other financial instruments that become ETFs, sponsors employ "authorized participants" to package and essentially manufacture them. Authorized participants, typically big trading shops, are constantly buying component instruments to create ETF shares - only to sell them when ETFs shrink (because net sales diminish their size). But not only are these "insiders" buying and selling ETF-component securities to create and retire ETF shares, they are also constantly arbitraging and speculating against the actual exchange prices.High-frequency trading (HFT) has become standardized practice across all major trading houses. And what are these outfits trading so frequently? That's right -- ETFs and all their underlying stocks and other component instruments are the building blocks of most HFT trading programs.
Not only has growth spawned more trading, more trading has exponentially elevated market volatility.
The frightening irony is that traditional retail investors are diversifying into ETFs to protect themselves from the stock-market volatility that's eroding long-term-investing horizons, and instead are becoming multiple-asset-class speculators.
And they don't even know it.
On Wall Street, ETF trading has become such a big business that significant space on Delta One trading desks goes to teams of ETF traders. Delta One, which is an options trading term that refers to how much an option price moves relative to its underlying instrument (a delta of 1 means the option moves on a 1- to- 1 basis with the underlying) is the name big banks give their trading desks that aren't supposed to be prop trading with the bank's money.
Rogue traders Kerviel from Societe Generale and Kweku Adoboli from UBS both were Delta One desk ETF traders.
That should tell you something. The massive losses they incurred resulted from a failure to hedge out the risk of their positions properly; in other words, they weren't "delta neutral" - as they fraudulently pretended to be.
But the larger point is that t hese desks are flat out taking huge positions in ETFs. And if they are speculating in underlying futures, they are using ETFs to hedge.
The Delta One desks are actually a ruse. Their role is supposed to be one of facilitating customer order flow on big trades by taking the other side of institutional positions. They do this in their capacity as "market-makers" on behalf of their customers. But while they can hedge the positions they take with offsetting trades - hence the "Delta One" designation - they aren't actually doing that as often as they are supposed to.
These desks are nothing more than proprietary trading desks posing as market makers - while they're actually wagering the house's money to make big profits and bonuses. And they are increasingly using ETFs to make those giant wagers.
Most frighteningly, many exchange-traded ETFs and approximately 40% of European over-the-counter ETFs are based on "synthetic" portfolios. The underlying instruments in theses ETFs can be swaps, derivatives, and "referenced" securities (meaning they aren't even in the portfolio). Not only are these ETFs leveraged by the nature of their derivative-portfolio construction, they pose huge counterparty risk based on who is on the other side of the underlying instruments that have to pay up if their bets go wrong.
And we're now discovering that the huge increase in volatility that ETF trading has helped create isn't even the most serious problem we face.
Market Overseers Taking a Close Look
In a June report on systemic risk and ETFs, the Bank of England pointed to the expansion of ETF trading and risks "characterized by increasing complexity, opacity and interconnectedness."The Financial Stability Board, an international oversight committee hosted by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), recently warned that "intensive recourse to securities lending by ETFs provides new challenges in terms of counterparty and collateral risk."
Here in the United States, the CFTC is taking a hard look at ETFs. The CFTC's chief concern is how, by concentrating instruments or assets in certain futures markets, ETFs exceed position limits - which has forced some funds to turn to derivatives and swaps to supplement commodity holdings.
And now the SEC is looking into whether ETF trading contributed to the unprecedented volatility we saw in August.
Given the evidence already presented here, I feel I don't even need to offer a comment on that.
The bottom line for ETF investors is that they need to be aware that these diversification tools are far more volatile and speculative than they realize. The interconnectedness of huge traders placing bets on all these products and their underlying securities and derivatives makes them prone to systemic risk, which somehow almost always goes against ordinary investors.
Don't ever buy an ETF without knowing exactly what it is, what makes up its portfolio, whether it's leveraged, who is behind it, and how volatile it has been historically. And, even then, don't lose sight of your positions, and use stop-loss orders for safety.
[Editor's Note: Money Morning's Shah Gilani is known for his bold (and amazingly accurate) predictions, his investment acumen - and his willingness to take on the very institution that once employed him.We're talking, of course, about Wall Street.
Gilani's soon-to-debut e-letter - "Wall Street Insights and Indictments" - will feature all of his talents. He'll detail the latest profit trends, will examine the latest risks - and he'll continue to call out Wall Street.
Stay tuned: We'll soon have information on how to subscribe to this free newsletter.]
News and Related Story Links
- Money Morning News Analysis:
Rogue Trader Costs UBS $2 Billion - Sends Stock Skidding 11%. - CityWire News (UK):
Synthetic ETFs Spell Danger, says Bank of England. - Reuters:
How Much Flatter Can the Yield Curve Go? - Money Morning Investment Research:
Investing Strategies: The Right Way to Use Inverse Funds. - Money Morning Special Report:
High Frequency Trading: Wall Street's New Rent-Seeking Trick. - Money Morning News Analysis:
Thursday's Wild Stock Market Ride Spotlights 'High-Frequency Trading' as the Latest Worry For Investors. - IndexUniverse:
Rogue Trading 101: How to Lose $2 Billion. - International Centre For Financial Regulation:
UK's Super-Regulator on Systemic Risks and ETFs. - Money Morning Market Commentary:
Low Stock Market Volume: It's Even Weaker Than You Think.
More on this topic
(What's this?)
Measuring the Performance of the Ivy Portfolio
(Phil’s Stock World, 12/1/12)
Investing in Low Volatility Stocks and ETFs
(Investment U, 5/25/12)
iShares ETFs: The Top 10 Performers
(Investment U, 4/6/12)
When The Market Trend Reverses This ETF Will Burst
(Wealth Daily, 3/14/12)
Tags: ETFs, rogue, Wall Street
Thank you
Thanks for the insight
…and just a word to the wise if I may. The double inverse S&P SDS is fine as a short term trading vehicle, but don't expect to hold it as a long term downside hedge without seeing quite a bit of slippage from the actual percentage of negative two times the S&P. It doesn't track well at all.
Mr. Gilani,
In this context, would you recommend to stay in Guggenheim's S&P Global Water Fund (CGW)?
I believe in water very much (for the future) and wouldn't know of any better alternative.
Thanks for you reply.
Fallingman, you are on your game, Sir. Our SDS position is a short term play to catch a falling knife.
Mr. Gilani,
As usual a very informative work. Another concern I would have with ETFs is that since they are structured as Unit Investment Trusts/Grantor Trusts, there could be tax issues to deal with. The buying and selling of the underlying securities can create "Phantom Proceeds" and "Phantom Gains." Even though the individual owner may not have sold anything, they may still have 1099-B reportable proceeds. In addition, if there is any undistributed income that has been received by the ETF but was not distributed, that would be added to their 1099-DIV and/or 1099-INT. While there may be efforts to minimize the two, it is still a concern.
Keep up the good work.
Mike
This is a difficult topic to understand fully, but the article seems to give a good clue that some restrictions should be put in place to control the ETF world from doing any further damage.
I had been advised by a certain well known internet investment analyst to purchase PSQ(proshares QQQ) as a hedge against a falling market. I found out that it was totally worthless as an inverse ETF shorting the market. Even when the market went down PSQ sometimes declined as well. And in big market drops PSQ barely went up 1 or 2%. Over the long run, if you hold it, you will certainly lose.
These complex instruments are all engineered to rob the common man and enrich the market manipulators and insiders. Silver is another big trap. They lure you in with some steady gains, then when enough cattle are in the pen—-WHAM!!!—-the door slams shut and the price drops.
If you paid $42 for a share in a silver ETF and the price drops to $28 where did the money you lost go? It went to the insider manipulators, as it always does of course! The same thing will happen with gold ETFs, and don't think you own real gold—-it's electronic entries you own. That means you really bought nothing!
Thank-you very much for the compelling report on ETF's. Extremely good timing. I've been giving ETF's
serious consideration for some time for two practical reasons. One, they trade all day like stocks-not like
mutual funds. And two, I can make profits in up and down markets with ETF's. Unlike options which have expiration dates, ETF shares can be held-indefinitely. So timing is not as critical.
However, now I will definitely proceed with caution and use the guidelines written near the end of this
article-which I've saved for future reference. Thanks again.
A. R. Habeeb, Jr.
Learn how to play slots before trying the market.
The market is going to the dogs because the big boys are heavy on short selling or its amplified eqivalent, the leveraged etf.
Great article! I invest in some ETF, one is UNG – it is a complete scam. From $100 it lost 90% to $9 today and going down to "0". They posted 23 warning points of different risk involved trying to secure themselves from law suits. SEC is still sleeping or ignorant. Next market crash will be caused by all 1,333 ETF funds that enrich Wall Streen speculators and rip off uprofessional investors. Let's bombard SEC with our messages to do something before it is too late.