Slashdot Mirror
UBS Rogue Trader Loses $2 Billion In Unauthorized Trades
PolygamousRanchKid writes with this snippet from Reuters that sounds like a ready-made movie script: "Switzerland's UBS said on Thursday it had discovered unauthorized trading by a trader in its investment bank had caused a loss of some $2 billion. 'The matter is still being investigated, but UBS's current estimate of the loss on the trades is in the range of $2 billion,' the bank said in a brief statement just before the stock market opened." Asks the RanchKid: "I wonder how this will reopen the debate about the role of computer systems in the trading and the safeguards that are supposed to protect against these risks. But if microseconds mean millions in trading ... who has time for checks?"
How does a human being engaged in $2B worth of fraud say anything about computer algorithms and millisecond-level trading?
Liberty in your lifetime
At a competitor? Hell, this man is CEO material. You can't let assets like that get away.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
These "rogue trader" stories come out from time to time, among employees of all the more respectable class of casino, and they leave me deeply skeptical...
Either these outfits are, in fact, handing people the keys to gigantic piles of risk with controls roughly on par with the ones used to keep bored 16-year-old cashiers from skimming the till, or there is a substantial amount of tacit looking-the-other-way as Mr. Golden Boy flouts the rules and makes huge piles of money, and then, if things go south, his actions were "rogue".
Honestly, I find it hard to believe the former. This industry is riddled with perverse incentives toward taking on outsize risk loads(that hopefully won't blow up until you leave, or will blow up in somebody else's face) in exchange for rewards now. Am I supposed to believe that Poor li'l UBS just got plumb slickered by some smooth talker, or that "rogue" is simply the PR response to those who operate particularly close to the risk/reward envelope and happen to stop producing the numbers that HQ wants to see?
High-Frequency Trading is a bet, not much different than counting cards at a Las Vegas blackjack table.
You're betting that:
- You get your trade in milliseconds or less before the opportunity vanishes.
- Your coders are not missing anything that would cause you to fail.
- Your coders are sharper than the other coders our there, or...
- You are taking from the humans, and aren't at risk from other HFT code.
- Nothing goes bad in all of this, from comm links to the market platform.
And of course you can always beg the SEC to unwind the transactions, claiming it was a programming glitch. That's been done before. The SEC is no longer an effective watchdog over the industry. It has in effect been 'captured'. Game Over unless Mary can turn it around. Unlikely.
When you dig into how the NYSE actually works today, with DMMs and 'liquidity providers', that one entity can account for 10-20% of total volume, and all of that is HFT, you may realize that the days of humans trading on news and speculation are over. If you want to hold for a duration and take profits over the span of years, just hope you don;'t need to cash out on the same day as the machines have decided they see opportunity in trashing your holdings. Nothing personal, it was an algorithm you know. Just happens.
It's a genuine miracle that we don't see more flash crashes and >$1B fails than we do. HFT is going ot destroy the market, but only for actual humans. One day, when we realize that 70% of the market volume is HFT, we will then understand that the NYSE in particular is a house of cards. Then what?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
No offense but a successful career in a high-stakes environment like the military is no preparation for being a complete waste to society and eventually losing $2B on top of it all... For that you need a business degree.
This was a trader, not HFT. He was manually calling in trades, either through a computerized system or through UBS's trading desk. The money was lost over a period of time in which he was probably exploiting loopholes in the controls of UBS. It's really disturbing seeing the trend against HFT when there is no evidence to show how it's being perceived. The flash crash last year was not caused to to HFT but due to a fund selling $4.1bn in E-Mini S&P futures.
From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral,"[10] and detailed how a large mutual fund firm selling an unusually large number of E-Mini S&P 500 contracts first exhausted available buyers, and then how high-frequency traders (HFT) started aggressively selling, accelerating the effect of the mutual fund's selling and contributing to the sharp price declines that day.
Still lacking sufficient demand from fundamental buyers or cross-market arbitrageurs, HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other – generating a “hot-potato” volume effect as the same positions were rapidly passed back and forth. Between 2:45:13 and 2:45:27, HFTs traded over 27,000 contracts, which accounted for about 49 percent of the total trading volume, while buying only about 200 additional contracts net.
"a large fundamental trader (a mutual fund complex) initiated a sell program to sell a total of 75,000 E-Mini contracts (valued at approximately $4.1 billion) as a hedge to an existing equity position."
--- end quoting
I just roll my eyes... "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could..." It was a sell order for $4.1bn let me type that out... $4,100,000,000. Anybody have any idea what that does to available liquidity? No time in the history of the US markets could they have withstood this type of hit. HFTs provided liquidity during that time, higher spreads but without the HFTs the bottom would have fallen out. The drop would have been MUCH MUCH worse.
Right now HFTs are the target of a smear campaign by the SEC, it's a scapegoat. HFTs almost uniformly lost their butts that day. Read between the lines and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Two more things I'll hold your hands on... a large FUNDAMENTAL trader, this means somebody who trades on fundamentals not technical analysis, which is critical to HFT, initiated a trade for 75K contracts. HFTs passed that around for a volume of 27K almost 1/3 of that... So if you try to take the worst slant on that they provided liquidity to 1/3 of the order that started this. hmmm... what if HFTs weren't trading that day... others would have had to absorb over 33% of that hit. The result, Armageddon!
Sometimes I don't know why I try... I guess the Kool-Aid is too tempting.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Ultimately, it is, because ultimately, every trade has a winner and a loser, and ultimately, the value of every stock goes to zero. We just haven't seen the game played out long enough yet (though we came pretty close recently).
No, it isn't (except in the 'in the long run we are all dead' sense). Consider the dot com boom. Over-inflated dot com stock valuations caused large amounts of additional investment in dot coms which were never going to make money, or quite possible provide any useful service at all. The economy wasted resources in pointless rubbish, thus reducing the amount available for consumption and investment in other things.
Stock market valuations and stock market investors motivated by them affect many decisions. Things like: should company x buy company y? What minimum rate of return should we require internally on our investments/what should we take our internal cost of capital to be? Should the current managers be retained? Should we raise money via a new share issue or IPO? What should I, as a VC or private equity investor, invest in and how much money do I get (from sales of businesses) to spend on new investments? What interest rate must the government pay me for me to lend to it instead of buying stocks?
I'm not going to claim stock markets do these well. I don't know the answer and I don't know what to compare them to. Nor will I claim there isn't a great deal of zero-sum or near zero-sum activity going on - that described in the article is almost certainly near-zero-sum (probably somewhat negative). It's quite plain, though, that these decisions have to be made and that they're important. They affect economic growth rates. They affect the distribution of wealth (amongst ordinary people, not just those in the industry). They are most certainly not zero sum.