Seeking Alpha

David White's  Instablog

David White
  • on REITs
Send Message
David White is a software/firmware/marketing professional and a long time investor. He has worked in the networking field, the semiconductor equipment field, the mainframe computer field, and the pharmaceutical/scientific instrumentation field. He has bachelor's degrees in bioresource sciences... More
View David White's Instablogs on:
  • High Frequency Trading Can Be Insider Trading

    High Frequency Trading is essentially extremely fast trading. There are many strategies. Some of these strategies involve options and futures trading as well as equities. I will limit this article to equities trading only, for simplicity’s sake.

    One of the strategies for HFT is called stealth. Big orders can be termed an iceberg. Since they are big it is generally cheaper to break the iceberg up into smaller orders. This can allow a smart computer program to identify an iceberg quickly. An HFT program can then buy ahead of most of the iceberg’s trades (in a BUY iceberg case) . Then the HFT can effectively sell to the iceberg at a slightly higher price. In another case, some major players receive FLASH notices of trade requests for say 30 microseconds before others see them. With their super fast computers, they can buy (or sell as may be appropriate) ahead of those trades. Then they can sell quickly at a slightly higher price. They don’t have to sell to a particular requestor. Their quick scans can tell them that the preponderance of orders is of one type. Another strategy may be predictive (not need flash, which not all HFT users have access to) by following the micro trends in the UP and DOWN volumes in a stock. The actual strategy is more complex than this, but you get the idea. Usually this kind of HFT will only be done on highly traded stocks. Some players even get paid a tiny fee for providing liquidity. In total HFT is said to provide approximately $21B/year in profit. This is no small enterprise. According to Zero Hedge, High Frequency Trading accounts for 73% of all US equity trading volume. There are many more strategies than those I have simplistically outlined above.

    How can High Frequency Trading be insider trading? Actually there are a lot of ways. One is through the FLASH notices that I have described above. However, I am only really writing about one very abusive case in this article. Specifically I am writing about High Frequency Trading in highly shorted stocks. In most cases, you could say that HFT traders were taking the same chances as every other investor. This is not true of course, but they do have the risk of down movements as slower traders and retail investors do.

    In highly shorted stocks, even this is not really true in these short time periods. Once a stock has been shorted by 10%, the uptick rule is in force. The HFT traders have to worry much less about the stock going down in the small timeframe they are dealing with (presuming they are playing it to the upside). This is a hugely unfair advantage. More than this, they can actually engineer short squeezes -- a job made easier by the uptick rule. This is the situation that I find most disturbing. HFT can feed a short squeeze, especially if it is of the predictive type of HFT. If a lot of HFT players are playing the stock at the same time, they can just be selling to each other, Then each transaction will drive the price of the stock up. When the short squeeze really starts, the little profits they usually make are multiplied many fold. Many shorts are forced to cover. The stock price can skyrocket quickly. Some retail investors are fooled into entering the quickly rising stock on a price and volume basis. They can quickly find themselves holding a far over inflated equity. The bottom can fall out for them quickly. The HFT players, who operate in microseconds, are long gone by then. The non-HFT shorts that were forced to cover have also lost money. These people were often investing to the shrot side on a fundamental basis (too bad for them).

    Now some might say this is true of most stocks to a large degree. Why am I making such a big deal about highly shorted stocks? The real reason is that it leads to what I consider serious crime. Some one can start a rumor about one of these stocks. The price can skyrocket. The HFT traders are not singled out by a high volume of stock or options purchases, as they might have been in the past. Instead they are hidden to a large degree in the heavy volume of many HFT players. They can commit this crime of improving their HFT results without specifically identifying themselves as culprits. Another method might be for a brokerage house or a group of brokerage houses to among themselves agree to raise their recommendations on a highly shorted stock, even though the fundamentals may not justify a higher recommendation at all. If they spread these raises out over time, they could keep the stock in a short squeeze mode for a long period of time (or many great days of short squeezes with some retracements in between). The brokerages could then use their predictive model HFT on this stock to make huge profits. Again they are not singled out by big options or stock purchases. Can I say I have proof of this happening? No, I do not have the kind of proof to take to court. However, it is reasonable to presume that it does happen. If I have thought of it, some on Wall Street have been greedy enough to do it.

    The Congress and the SEC should see the truly huge possibility for abuse in this area. What I have described above is likely already illegal. However, the possibility of some one getting caught and convicted are probably slight. If it is hard to prove guilt in these cases, it is better to do away with the possibility of this abuse. HFT trading should be outlawed for any stock for which the uptick rule has been invoked. This will not level the playing field. However, it will prevent retail investors from buying into the worst of the fast moving suckers’ rallies, which are most likely to make them poorer. It will help to prevent brokerages from as blatantly lying in their recommendations about stocks in order to further their HFT gains. Perhaps this restriction should apply to stocks that are over 5% shorted, not just those that are over 10% shorted. If you believe the markets and the brokerage houses should have some integrity, you should support this restriction. The SEC should be able to easily identify if HFT trading is occurring on a stock.

    Now some might argue that this might seriously impact the liquidity of the affected stocks. This is a valid concern. However, there are few stocks that are more than 10% shorted. It might be good if they actually had less volume. With the uptick rule in force, they should still have limited negative movement due to the removal of the HFT volume. If you wanted to include stocks shorted only 5% in this rule change, you might have a bigger problem. That might be solved by specifying the use of only specific types of HFT on stocks that are 5% to 10% shorted. If good regulations were developed for these stocks, the average investor would benefit. This is what Congress and the SEC should want. Wall Street will find a way to make good money with HFT without these extreme and likely often abused cases.

    Do I think brokerages sometimes give false recommendations in order to aid their HFT programs? Yes, I am virtually certain it happens in some cases. Do I think some HFT trading houses start false rumors in order to help their results? Yes, again. Do I think some Hedge Funds and/or brokerages may sometimes act in collusion in their HFT trading? Yes. The market has recently been described as a slow melt up. If 73% of the volume is due to HFT, who do you think is responsible for the melt up? Who do you think is making the most money from it? If HFT is responsible for most of the up move, who do you think will be left with most of the down move? If the whole system could be easily changed without inducing a major financial meltdown, I might recommend that. Unfortunately, I don’t believe now is the time to mess with a very complex system. HFT undeniably does provide often needed liquidity to the markets. The small changes I have recommended might right some of the worst abuses. They would have little overall effect on the healthy functioning of the markets.

    If you want to convince yourself of the truth of any of my assertions, all you really have to do is to think of the pronounced phenomenon of sector rotation. A sector becomes hot for a few weeks. Then it drops out of favor as other sectors become hot. Cyclicality is normal to a degree, but is it normal to the degree we see it? If tech stocks are a good bet for much of the year, why can't they be a hot but slower rising sector in all of the upturns? The most obvious explanation is that the HFT traders take their profits, then they give the sector a rest. The sector falls on its own with the lower volume. In not too long the sector is again ready for the HFT folks to give it another rise. Often this happens irrespective of news. For instance, in Jan. the tech sector rose before earnings. Then though earnings were good the sector was flat to down. HFT volume does seem to be the most likely explanation. The HFT players do not even have to lower the volume dramatically, they can merely shift the algorithm being used to a highly safe one from an aggressive predictive one. This is an example of why timing the market can be a losing proposition for non-insiders.

    If you want to avoid the worst of HFT, avoid the most highly shorted stocks.

    Good Luck trading.





    Disclosure: I have no positions in these stocks at this time
    Tags: SPY, QQQ, DIA, HOG, X
    Mar 21 9:35 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Obama Is Too Concerned With “One Big Fix” For Health Care

    Obama is trying too hard to get one big fix for health care. He’s finding it is extremely hard to get everyone to agree. One reason they don’t want to is that most “big changes” turn out to be horrifically expensive. Most fail, or they are watered down demonstrably after they have incurred the afore mentioned huge costs. There is no reason Obama cannot approach this problem piece meal. This approach is much more likely to be successful. The fact is there will be less opposition to any one significant change.

    The change with the most bang for the buck is likely a change to the approach to malpractice. If the US Congress made arbitration mandatory as the first step in malpractice suit, this would cut down the costs considerably. An experienced, “malpractice expert” arbitrator could dismiss frivolous lawsuits quickly. Such an arbitrator could make quick, fair decisions. Such an arbitrator would avoid the occasional exorbitant awards that emotional juries can make. This might cut the payouts to a few harmed individuals, but it should still allow them a chance at a fair award. Further it should cut costs simply by cutting the actual time spent in court. Further the approximate expected awards could be specifically called out. The allowable growth of a possible award per year could be called out. Some allowance could be made for the level of the award due of specific types of wrongs. I point out that arbitration has worked well for baseball, etc.

    In order to be consistent with legal precedent, it would have to allow for appeal of the arbitration decision to a higher court. This might be costly. However, the standard for allowing appeals could be set high. The burden of proof of demonstrable wrong doing would also be higher at the appeal court level. These high standards would discourage most from taking this route.

    The obvious problem with this is that it would force some lawyers to change their line of work. The volume of medical malpractice law would obviously go down. The American Bar Association would strongly oppose such an initiative. It would still be hard to pass. However, it would be good for the bulk of society. It would encourage more medical personnel to stay in medicine. Many good ones now leave because they start to feel persecuted by lawyers who are willing to do anything to bring lawsuits (in order to get a settlement or to win). These actions harm the bulk of society. This is a big change that can and should be made. Why does Obama not try to make it as a first step. This would cut the cost of medicine by at least 20%-30%. It would cut the total wards and costs of malpractice (lawyers time is expensive) by at least 50%. The law enacted might have to specify (as well as it could) that savings in malpractice costs would filter directly into lower costs. Otherwise they might be absorbed as profits by health care co.’s, or by medical personnel, etc.

    This change alone would be a big step. It would be hard to get by the ABA. Yet it obviously should be made. For those of you who are fervent believers in Obama’s huge “one big fix” plan, you have to ask yourselves why this change is not being made immediately? It would cut medical costs for businesses and individuals. It would make US businesses more competitive. Why is it not being done? Is the reality that no one wants a change? Is the reality that Obama does not want to specifically alienate the ABA? Are some lobbies/groups so strong that the right thing cannot be done?

    Disclosure: No positions in the stocks mentioned
    Tags: UNH, AET, HUM, ANTM
    Mar 02 6:58 PM | Link | 7 Comments
  • The Aged Will Bankrupt Any Entitlement Health Care System Unless Care Is Limited

    I keep hearing that the issues of the AARP have to be accounted for in any health care bill. My only answer to that is that yes they should be considered as thoroughly as possible. However, the overriding fact is that medicine can prolong life for a long time. The problem is that that prolongation is increasingly expensive in those last few years. Adding 1-5 years to each persons life at an average cost of the previous 15 years of medical care for that person is simply not something the US (or perhaps any country) can afford to do via an entitlement system. Beyond the age of 80, medical costs are as a rule a stop gap measure at best. Virtually everyone dies by 100. The average lifespan in the US is 78.2 years. Older people often suffer from dementia. They require more care. They contribute little to the US economy or even to US societal health. Often they are a huge drag on their families. Does it make sense to prolong this burden on the younger generations (both monetarily and emotionally)? Or does it make more sense just to let the oldest die of natural causes without making terrifically expensive attempts to prolong their lives for a few more years?

    I am getting older myself, so these questions are no longer purely rhetorical. I am like everyone else. I feel the old should be cared for. Unfortunately, the entitlement health care system cannot afford to do that without bankrupting the system. If families can afford to do this, that is great. Few probably can. That still does not mean the government should assume this burden. It quite simply can’t afford to anymore than most families. For every Warren Buffet, who has remained productive into his late years, there are hundreds or thousands of others who are severe burdens on the system and even on their families. Medical statistics show that long term serious illness of parents can shorten children’s lifetimes by several years. The reality is that the government is not doing those children any favors by extending the torture of their parents deaths. The system has to acknowledge this. The system has to severely limit how much it is willing to spend on those who pass 80 (or even those who pass 70). The AARP has to complain. It has to guilt everyone who opposes them. That does not mean that the AARP’s lobby should win on all of its issues (as it seems to do).

    Instead of acquiescence to the AARP lobby, hard decisions have to be made about this care. Many parents in the past have chosen to die quickly in order to have money left to give their children. They have chosen to forgo expensive medical care. They have realized they were dying soon no matter what happened. They have chosen not to be an excessive burden to their children. If the government alleviates them of this choice by bankrupting its own system, is that a good thing? Can the government afford to do this? Can the kids afford the taxes dictated by this government mandated choice by the parents? Will this force fed choice make the older generation apathetic about spending huge amounts on health care instead of miserly about it? I am in the baby boom generation. My generation is the one that will present a huge burden to those younger. If the course of government entitlements continues, will those younger spend all of their money supporting my generation’s health care? Does that sound fair? I want free health care, but I don’t want to rob those younger of their enjoyment of life. I find myself willing to die if extremely ill at an old age. I believe in preventative health care. I am hoping this will help. Can more be done in this area? Can a rational approach be passed with the strength of the AARP? Few politicians want to alienate this powerful group. Yet it would seem they have to be willing to anger this group in order to pass a rational health care bill.

    Disclosure: no positions in these stocks at this time
    Tags: ANTM, HUM, AET
    Feb 25 11:49 AM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


  • Those taking psychiatric drugs are probably not much better risks. They could stop anytime. Also misdiagnoses are a huge problem.
    Oct 2, 2015
  • However, there are a lot of NUTS out there. Many have or have had drug problems. There is no telling what they will do or when.
    Oct 2, 2015
  • We need a better system for treating and monitoring the mentally ill. If people buying guns have to pass a mental health test, that'd be OK.
    Oct 2, 2015
More »

Latest Comments

Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.