The first question I’d ask is “are we actually seeing a surprising number of intraday reversals?” — it definitely feels like we are but I’d want to see some stats on that to see if there’s actually anything to explain or whether this could just be seeing patterns in noise.
-
Show this thread
-
Then I’d throw out the explanations that can’t possibly work eg negative gamma exposure, CTAs, risk parity, target vol funds... these would all act in the wrong direction (they are momentum-reinforcing) so can’t be a useful part of the explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
Then throw out the nonsense explanations (front running, “the algos” without any eleboration, “passive flows” without an explanation of why they would be counter-trend) or the irrelevant ones (eg charm flows given we are not near an opex)
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
That leaves us with one possible mechanical explanation, dealer hedging due to positive gamma exposure which *could* cause an intraday reversal although unlikely to cause one as big as what we saw on Friday. A partial answer, not the whole answer.
3 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
But look, we don’t need (nor should we expect) mechanical explanations for every market move! Sometimes the market moves just because a big buyer came along for reasons completely unrelated to whatever else was going on at the time. Sometimes it reverses because it looked ...
3 replies 0 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
undervalued to someone and they stepped in to buy at a discount. Sometimes it moves for no goddamn reason whatsoever. If market moves were predictable for mechanical reasons there would be a lot more people keeping quiet and making money off it, not coming onto twitter...
1 reply 1 retweet 54 likesShow this thread -
and shouting about it to anyone who will listen. Searching for an explanation for every market move is a game for fools and charlatans. The best most of us can do is stay focused, stick to your process and keep searching for that 1% signal in the noise.
9 replies 6 retweets 99 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @macrocephalopod
Hmmm. I’m sure this won’t shock you, but I’m going to respectfully disagree...1st, I hope we can agree that there are major structural components to how this elaborate machine operates. Throwing your hands up & claiming that they don’t matter, or that they are too complicated to
3 replies 4 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @jam_croissant @macrocephalopod
flows matter...and systematic flows are THE marginal allocator in this quant-based environment ;)
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @CapitalParadox @jam_croissant
Seems strange to call this a “quant based” environment when quants are at best 1/3 of hedge fund AUM and a much smaller proportion of all active AUM. What makes quants the marginal allocator rather than the much larger discretionary AUM?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Put another way, quant hedge funds manage $1tn of which a big chunk is market neutral (so little impact on directional moves) and another big chunk is trading rates, credit, fx or commodities rather than stocks. US market cap alone is $50tn. Hard to make this add up.
-
-
And how small of a factor is the sum total of retail day traders, yet clearly they are having an impact on this market, if not through their own assets, through the assets of those others who track their activity/sentiment and magnify/exploit it several-fold.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
all part of an emergent order...individually not so meaningful...as a crowd, VERY ;)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.