Thursday's 'Flash Crash': Reasons ETFs Were Hit So Hard

By
A A A
Share |

IndexUniverse submits:

By Matt Hougan

Exchange-traded funds were at the center of the 'flash crash' last week, but it wasn't because ETFs are flawed.

A lot of people out there are trying to make that connection. As we reported in our coverage of the crisis , around two-thirds of all securities that had their trades canceled by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca last Thursday were ETFs. It's easy to confer blame.


The data, however, don't back that up. We don't yet know with 100 percent certainty why ETFs played such a central role in the debacle, but we have a number of good theories, and none of them points to a "flaw" in the ETF system.

Still, it's not a coincidence that ETFs featured so prominently. If there's somehow a repeat of last Thursday's craziness-if market reforms don't materialize and high-frequency traders don't adjust-ETFs will likely be right in the middle of it all again. They are powerful tools, but the way they function in the market needs to be understood.

The most popular explanation I've heard is that ETFs are exposed to mistaken prices in underlying stocks. Computers are constantly monitoring the share price of ETFs and comparing those to the fair value of their underlying components. When prices get out of whack, computers will arbitrage the difference away, selling an ETF and buying its underlying securities, or vice versa.

That's a wonderful thing. It's what keeps ETFs trading in line with fair value, and is the key to how ETFs function.

A Few Explanations

But if you get bad prices in a few securities-if, say, a few large-cap stocks drop $20-you get a cascading effect throughout the system. Low stock prices cause ETFs to appear overvalued, causing computers to sell, which in turn drives prices lower.

A related explanation is that ETFs simply are disproportionately impacted by program trading, because they are monitored by so many algorithmic traders on a daily basis. As a result, if something goes wrong with such high-frequency trading, the impact of any errors will be amplified in ETFs.

A third explanation is that many trading systems benchmark ETFs against the S&P 500 "e-mini" futures contract on the CME in Chicago. These systems monitor the futures contract-the most liquid security in the world-as a proxy for market movements, and watch for a divergence between futures and ETFs. One of the rumors of what started the flash crash is that e-mini contracts had a bad price print. If that indeed happened, the trading algorithms might have kicked into high gear and started the computers selling ETFs.

A fourth explanation is that, when the markets get crazy, people turn to ETFs for quick market exposure. In this case, as the market fell apart, investors likely turned to ETFs to gain quick exposure, whether short or and long. After all, if you're trying to sell right now, you're not going to bother with whether to sell short [[GE]], GM, [[AAPL]] or [[CSCO]]. You want to sell the market, and that means ETFs. As a result, you saw more ETFs affected.

A final explanation is that, unlike with individual securities, investors do not set up deep out-of-the-money limit orders in ETFs. A fundamental analyst might decide that Procter & Gamble ( PG ) is worth $40/share, even if it's trading at $60/share, and might put in a limit order to buy 100,000 shares of PG when it hits $40. These forgotten limit orders then "catch" stocks when they are caught in a wave of selling.

But no one has a fundamental view on the value of an ETF; its value is tied to the value of all the underlying securities. As a result, ETFs didn't have any of these deep limit orders pre-loaded and ready to cushion any decline.

In addition, a Vanguard spokesman was cited in Tuesday's FT noting that "some market makers program very low or high 'contingency quotes' into their systems as placeholders. These sell orders were executed in the day's confusion."

Combined, I think all these explanations start to paint the picture of why ETFs appeared so frequently on the canceled-trade list-especially ETFs that don't have the inherent liquidity or extensive market maker coverage of funds like the S&P 500 SPDRs ( SPY ).

Net-net, I don't think the ETF mechanism failed. But I do think that what happened last week should serve as a cautionary tale for investors. You gain a lot of advantages when you buy an ETF-intraday liquidity, transparency, tax efficiency, etc. But by owning ETFs you're also taking on complications. ETFs aren't as simple as mutual funds. They trade like stocks; they can have premiums and discounts; and they can be hit by market dislocations.

They are very powerful and effective tools, but you have to know how they work.

Note To Paul Amery

Paul-I'm all for market reform, and I agree that we need to fix things in the U.S. system. We need better circuit breakers, more human intervention and more sensible coordination of policy between execution platforms.

But you'll forgive me if I don't pine for Europe's confusion , high costs and uneven execution. Net-net, the inefficiencies there cost investors more money each year than the occasional blowup costs investors over the course of a decade.

Original post

See also North Korea Tensions May Drive Indexes on seekingalpha.com



The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.




This article appears in: Investing , ETFs , Stocks

Referenced Stocks: IVV , PG , SPY

SeekingAlpha

SeekingAlpha

More from SeekingAlpha:

Related Videos

Stocks

Referenced

Most Active by Volume

94,745,495
  • $16.29 ▼ 0.37%
69,714,211
  • $125.01 ▼ 0.63%
67,974,829
  • $8.19 ▼ 6.93%
50,793,894
  • $46.28 ▼ 2.77%
49,509,831
  • $6.48 ▲ 1.57%
46,397,000
  • $9.71 ▼ 4.71%
42,854,002
  • $14.72 ▼ 7.19%
40,218,869
  • $2.61 ▲ 4.40%
As of 5/6/2015, 04:15 PM


Find a Credit Card

Select a credit card product by:
Select an offer:
Search
Data Provided by BankRate.com