04:30 PM
Larry Tabb
Larry Tabb
Connect Directly

Would Going Back to Simpler Times Re-Inflate the Equities Market?

Many market participants are saying we need to go back to simpler times, when spreads were wider, trading was slower, markets were simpler, research was more prevalent, and capital was more pervasive. But would that really fix the equity markets?

The older I get, the more confused I am. In the beginning, market makers and specialists were manipulative and kept spreads wide. Slow markets were expensive and unresponsive. And research was corrupt, as it was paid for by underwriters catering to issuers.

Then regulation and technology clipped colluding market makers' and specialists' wings, fragmentation accelerated exchanges, and the relationship between underwriters and research was severed. Just to ensure "safety," regulators layered on fraud protection (Sarbanes-Oxley), cracked down on money launderers (Patriot Act), eliminated uneven corporate information distribution (Reg FD), and cracked down on pernicious naked short sellers (Reg Sho). So now the market is better, right? Well ...

Today, even sophisticated traders have a hard time managing their order flow. Capital is non-existent. The markets are so fast that an eye blink is an eternity. Fewer public companies have analyst coverage. And issuers, traders and investors are abandoning the market: The number of U.S. publicly listed companies on major markets is down 44 percent from its 1997 high; investors have pulled out more than $525 billion from U.S. mutual funds since 2007; and U.S. equity trading volume is down 43 percent from a May 2010 peak.

Simple Is As Simple Does

Given the past few years, one could argue that these intended "improvements" have actually hurt the markets. Many market participants are saying we need to go back to simpler times, when spreads were wider, trading was slower, markets were simpler, research was more prevalent, and capital was more pervasive.

But do we really want to go backward? While more companies were going public 10 years ago, were the companies or the markets back then really better? Corporate corruption was rampant, specialists were taken away in handcuffs, market makers joined them on the perp walk, and research was biased.

On one side we have simple markets aligned toward growing public companies, which stimulates the economy and creates job -- but seems to come with higher transaction costs and a market in which the few can manipulate the many. On the other side is competition-driven pandemonium. Market structure is messy and displayed spreads are narrower, but it is virtually impossible to measure transaction costs and technology again allows the few to manipulate the many.

[Exchanges Fight Back Against the Dark Pools]

So maybe market structure doesn't matter? Maybe we shouldn't worry about jobs? Maybe this has nothing to do with market structure and everything to do with interest rates, regulation and oversight?

We've had 30 years of declining interest rates -- what CEO would believe the value of his or her company would appreciate less than the cost of debt? So why sell ownership when the one-year Libor is 1 percent and 20-year borrowing rates are below 4 percent? Why dilute ownership when it's much cheaper to borrow?

In addition, private equity has become so large and sophisticated that raising capital is relatively easy. Maybe public markets should just be a facility for private investors to cash out? When the smart are selling, however, buyers should be cautious.

Legislators and regulators have not helped, either. In the desire to show strength, legislators and regulators have upped fraud penalties. Instead of just levying fines, business leaders are now threatened with jail. Not that fraud is good, but one needs to wonder if the penalties are worth the risk? A paycheck in the bank may be safer than risking it all on a business.

Finally, while we are cracking down on crime, governments are making it harder to foresee the future. With the U.S. government threatening default and the European Commonwealth in turmoil, clarity is low and uncertainty is high, pushing investors toward the safety of government debt instead of corporate growth.

So what is the answer: Faster or slower? Tighter or wider? Public or private? Machines or people? Who knows? Maybe it's all moot anyway, as the only thing that will re-inflate the equities market is a combination of higher rates, more-controlled government and regulation, and a stable economy. That way companies are incented, and investors can have faith that the capital they are investing has a good shot of producing a return. Until then, it may all just be gambling.

Larry Tabb is the founder and CEO of TABB Group, the financial markets' research and strategic advisory firm focused exclusively on capital markets. Founded in 2003 and based on the interview-based research methodology of "first-person knowledge" he developed, TABB Group ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2012 | 7:52:11 PM
re: Would Going Back to Simpler Times Re-Inflate the Equities Market?
6 years ago, when I started trading, HFTs were 30% of the market action. According to Nanex, that figure is now 70%. IMO, everything the article calls for has been bastardized by HFTs, front running, allowing Trading Computers in the exchanges so they can scalp that fraction, unlimited margins for algo platforms and dark pools. This is simply a wholesale rape and pillage operation allowed by the SEC who are supposed to be managing the market. (1) Dump the attorneys and professors for trading professionals at the SEC; people that understand the market. (2) No more front running or computers allowed in the exchanges. (3) HFTs have to honor their bids/asks. No more 'testing the water'. Lock down the trade within a reasonable time-frame. Say 15 seconds? (4) Algos and Trading Firms must have the same margin requirements that human beings do. No more unlimited margins. (5) Shut down the Dark Pools. They've outlasted their purpose anyway and have been taken over by Algos and HFTs. In other words, give human beings a chance to compete in the Market. The markets have evolved into a nightmare "Terminator" like world.
More Commentary
Bitcoin: 4 Factors Holding the Banks at Bay
For a number of reasons, major banks haven't seized the opportunity to get involved with bitcoin. Banks like to participate in size, compliance has restrictions, and bosses don't understand it. But these hurdles will be overcome in 2015.
5 Tips On How To Prepare For A Data Breach
If you are a financial institution your cyber security defenses will be breached -- again and again. Here are five tips to respond quickly and minimize damage.
Wall Street CIOs Have a Vendor Management Problem
If Wall Street CIOs want to stay ahead of competition and ensure high-speed trading software doesn't start the next flash crash, they need better insight into vendor delivered software.
Technology Innovation Returns to Financial Services
Capital Markets Outlook 2015: Following a few years dominated by regulatory compliance and cost saving technology initiatives, financial organizations are finally investing in innovative technology and tools.
Voice Biometrics Improve Transaction Monitoring Fraud Detection
Why voice biometrics should be a part of your fraud prevention strategy in the call center.
Register for Wall Street & Technology Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Wall Street & Technology - Elite 8, October 2014
The in-depth profiles of this year's Elite 8 honorees focus on leadership, talent recruitment, big data, analytics, mobile, and more.
Stressed Out by Compliance, Reputational Damage & Fines?
Stressed Out by Compliance, Reputational Damage & Fines?
Financial services executives are living in a "regulatory pressure cooker." Here's how executives are preparing for the new compliance requirements.