Categories
Economics

[2435] Oh the fickle markets

The stock markets all around the world are on a rollercoaster ride. It is yet another proof of the interconnectedness of our world and in a time like this, such interconnectedness can be a bane. The slightest news of little relevance—never mind the more substantial developments—from the other side of the world can rally or rattle the markets. These are days of pessimism and this kind of pessimism it is a little bit unhealthy.

It is painful to observe the stock markets. If to keep an eye on it is an exercise perfectly suited for sadists, to have a direct stake in the markets makes the whole enterprise all the worse.

Each day brings a kind of consternation. Will tomorrow be better or worse? Should I buy or sell now? Will tomorrow be delightfully unexpected or depressingly expected? Is that light at the end of the tunnel? Or is that a headlight for a speeding train?

These questions and its variants have been asked increasingly frequent over the past few weeks. The answers are not always forthcoming unfortunately. Sometimes, there is none to be had.

That is partly the fickleness of the markets resulting from the markets trying to incorporate everything it could. That fickleness grants rest to none, forcing all to stand guard around the clock.

The fickleness and volatility of the market are tiring. Whatever the benefits of the markets as a leading indicator of the wider economy, all the attention it demands is tiring. It consumes too much time and energy, all just for the small satisfaction of not losing money in a blink of an eye in this kind of prevailing environment we live in.

As a graduate student once, I had to model certain relationships involving the stock market. The volatility of the market presented a challenge because too much data can lead to the wrong conclusion. The data series was too “noisy.”

A friend suggested cutting the frequency of data from daily to weekly as a solution. Others suggested logarithmic difference. There was a bunch of other novel methods aimed at doing the same: filtering out the incessant noise in hope of squeezing something tangible and real out of the data series.

The stock markets do tell something, but its fickleness neither tells everything nor is everything it tells is necessarily true or relevant.

There lies some wisdom to go beyond the mathematics and economics puzzles. I find the wisdom helpful in keeping myself from frowning yet again, sighing continuously and from suffering mood swing as wild as the market.

I have decided that I will not go mad over the market. I have applied less weight to the importance of the stock market with respect to myself.  At least for now, I have decided to have less exposure to the craziness of it all.

If European politicians and bureaucrats could go on summer holidays amid a frighteningly global crisis, surely others inconsequential to world’s history can take some justifiable break of their own. The grand narrative of world’s history is unlikely to twitch for me.

I do not want to be the guy who sits in front of the screen staring in a broker house, hoping for the slightest opportunity to make money. Or that guy drawing meaningless lines trying to outsmart the market, the efficient-market hypothesis be damned.

No, I have decided to live a life more, and worry a little less.

There is money to be had, and it is always nice to have a little bit more money in the pocket. Yet, one has to asked, at what cost?

There is more to life, and the economy even, than the fickleness of the stock markets.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in The Sun on September 30 2011.

Categories
Economics

[2408] Market inefficiency and rating agencies

And so, S&P has decided to cut US debt rating, essentially stripping the T-Bills of its risk-free status from S&P’s perspective.[1] This is likely to trigger other agencies to follow suit. Theoretically, this has wide implication because risk-free asset is an important basis in asset pricing.

Although the cut is expected, I am maybe dissatisfied at the wide influence of rating agencies. Yields of the debt were relatively low before the cut despite everything that we know. What will make me positively dissatisfied is if yields increase after the cut. We will have to wait for Monday for that.

In that case, increase in yields after the announcement of the cut will feel artificial. It will feel inefficient in terms of information dispersion.

It will be dissatisfying because market players will mainly react to the cut rather than directly to the financial health of the issuers.

Perhaps through some kind of procedure or programming demanding risk-free status, the downgrade by S&P may trigger a rush out of the bonds (to where is a harder question to answer). If the S&P did not issue a downgrade, yields will probably be low still. So, the implementation of the rule that funds have to hold the highest rated debts rated by these agencies divorces its outcome from what an ideal free market outcome.

I would think a more efficient approach would see market players responding to the quality of the bonds even before S&P’s announcement. Yields should have gone up before the announcement. This has happened in some way as reported by the article at the New York Times, but not with the speed that I think is identifiable to efficient market in terms of information.

One could say that S&P is part of the market. One could say that S&P reacted to the health of the issuers and market participants only reacted accordingly by trusting S&P as the arbitrator of ratings, never mind the credibility of S&P and other rating agencies after the subprime crisis. S&P with its specialized skills helps distribute the relevant information as efficient as it can.

But the ideal outcome will not rely on just S&P, or any one rating agency. There are thousands if not millions of players out there. An efficient market would preempt any decision by these rating agencies: after all, the information these agencies rely on are very public information. Yields should have gone down earlier before the announcement.

If yields rise on Monday, that may suggest that rating agencies have too much power to decide on behalf of the market, a market which is more diverse than a couple of rating agencies. It will also suggest that the market is inefficient. To put it more clearly, an efficient market would have these agencies lag behind market sentiment, not the other way round.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — WASHINGTON — Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time on Friday night, a downgrade that is freighted with symbolic significance but carries few clear financial implications. [Binyamin Appelbaum. Eric Dash S.& P. Cuts U.S. Debt Rating for First Time. Wall Street Journal. August 5 2011]

Categories
Economics

[2359] Tricubes and apparent inefficiency in the market

The effect of the Prime Minister’s announcement regarding the 1Malaysia email on the stock price of Tricubes is interesting.

Tricubes’ stock price rose after the information about its 1Malaysia email project was first made public. That is fine. The efficient-market hypothesis says that all available information is summarized by its price. Here was a chance to turn a problematic company profitable and the market understood this. Some market participants responded by buying the stocks.

What is not fine is when the price jumped many times over after the Prime Minister announced the same thing more than a week later.

Since the two announcements relayed the same information, only the first announcement should have impacted the price, if the market was efficient. The second announcement was merely a repeat of what everybody in an efficient market should have known. The second announcement should not have effected the price in an efficient market.

Yet, price did go up.

Does that mean the Malaysian stock market is inefficient?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this was written late at night and my mind just was not working. This entry had a very different opening but I thought it was digressing too much that I thought it was easy to misunderstood what I wanted to touch about in the end, which was the efficient-market hypothesis. Just for the record, this was the opening:

Just as the Tricubes and the 1Malaysia email matter started to die down a bit, Idris Jala the man himself poured fuel into the fire to open PEMANDU up for yet another round of harsh criticism: why did PEMANDU, a public setup, defend what was supposedly a private initiative? Earlier communication mixed up ended up embarrassing the Prime Minister, whom shared with the public what PEMANDU knew was more complicated than what the Prime Minister thought he knew.

I am adding this just because I thought it shares what I thought of the whole issue. I wanted to share it but it is so insignificant (one paragraph) but adding it as a postscript would be sufficient.

Categories
Economics Humor Science & technology

[1769] Of adherents of efficient market hypothesis in particle physics

Apparently, efficient market hypothesis has found its way into particle physics.

But concerns have been voiced – in particular by the German chemist Professor Otto Rossler – that black holes created by the LHC will grow uncontrollably and “eat the planet from the inside”.

These claims have been dismissed by leading scientists, including Prof Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University who said that the LHC is “feeble compared with what goes on in the universe. If a disaster was going to happen, it would have happened already.” [Large Hadron Collider is activated. Telegraph. September 10 2008]

Economics was inspired by physics but economics definitely has gone a long way since the days of Jevons and Walras. Proof: it has become an inspiration to physics.

The circle is now complete.