What the ‘tech wreck’ doesn’t tell us about systematic investing
June sell-off might reveal more about discretionary investors watching factors
When the top US technology stocks tumbled 5% on June 9, analysts and investors were quick to point the finger at systematic momentum traders.
The stocks that performed the worst – notably Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft – had displayed the fastest growing price gains over the past year. The faster the rate of increase, the more it reversed on the day.
This uniformity led some to conclude the sell-off was down to systematic momentum traders exiting their positions. But there are reasons to think such a hypothesis makes little sense.
Pointing the finger at quant funds could be missing the point, which is that discretionary investors increasingly influence factor performance by pre-empting systematic traders.
The idea of the tech wreck being largely about momentum originates from how a broader universe of stocks behaved on June 9. Mining stocks that had done particularly well sold off, while other mining stocks that had done less well went up. Individual stocks in sectors such as healthcare sold off sharply too. The clear defining element in what happened, as pointed out by the quant research team at Societe Generale in the wake of the sell-off, was price momentum.
However, that does not mean momentum investors were necessarily the episode’s driving force. Systematic trend-followers typically look at trends over a 12 month period, delaying the impact of short-term market gyration on their trading. Were that not the case, momentum investors would be reversing course all the time.
How factors are faring is more observable now, whereas in the past only specialist firms would have been tracking them
For similar reasons, risk parity funds – which weight investments based on volatility and have also been blamed for past market turbulence – also seem an unlikely trigger. The volatility of momentum stocks often spikes when those stocks reverse course. But risk parity funds track volatility over months, not days, so they are unlikely to have adjusted positions so quickly.
This leads to the question, if it wasn’t quant funds selling, who was? One possible answer lies in the growing enthusiasm for factor watching among discretionary investors.
Quants have always looked at the world in terms of factors. But non-quants are now becoming more aware of factor performance too, aided by the prevalence of factor-based smart beta products. How factors are faring is more observable now, whereas in the past only specialist firms would have been tracking them.
This is not to minimise the influence of systematic funds in events such as June’s. Most market participants think short-term momentum players had a hand in the selling once the episode was underway.
But discretionary investors might have played a key role. The implication for all investors – as recently argued by analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch – is that fear of a factor reversal could be critical in such a reversal taking hold.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Hedge funds must race the clock to check their dealer-rule status
Working out whether a firm is caught by SEC registration requirement could take months
Filling gaps in market data with optimal transport
Julius Baer quant proposes novel way to generate accurate prices for illiquid maturities
Why Europe still awaits a private credit CLO
Tricky questions face managers that plan to launch the structure on the continent
The signs of tacit collusion in the dividend play trade
Game theory and real-world data point to a different understanding of how arbitrage in markets works
Decades of history says you can beat high inflation with quality
Factors such as momentum and value generally outperform the market irrespective of inflation, but new research suggests quality stocks are best when prices are rising rapidly
Esma faces tough task in implementing Emir 3.0
EU regulator must contend with tight timeframes and increasing workload without additional resources
Quants are using language models to map what causes what
GPT-4 does a surprisingly good job of separating causation from correlation
China stock sell-off will test securities firms’ risk managers
Regulatory measures to support stock market could add to risks facing securities sector