Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?

from the how-to-create-momentary-financial-havoc dept

Lots of people have been rightfully concerned about just how much of the trading in the financial markets is done algorithmically via high frequency trading systems that execute trades faster than any of us can comprehend, based on various algorithms, trying to shave little bits and pieces of profit. The key worry, of course, is that these algorithms can get into something of an infinite loop problem that spins the markets out of control. We've had momentary blips, at times, that happened so quickly it wasn't even clear why they happened. And now we have a case where overreacting to a fake tweet may have briefly cost the financial markets $136 billion (yes, with a b).

The story is that the Associated Press's twitter feed was hacked and a bogus tweet was posted, reading: "Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured."
And off went Wall Street, sending the stock markets down quite rapidly. Of course, after the report was quickly corrected and shown to be false, the market rapidly recovered -- though, in the down and upswings, it's likely some people lost a fair bit of money while others made out quite well. Still, this raises a different set of questions even on top of the worries about high frequency trading, pertaining to the various inputs it receives. Reacting to stories on Twitter is an interesting way to try to beat the news cycle. Since so many stories break on Twitter first, it's no surprise that Wall Street is eagerly scanning the service for market-impacting news. The real question is if anything can or should be done about this. One argument is that we can leave it alone because it's self defeating. If your system jumped the gun and traded down on this report, well, good, you deserve to lose money for trading on a bogus tweet. Similarly, the fact that the market bounced back showed that it can self-correct fairly quickly, even if there are billions to be made and lost in between.

For those who think this is a problem, the bigger question might just be: and, so, what do you do about it? I'm just as worried as the next guy about the problems of such inter-connected, algorithmic trading systems spinning out of control, but I can't think of any way to prevent it that doesn't also lead to great collateral damage for more efficient or reasonable markets. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an answer, but it doesn't appear that there's an obvious response, seeing as no one has introduced any. In the end, it may be that this is just a fact of life. People are always going to seek out ways to beat the market by being first. And many times that will lead to great profits. But sometimes, when a story like this comes out, you get burned. Maybe that's perfectly reasonable.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 2:44pm

    In a first response, this news station reports on an article which treats the bombing of the whitehouse and injury of the President as merely another excuse to attack the financial markets. Writer Mikhail Masnik should be ashamed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 2:45pm

      Re:

      In an update, this news station can now report that earlier reports of the bombing of the whitehouse and injury to the President were not entirely accurate but this does not justify using such events to criticise the free market as Micky Mantle did in his techdirt story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 2:46pm

        Re: Re:

        This news station can now carry this exclusive report that there has been no bombing of the Whitehouse and the President is uninjured as some scurrilous people earlier reported.
        We are the first with this accurate news as our reporter was able to read to nearly the end of the techdirt article at this point.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mr. Smarta** (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 2:49pm

    Based on rumors

    The markets are based almost entirely on rumors. Rumors that a business is doing well and will return a huge profit makes the stock jump up. Negative rumors make the stocks fall. A single rumor has been known to almost crash a company's stock just so an employee/ex-employee can sell their stocks for a certain amount. Markets, such as the stock market, is little more than legalized gambling. When you invest, you're gambling that the company or stock is going to do very well. It's called risk.

    We're living in a world where everyone wants all of the rewards but none of the risk involved. It's called 'entitlement', and people and/or corporations feel they're entitled to all of the money in the world (or at least a good sized chunk of it) without any risks. Politicians are bribed to pass laws to help decrease or completely do away with risks. That's how our world works now.

    So it makes perfect sense that one little (or big) rumor can move the markets since people have fear of risk and losing everything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    Oooh, I've an easy FIX, Mike!

    "I can't think of any way to prevent it that doesn't also lead to great collateral damage for more efficient or reasonable markets." -- Simply require that all stocks be held for ONE YEAR before traded. IF the purpose were finance and not casino, then it's an easy and simple FIX.

    You're some economist, aincha? No opinion on nothin'.



    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
    11:31:30[m-962-3]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:36pm

    Untrustworthy markets

    A lot of people are permanently out of the market these days, even as it has hit new highs. There's an increasingly belief (and rightly so) that the average investor will likely get screwed. True, if you invest for the very long haul and can ride out the ups and downs, it might turn out okay for you. But now, especially with the market not seeming to be connected to the economy at large, the idea that you can invest in good companies and it will pay off seems to have disappeared along with the American dream of getting a good education, getting a decent job, working for 30-40 years, and then retiring comfortably.

    These sudden swings, no matter what triggers them, don't reassure average investors that stocks are the place for them to be.

    So is it a problem? It depends on whether you want widespread participation in the market or whether you just want a narrow sector of the population trading back and forth. It's another indication that the 1% make their money differently than other people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 3:52pm

      Re: Untrustworthy markets

      Also, if most people stay out of the market, that means far fewer people are needed in the investment industry. So if the investment industry can't come up with ways to avoid these situations and, as a result, shrinks considerably, so be it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:19pm

        Re: Re: Untrustworthy markets

        The problem is the investment industry relies on juking the proletariat out of their savings by having them invest in the market.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 2:18am

      Re: Untrustworthy markets

      Remember that pension funds invest in the markets, there it is always other peoples money being gambled away.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:25pm

    Deliberate manipulation

    I'm wondering if this twitter hack was a deliberate manipulation of the market. The people behind it knew the market would fall and placed their positions accordingly. Hopefully somebody will be looking into that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 4:57pm

      Re: Deliberate manipulation

      During the dotcom boom, when there were a lot of stock bulletin boards, "pump and dump" was quite common. You had to pay attention to who was giving you "news" on a company to know if it was trustworthy.

      But with the rapid trades now, it is increasingly a sucker's game unless you have ultra-fast computers. It's sad that some of the best minds in the country have been used to create computer programs to shuffle money around rather than actually doing something to help humanity.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChrisB (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 6:02pm

      Re: Deliberate manipulation

      Look into what? Is it wrong to exploit stupid people? A fool and his money SHOULD be parted.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:21pm

        Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation

        Money for nothin' and chicks for free huh?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 9:29pm

        Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation

        Honestly, security on twitter is quite lax, and that is something that should be done. In fact, they have already admitted that 2 factor authentication will be used from now on. I'm a personal believer in authentication keys, but the general consensus is that it is too complicated for stupid users.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ethorad (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 3:53am

        Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation

        I wondered if it could be deliberate market manipulation as well. Probably just someone having a laugh, but you never know. I bet the SEC is looking into the number of short trades that happened just before the tweet was posted and which were quickly closed out before the market realised the tweet was fake.

        And it is wrong to exploit stupid people. A fool and has money may well be quickly parted but when it comes to investment markets at least there are all sorts of rules about what you can and can't do and say. See insider trading, ponzi schemes, pump and dump, etc

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation

        And those who are invested in a fund? it's less amusing when, for example, somebody's pension is wiped out because of this crap.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    horse with no name, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:14pm

    There is no cyber war

    None at all. There are no groups inside and outside the US using the internet to cause havoc or to attack the US in any manner.

    I learned this from reading Techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      AC Unknown, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 5:52pm

      Re: There is no cyber war

      Shut up, troll.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        horse with no name, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 6:26pm

        Re: Re: There is no cyber war

        So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?

        Zeig Heil!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war

          You're an ass. All he meant was that is not an accurate representation of the general drift.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war

            It is very accurate. You can see any number of articles here claiming there is no cyber war, that there are no such things as organized cyber attacks. Yet, here we are, with two groups working together to create what was potentially a serious problem, using cyber warfare methods.

            Imagine the Chinese or other enemies of the US using a similar, but more coordinated attack to play the media into falsely reporting a nuclear attack. If the guys doing it for the lulz can pull it off, imagine what someone with a real plan could do.

            Techdirt repeatedly denies the existence of cyber warfare and it's potential effects on the US. It's a fine example of where Techdirt is entirely wrong.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 10:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war

          "So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?"

          No, when Techdirt gets it wrong you should, in a constructive adult fashion, point that out and explain why. In this case though , I see no reason at all to believe TD got it wrong and your comment was a mile away from being constructive or adult, and was just trollish. So shut up.

          And if this is what you think amounts to cyber way, I say bring it on. Some over-paid gamblers lost some money and some other over-paid gamblers made some, and the net result was not much of anything. Beats a real war any day.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            horse with no name, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 10:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war

            It's not about money made or lost. That is a result of the action, not the action itself. The action itself if taken only a bit further could cause significant turmoil in the US. People fell for this one pretty easily, and it was an easy story to check. It's a proof of concept, that the internet can be used as a weapon.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              JMT (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 3:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war

              If the frequency of fake serious stories like this one increases, people's trust will drop and their skepticism will rise, which will naturally reduce the effect of fake stories. To me this seems like a very ineffective cyberwar "weapon".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 8:40am

      Re: There is no cyber war

      Screw You Troll !

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Old Man in The Sea, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 6:16pm

    Algorithmic control and fast trading

    The interesting thing about trading algorithmically is that anyone can do it. What I have found interesting over the years is that the faster the trading process, the more the momentum in either direction.

    All it would take is to slow the allowable trades from any source to a specific minimum between trades. Now this has its own problems ensuring this, but averaging the transaction times is one way to force a slow down.

    I have spent various amounts of time paper trading (which is a recommended must before using actual funds to trade) to see what happens and I have found that as long as there is some level of being able to see buy/sell trends then the momentum pushing in any direction is lessoned. That is only my view and YMMV.

    Every training course I have ever been on in relation to share markets and the various means of trading has always emphasised that it is a form of gambling, there are risks involved. So only use what you can afford, learn before you put money down, and if you find a method that works for you while paper trading then make NO changes to your method when you do lay money down (any changes made will almost certainly guarantee that you will lose your money). And lastly, if the volatility in the market is too much, don't trade, wait for another day.

    And as the cover of "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" says "Don't Panic"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:03pm

      Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading

      Every training course I have ever been on in relation to share markets and the various means of trading has always emphasised that it is a form of gambling, there are risks involved.

      What happened to a lot of Baby Boomers is that they were saving for retirement and then saw their portfolios take major hits several times since 2000. Now they really can't afford to take more risks and don't want to get back into the market.

      There aren't really any great investments right now, particularly safe ones, but at least if you hang on to cash, given the low inflation rate, you won't lose that.

      The people who have money to lose, have money (which they are throwing into property, the market, art, and angel investing). A lot of other people don't any money to lose. As income inequality increases, the participation in the market will likely continue to shrink.

      The stock market no longer has an aura as a place to improve your lot in life.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 7:28pm

        Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading

        My folks had money they had earned over a life of hard work in the market for over 25 years. They were doing well. 2008 Took over 60% of their net worth from them. They cannot afford to play craps with the big boys anymore.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2013 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading

        actually, there ARE reasonable investments available, you just need to be careful where you invest. Diversify, for one- the more investments you have, the less a collapse in one will hurt you. Second, do some research on companies before you buy them- are their profits dropping? rising? do they have any debt? dividend? (I like to see at least a 5% dividend)

        also, invest for the long-term. Assuming a company isn't in serious financial trouble, it'll likely survive for a while. The general recommendation is that you shouldn't invest in the stock market with money you will need in the next 3-5 years. Why? because over that length of time, stocks tend to rise. (plus, if you know the company is stable, a price collapse is often a good opportunity to buy. why? because long-term, the price will rise up again, and you bought shares on the cheap. That, and it results in a higher dividend yield. ( if the share normally has a dividend yield of $5, with a price of $100, you would normally get a 5% dividend yield ( which is a decent yield) if the price drops to $50, then you buy, you can get a 10% yield. Plus, when the price goes back up, you double your money.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 9:01am

          Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading

          actually, there ARE reasonable investments available, you just need to be careful where you invest. Diversify, for one- the more investments you have, the less a collapse in one will hurt you. Second, do some research on companies before you buy them- are their profits dropping? rising? do they have any debt? dividend? (I like to see at least a 5% dividend)

          I was talking about someone approaching 65. Yes, if you are young enough and have you enough years ahead of you, then putting money into the S&P 500 is a good idea. But if you are approaching retirement, there are fewer safe places to put your money. Either they are volatile or don't pay much in the way of a return.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 10:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading

            There was a time when entering retirement people had relatively predictable investments they could make to hold whatever money they had accumulated during their working years: certificates of deposit, AT&T, utilities, government bonds. The overall economy was growing and there were a range of investment opportunities from very conservative to increasingly risky.

            Between the change in the world economy (growth is much less assured now) and the changing nature of investments, that range of investment opportunities just isn't there anymore. And if you look at who is making money, it isn't the majority of people in the country. They are treading water at best. The population as a whole isn't reaping any rewards from whatever investment opportunities there are.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 10:15am

    when you look around the stock market for the mark...

    ...and you don't see'em, guess what ?
    it is YOU, my fine feathered sheeple...

    the stock market USED to be what -in effect- kickstarter, etc is today: a means of raising capital for REAL business purposes...
    now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...

    it has NOTHING to do with actually funding businesses on the stock market... when your average algo trade is held for all of 11 seconds, that has NOTHING to do with 'real' markets and 'real' money...

    nope, it is ALL a means of separating the peasants from the few shekels they have left...

    art guerrilla
    aka ann archy
    eof

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 11:32am

      Re: when you look around the stock market for the mark...

      the stock market USED to be what -in effect- kickstarter, etc is today: a means of raising capital for REAL business purposes...
      now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...


      I'd say that's how lots of people view it today. Decades ago people formed investment clubs and did their own research and invested in companies that they felt had long term potential.

      Now, with trades happening so quickly and for reasons that often have nothing to do with the quality of the corporations, why would people want to put their hard earned cash into the market?

      And further, when you see CEOs rewarded even though their companies are doing badly, how much faith should one have in the entire financial system? And of course, there have been the financial bailouts. How many people believe Wall Street knows what it is doing?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 24th, 2013 @ 3:20pm

    Here's a good piece

    Here's a good piece on why we're probably not in the usual business cycle and why putting your money in the market on the assumption that good times are just around the corner may be faulty thinking.

    Solutions Remain Elusive After Financial Crisis - NYTimes.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David Frost, Nov 16th, 2013 @ 5:06am

    Swing Trading

    whatever the reason, whether it's algo's or any other outside force to cause volatility, it becomes a traders dream. There are always premium trade set ups to select from the thousands of stocks and exchange traded funds available.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    james howard, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 12:37am

    Design market

    Good sharing here of great knowledge.I think marketing should be positive and fake tools and rumours should not be used to promote your brand.
    gloucester printing

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This