Wir verwenden Cookies um Ihnen mehr Benutzerfreundlichkeit bieten zu können. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie der Verwendung von Cookies zu. Mehr Infos

{{ ctaHeadline }}

Regelmäßige Updates über die wichtigsten Markt- und Branchenentwicklungen mit starkem Fokus auf die Fondsbranche der DACH-Region.

Zweimal pro Woche - Kostenlos per E-Mail.

Der Newsletter ist selbstverständlich kostenlos und kann jederzeit abbestellt werden.

Warum diese Disruption anders ist: Leistungsschutzschalter

Nachdem sich die Zentralbanken nun mit einer getrennten Abwicklung ihrer Bilanzen befassen ist Brian Singer, Partner und Portfolio Manager bei William Blair Investment Management, besorgt über diese neuen Wege. Im aktuellen Kommentar konzentriert er sich auf unkoordinierte Leistungsschalter. William Blair Investment Management | 30.01.2019 11:22 Uhr
© William Blair Investment Management
© William Blair Investment Management
Brian Singer, William Blair Investment Management
Brian Singer, William Blair Investment Management

As central banks now embark on a disjointed unwinding of their balance sheets, we add to these uncharted paths material concerns about the proliferation of rules-based strategiesthe Volcker Rule, and uncoordinated circuit breakers, the latter of which is my focus today.

The History of Circuit Breakers

Trading halts in equity markets were introduced in response to the 1987 crash. The idea was to implement “coherent, coordinated circuit breaker mechanisms,” with the argument that “they facilitate price discovery by providing a ‘time-out' to pause, evaluate, inhibit panic, and publicize order imbalances to attract value traders to cushion violent movements in the market.” (Brady, Nicholas F. et al. 1988. “Report of The Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms,” January 1988 p.66)

Thus, 1987 saw the introduction of a one-hour trading halt if the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) declined 250 points (down 12%) and a two-hour halt on a 400-point decline (down 20%). (These circuit breakers were triggered not much later when the DJIA dropped on October 27, 1997, by 554 points (7.18%) (SEC “Trading Analysis of October 27 and 28, 1997”))

Circuit breakers have been added to and modified repeatedly since then, typically in response to subsequent crises. Market-wide halts now occur for 15 minutes when the S&P 500 Index drops 7%, another 15 minutes if it declines further to 13%, and for the rest of the day if 20% is breached.

The U.S. landscape of circuit breakers is quite fragmented, with both market-wide and single-stock halts and limits.

On top of that are price limits, which are pre-specified ranges within which a single stock must trade. Orders outside of that range are rejected, or trading shifts from a continuous market to a call auction market.

Circuit breaker rules are also different between countries, with only 9 out of 29 exchanges coordinated, according to a global survey. (Peter Gomber, Benjamin Clapham, Martin Haferkorn, Sven Panz, Paul Jentsch “Circuit Breakers — A Survey among International Trading Venues,” World Federation of Exchanges, 2016)

Questionable Efficacy

Academic research on the effects of circuit breakers is inconclusive, but most studies and practitioner reflections suggest that they exacerbate rather than mitigate market declines.

Cornell Law Review article on regulatory overreach describes one way that circuit breakers increase volatility: “If traders fear that a halt will be called before they can submit their orders, they may choose to submit them earlier than otherwise to increase the probability that they are executed. Greater volatility will therefore result as the price limit attracts orders from rationally fearful traders.” (Lawrence Harris, “Dangers of Regulatory Overreaction to the October 1987 Crash”. Cornell Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 5 July 1989, Article 9, p.937)

This mechanism is referred to as the “magnet effect.” An SEC report on the October 27-28, 1997, market decline found that “[v]irtually all of the firms interviewed [the largest buyers and sellers] reported that the … circuit breaker had a strong magnet effect, making the second triggering virtually inevitable.”

This mechanism is referred to as the “magnet effect.” An SEC report on the October 27-28, 1997, market decline found that “[v]irtually all of the firms interviewed [the largest buyers and sellers] reported that the … circuit breaker had a strong magnet effect, making the second triggering virtually inevitable.”

A second unintended consequence of circuit breakers is the “spillover effect.” Market forces are like gravity, both inescapable and irrefutable. Declining prices move like water over a cliff, finding ways around obstacles in its path. When the cataclysm finds a land obstruction, it simply shifts to a downward alternative. Ultimately, the water reaches its new level.

Similarly, market forces are only briefly hindered by circuit breakers, shifting execution to the next best alternative. The market may get its desired “time-out,” but trading soon shifts, from market to market, exchange to exchange, and country to country. Prices will reach new levels, even when forced through circuitous routes.

The Problem: Concealing Prices

We are concerned that circuit breakers will conceal the prices that high-frequency traders (HFTs) and other algorithmic traders require to continue active trading, further jeopardizing access to liquidity in a market downturn.

There is no reason to believe that restricting price movement facilitates price discovery. While markets are imperfect, they are the most efficient means of price discovery.

Still, regulators and exchange providers rely on these market obstacles while complicating the work of market actors.

Brian Singer, CFAPartner & Portfolio ManagerWilliam Blair Investment Management

Tipp: Dieser Beitrag ist auch im "Investment Insights"-Blog von William Blair verfügbar.

William Blair Updates per E-Mail erhalten

Performanceergebnisse der Vergangenheit lassen keine Rückschlüsse auf die zukünftige Entwicklung eines Investmentfonds zu. Wert und Rendite einer Anlage in Fonds können steigen oder fallen. Anleger können gegebenenfalls nur weniger als das investierte Kapital ausgezahlt bekommen. Auch Währungsschwankungen können das Investment beeinflussen. Beachten Sie die Vorschriften für Werbung und Angebot von Anteilen im InvFG 2011 §128 ff. Die Informationen auf www.e-fundresearch.com repräsentieren keine Empfehlungen für den Kauf, Verkauf oder das Halten von Wertpapieren, Fonds oder sonstigen Vermögensgegenständen. Die Informationen des Internetauftritts der e-fundresearch.com Data GmbH wurden sorgfältig erstellt. Dennoch kann es zu unbeabsichtigt fehlerhaften Darstellungen kommen. Eine Haftung oder Garantie für die Aktualität, Richtigkeit und Vollständigkeit der zur Verfügung gestellten Informationen kann daher nicht übernommen werden. Gleiches gilt auch für alle anderen Websites, auf die mittels Hyperlink verwiesen wird. Die e-fundresearch.com Data GmbH lehnt jegliche Haftung für unmittelbare, konkrete oder sonstige Schäden ab, die im Zusammenhang mit den angebotenen oder sonstigen verfügbaren Informationen entstehen.

Melden Sie sich für den kostenlosen Newsletter an

Regelmäßige Updates über die wichtigsten Markt- und Branchenentwicklungen mit starkem Fokus auf die Fondsbranche der DACH-Region.

Der Newsletter ist selbstverständlich kostenlos und kann jederzeit abbestellt werden.

Für diesen Suchebgriff konnten wir leider keine Ergebnisse finden!
Bereiche auf e-fundresearch.com
Artikel auf e-fundresearch.com