Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 399

Social media’s impact is changing markets

What made the GameStop squeeze remarkable was its velocity and magnitude. Stock promoters used social media to communicate their message to spectacular effect. The evidence suggests most GameStop buyers acted on a conviction that they would profit by selling to a forced buyer after the crowd drove up the stock price.

There was limited evidence that these investors evaluated the fundamentals of the business. Boosted by social media and lubricated with fiscal and monetary stimulus, the collective power of the positive narrative overwhelmed the fundamental-based reasoning of the established short interest of hedge funds.

Social media spectacularly demonstrated a unique capacity to influence traders and violently move markets. The power of sentiment, unconstrained by fundamentals was amplified, and volatility reigned.

Why is this new source of volatility a big deal?

It is not difficult to imagine that easy money combined with social media’s power to promote a narrative will result in more situations like GameStop. Markets have become accustomed to central banks acting to limit downside volatility. It seems strange to consider that volatility on the upside might also upset markets, yet we just saw that happen.

Beyond the stories of sole traders making millions, the notable outcomes of the GameStop spike reported were:

1) heavy losses at respected hedge funds, resulting in portfolio rebalancing, liquidation and recapitalisation, and

2) online broker Robinhood’s expedited $3 billion equity raising to meet adjusted capital buffers and margin calls.

These outcomes are indicative of the broad and meaningful implications for markets should there be a re-evaluation of volatility, even if it is skewed to the upside. GameStop’s share price spike resulted in liquidations and margin calls. These are signals of stress we usually associate with bear markets, not rising markets.

Not simply a zero-sum game

The upside-skewed volatility burst also impacted long-short strategies. These strategies commonly access leverage by reinvesting the dollar proceeds of their short sales to add investments in their long exposures. Securities lending is essentially leverage.

If markets become more wary about unpredictable upside spikes in stocks, long-short strategies are likely to become more selective with their short positions thus generating less leverage to invest in their long positions. This deleveraging is likely to reduce market liquidity. To the extent that many of these strategies crowd the same themes and factors, it may also narrow the dispersion of valuations.

Greater volatility will also affect the activity of market makers and options traders. Options traders use volatility to determine premiums (prices). Generally, higher volatility makes options premiums more expensive. Underestimating volatility is dangerous for traders selling uncovered options. Uncovered means that the trader doesn’t own the underlying stock and is therefore exposed as a forced buyer in the event of a spike in the share price. A short option position has limited upside and unlimited downside. With this sort of payoff, you do not want to sell too cheap.

Options are generally sold by market makers with large, finely-tuned portfolios which are often leveraged and highly sensitive to sudden and violent changes. Market makers are an important contributor to market liquidity and provide valuable risk management tools. Dislocations for market makers can have broad market consequences, particularly for the counterparties who use markets for the purpose of insurance rather than speculation.

Effective markets need secure counterparties

The margin calls faced by Robinhood highlight the importance of the trading hubs upon which the integrity of financial markets depend. Much of the counterparty risk in financial markets is managed or intermediated through an exchange or a clearing house. For example, the owner of a call option relies on a clearing house to deliver on an ‘in the money’ (profitable) contract when that option is exercised. If the seller of that call option does not post sufficient margin to settle the trade, the clearing house wears the loss.

Volatile price movements can result in extraordinary margin calls (such as those demanded of Robinhood). If additional funding cannot be secured, margin calls will result in forced liquidation and can create market dislocations and elevated counterparty risks. Layers of leverage and opacity associated with stock lending and derivatives tangles the web of counterparties.

In a worst-case scenario, a sudden breakout in volatility could erode confidence in the market hubs and thus the integrity of markets.

We have grown to accept the central bank put

For decades, investors have become accustomed to central banks providing a backstop to markets to dampen volatility. The perception is that central banks have unlimited capacity to provide adequate liquidity to overcome any market dislocation. When a systemic risk to markets emerges, we no longer hope for a central bank bailout, we expect it.

A contemporary view is that central banks should have an asymmetrical impact on markets. That is, they should support failing markets but do not need to act against speculative bubbles. An interpretation of this might be that central banks truncate downside tail risks and thus reduce overall volatility.

Graphically, this might look like the chart below.

Does the ‘Fed Put’ cut tail risks and limit volatility?

The GameStop saga could justify an alternative interpretation. Introducing asymmetry may skew the distribution of returns (to the upside) but not actually reduce volatility. If the impact of the ‘Fed Put’ is to skew returns as displayed in the below graph, volatility is not reduced, merely altered.

…Or does it just create more skew, with no reduction in volatility

GameStop demonstrates a paradox. Did this happen because easy money actually contributed to a breakout in volatility?

If that is the case, further central bank actions might only exacerbate volatility and have the converse effect of reducing liquidity and risk appetite.

The implication for Australian small companies

This has implications for small companies in Australia.

The most direct and obvious is that it elevates the risks for short interest. A share price spike created by a social media-led buying frenzy may be short lived; however, margin calls and leverage mean even brief spikes can lead to forced liquidation and significant losses. Contemporary hedging strategies for example, those used to reduce exposure to market risk or ‘beta’, might need fine tuning.

A debate about the appropriate estimate of volatility may also impact the valuation gap between market favourites and less sought-after names. A feature of Australian small companies in recent years has been the increased dispersion of valuations between companies. Market realities and themes such as lower interest rates and growth scarcity explain most of this; however, it has also been exacerbated by long-short strategies. An unwinding of these positions may reduce this dispersion.

If volatility has been underestimated, it is indicative of a mispricing of risk across the market. Perhaps central bank bailouts have not reduced volatility by simply truncating the downside. Maybe they skew the distribution into a fatter tail on the upside, with less reduction in volatility than previously thought.

The best performing stocks are generally companies which are sustainably building valuable businesses. However, if volatility has been mispriced as described, the best opportunities are likely to arise from contrarian viewpoints rather than pursuit of expensive momentum.

 

Sinclair Currie is a Principal and Co-Portfolio Manager at NovaPort Capital, a boutique Australian equities investment manager specialising in small and microcap ASX-listed companies. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Why caution is needed in Aussie small companies

Will rising bond rates hit your share portfolio?

Reddit v hedge: GameStop rides to the moon and back

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.