Algorithmic Trading Broke, Then Fixed, the Market

Yesterday the stock market dropped almost 1,000 points intraday before rebounding almost as quickly. Algorithmic (computer-to-computer) trading is blamed, but it might be worth pointing out that algo trading also fixed the market, just about as fast as it "broke" the market in an anamoly.

Right now, securities exchanges are looking at particular equities that might have been affected by the abrupt drop and are going to cancel the trades. The other thing is that few actual human traders actually were able to react quickly enough, one way or ther other. It appears execution platforms became overloaded and wouldn't place buy or sell orders in any case.

There also were liquidity issues. For every seller, there must be a buyer. It appears that in many cases there were no buyers to be had, so abrupt was the plunge. Liquidity, in other words, evaporated.

But algo traders apparently were able both to execute "sell" and then "buy" orders fast enough to clear about 600 points of movement within about five minutes. The conventional wisdom was that a misplaced large order triggered the abrupt declines, which triggered the other trading algorithms.

It might also be fair to note that those same automated trade programs also erased the anamoly within 30 minutes, which shell-shocked humand mostly gaped in awe at something most likely had never seen.

The sheer snapback of the price in such a short amount of time was not driven by fundamental traders (humans) who all of a sudden found “value” in the market with a trailing P/E. The only sort of quick analysis that provides that kind of price action are done by non-humans at quantitative firms, and they saved the market from something much, much worse.

link

Sprint HTC Evo on June 6?

The latest rumor about availability of the Sprint HTC Evo is "around June 6, 2010." Reportedly the device will reail for about $200 on a two-year contract, and as much as $600 if you want to buy it without a contract.

Some policy advocates think such contracts impair consumer welfare because they make it hard for consumers to switch whenever they feel like it. One simply should note that any consumer can buy a device at full retail price if that is what they prefer.

Most consumers keep demonstrating, though, that they prefer $200 devices and contracts, compared to $600 devices without contracts. If you don't want a contract, don't buy one. Most consumers can figure out that a $200 subsidized phone provides real value.

link

What Gets Cannibalized by iPad and Other Tablets?

As you might have expected, though lots of people think the Apple iPad is a gorgeous device, lots of people also think it is a bit pricey.

So far, iPad buyers are heavily skewed to 30-somethings and 40-somethings who presumably are well along in their careers and have both the appetite and the means to splurge on one.


Some technology observers have been predicting the demise of the netbook for some months, and with the launch of the Apple iPad, we get our first chance to see whether cannibalization is happening.

The basic line of thinking is that netbooks get squeezed between more powerful smartphones and tablet devices such as the iPad.

A new study from Morgan Stanley concludes that tablets in general will be a big threat to netbooks, as some have suggested.

Netbook sales growth has been significantly flatter lately. Sales still are increasing, just not at the rate they were before. Last July, growth was at 641 percent. In December, growth was 179 percent, and in January it dropped to 68 percent.

According to Morgan Stanley/Alphawise, the biggest product category likely to be cannibalized by potential iPad customers is netbooks and laptops. About 44 percent of potential iPad customers say they'll get it instead of a notebook or, presumably, netbook.

About 27 percent said they'd buy an iPad over a desktop.

To be sure, netbook sales were slowing before the iPad launch, so the slowing netbook growth rate can't be blamed completely on the iPad.

Still, it seems inevitable that netbooks and other cheap ultraportables will face competition from the iPad.

Product cannibalization potential

In Case You Missed the Market Craziness Today

It was a crazy day today, with a violent, sudden drop in U.S. equities, a swift 700-point retrace, and worries that what is happening in Greece will be happening in the United States in the future.

Consumers Spent More on Consumer Electronics Over the Last Year

The average U.S. household spent $1,380 on consumer electronics products in the past 12 months, an increase of $151 from last year, according to a new study released by the Consumer Electronics Association.

The average household spent 12 percent more on consumer electronics devices in the past year, which might be especially surprising considering a dip in most other consumer spending over that same period. Of course, sales took a dip in 2008 as well.

Individual consumer spending, as opposed to household spending, also was up 10 percent from the previous 12 month period, CEA says. The average adult spent $794 on consumer electronics in the past 12 months, up from $725 in 2009.

Women spent more on consumer electronics products than they did the year before but still trail men in overall spending. Women spent, on average, $631 on consumer electronics, up $73 from 2009. Men report personally spending $969 in the past 12 months, up $67 from the year before. The average household reports owning 25 consumer electronics products, up from 23 products last year.

CEA’s study also shows that video products continue to be the top devices consumers own, with HDTV ownership continuing to increase. About 65 percent of U.S. homes now own at least one HDTV, an increase of 13 percentage points from last year, making it the top industry growth driver of the past 12 months.

Consumers also are buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now owns 1.8 HDTVs, up from 1.5 in 2009. HDTVs also are also the top product consumers say they want to purchase. About 23 percent of households say they plan to buy a new high-definition set in the coming 12 months.

Ownership of computers also continues to increase. Currently, 86 percent of U.S. households own at least one computer, making it the third most owned CE product category behind televisions and DVD players.

The popularity of netbooks, owned by 12 percent of U.S. households, and laptops, now owned by most households (58 percent), is helping drive the computer category.

"Third Way?" Between Title I and Title II? Are you "Sorta Pregnant?"

One might argue that there's nothing wrong with the Federal Communications Commission trying to find some "middle way" or "third way" between common carrier and data services regulation. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, for example, notes that "heavy-handed prescriptive regulation can chill investment and innovation, and a do-nothing approach can leave consumers unprotected and competition unpromoted, which itself would ultimately lead to reduced investment and innovation."

Nor are many likely to disagree completely with the notion that "consumers do need basic protection against anticompetitive or otherwise unreasonable conduct by companies providing the broadband access service."

Likewise, most probably would agree that "FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining reasonable network management practices of broadband providers, or stifling new business models or managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition."

But there is likely to be fierce disagreement about the proposal to regulate broadband access service as a common carrier offering governed by Title II regulations, even though the chairman says the FCC would "forebear" (not impose) all of the obligations and rules that cover Title II services.

The difference is that right now, the government "may not" regulate terms and conditions of service. Under the proposed rules, the government only says it "has the right to do so, but voluntarily agrees not to" impose such rules. There is a vast difference between those two approaches.

The first is a clear "thout shalt not" injunction; the new framework is only a "we promise not to" framework. The chairman argues that this new approach "would not give the FCC greater authority than
the Commission was understood to have" before the "Comcast v. FCC" case.

A reasonable person would find that hard to believe. Moving any service or application from Title I to Title II has unambiguous meaning. One can agree or disagree with the change. One can hardly call this a "reassertion of the status quo." Between Title I and Title II there is a gulf that would have to be crossed. Never before have any Internet services been considered "common carrier."

A mere promise not to act, after the change has been made, will hardly satisfy those who believe Title I is the better framework. Those who believe Title II is the better way to regulate likely will find the proposal satisfying. That would be reason enough to suggest it is not a "third way." There is in fact no third way, except for the Congress to direct the FCC to regulate broadband access as a Title II service.

The problem is that what the "service" is changes over time, making difficult the task of clearly separating what "access" is from what an enhanced feature is. Nor is it easy to differentiate between a "business" access and a "consumer" access. If business access is covered, is packet shaping still permissible? Are quality of service measures still permissible? Are virtual private networks still allowed?

Should consumer services acquire the richness of business services, or should business services be dumbed down to consumer grade? And who gets to decide? Even if one is willing to accept that an ISP cannot, on its own, provide any quality of service measures, can a customer request them? Can a customer demand them?

These are tough questions and there must be scores more people could ask. The problem is that the Title I and Title II frameworks are binary. We do have alternate models in Titles III and VI, as I recall, though I suppose both of those titles would provide more freedom, not less, and Title II is a move in the direction of less freedom.

read it here

Clearwire Emerging as a Wholesaler

Perhaps Clearwire did not initially think its business model would be anchored by wholesale wireless, but that seems to be shaping up as key to its future. Of the 283,000 net new subscribers added in the first quarter of 2010, 111,000 of them, or 39 percent, were gained by wholesale partners.

Most of the other major national wireless providers also have some wholesale operations, but none likely approach Clearwire's percentage. Clearwire’s network is behind Sprint’s 4G services as well as Comcast and Time Warner Cable wireless services. Then there is T-Mobile USA, which seems to need wholesale 4G capacity as well.

It might not be unreasonable to speculate that one reason Clearwire is preparing for a transition to Long Term Evolution, instead of sticking with its WiMAX air interface, is that T-Mobile USA might well require LTE capability in order to sign up.

"There was an agreement before that was really a commercial deal between Intel and Clearwire that would restrict us from using anything other than WiMAX up to, I think it’s February of 2012," said Bill Morrow, Clearwire CEO. "That deal is no longer in effect."

Now, either Intel or Clearwire can give 30 days notice and the deal is over. "So it does give us the flexibility that if we wanted to do a commercial launch of LTE or some other technology, that Intel would not be holding us back," said Morrow.

With less than a million total subscribers, it is too early to say how the retail versus wholesale customer mix holds up over time. Should Clearwire pick up T-Mobile USA as a wholesale partner, and as Comcast and Time Warner Cable gear up their wireless operations, it is not hard to envision wholesale growing to be a majority of customers.