3 ms·

Just want to point out that a "short squeeze" is not possible with these volatility ETNs. They are collateralized debt instruments for which there is an unlimit

by rank0 5y ago

Just want to point out that a "short squeeze" is not possible with these volatility ETNs. They are collateralized debt instruments for which there is an unlimited supply. The underlying for these products is /VX futures, which also have an unlimited supply. A short squeeze happens when short positions cannot be covered due to limited availability of the underlying. XIV collapse was caused by an unprecedented spike in the VIX index.

cm2187 5y ago
A short squeeze also happens when you have forced buyers (desperate to close their short VIX futures position) with a limited supply of sellers. Which is exactly what happened that day. It’s not the VIX index itself that caused the XIV to be wiped out.
- rank0 5y ago
  They would just have to pay the premium that short sellers were demanding. I see your point, but calling it a short squeeze seems odd to me. "Volpocalypse" was indeed an unprecedented spike in IV, which the futures market was reacting to. Seems pretty different to me than the classic short squeeze scenarios of GME or Volkswagen.
paulpauper 5y ago
no. it was caused by spike of vix futures.
- rank0 5y ago
  And why do you think the VX futures spiked? The XIV collapse happened on the largest single day percent change in VIX history. It’s a bit silly to say it was the only the futures but not the literal index they track.
  - kolbe 5y ago
    Do you have any reason to support your insult that it’s ‘a bit silly’? Because those of us who have extensive knowledge of volatility products (I was a specialist in VIX options at the CBOE, the first to make markets in VXX, and one of the largest traders in volatility ETF options over the past decade), believe that the spike in the VIX index was caused by arbitrageurs reacting to a spike in the VIX futures. And VIX futures were simply reacting to the order flow caused by the daily rebalancing of leveraged ETFs. What research have you done to show evidence otherwise?
Majromax 5y ago
Matt Levine's Bloomberg column discussed this contemporaneously (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/is-vix-manipulated-or-hedged https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/is-vix...). For Credit Suisse (issuer of XIV), hedging their exposure to XIV allegedly required buying volatility futures when the price increased. With limited liquidity, this moved the futures prices themselves. Credit Suisse has been sued (https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1rlv9r030854q/Market-Manipulation-Case-Reopening-Adds-to-Credit-Suisse-s-Woes https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1rlv9r030854q...). This collective price response wasn't a short squeeze, but instead it was closer to a gamma squeeze. It didn't rely on finite supply of any security, just limited liquidity and trade sizes large enough to move the market price.
alpineidyll3 5y ago
Omg. You obviously have never traded a VIX future. There are not infinite counter parties.

by rank0 5y ago

cm2187 5y ago

A short squeeze also happens when you have forced buyers (desperate to close their short VIX futures position) with a limited supply of sellers. Which is exactly what happened that day. It’s not the VIX index itself that caused the XIV to be wiped out.

rank0 5y ago
They would just have to pay the premium that short sellers were demanding. I see your point, but calling it a short squeeze seems odd to me. "Volpocalypse" was indeed an unprecedented spike in IV, which the futures market was reacting to. Seems pretty different to me than the classic short squeeze scenarios of GME or Volkswagen.

paulpauper 5y ago

no. it was caused by spike of vix futures.

rank0 5y ago
And why do you think the VX futures spiked? The XIV collapse happened on the largest single day percent change in VIX history. It’s a bit silly to say it was the only the futures but not the literal index they track.
- kolbe 5y ago
  Do you have any reason to support your insult that it’s ‘a bit silly’? Because those of us who have extensive knowledge of volatility products (I was a specialist in VIX options at the CBOE, the first to make markets in VXX, and one of the largest traders in volatility ETF options over the past decade), believe that the spike in the VIX index was caused by arbitrageurs reacting to a spike in the VIX futures. And VIX futures were simply reacting to the order flow caused by the daily rebalancing of leveraged ETFs. What research have you done to show evidence otherwise?

Majromax 5y ago

Matt Levine's Bloomberg column discussed this contemporaneously (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/is-vix-manipulated-or-hedged https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/is-vix...). For Credit Suisse (issuer of XIV), hedging their exposure to XIV allegedly required buying volatility futures when the price increased. With limited liquidity, this moved the futures prices themselves. Credit Suisse has been sued (https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1rlv9r030854q/Market-Manipulation-Case-Reopening-Adds-to-Credit-Suisse-s-Woes https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1rlv9r030854q...). This collective price response wasn't a short squeeze, but instead it was closer to a gamma squeeze. It didn't rely on finite supply of any security, just limited liquidity and trade sizes large enough to move the market price.

alpineidyll3 5y ago

Omg. You obviously have never traded a VIX future. There are not infinite counter parties.