6 ms·

From an outsider's perspective it seems almost intuitive that market makers (the pros) make money off of retail (the amateurs). It's hard to imagine how that co

by SOTGO 4y ago

From an outsider's perspective it seems almost intuitive that market makers (the pros) make money off of retail (the amateurs). It's hard to imagine how that could not be the case.

codyb 4y ago
It's like getting into a boxing ring alone to face ten prime world champions after an hour at the gym is my analogy.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it seems almost intuitive that market makers (the pros) make money off of retail (the amateurs). It's hard to imagine how that could not be the case. Individual investors can beat professional investors, though it's hard to do. I have seen no evidence showing individual investors outperforming when using non-linear derivatives. Utilitarian buyers of options treat it as insurance. They expect to lose money. There are fundamental reasons a market maker will be able to manufacture options at a cheaper price than an individual, ranging from cost of capital to the benefit of a book to order execution times and settlement dynamics.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  There is, however, plenty of evidence that professional investors outperform individuals, reliably. And professionals make most of their money from non-linear derivatives (or make their own). People say that hedge funds are worse than passive investing, and that's often true, but it's true because that's after fees - professional investors routinely beat the market by 3% YoY long term averages, it's just that they are basically paid as much as they make you.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > professionals make most of their money from non-linear derivatives (or make their own) Source? (It’s not true for common definitions of those words.) Most hedge funds won’t touch options for the reasons I mentioned. They’re a hedging tool. (They will happily use swaps and other leveraged instruments. But those are linear.)
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      I can tell you with great certainty that at least some of the biggest institutions that are legally hedge funds do use options. And I consider highly leveraged derivatives to be non linear (because they are on the downside), which may be an abuse of common parlance. It's going to be fairly difficult to give a source, though.
    - jshaqaw 4y ago
      Source my friend? I worked in hedge funds for almost two decades. All of them touched options plenty. There is a big difference between using options to get a particular risk/reward exposure you want and clueless retail chasing some meme short squeeze nonsense which has the expected value of a drunk newbie sitting down at a Vegas poker table.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > big difference between using options to get a particular risk/reward exposure Sorry, it was my turn to be imprecise. Most hedge funds aren’t taking exposure through options but managing risk with them. Most asset managers never touch options. Most professional money managers (institutional; I’m not counting FAs) are not at hedge funds.
        jshaqaw 4y ago
        All true.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  > I have seen no evidence showing individual investors outperforming when using non-linear derivatives Well, how would you get to see that evidence? I mean, it'd have to be a non-zero number of them.
renewiltord 4y ago
The article claims that the mechanism for this is actually a very simple failure mode. That's interesting. It would be uninteresting if it said that the pros beat the amateurs. But it is interesting in that the pros are not trying to beat the amateurs. Instead, the pros have very simple strategies at play here, and the amateurs are blundering: 1. The amateurs seek to buy options before announcements they think will trigger big moves even though the spread is high (rationally, if the spread is high, you should be a little worried since it increases the risk you can't close what you open at a desired price) 2. The announcement happens 3. The amateurs hold their options despite their desired direction not occurring 4. This amplifies their losses So, overall, as a retail trader you could do these very simple things: * Be afraid of big spreads * If you traded expecting volatility and the big announcement happened and the outcome you wanted didn't, cut your losses and leave
ForHackernews 4y ago
Most hedge funds run by professional managers have underperformed a buy-and-hold index fund strategy available to every retail investor: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffetts-bet-hedge-funds-year-eight-brka-brkb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe... If retail investors want to lose their shirt gambling on options, that's their choice, but it's certainly not true that "the pros" always beat "the amateurs".
seadan83 4y ago
Market makers are not necessarily "the pros", they hold a reserved place in stock exchanges. The 'pros' are generally institutional investors (eg: hedge funds). Market makers make money by offering spreads. EG: fair price of a stock is $1, market makers let you buy that stock at $1.01, and sell for $0.99. Hence, if you buy and sell, while the market maker is paying $1, they make $0.01 on both sides of the trade because they are marking up the price. In options, the spread can be quite extreme, more than 30% of the price of the underlying (eg: you can buy for $0.60, or sell at $0.20, which means purchasing such an option and you are down by over two thirds out of the gate).
- TaylorPhebillo 4y ago
  That seems true, but in practice it seems like a market maker can't offer competitive spreads without having a decent sense of market direction, and they will have to take a position for at least a little while before closing out. So the line between a market maker and a trader who takes deliberate positions feels pretty fuzzy.
  - hattmall 4y ago
    In options market makers get paid from price escalations, but some brokerages pass them on to traders. No one with any sense is placing market orders for options.
  - seadan83 4y ago
    Competitive spreads tend to be a function of volume (ie: liquidity). SPY options for example have very tight spreads while lesser traded options can have very large spreads. Market makers balance positions by delta hedging and/or simply connecting trades. That means the direction of the market does not matter to them, market makers are not at all trying to make money off of market moves (they are making money by providing liquidity). The 'connecting trades' example is common and easiest to understand. For example, one person is buying 100 shares, another is selling 100 shares. Both orders go to the same market maker and they are just connecting those two trades together. The time the market maker is actually holding shares is miniscule. A slightly more complex example of the same kind of "connecting trades" is one person selling 1000 shares and ten other people buying 100 shares. Market makers will connect these trades as well, they'll buy the 1000 shares and then almost immediately (talking milliseconds) sell the 100 shares to the 10 buyers. They can turn around very quickly because the orders are queued. Sometimes trades will not execute right away even though it is well within a reasonable fill price, and that could be simply waiting for liquidity (eg: if someone is selling 10,000 shares, a market maker might do a partial fill if they can only found buyers for 1000 shares, in which case only 1000 shares are traded and the order would stay open for the remaining 9000 shares). In this kind of 'trading' done by the market maker, there is almost zero risk, they are providing liquidity. Though, not all trades can be connected together, which is a less desirable position for market makers in which case they create 'delta neutral' positions (positions that do not change in value despite any change in price of the underlying asset). For example, let's say you are selling a call contract and there are no buyers. A market maker can still buy this contract from you without being exposed to delta risk. They would do this by buying the contract and then exercising it (creating a long position of 100 shares). At the same time, they open 100 shorts of the same underlying, creating a position with 100 long shares and 100 shorts, a net neutral position. Shares from exercising options are allocated by a clearing house after the trading day closes (5pm ET). This means when the market market actually gets the 100 long shares, that cancels out their 100 shorts and the position is closed. Meanwhile they were able to provide liquidity and allow someone to sell a call contract even though there were no buyers, and they were able to do so without any risk from moves in the market by creating a "delta" neutral position (any changes in price increase or decrease are offset between the long and equal short position). Market makers do only make a best effort to provide liquidity. For example, if a market maker can't or won't open an offsetting short position, this is a place where there is no liquidity at all and you simply won't be able to execute your trade for any price (there is no market for that contract).

by SOTGO 4y ago

From an outsider's perspective it seems almost intuitive that market makers (the pros) make money off of retail (the amateurs). It's hard to imagine how that could not be the case.

codyb 4y ago

It's like getting into a boxing ring alone to face ten prime world champions after an hour at the gym is my analogy.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> it seems almost intuitive that market makers (the pros) make money off of retail (the amateurs). It's hard to imagine how that could not be the case. Individual investors can beat professional investors, though it's hard to do. I have seen no evidence showing individual investors outperforming when using non-linear derivatives. Utilitarian buyers of options treat it as insurance. They expect to lose money. There are fundamental reasons a market maker will be able to manufacture options at a cheaper price than an individual, ranging from cost of capital to the benefit of a book to order execution times and settlement dynamics.

sudosysgen 4y ago
There is, however, plenty of evidence that professional investors outperform individuals, reliably. And professionals make most of their money from non-linear derivatives (or make their own). People say that hedge funds are worse than passive investing, and that's often true, but it's true because that's after fees - professional investors routinely beat the market by 3% YoY long term averages, it's just that they are basically paid as much as they make you.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > professionals make most of their money from non-linear derivatives (or make their own) Source? (It’s not true for common definitions of those words.) Most hedge funds won’t touch options for the reasons I mentioned. They’re a hedging tool. (They will happily use swaps and other leveraged instruments. But those are linear.)
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    I can tell you with great certainty that at least some of the biggest institutions that are legally hedge funds do use options. And I consider highly leveraged derivatives to be non linear (because they are on the downside), which may be an abuse of common parlance. It's going to be fairly difficult to give a source, though.
  - jshaqaw 4y ago
    Source my friend? I worked in hedge funds for almost two decades. All of them touched options plenty. There is a big difference between using options to get a particular risk/reward exposure you want and clueless retail chasing some meme short squeeze nonsense which has the expected value of a drunk newbie sitting down at a Vegas poker table.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > big difference between using options to get a particular risk/reward exposure Sorry, it was my turn to be imprecise. Most hedge funds aren’t taking exposure through options but managing risk with them. Most asset managers never touch options. Most professional money managers (institutional; I’m not counting FAs) are not at hedge funds.
      - jshaqaw 4y ago
        All true.
SamReidHughes 4y ago
> I have seen no evidence showing individual investors outperforming when using non-linear derivatives Well, how would you get to see that evidence? I mean, it'd have to be a non-zero number of them.

renewiltord 4y ago

The article claims that the mechanism for this is actually a very simple failure mode. That's interesting. It would be uninteresting if it said that the pros beat the amateurs. But it is interesting in that the pros are not trying to beat the amateurs. Instead, the pros have very simple strategies at play here, and the amateurs are blundering: 1. The amateurs seek to buy options before announcements they think will trigger big moves even though the spread is high (rationally, if the spread is high, you should be a little worried since it increases the risk you can't close what you open at a desired price) 2. The announcement happens 3. The amateurs hold their options despite their desired direction not occurring 4. This amplifies their losses So, overall, as a retail trader you could do these very simple things: * Be afraid of big spreads * If you traded expecting volatility and the big announcement happened and the outcome you wanted didn't, cut your losses and leave

ForHackernews 4y ago

Most hedge funds run by professional managers have underperformed a buy-and-hold index fund strategy available to every retail investor: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffetts-bet-hedge-funds-year-eight-brka-brkb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe... If retail investors want to lose their shirt gambling on options, that's their choice, but it's certainly not true that "the pros" always beat "the amateurs".

seadan83 4y ago

Market makers are not necessarily "the pros", they hold a reserved place in stock exchanges. The 'pros' are generally institutional investors (eg: hedge funds). Market makers make money by offering spreads. EG: fair price of a stock is $1, market makers let you buy that stock at $1.01, and sell for $0.99. Hence, if you buy and sell, while the market maker is paying $1, they make $0.01 on both sides of the trade because they are marking up the price. In options, the spread can be quite extreme, more than 30% of the price of the underlying (eg: you can buy for $0.60, or sell at $0.20, which means purchasing such an option and you are down by over two thirds out of the gate).

TaylorPhebillo 4y ago
That seems true, but in practice it seems like a market maker can't offer competitive spreads without having a decent sense of market direction, and they will have to take a position for at least a little while before closing out. So the line between a market maker and a trader who takes deliberate positions feels pretty fuzzy.
- hattmall 4y ago
  In options market makers get paid from price escalations, but some brokerages pass them on to traders. No one with any sense is placing market orders for options.
- seadan83 4y ago
  Competitive spreads tend to be a function of volume (ie: liquidity). SPY options for example have very tight spreads while lesser traded options can have very large spreads. Market makers balance positions by delta hedging and/or simply connecting trades. That means the direction of the market does not matter to them, market makers are not at all trying to make money off of market moves (they are making money by providing liquidity). The 'connecting trades' example is common and easiest to understand. For example, one person is buying 100 shares, another is selling 100 shares. Both orders go to the same market maker and they are just connecting those two trades together. The time the market maker is actually holding shares is miniscule. A slightly more complex example of the same kind of "connecting trades" is one person selling 1000 shares and ten other people buying 100 shares. Market makers will connect these trades as well, they'll buy the 1000 shares and then almost immediately (talking milliseconds) sell the 100 shares to the 10 buyers. They can turn around very quickly because the orders are queued. Sometimes trades will not execute right away even though it is well within a reasonable fill price, and that could be simply waiting for liquidity (eg: if someone is selling 10,000 shares, a market maker might do a partial fill if they can only found buyers for 1000 shares, in which case only 1000 shares are traded and the order would stay open for the remaining 9000 shares). In this kind of 'trading' done by the market maker, there is almost zero risk, they are providing liquidity. Though, not all trades can be connected together, which is a less desirable position for market makers in which case they create 'delta neutral' positions (positions that do not change in value despite any change in price of the underlying asset). For example, let's say you are selling a call contract and there are no buyers. A market maker can still buy this contract from you without being exposed to delta risk. They would do this by buying the contract and then exercising it (creating a long position of 100 shares). At the same time, they open 100 shorts of the same underlying, creating a position with 100 long shares and 100 shorts, a net neutral position. Shares from exercising options are allocated by a clearing house after the trading day closes (5pm ET). This means when the market market actually gets the 100 long shares, that cancels out their 100 shorts and the position is closed. Meanwhile they were able to provide liquidity and allow someone to sell a call contract even though there were no buyers, and they were able to do so without any risk from moves in the market by creating a "delta" neutral position (any changes in price increase or decrease are offset between the long and equal short position). Market makers do only make a best effort to provide liquidity. For example, if a market maker can't or won't open an offsetting short position, this is a place where there is no liquidity at all and you simply won't be able to execute your trade for any price (there is no market for that contract).