The scariest WSJ headline the week prior to when volatility started was the following: "New account creation hits all time high at E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, etc".
The stock market engine has been hot for 5 - 6 years now and we just threw a can of nitro into the engine by way of massive tax cuts and deregulation. And then pundits and our President brag about how awesome this ride is as if managed growth is somehow anti-American. The retail investor masses heard that message and have arrived. The masses that don't know the difference between an income statement and balance sheet or how a market cap relates to the stock price. Historically they have been a catalyst of instability and trade solely based on the chart and trends.
So volatility seemed obvious two weeks ago. But when an obvious thought arises regarding the market two quotes always come to mind:
"Far more money has been lost anticipating the correction than in the correction itself". P. Lynch
"The first person you must not fool is yourself and you are the easiest person to fool". R. Feynman
> The retail investor masses heard that message and have arrived.
The retail masses showed up many many years ago in the form of retirement accounts. And we’ve also benefited tremendously from this bull market. This last correction is nothing if you’ve been in the market for a few years.
Also I really doubt retail investors are the catalyst for anything here. Normal people don’t move a trillion dollars out of the market in a few minutes.
>Also I really doubt retail investors are the catalyst for anything here. Normal people don’t move a trillion dollars out of the market in a few minutes.
Sure they do. Robo-advisor services like Betterment have exploded over the past few years. They alone have over 10 billion under management right now. When everyone's money is following the same algorithms, it's natural to assume that any market movement will be magnified now.
>The retail masses showed up many many years ago in the form of retirement accounts.
The size and composition of the mass is often over-estimated, particularly w/respect to retirement accounts.[1] And they've mostly been sitting on the sidelines. Over all trading volume has been lower since the 08/09 crash, the retail side in particular. (Don't have access to the tool that tracks this anymore, but there are lots of articles/videos, etc... talking about this.)
>Also I really doubt retail investors are the catalyst for anything here.
Generally correct, but I caught an interview on CNBC the other day where the speaker said that retail flows accounted for 80% of the volume on one of the US exchanges for that day. So, sometimes retail investors can have an some impact on market movements.
> The scariest WSJ headline the week prior to when volatility started was the following: "New account creation hits all time high at E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, etc".
The WSJ, marketwatch, cnbc, etc writes this every year. # of accounts, margin/debt exposure, etc. They also write how retail investors are missing out.
"As Dow Tops 25000, Individual Investors Sit It Out"
I wouldn't put too much stock in finance newspapers' headlines. They aren't there to give you advice. They exist to sell you ads.
> Historically they have been a catalyst of instability and trade solely based on the chart and trends.
This is not true. Retail investors don't move markets. Pension funds, hedge Funds, large investors do. And they do so when the FED decides to moves markets ( aka raise or lower interest rates ).
> Retail investors don't move markets. Pension funds, hedge Funds, large investors do
I used to make equity derivative markets. About thirty minutes after CNBC commented on something, a tsunami of stupid Charles Schwab order flow would hit our systems. It moved prices. Coördinated uninformed flows can dramatically move markets because markets are priced at the margin, not the bulk.
TL; DR If both institutions and retail are active in a name, the institutions will set the terms. But if institutions are inactive while retail is active, the latter can move markers surprisingly far.
Yeah people timing the corrrection is as foolish as people trying to time a bottom. The short game is won by people with way more information than you. You beat them by going long as it is harder to predict for them. The game is more even at that distance
In trading and the markets, you can beat the drums of war for as long as you want. At some point you will be vindicated. Then everyone will look back at you and think "genius!".
Ultimately, timing is everything. I can tell you markets will be X in Y time. Within reason, there's a good chance it will happen. Question is just "when?" The problem with strong views is whether they can be maintained. Being short in a rising market or long in a falling one can be painful. Markets have a way of wiping out your position (margin calls, psychological biases to losing money and exiting) longer than you can hold on.
In these guys' case, timing was even more important- because of options maturity dates. The article seems to allude to the fact that they rolled their position forward multiple times: "For about a year, Ibex had been buying options on the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, ticker SVXY."
So the real question is how much money did they blow on premiums before the final trade did well?
Do you write software? I don't get trading and I want to. I get programming. If you understand both that's great. I even took one masters course (as part of my bachelors degree) in financial mathematics about options, future, derivatives etc. but it didn't click at the time.
I have funds to invest but every time I look into getting into I cannot bring myself to do it because I cannot stop my brain thinking it's gambling. Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term. In terms of long term investing in an index fund or ETF, that supposedly is more sensible but that sort of feels like gambling too, in a way everything is I suppose, buying a house is too, but I suppose you have to just get your brain to get over it. There's no guarantee of anything.
> ... I cannot stop my brain thinking it's gambling. Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term.
That's a smart conclusion that's correct in the vast majority of cases. Day trading, especially as a retail investor, is mostly gambling.
If you have funds to invest medium-to-long term, index investing using low cost, well-diversified funds really is the best thing you can do. Is it gambling? Year-over-year, an equity fund will certainly have wide swings up and down. However, since your horizon is long term, most people think that the market will be going up, averaged over the long term (a decade +). That is what the past has showed us.
While past results are not a guarantee of future performance, it would be highly surprising for the market as a whole to do down, or even stagnate, for a period of 10+ years. Yes, people often cite Japan, that's exactly why I stated well-diversified funds above: limiting yourself to a single country can be risky.
What is certain, is that if you are sitting on large sums of cash, inflation is eating away at it. You are actively losing money.
I was introduced to the book "Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practitioners" on HN[0] and it seems like a really good book (from the bit I have skimmed so far).
Play poker once a week for small, but real money. Study the game (read Sklansky, Harrington, do the MIT poker school).
After a year, you get used to the idea of a bet where you'll win some, lose some, but know on average you'll do better than OK.
Investing is gambling, but with an edge, since it's not a zero-sum game. Also you have to be patient, you are almost certainly not going to consistently beat the market short term, but you should do better long term than not investing.
If that's not for you, then just buy target date funds, balanced funds, structure your own balanced ETF portfolio, or pay a robo-advisor or human advisor to invest for you.
TFA's type of trade is like advantage gamblers who read the fine print of casino promotions looking for situations where they have an edge. Whoever sold that (presumably) OTC exotic bullet option (probably) didn't realize leveraged short vol funds forced to cover could create a vol-pocalypse. http://kiddynamitesworld.com/xiv-volpocalypse-sea-disinforma...
> I have funds to invest but every time I look into getting into I cannot bring myself to do it because I cannot stop my brain thinking it's gambling. Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term.
If you have programming skill and a good understanding of statistics, do the following:
1. Identify a subset of equities in the total market which a) have fairly one dimensional revenue streams, b) have a market capitalization of at least ~$1-2B, and c) are not prone to extraordinary hype or tech-centric accounting, such that e.g. a "win" or a "loss" in an earnings announcement is fairly straightforward to understand (and therefore you can more easily, if not perfectly predict how the market will react).
2. Identify a strong, legal source of alternative data that maps directly to the revenue stream of one of these companies. The more difficult to find and collect, the better. Use your programming skills to automate the collection and curation of this dataset.
3. Incubate your dataset for a period of several months, then build it into a timeseries. Using the timeseries, build a model that forecasts the expected revenue of each particular company using historical 10-K and 10-Q documents.
4. For the companies whose data imply a jump in either direction that is very unexpected (according to e.g. the aggregate analyst consensus), take a contrarian position in the equity. If you're feeling very confident and have a higher risk tolerance, study options and take the corresponding derivative position.
5. In particular, establish a target win rate overall, a target tolerable drawdown period overall, and a target exit price (sufficient win or bearable loss) for each position, then follow it.
If you do this correctly and consistently, you will profit significantly and consistently enough that your system will be fully distinguishable from uninformed gambling. To equip you with a bit of meta-analysis here, this outline works because a) all trading strategies profit from finding opportunities to exploit pricing inefficiencies in various securities (or groups thereof), and b) the only way to deliberately identify those opportunities is by having information, access, or techniques that the broader market does not have yet (or else the price would reflect that information).
The great difficulty in this process is finding and analyzing the alternative data in the first place. As a fallback, if you're not confident you can build a trading strategy with this data you can also sell it to hedge funds, who will be very happy to buy it if it actually maps to revenue and is otherwise unknown.
Trading successfully is conceptually simple: buy low, sell high. Finding these patterns is what's tough.
First you need to figure out what your investment horizon is. Microseconds or years? Or somewhere in between?
If you're good at programming there's a good chance you'll be attracted to the shorter time horizons (high frequency trading). At a longer time horizon your risks are different and so are the programming skills you need. Generally you'll need to be able to apply statistics and probability to what you're looking at. Look up Kelly criterion.
One of the best things to look at on any time horizon is liquidity differentials. Try to find two things that should be the same thing from a price or risk perspective, but trade with different volumes.
In the ETF space an example of this is the ETF versus it's basket. Or leaders and laggards within a specific sector.
But do you want to invest or do you want to trade? If what you want is to invest your objective should be to get the average of the market as cheaply as possible not beat it. Here are two articles to help you with that:
Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor elucidates the principles of value investing as opposed to risky gambling. This is a book recommended by Warren Buffett too.
I feel the same. I can understand programming, business etc - anything that involves creating something of value and exchanging it for something else of value with money as the medium. Two things that I never understand are - high end art market (a single painting is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, really?) and stocks.
How is stocks not gambling? What exactly is being created here? It is just gambling and speculation, and for that these people (hedge funds especially) get paid insane salaries? And many times they gamble with someone else's money!!! This is incredible to my simple brain.
If you keep your wealth as cash, it will get wiped out over time by inflation.
Now let’s imagine that you have enough money to buy 4 houses in a city/location you want to live in for the long term. I would say that’s pretty low risk because your cost of living is going to be roughly the same as what you can earn by renting out your 4 houses. I.e. you’ll be able to live off your rental income forever.
Therefore there are investment strategies that aren’t equivalent to gambling.
There is a difference between trading and investing. Trading is short term gambling, investing isn't. You invest for the long term.
> Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term.
Short term, you can't. You'll have to bank on luck. Hence why it is gambling. Especially if you go the options route. That's pure gambling as options are a zero sum game.
The article quotes "for about a year" and the bet of 200K USD on Jan 2, profiting Feb 6 with 17.5M USD, which I understand as: if they had to do it every two months, they had to invest 1.2M USD in one year before they won 17.5M. Still not bad. Of course, the options they get wouldn't have to give them the same win every time they invest 200K though.
An obvious question: how often did they place this bet before it came off? If they did it ten months in a row it would still be impressive. But the return wouldn’t be quite as good.
I hadn't heard of the volatility index (VIX) until I read a short article about it in the last issue of the London Review of Books. Might be worth looking at of you want a little bit of background on this story: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n02/donald-mackenzie/short-cuts
I highly recommend the London Review of Books - it is my favorite print publication and has excellent current events and political writing (along with the book reviews, which are also quite encompassing).
The XIV security, which had fallen roughly 85 percent in after-hours Monday, closed down 93 percent Tuesday.
(and you think Cryptocurrencies are volatile)
I don't think it's accurate to say it "went bust". In fact, Credit Suisse had a (oft ignored) provision in the prospectus of the ETN that very clearly stated that they would liquidate and terminate the product if it exhibited certain behaviors.
Credit Suisse built the product "safely" in a way that did not expose them to losses. The "investors", however, who were almost certainly using the ETN incorrectly, were exposed to heavy losses:
I feel like a lot of the comments here are about how volatility of course will go up at some point and these guys had lucky timing, or about the market in general. But there's interesting tidbits to the whole thing beyond this.
What's interesting about this fund's particular bet isn't that they we're _right_ about the market but they correctly bet that the structural ability of the ETN/ETF product to properly hedge the risk associated with the fund goals was either too difficult or in certain events literally impossible. And that a certain event (like even what most would consider right now as a regular correction) would blow up said fund. In fact, even bastard cousins of the fund that are meant to do the exact opposite thing in these conditions may also feel the same deathknell (https://finance.google.com/finance?q=xiv).
And just to look a little deeper into the bet itself... They were using options (derivatives) on a fund (a derivative) using swaps (derivatives) linked to the VIX (a derivative) which is a measure of volatility of an index (a derivative) of the S&P components.
You too can replicate these winnings by just finding a niche mis-pricing on a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative!
The questions typically are (1) Can you find an instrument that lets you bet on the mispricing (2) do you have the wherewithal to stay solvent for the arbitrary period of time it takes for the market to correct.
Individual investors typically cannot access the right instruments (typically weirdly structured long term options). Typical institutional money managers cannot because their measurement typically penalizes continuous money loss. Lots of them however may have spotted the opportunity.
Andrew Gelman once mentioned that Black Swan events are actually routinely _overpriced_ via the Longshot Bias. [1] He had talked about this in the context of the recent Leicester FC win and the odds on that team. [2]
I used to trade volatility and conventional wisdom is definitely not that the Vix is always quiet.
The phrase I always heard and said is “we are picking up nickels in front of a steamroller” in reference to shorting implied Vol. Everyone knows this is bound to happen.
Although, the trick is that over a long enough time horizon implied volatility is higher than realized. People are unnaturally scared of movement in the market.
There are books published and read by almost all traders about this very event by Nick Taleb.
Readit News
The stock market engine has been hot for 5 - 6 years now and we just threw a can of nitro into the engine by way of massive tax cuts and deregulation. And then pundits and our President brag about how awesome this ride is as if managed growth is somehow anti-American. The retail investor masses heard that message and have arrived. The masses that don't know the difference between an income statement and balance sheet or how a market cap relates to the stock price. Historically they have been a catalyst of instability and trade solely based on the chart and trends.
So volatility seemed obvious two weeks ago. But when an obvious thought arises regarding the market two quotes always come to mind:
"Far more money has been lost anticipating the correction than in the correction itself". P. Lynch
"The first person you must not fool is yourself and you are the easiest person to fool". R. Feynman
The retail masses showed up many many years ago in the form of retirement accounts. And we’ve also benefited tremendously from this bull market. This last correction is nothing if you’ve been in the market for a few years.
Also I really doubt retail investors are the catalyst for anything here. Normal people don’t move a trillion dollars out of the market in a few minutes.
Sure they do. Robo-advisor services like Betterment have exploded over the past few years. They alone have over 10 billion under management right now. When everyone's money is following the same algorithms, it's natural to assume that any market movement will be magnified now.
The size and composition of the mass is often over-estimated, particularly w/respect to retirement accounts.[1] And they've mostly been sitting on the sidelines. Over all trading volume has been lower since the 08/09 crash, the retail side in particular. (Don't have access to the tool that tracks this anymore, but there are lots of articles/videos, etc... talking about this.)
>Also I really doubt retail investors are the catalyst for anything here.
Generally correct, but I caught an interview on CNBC the other day where the speaker said that retail flows accounted for 80% of the volume on one of the US exchanges for that day. So, sometimes retail investors can have an some impact on market movements.
*[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fewer-americans-retirement-ac...
The WSJ, marketwatch, cnbc, etc writes this every year. # of accounts, margin/debt exposure, etc. They also write how retail investors are missing out.
"As Dow Tops 25000, Individual Investors Sit It Out"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-dow-tops-25000-individual-in...
I wouldn't put too much stock in finance newspapers' headlines. They aren't there to give you advice. They exist to sell you ads.
> Historically they have been a catalyst of instability and trade solely based on the chart and trends.
This is not true. Retail investors don't move markets. Pension funds, hedge Funds, large investors do. And they do so when the FED decides to moves markets ( aka raise or lower interest rates ).
I used to make equity derivative markets. About thirty minutes after CNBC commented on something, a tsunami of stupid Charles Schwab order flow would hit our systems. It moved prices. Coördinated uninformed flows can dramatically move markets because markets are priced at the margin, not the bulk.
TL; DR If both institutions and retail are active in a name, the institutions will set the terms. But if institutions are inactive while retail is active, the latter can move markers surprisingly far.
Ultimately, timing is everything. I can tell you markets will be X in Y time. Within reason, there's a good chance it will happen. Question is just "when?" The problem with strong views is whether they can be maintained. Being short in a rising market or long in a falling one can be painful. Markets have a way of wiping out your position (margin calls, psychological biases to losing money and exiting) longer than you can hold on.
In these guys' case, timing was even more important- because of options maturity dates. The article seems to allude to the fact that they rolled their position forward multiple times: "For about a year, Ibex had been buying options on the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, ticker SVXY."
So the real question is how much money did they blow on premiums before the final trade did well?
I have funds to invest but every time I look into getting into I cannot bring myself to do it because I cannot stop my brain thinking it's gambling. Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term. In terms of long term investing in an index fund or ETF, that supposedly is more sensible but that sort of feels like gambling too, in a way everything is I suppose, buying a house is too, but I suppose you have to just get your brain to get over it. There's no guarantee of anything.
That's a smart conclusion that's correct in the vast majority of cases. Day trading, especially as a retail investor, is mostly gambling.
If you have funds to invest medium-to-long term, index investing using low cost, well-diversified funds really is the best thing you can do. Is it gambling? Year-over-year, an equity fund will certainly have wide swings up and down. However, since your horizon is long term, most people think that the market will be going up, averaged over the long term (a decade +). That is what the past has showed us.
While past results are not a guarantee of future performance, it would be highly surprising for the market as a whole to do down, or even stagnate, for a period of 10+ years. Yes, people often cite Japan, that's exactly why I stated well-diversified funds above: limiting yourself to a single country can be risky.
What is certain, is that if you are sitting on large sums of cash, inflation is eating away at it. You are actively losing money.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3177815
After a year, you get used to the idea of a bet where you'll win some, lose some, but know on average you'll do better than OK.
Investing is gambling, but with an edge, since it's not a zero-sum game. Also you have to be patient, you are almost certainly not going to consistently beat the market short term, but you should do better long term than not investing.
If that's not for you, then just buy target date funds, balanced funds, structure your own balanced ETF portfolio, or pay a robo-advisor or human advisor to invest for you.
TFA's type of trade is like advantage gamblers who read the fine print of casino promotions looking for situations where they have an edge. Whoever sold that (presumably) OTC exotic bullet option (probably) didn't realize leveraged short vol funds forced to cover could create a vol-pocalypse. http://kiddynamitesworld.com/xiv-volpocalypse-sea-disinforma...
If you have programming skill and a good understanding of statistics, do the following:
1. Identify a subset of equities in the total market which a) have fairly one dimensional revenue streams, b) have a market capitalization of at least ~$1-2B, and c) are not prone to extraordinary hype or tech-centric accounting, such that e.g. a "win" or a "loss" in an earnings announcement is fairly straightforward to understand (and therefore you can more easily, if not perfectly predict how the market will react).
2. Identify a strong, legal source of alternative data that maps directly to the revenue stream of one of these companies. The more difficult to find and collect, the better. Use your programming skills to automate the collection and curation of this dataset.
3. Incubate your dataset for a period of several months, then build it into a timeseries. Using the timeseries, build a model that forecasts the expected revenue of each particular company using historical 10-K and 10-Q documents.
4. For the companies whose data imply a jump in either direction that is very unexpected (according to e.g. the aggregate analyst consensus), take a contrarian position in the equity. If you're feeling very confident and have a higher risk tolerance, study options and take the corresponding derivative position.
5. In particular, establish a target win rate overall, a target tolerable drawdown period overall, and a target exit price (sufficient win or bearable loss) for each position, then follow it.
If you do this correctly and consistently, you will profit significantly and consistently enough that your system will be fully distinguishable from uninformed gambling. To equip you with a bit of meta-analysis here, this outline works because a) all trading strategies profit from finding opportunities to exploit pricing inefficiencies in various securities (or groups thereof), and b) the only way to deliberately identify those opportunities is by having information, access, or techniques that the broader market does not have yet (or else the price would reflect that information).
The great difficulty in this process is finding and analyzing the alternative data in the first place. As a fallback, if you're not confident you can build a trading strategy with this data you can also sell it to hedge funds, who will be very happy to buy it if it actually maps to revenue and is otherwise unknown.
First you need to figure out what your investment horizon is. Microseconds or years? Or somewhere in between?
If you're good at programming there's a good chance you'll be attracted to the shorter time horizons (high frequency trading). At a longer time horizon your risks are different and so are the programming skills you need. Generally you'll need to be able to apply statistics and probability to what you're looking at. Look up Kelly criterion.
One of the best things to look at on any time horizon is liquidity differentials. Try to find two things that should be the same thing from a price or risk perspective, but trade with different volumes.
In the ETF space an example of this is the ETF versus it's basket. Or leaders and laggards within a specific sector.
They also have a fund explorer where you can easily look at past performance and compare: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0970&...
For the rational part: https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm
For the emotional part: http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market-...
And if you need a good source for knowledge and ongoing support boggleheads is an amazing forum/site:
https://www.bogleheads.org/
This is my own conclusion as well. Well, either that or luck.
This goes double for long-term success. As the disclaimers say, past performance is no indication of future results.
Deleted Comment
How is stocks not gambling? What exactly is being created here? It is just gambling and speculation, and for that these people (hedge funds especially) get paid insane salaries? And many times they gamble with someone else's money!!! This is incredible to my simple brain.
Now let’s imagine that you have enough money to buy 4 houses in a city/location you want to live in for the long term. I would say that’s pretty low risk because your cost of living is going to be roughly the same as what you can earn by renting out your 4 houses. I.e. you’ll be able to live off your rental income forever.
Therefore there are investment strategies that aren’t equivalent to gambling.
> Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term.
Short term, you can't. You'll have to bank on luck. Hence why it is gambling. Especially if you go the options route. That's pure gambling as options are a zero sum game.
Deleted Comment
https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=XIV&ty=c&ta=0&p=m
Credit Suisse Fund Liquidated, ETFs Halted as Short-Vol Bets Die
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-06/credit-su...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/the-obscure-volatility-secur...
I don't think it's accurate to say it "went bust". In fact, Credit Suisse had a (oft ignored) provision in the prospectus of the ETN that very clearly stated that they would liquidate and terminate the product if it exhibited certain behaviors.
Credit Suisse built the product "safely" in a way that did not expose them to losses. The "investors", however, who were almost certainly using the ETN incorrectly, were exposed to heavy losses:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-06/xiv-trader-loses-4...
"incorrectly", in this context, would be anything other than very, very short (less than one day) holding to hedge other risks.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/05/xiv-exchange-traded-security...
What's interesting about this fund's particular bet isn't that they we're _right_ about the market but they correctly bet that the structural ability of the ETN/ETF product to properly hedge the risk associated with the fund goals was either too difficult or in certain events literally impossible. And that a certain event (like even what most would consider right now as a regular correction) would blow up said fund. In fact, even bastard cousins of the fund that are meant to do the exact opposite thing in these conditions may also feel the same deathknell (https://finance.google.com/finance?q=xiv).
And just to look a little deeper into the bet itself... They were using options (derivatives) on a fund (a derivative) using swaps (derivatives) linked to the VIX (a derivative) which is a measure of volatility of an index (a derivative) of the S&P components.
You too can replicate these winnings by just finding a niche mis-pricing on a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative!
Individual investors typically cannot access the right instruments (typically weirdly structured long term options). Typical institutional money managers cannot because their measurement typically penalizes continuous money loss. Lots of them however may have spotted the opportunity.
Andrew Gelman once mentioned that Black Swan events are actually routinely _overpriced_ via the Longshot Bias. [1] He had talked about this in the context of the recent Leicester FC win and the odds on that team. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias
[2] http://andrewgelman.com/2016/06/02/30183/
The phrase I always heard and said is “we are picking up nickels in front of a steamroller” in reference to shorting implied Vol. Everyone knows this is bound to happen.
Although, the trick is that over a long enough time horizon implied volatility is higher than realized. People are unnaturally scared of movement in the market.
There are books published and read by almost all traders about this very event by Nick Taleb.