Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?

from the how-to-create-momentary-financial-havoc dept

Tue, Apr 23rd 2013 2:41pm — Mike Masnick

Lots of people have been rightfully concerned about just how much of the trading in the financial markets is done algorithmically via high frequency trading systems that execute trades faster than any of us can comprehend, based on various algorithms, trying to shave little bits and pieces of profit. The key worry, of course, is that these algorithms can get into something of an infinite loop problem that spins the markets out of control. We've had momentary blips, at times, that happened so quickly it wasn't even clear why they happened. And now we have a case where overreacting to a fake tweet may have briefly cost the financial markets $136 billion (yes, with a b).

The story is that the Associated Press's twitter feed was hacked and a bogus tweet was posted, reading: "Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured."

And off went Wall Street, sending the stock markets down quite rapidly. Of course, after the report was quickly corrected and shown to be false, the market rapidly recovered -- though, in the down and upswings, it's likely some people lost a fair bit of money while others made out quite well. Still, this raises a different set of questions even on top of the worries about high frequency trading, pertaining to the various inputs it receives. Reacting to stories on Twitter is an interesting way to try to beat the news cycle. Since so many stories break on Twitter first, it's no surprise that Wall Street is eagerly scanning the service for market-impacting news. The real question is if anything can or should be done about this. One argument is that we can leave it alone because it's self defeating. If your system jumped the gun and traded down on this report, well, good, you deserve to lose money for trading on a bogus tweet. Similarly, the fact that the market bounced back showed that it can self-correct fairly quickly, even if there are billions to be made and lost in between.

For those who think this is a problem, the bigger question might just be: and, so, what do you do about it? I'm just as worried as the next guy about the problems of such inter-connected, algorithmic trading systems spinning out of control, but I can't think of any way to prevent it that doesn't also lead to great collateral damage for more efficient or reasonable markets. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an answer, but it doesn't appear that there's an obvious response, seeing as no one has introduced any. In the end, it may be that this is just a fact of life. People are always going to seek out ways to beat the market by being first. And many times that will lead to great profits. But sometimes, when a story like this comes out, you get burned. Maybe that's perfectly reasonable.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Companies: associated press, twitter

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:44pm

In a first response, this news station reports on an article which treats the bombing of the whitehouse and injury of the President as merely another excuse to attack the financial markets. Writer Mikhail Masnik should be ashamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re:
  In an update, this news station can now report that earlier reports of the bombing of the whitehouse and injury to the President were not entirely accurate but this does not justify using such events to criticise the free market as Micky Mantle did in his techdirt story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This news station can now carry this exclusive report that there has been no bombing of the Whitehouse and the President is uninjured as some scurrilous people earlier reported.
    We are the first with this accurate news as our reporter was able to read to nearly the end of the techdirt article at this point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Kudos to the exemplary citizen Mike Masnick who cut through all the chaff on the internet to be the first internet blogger to carry our version of events.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Keep it in your pants, please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 23 Apr 2013 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did I just witness a stroke via the Internet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That or an epileptic seizure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AC Unknown, 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you having a major malfunction in your brain housing group? I thought I told you that you weren't welcome here!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Zakida Paul (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, just a normal day for that moron
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:49pm

Based on rumors
The markets are based almost entirely on rumors. Rumors that a business is doing well and will return a huge profit makes the stock jump up. Negative rumors make the stocks fall. A single rumor has been known to almost crash a company's stock just so an employee/ex-employee can sell their stocks for a certain amount. Markets, such as the stock market, is little more than legalized gambling. When you invest, you're gambling that the company or stock is going to do very well. It's called risk.

We're living in a world where everyone wants all of the rewards but none of the risk involved. It's called 'entitlement', and people and/or corporations feel they're entitled to all of the money in the world (or at least a good sized chunk of it) without any risks. Politicians are bribed to pass laws to help decrease or completely do away with risks. That's how our world works now.

So it makes perfect sense that one little (or big) rumor can move the markets since people have fear of risk and losing everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:31pm

Oooh, I've an easy FIX, Mike!
"I can't think of any way to prevent it that doesn't also lead to great collateral damage for more efficient or reasonable markets." -- Simply require that all stocks be held for ONE YEAR before traded. IF the purpose were finance and not casino, then it's an easy and simple FIX.

You're some economist, aincha? No opinion on nothin'.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
11:31:30[m-962-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- akp (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Oooh, I've an easy FIX, Mike!
  Oh look, your silly timestamps and tags are back!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:36pm

Untrustworthy markets
A lot of people are permanently out of the market these days, even as it has hit new highs. There's an increasingly belief (and rightly so) that the average investor will likely get screwed. True, if you invest for the very long haul and can ride out the ups and downs, it might turn out okay for you. But now, especially with the market not seeming to be connected to the economy at large, the idea that you can invest in good companies and it will pay off seems to have disappeared along with the American dream of getting a good education, getting a decent job, working for 30-40 years, and then retiring comfortably.

These sudden swings, no matter what triggers them, don't reassure average investors that stocks are the place for them to be.

So is it a problem? It depends on whether you want widespread participation in the market or whether you just want a narrow sector of the population trading back and forth. It's another indication that the 1% make their money differently than other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re: Untrustworthy markets
  Also, if most people stay out of the market, that means far fewer people are needed in the investment industry. So if the investment industry can't come up with ways to avoid these situations and, as a result, shrinks considerably, so be it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Untrustworthy markets
    The problem is the investment industry relies on juking the proletariat out of their savings by having them invest in the market.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2013 @ 2:18am
  
  Re: Untrustworthy markets
  Remember that pension funds invest in the markets, there it is always other peoples money being gambled away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 23 Apr 2013 @ 4:25pm

Deliberate manipulation
I'm wondering if this twitter hack was a deliberate manipulation of the market. The people behind it knew the market would fall and placed their positions accordingly. Hopefully somebody will be looking into that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Deliberate manipulation
  During the dotcom boom, when there were a lot of stock bulletin boards, "pump and dump" was quite common. You had to pay attention to who was giving you "news" on a company to know if it was trustworthy.
  
  But with the rapid trades now, it is increasingly a sucker's game unless you have ultra-fast computers. It's sad that some of the best minds in the country have been used to create computer programs to shuffle money around rather than actually doing something to help humanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re: Deliberate manipulation
  Look into what? Is it wrong to exploit stupid people? A fool and his money SHOULD be parted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation
    Money for nothin' and chicks for free huh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 9:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation
    Honestly, security on twitter is quite lax, and that is something that should be done. In fact, they have already admitted that 2 factor authentication will be used from now on. I'm a personal believer in authentication keys, but the general consensus is that it is too complicated for stupid users.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ethorad (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 3:53am
    
    Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation
    I wondered if it could be deliberate market manipulation as well. Probably just someone having a laugh, but you never know. I bet the SEC is looking into the number of short trades that happened just before the tweet was posted and which were quickly closed out before the market realised the tweet was fake.
    
    And it is wrong to exploit stupid people. A fool and has money may well be quickly parted but when it comes to investment markets at least there are all sorts of rules about what you can and can't do and say. See insider trading, ponzi schemes, pump and dump, etc
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2013 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Deliberate manipulation
    And those who are invested in a fund? it's less amusing when, for example, somebody's pension is wiped out because of this crap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

horse with no name, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:14pm

There is no cyber war
None at all. There are no groups inside and outside the US using the internet to cause havoc or to attack the US in any manner.

I learned this from reading Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Unknown, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:52pm
  
  Re: There is no cyber war
  Shut up, troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    horse with no name, 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:26pm
    
    Re: Re: There is no cyber war
    So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?
    
    Zeig Heil!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
      You're an ass. All he meant was that is not an accurate representation of the general drift.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
        It is very accurate. You can see any number of articles here claiming there is no cyber war, that there are no such things as organized cyber attacks. Yet, here we are, with two groups working together to create what was potentially a serious problem, using cyber warfare methods.
        
        Imagine the Chinese or other enemies of the US using a similar, but more coordinated attack to play the media into falsely reporting a nuclear attack. If the guys doing it for the lulz can pull it off, imagine what someone with a real plan could do.
        
        Techdirt repeatedly denies the existence of cyber warfare and it's potential effects on the US. It's a fine example of where Techdirt is entirely wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ethorad (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
        It doesn't take the Chinese government to fool the US population into thinking they're under attack. Broadcasting a novel about an invasion from Mars will do it.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)#Public_reaction
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 10:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
      "So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?"
      
      No, when Techdirt gets it wrong you should, in a constructive adult fashion, point that out and explain why. In this case though , I see no reason at all to believe TD got it wrong and your comment was a mile away from being constructive or adult, and was just trollish. So shut up.
      
      And if this is what you think amounts to cyber way, I say bring it on. Some over-paid gamblers lost some money and some other over-paid gamblers made some, and the net result was not much of anything. Beats a real war any day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - horse with no name, 23 Apr 2013 @ 10:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
        It's not about money made or lost. That is a result of the action, not the action itself. The action itself if taken only a bit further could cause significant turmoil in the US. People fell for this one pretty easily, and it was an easy story to check. It's a proof of concept, that the internet can be used as a weapon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
        If the frequency of fake serious stories like this one increases, people's trust will drop and their skepticism will rise, which will naturally reduce the effect of fake stories. To me this seems like a very ineffective cyberwar "weapon".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: There is no cyber war
  Screw You Troll !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:16pm

Algorithmic control and fast trading
The interesting thing about trading algorithmically is that anyone can do it. What I have found interesting over the years is that the faster the trading process, the more the momentum in either direction.

All it would take is to slow the allowable trades from any source to a specific minimum between trades. Now this has its own problems ensuring this, but averaging the transaction times is one way to force a slow down.

I have spent various amounts of time paper trading (which is a recommended must before using actual funds to trade) to see what happens and I have found that as long as there is some level of being able to see buy/sell trends then the momentum pushing in any direction is lessoned. That is only my view and YMMV.

Every training course I have ever been on in relation to share markets and the various means of trading has always emphasised that it is a form of gambling, there are risks involved. So only use what you can afford, learn before you put money down, and if you find a method that works for you while paper trading then make NO changes to your method when you do lay money down (any changes made will almost certainly guarantee that you will lose your money). And lastly, if the volatility in the market is too much, don't trade, wait for another day.

And as the cover of "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" says "Don't Panic"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:03pm
  
  Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
  Every training course I have ever been on in relation to share markets and the various means of trading has always emphasised that it is a form of gambling, there are risks involved.
  
  What happened to a lot of Baby Boomers is that they were saving for retirement and then saw their portfolios take major hits several times since 2000. Now they really can't afford to take more risks and don't want to get back into the market.
  
  There aren't really any great investments right now, particularly safe ones, but at least if you hang on to cash, given the low inflation rate, you won't lose that.
  
  The people who have money to lose, have money (which they are throwing into property, the market, art, and angel investing). A lot of other people don't any money to lose. As income inequality increases, the participation in the market will likely continue to shrink.
  
  The stock market no longer has an aura as a place to improve your lot in life.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 7:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
    My folks had money they had earned over a life of hard work in the market for over 25 years. They were doing well. 2008 Took over 60% of their net worth from them. They cannot afford to play craps with the big boys anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2013 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
    actually, there ARE reasonable investments available, you just need to be careful where you invest. Diversify, for one- the more investments you have, the less a collapse in one will hurt you. Second, do some research on companies before you buy them- are their profits dropping? rising? do they have any debt? dividend? (I like to see at least a 5% dividend)
    
    also, invest for the long-term. Assuming a company isn't in serious financial trouble, it'll likely survive for a while. The general recommendation is that you shouldn't invest in the stock market with money you will need in the next 3-5 years. Why? because over that length of time, stocks tend to rise. (plus, if you know the company is stable, a price collapse is often a good opportunity to buy. why? because long-term, the price will rise up again, and you bought shares on the cheap. That, and it results in a higher dividend yield. ( if the share normally has a dividend yield of $5, with a price of $100, you would normally get a 5% dividend yield ( which is a decent yield) if the price drops to $50, then you buy, you can get a 10% yield. Plus, when the price goes back up, you double your money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
      actually, there ARE reasonable investments available, you just need to be careful where you invest. Diversify, for one- the more investments you have, the less a collapse in one will hurt you. Second, do some research on companies before you buy them- are their profits dropping? rising? do they have any debt? dividend? (I like to see at least a 5% dividend)
      
      I was talking about someone approaching 65. Yes, if you are young enough and have you enough years ahead of you, then putting money into the S&P 500 is a good idea. But if you are approaching retirement, there are fewer safe places to put your money. Either they are volatile or don't pay much in the way of a return.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
        There was a time when entering retirement people had relatively predictable investments they could make to hold whatever money they had accumulated during their working years: certificates of deposit, AT&T, utilities, government bonds. The overall economy was growing and there were a range of investment opportunities from very conservative to increasingly risky.
        
        Between the change in the world economy (growth is much less assured now) and the changing nature of investments, that range of investment opportunities just isn't there anymore. And if you look at who is making money, it isn't the majority of people in the country. They are treading water at best. The population as a whole isn't reaping any rewards from whatever investment opportunities there are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 10:15am

when you look around the stock market for the mark...
...and you don't see'em, guess what ?
it is YOU, my fine feathered sheeple...

the stock market USED to be what -in effect- kickstarter, etc is today: a means of raising capital for REAL business purposes...
now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...

it has NOTHING to do with actually funding businesses on the stock market... when your average algo trade is held for all of 11 seconds, that has NOTHING to do with 'real' markets and 'real' money...

nope, it is ALL a means of separating the peasants from the few shekels they have left...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 11:32am
  
  Re: when you look around the stock market for the mark...
  the stock market USED to be what -in effect- kickstarter, etc is today: a means of raising capital for REAL business purposes...
  now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...
  
  I'd say that's how lots of people view it today. Decades ago people formed investment clubs and did their own research and invested in companies that they felt had long term potential.
  
  Now, with trades happening so quickly and for reasons that often have nothing to do with the quality of the corporations, why would people want to put their hard earned cash into the market?
  
  And further, when you see CEOs rewarded even though their companies are doing badly, how much faith should one have in the entire financial system? And of course, there have been the financial bailouts. How many people believe Wall Street knows what it is doing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 24 Apr 2013 @ 3:20pm

Here's a good piece
Here's a good piece on why we're probably not in the usual business cycle and why putting your money in the market on the assumption that good times are just around the corner may be faulty thinking.

Solutions Remain Elusive After Financial Crisis - NYTimes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Frost, 16 Nov 2013 @ 5:06am

Swing Trading
whatever the reason, whether it's algo's or any other outside force to cause volatility, it becomes a traders dream. There are always premium trade set ups to select from the thousands of stocks and exchange traded funds available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
james howard, 18 Mar 2014 @ 12:37am

Design market
Good sharing here of great knowledge.I think marketing should be positive and fake tools and rumours should not be used to promote your brand.
gloucester printing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]