Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish

Why fragility is the new reality for the stock market

Why do cracks seem to appear more quickly in the equity market today? Members of our Global Derivatives Team explain the precarious equilibrium in liquidity supply and demand and what it could mean for portfolio construction and investment strategy going forward.

The views expressed are those of the authors at the time of writing. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. The value of your investment may become worth more or less than at the time of original investment. While any third-party data used is considered reliable, its accuracy is not guaranteed. For professional, institutional, or accredited investors only.

We’ll start with the punchline: An imbalance has developed between the supply of and demand for liquidity, and as a result we’ve seen a significant increase in the potential for the public equity market to jump from a state of calm to one of chaos. Consequently, we tend to distrust situations where stability has become the consensus, as we believe any change in the narrative is apt to bring surprisingly drastic changes in the equilibrium.

The supply of market liquidity has been shrinking

The supply of liquidity in the equity market, as measured by the average size of the best bid and offer in the market, has declined precipitously. In the case of single stocks, liquidity has been declining pretty steadily for the past 10+ years, with some acceleration in early 2018 (top chart in Figure 1). Index-level liquidity, meanwhile, trended lower for a time and then took a big step down after February 2018 (bottom chart in Figure 1).

The step lower in liquidity in early 2018 wasn’t a coincidence. It coincided with “Volmageddon” — an equity market sell-off sparked by a surge in the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) and the liquidation of some poorly constructed exchange-traded products. Along with the carnage in the market, this event caused significant losses for some market makers, which we think drove them to take a more conservative approach to their liquidity provision.

FIGURE 1

Languishing liquidity

The liquidity supply is also more sensitive to the level of volatility

Figure 2 shows the same liquidity estimates for S&P 500 futures used in Figure 1, but organizes them by the level of the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) at the time of observation. It isn’t surprising to see some drop off in liquidity as volatility rises, since market makers will tend to be more cautious when volatility and uncertainty rise. But this chart tells us that this relationship has been changing. For a given level of volatility, the average level of futures liquidity was significantly lower in the second half of the past decade than in the first half; the effect is particularly pronounced at higher levels of volatility.

We think this is a result of the growing role of systematically oriented trading firms in the market-making ecosystem. By some estimates, as much as 80% of equity market-making is now algorithmically driven. These firms recognize that the risk-adjusted returns to being providers of liquidity fall when volatility rises, leading them to rapidly withdraw their capital in such cases. Furthermore, because these firms tend to have less risk capital to work with than the dealers who used to dominate this space, they are highly sensitive to losses and their algorithms allow for missing out on potentially profitable but empirically more risky opportunities to provide liquidity.

FIGURE 2

Markedly lower liquidity at higher levels of volatility

Meanwhile, the demand for liquidity is increasingly volatility-driven

Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of systematic strategies whose demand for equity exposure tends to move inversely with volatility. Volatility-target strategies, for example, aim to produce a fixed amount of realized volatility of return by dynamically adjusting their exposure to equities. They want to add equity exposure when market volatility is declining and reduce exposure when volatility is rising. Risk-parity and CTA/trend-following strategies can also exhibit this behavior.

Figure 3 shows that these strategies have been large sellers of equity exposure (blue line) when volatility rises (orange line) — for example, selling an estimated US$500 billion during the height of the COVID-driven volatility in March 2020. We believe this increased demand for liquidity just when supply is retreating has served to exacerbate recent market events, and we don’t expect this environment to change any time soon.

FIGURE 3

A poor match for the current liquidity evironment

Why we’re skeptical about stability

Given the fragile liquidity equilibrium, we expect the market to be prone to moving dramatically from low volatility to high volatility, with the potential for that volatility to then de-escalate quickly once systematic strategies have reduced equity exposure. Figure 4 shows the rolling 24-month volatility of the one-month realized volatility of the S&P 500. The trend is pretty stunning, with the rate of change of volatility consistently two to three times what it was as recently as 10 years ago. It’s this degree of fragility that leads us to distrust situations where the consensus is for prolonged stability.

FIGURE 4

Putting the fragility in perspective

As we’ve noted, this is a trend that predates the pandemic, is likely with us for the longer term, and increases the potential for sharp and accelerating drawdowns. We think that understanding these dynamics will be critical for portfolio construction going forward, and that asset owners should understand their managers’ approach to this ongoing challenge, including their use of hedging strategies and their exposure to consensus views. Lastly, as colleagues on our Alternatives Team have noted, there may be a growing role in this environment for risk-mitigating strategies (e.g., market-neutral strategies) given the potential for more drawdowns, as well as for specialized strategies that can exploit these trends by distinguishing between winners and losers during liquidity-driven price dislocations.

Please refer to this important disclosure for more information.

Recommended for you

The coming wave of disruption in financial services
Portfolio Manager Matt Lipton explains why some financial companies are finally catching up with other sectors that have long benefited from structural change driven by technological innovation — and why some incumbents will be left behind.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
August 2021
The coming wave of disruption in financial services
,
publish
Mid-2021 Investment Outlook
As you look ahead to the second half of 2021, thought leaders from across our investment platform share their views on pressing questions.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
August 2021
Mid-2021 Investment Outlook
,
publish
Rethinking growth and where long/short directional strategies fit in
With allocators looking for opportunities to recalibrate their growth exposures, Multi-Asset Strategist Cara Lafond shares her “best fit” criteria for long/short directional strategies and explains why the financial sector appears to check all the boxes.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
July 2021
Rethinking growth and where long/short directional strategies fit in
,
publish
2021 Alternatives Annual Meeting Highlights
This highlights reel offers a quick look at the topics that are top of mind for our alternatives investors, from credit market dislocations to emerging market themes to cryptocurrencies.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
July 2021
2021 Alternatives Annual Meeting Highlights
,
publish
New derivatives regulations: Adapting to rule 18f-4
We explore the impact of new SEC derivatives rule 18f-4 and highlight how we can help our clients adapt to the new requirements.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
June 2021
New derivatives regulations: Adapting to rule 18f-4
,
publish
<em>Future Themes —</em><br> Tomorrow’s world today
For over 40 years, at each new business cycle, Wellington investors have been presented with a challenge: Look past current headlines to find structural trendlines that will shape markets, society, and the economy in the next five to 10 years.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
May 2021
Future Themes —
Tomorrow's world today
,
publish
<p style="font-size: 13px; margin:7px 0;">FUTURE THEMES | SYSTEMS</p>Evaluating cryptocurrencies as an asset class
We explore cryptoassets’ potential as an asset class as the topic dominates the headlines.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
May 2021

FUTURE THEMES | SYSTEMS

Evaluating cryptocurrencies as an asset class
,
publish
Decarbonization and the future of energy sector investing
As the transition to a lower-carbon world plays out, there will be winners and there will be losers across the energy sector. Global Industry Analyst and Portfolio Manager Eugene Khmelnik looks at what will drive these outcomes and the potential advantages of a long/short investment approach in an evolving energy universe.
Archived insights remain available on the site. Please consider the publish date while reading these older insights.
publish
May 2021
Decarbonization and the future of energy sector investing
,
publish