Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mark Cuban

GET UPDATES FROM Mark Cuban
 

What Business Is Wall Street In?

Posted: 09/21/2012 10:51 am

Wall Street doesn't know what business it is in. Regulators don't know what the business of Wall Street is. Investor/shareholders don't know what business Wall Street is in.

The only people who know what business Wall Street is in are the high frequency and automated traders. They know what business Wall Street is in better than everyone else. To traders, whether day traders or high frequency or somewhere in between, Wall Street has nothing to do with creating capital for businesses, its original goal. Wall Street is a platform. It's a platform to be exploited by every technological and intellectual means possible.

The best analogy for traders? They are hackers. Just as hackers search for and exploit operating system and application shortcomings, high frequency traders do the same thing. A hacker wants to jump in front of your shopping cart and grab your credit card and then sell it. A high frequency trader wants to jump in front of your trade and then sell that stock to you. A hacker will tell you that they are serving a purpose by identifying the weak links in your system. A trader will tell you they deserve the pennies they are making on the trade or the rebate they are getting from the exchange because they provide liquidity to the market.

I recognize that one is illegal, the other is not. That isn't the important issue.

The important issue is recognizing that Wall Street is no longer serving the purpose that it was designed to. Wall Street was designed to be a market to which companies provide securities (stocks/bonds), from which they received capital that would help them start/grow/sell businesses. Investors made their money by recognizing value where others did not, or by simply committing to a company and growing with it as a shareholder, receiving dividends or appreciation in their holdings. What percentage of the market is driven by investors these days?

I started actively trading stocks in 1992. I traded a lot. Over the years I've written quite a bit about the market. I have always thought I had a good handle on the market. Until recently.

Over just the past five years, the market has changed. It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Discussion in the market place is not about the performance of specific companies and their returns. Discussion is about macro issues that impact all stocks. And those macro issues impact automated trading decisions, which impact any and every stock that is part of any and every index or ETF. Combine that with the leverage of derivatives tracking companies, indexes and other packages or the leveraged ETFs, and individual stocks become pawns in a much bigger game that I feel increasingly less comfortable playing. It is a game fraught with ever increasing risk.

So back to the original question. What business is Wall Street in?

Its primary business is no longer creating capital for business. Creating capital for business has to be less than one percent of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. (I would be curious if anyone out there knows what percentage of transactions actually return money to a company for any reason). It wouldn't shock me that even in this environment that more money flows from companies to the market in the form of buybacks (which I think are always a mistake), than flows into companies in the form of equity.

My two cents is that it is important for this country to push Wall Street back to the business of creating capital for business. Whether it's through a use of taxes on trades (hit every trade on a stock held less than one hour with a 10 cent tax and all these problems go away), or changing the capital gains tax structure so that there is no capital gains tax on any shares of stock (private or public company) held for one year or more, and no tax on dividends paid to shareholders who have held stock in the company for more than five years. However we need to do it, we need to get the smart money on Wall Street back to thinking about ways to use their capital to help start and grow companies. That is what will create jobs. That is where we will find the next big thing that will accelerate the world economy. It won't come from traders trying to hack the financial system for a few pennies per trade.

And solutions won't come from bureaucrats trying to prevent the traders from hacking the system. The only certainty when bureaucrats step in is that the law of unintended consequences will smack us all in the head and the trader/hackers will find new ways to exploit the system that makes them big money and even more money for the big institutions that develop products for the other institutions that are desperate to play the game.

Regulators have got to start to recognize that traders are not investors and vice versa and treat them differently. Different regulations. Different tax structure. Different oversight. Individual investors and the funds that just invest in stocks and bonds are not going to crash the market. Big traders who are always leveraging up and maximizing the number of trades/hacks they make will always put the system at risk. We need to recognize that they do not serve much of a purpose other than to add substantial risk to the global economy. That their stated value add of liquidity does not compensate the U.S. and world economy nearly enough for the risk of collapse they introduce into the system.

Wall Street as a whole needs to be in the business of creating capital for companies and selling shares to investors who believe they are shareholders. The government needs to create simple and obvious incentives for this business and extract compensation from the traders/hackers for the systemic failure risk they introduce.

There will be another flash crash, and probably a crash far worse than the May 2010 flash crash simply because there are too many players looking for the trillion dollar score. They can't all win, yet how many do you think wouldn't risk everything, even what is not theirs, for that remote chance to score big? Put another way, there is zero moral hazard attached to any trade. So why wouldn't traders take the biggest risk possible?

There is value to trading automation. It is here to stay. There is absolutely NO VALUE to high frequency trading. None. We need to bring our markets back to their original goals of creating capital for business. It's impossible to guess how many small to medium size companies have been held back from growing and creating jobs and wealth because of lack of access to capital from the stock market. It's not impossible to know that our economy has suffered because Wall Street equity markets are no longer a source of equity for helping companies grow, it is not a platform for hackers and that needs to change. Quickly.

Cross-posted from Blog Maverick.

 
 
 
FOLLOW SMALL BUSINESS
Wall Street doesn't know what business it is in. Regulators don't know what the business of Wall Street is. Investor/shareholders don't know what business Wall Street is in. The only people who know ...
Wall Street doesn't know what business it is in. Regulators don't know what the business of Wall Street is. Investor/shareholders don't know what business Wall Street is in. The only people who know ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 365
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kris Rosvold
REAL repub. (aka OLD school progressive)
01:23 PM on 10/02/2012
Want to tamp down the market and force it back to it's original purpose? Impose a 50% tax on trades that occur within 48 hours of each other. Won't ever happen because our "Legislative traitors" are bought and paid for.
09:39 AM on 09/30/2012
Mark, this does explain how the rich get richer and the small investor gets the loss. When a small investor sells how long does it take for the trade to go through? All the while the high freq trader has bought and sold 1,000,000 's of shares. How does the small investor ever get a break. From the time the small investor places his trade the high freq trader has manipulated the price.
11:01 PM on 09/28/2012
I would go a step further and say there are companies that play in a competitive market place, with hundreds of competitors, True capitalists providing service and value. And there are companies that are able to shape the marketplace, they claim to be competitors, but they are Oligarchs, they use the legal system, the political system and propaganda to protect and expand their control. If you look back at US history they have been a factor in our capitalism since the creation of Railroads, Barge canals. They became a problem that was paired back in the progressive era through the new deal. They are back, and we did not miss em and need to pair them back again. Even Warren Buffet is not exactly a poster child for competitive capitalism, he primarily invests in companies that have no or little competition. He is just kinder and gentler about it. Bain capital is the worst kind of capitalism, Asset stripping profit taking destroyers of not very exciting but functional companies. The trick is to limit size period. And the current anti-trust law does not really deal with the problem properly. Mr Cuban, critic is correct as far as it goes, he just needs to extend it logically to the economy. All of the professional sports leagues, the big banks, and any regulated industry or government dependant enterprise, like defense contractors are Oligarch run groups for the enrichment of insiders.
06:06 PM on 09/26/2012
Mr. Cuban's article is one of the most important I have read in a long time, and there have been many important one. As a nation, we have been sold a bill of goods with the narrative that Wall Street is the engine for raising the money needed to start businesses. So important is this function that we should not dare to disturb this fragile mechanism by taxation or regulation. But to this reader, who is definitely no expert and thus slow to criticize, the logic of this has been elusive. Here's my simple take. If Tom buys stock in a company when it is issued, sure, he's part of a money raising effort on the company's part. But when Tom sells his stock to Mary, there's no direct benefit to the company that originally offered it. What benefit there is to them relates to the vague hope that Tom will be selling at a greater price, thus making any stock they subsequently offer more valuable. Certainly if Roger raises money on betting against Tom's stock rising or falling, there's even less benefit to the company. As I said, a simple view. So when someone as knowledgable as Mr. Cuban writes: "Its primary business is no longer creating capital for business," it gets my attention. Like Mr. Cuban, I want proof that we're not funding an enterprise that is 1% capital-raising and 99% shell game.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fozzi58
I want my country back
01:28 PM on 09/25/2012
Your tax on high-frequency tradings is a great idea. Its too bad the Wall Street lobbyists in DC will never let that happen. They keep watering down the Dodd-Frank and the Vokler Rule is swiss cheese.

Keep doing the panel on Real Time with Bill Maher. two episodes, two great shows!
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:07 AM on 09/25/2012
Very good ideas. This super-fast trading is killing the goose that laid the golden egg for most everyone.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
05:28 PM on 09/24/2012
we know we are in trouble when trading software is a national security threat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shewolf2002
EDUCATION is a national security issue.
11:42 AM on 09/24/2012
Excellent article. Which should make it all the more disturbing that legislators make economic decisions in this country to appease Wall Street.

Wall Street has no viable stake in the (real) economy, only in itself.
08:18 AM on 09/24/2012
THis article is correct,in my opinion, from the transactional perspective of trading. I disagree, however, that buybacks are a bad idea for investors. Buybacks are another form of dividend distribution to the shareholders when a business has excess capital and boards make the decision to give the mmoney back to the investors rather than retain the capital in their account when they do not have a proper strategic alternative for its use in the firm. Too many firms retain excess capital rather than returning it to the shareholders when they can not make proper use of the funds and most times end up spending it on excessively priced acquisitions that were ill advised by Wall Street capitalists who were making large fees with no strategic basis for the shareholders..

Let the shareholders have their money back and make these decisions for themselves rather than leaving it in the hands of CEO's who are paid to make their companies big rather than agile forms of investment alternatives. If they know what they are doing they can always go back to the marketplace when they have a proper need for capital.

S Kent Rockwell
Chmn & CEO
ExOne Company
10:51 AM on 09/24/2012
I may be ignorant, but when a company "buys" back shares, who are they buying from and how does this return money to the shareholders?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mshell1234
01:45 AM on 09/24/2012
Mark! I've held this theory for a few years now! We've strayed from micro to macro emphasis big time! Greece has money issues on Monday, causing a US energy stock to plummet. Alas, don't worry, because on Tuesday the EU says they might help causing that same stock to rise. Effect on the energy company's net profit in that day? Nil. Stock prices should rise/fall based solely on the profitability of the company and the shareholders should be part of the profit. You made good suggestions for a solution. I might add that all companies listed on the NYSE should be required to release a certain percentage of profits in the form of dividends to discourage speculation. Feel free to ask me to dinner to discuss in further detail. ;-)
03:02 PM on 09/24/2012
While a buyback is not a pro rata distribution of funds to shareholders such as a dividend distribution, the offering is to the shareholders as a body which can sell their shares, if so willing, and reinvest them as they see fit as opposed to the company retaining the funds in excess of their ability to invest the capital
11:25 PM on 09/23/2012
If an exceptionally bright and sophisticated businessman like Mark Cuban feels increasingly uncomfortable with investing on Wall Street, what hope remains for those of us who are just looking to preserve and hopefully grow the value of our retirement savings? I read an article in HP some months ago that stated that the average holding period for a share of US common stock is 22 seconds, (sorry, no citation, but I'd love to see one.) The value that these high speed traders are extracting is coming from somewhere. What institutions are left that might protect average citizen investors? In light of the fact that the Financial Services Industry and their bought and paid for Congress is arrayed against us, where do we turn? I agree with Mark. I think the markets are getting riskier by the day, but I remain invested because I don't see a viable alternative.
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:11 AM on 09/25/2012
That's how they got the average person that has some money to create their own retirement into letting them use average person's money to make money for themselves. They got the companies to get rid of pension in favor of things like 401Ks, forcing the real money generators, the real job creators, into the markets.

There needs to be other options, other places to put that money, that are not so rigged against the average person. After all, it's their lives on the live, their retirement funds. They deserve better.
10:56 PM on 09/23/2012
Great article. The fast buck artists on Wall Street have destroyed our nation.
10:11 PM on 09/23/2012
wow, I agree
photo
uniquindividual
I'm unique and so are you
09:57 PM on 09/23/2012
I agree, tax trades now
09:14 PM on 09/23/2012
And just what percentage of taxes are you paying Mr Cuban? if your not paying over 50% your not paying your fair share.
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:12 AM on 09/25/2012
Trying to deflect from the issue. It's not about how much in taxes, it's about how to control the super-fast trading that does nothing for actual companies.
07:21 AM on 09/25/2012
YES SIR!!