My job was to write shell code to perform Unix admin jobs and C code to improve the trading model. I also had to write a program that would ring a bell at night to wake the night trader when she had to trade.

The portfolio model took the mean returns of all the possible instruments and their variances and tried to build a portfolio that would maximize the return with the smallest possible variance. No one likes a big variance in return. One program I worked on extended this to the skew and kurtosis of the currencies. I also wrote a program that got these different moments of the distributions from the option series for the currencies and bonds that we traded.

The traders called the banks to get the best prices for the currency contracts that the program told us to buy. We had Reuters to tell us what the market was at any time, but the trades were done over the phone.

So long as we’ve dredged up a little Cramer, how about we at least have a takeaway from it.

Allen was kind of enough to post this Howard Simons response to the “Great Ultra Market Knockdown” discussion over on Real Money.

Variance Swaps and ‘They’
6/22/2009 4:03 PM EDT

Charles, recall how when W.C. Fields was asked by the rube, “Is this a game of chance?” he was told, “Not the way I play it.”

One of the bigger contributors to end-of-day extensions is position-squaring by market makers in variance swaps. Variance moves as the square of volatility, so on such a day as this when the VIX is up about 10.7%, these market makers have to sell ever-greater quantities of stock at ever-lower prices to hedge. This process works in reverse, too, and I believe much of the kick higher after March 10, 2009, was attributable to the unwinding of such hedges.

But you have to get with the program. Buyers are not “they.” Sellers are “they.” And that extends to the various leveraged ETFs, too: Leveraged-down is bad, and leveraged up is, well, not so bad.

Now I can’t verify his numbers are correct, but the principle is spot on. Consider “they” as anyone effectively short market volatility in some fashion. Be it variance swaps, SPX straddles, whatever. And yes, even Ultra ETF’s. A third party that creates them for Direxion or ProShares is effectively short all he has created. Not every player in every product flattens out at exactly the close of each day, but it’s certainly a force on the margins. And the bigger the move, the more you need to hedge, so it can feed upon itself. Cramer’s Evil Cabal is often a quant-ish trader or hedge fund simply evening up. And yes, that evening up can take the form of shorting into weakness and chasing strength.

Now hedgies and traders not actually short volatility can indeed pile on, knowing they can squeeze the aformentioned players. Or at least try to squeeze them. But it’s not a layup to buy at 3pm every strong day and sell 3pm every weak day. It’s perhaps a good odds move, but it’s a risk trade that gets squeezed too in it’s own right.

And we haven’t even touched on actual longs selling stocks. That’s been known to happen too.

Bottom line is it makes better TV to have some Sith Lord sitting around controlling every market in the world, but it’s a bit more complex in reality.