Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

THE INSIDER: Why do prop desks still exist?

Rumours are all over the street about huge proprietary trading losses at most of the big houses in the fourth quarter and a quick glance at the results of Goldman and Morgan Stanley shows that VaR remains high by historical standards.

The first response to this is simply: Aarrrrrrrrrrrgh! What is senior management thinking? I'd guess two things - and both are flawed beyond comprehension.

The first is that prop is always a quick way to build the P&L (assuming, of course, that it pays off). Given the horrors of the past year, outsized returns towards year-end would be much appreciated. And given that bonuses are already likely to be negligible, the immediate downside from any losses will be minimal.

The second rationale, and one that's equally disturbing, is the view that this is too good an opportunity to miss. This argument goes that valuations and relative values are so incredibly skewed compared to historical norms that there are huge amounts of money to be made in the market right now.

For example, convertible bonds are trading well below their bond floors, equity correlations are at incredible highs, and a fundamental valuation of almost any asset will suggest it's exceptionally cheap. All of these speak, in normal times, to great trading opportunities.

These, however, are not normal times and traders need to appreciate that. Trades may be directionally correct, but market irrationality outlasts people's ability to bear mark to market losses.

Banks should know better. The market is so far removed from standard conditions that we can pretty much throw out every trading strategy for now. Risk remains unprecedentedly high, and worryingly no-one really understands it.

Therefore, the only strategy that works without luck in this environment is to be highly conservative and minimize risk. Having tried and lost, the banks have no choice now but to curtail their prop trading activities across all asset classes - and not just in those that we already knew were toxic markets. Prop traders should really be history.

author-card-avatar
AUTHORGeorge Trower Insider Comment
  • Wh
    Whodunit
    10 March 2009

    I am with DD on this. Prop trading has a role, but is being done badly and given a bad name in some places. Its all about experience of extreme market events, how to take positions off as well as put them on, and how to manage position size. If a market gets jittery, reducing position size is a good idea. Sounds sensible, but the opposite was happening at the end of 2007. Its madness that when the market started wobbling in 2007, some banks actually increased prop risk limits to buy up real estate which was trading "cheap"!

    Another problem is modelling. The distribution of returns of prop arb strategies inevitably appeal to banks, as they typically have positive returns. But, the extreme negative tail events which come along literally wipe everything out, if managed badly. Its like assessing the risk of a nuclear reactor exploding. Rare, but catastrophic. Current modelling of the extreme tail events is not good enough to be punting like this.

  • AT
    ATL
    22 December 2008

    DD: I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am in support of prop desks, but my point is that like the rest of the market, unfortunately these desks need to be stripped down to it's bare bones, and a certain amount of hiring, firing or re-shuffling will need to be played out as part of an overall strategy. Taking account of alpha generation, in my opinion, this is where there needs to be a greater degree of reshuffling and dilution. Get the under performers out, or move them into another part of the bank, and keep the traders who have generated consistent alpha. Up the ante on the risk management side, and lower the assets managed per trader, in the short term. With the banks haemorrhaging money, I don't think it's a bad idea to allow traders to take risks, but the amount of money they play with should be lowered. If a given strategy seems to be beating the market, then increase the money these guys are playing with. It just makes no sense to stick with the status quo, and neither does it make sense to rid banks of prop desk like our author George Trower argues.
    I'd be interested in what others have to say, and getting some interesting ideas in the open.

  • dd
    dd
    22 December 2008

    Turning to the actual topic of the article, if I may:

    Personally, I believe prop.trading always makes sense where a firm has (a) inactive capital after full (cross-cycle) adequacy provisioning, and (b) skilled non-flow-mindset traders. Otherwise you have unnecessarily fallow assets.

    But the emphases there are on _full_ adequacy, and on _skilled_. Most shops model risk naively (Exhibit One: "the Credit Crunch"). And too many shops mistake self-belief or aggression for knowledge or ability.

    Bit like about half the commenters on this thread, actually...

  • dd
    dd
    22 December 2008

    ATL: you're being one-sided: some prop desks are down, others are up. I agree that more are down than up - the majority of hedgies and prop traders are actually trading beta: these are the less-skilled and they've lost in line with momentum. But some are trading alpha: these are still making good money. This, incidentally, is also the substance of Johan's original point.

    Job losses currently, though, are overwhelmingly tied to their employer's evaporation of proprietary capital, rather than to trading losses. With MTM compressing tradeable capital, prop.trading simply can't occur at the same volume. no VAR = no trades. Sometimes this leads to binning traders or even the desk, sometimes it leads to the traders moving back into flow. The hedgies are having the same trouble - losing AUM ~equates to losing VAR. Only, most funds don't have a flow...

  • Ro
    Rokko
    22 December 2008

    At last, someone who understands what a so called bank prop trader actually does.

    They've ridden their BS advantages for so long until now that it , when they all got caught the mother of all OTC blowups. Without their invisible , unaccountable market they are right royally buggered and rightly so.
    Long live the real kings of trading - the Market Wizards !

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.