Buy the
rumor, sell the fact
It's one of
Wall Street's oldest maxims.
For traders,
the idea that you can thoroughly investigate each rumor and determine which are
important and which are factual, all before the price moves, is
folly.So, traders
trade the rumor. In bull markets, that means they buy the rumor, then sell when
the news come out. In bear markets, they short the rumor, then close the
position on the news.
Yesterday,
this blog got into a bit of a kerfuffle when it reported on how web news outlets
and Twitter were covering the rumor that Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI) might be preparing to
file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That post noted that the story, which originated
on Bloomberg News, was quickly picked up via Twitter, while traditional web news
outlets such as Google and Yahoo trailed.
While my
blog post was focused on how the news spread through the web, it was picked up
by FT.com's Alphaville as part of a story noting how the rumor was incorrect. So, that
got me thinking about rumors and Twitter, and whether the 140 character limit
might cause rumors to be spread with less background
information.
140
characters is not a large canvas. Even for the artful editor, communicating a
topic in 140 characters can be a challenge. Yet one of the great things about
Twitter is its ability to include links, usually in about 20 characters thank to
Bit.ly or TinyURL. So, the user is typically left with 120 characters in which
to communicate their message, leaving room for a
link.
In this
case, a better tweet might have been something
like:
Blockbuster
($BBI) hires law firm Kirkland Ellis, explores various strategic alternatives
for capital http://bit.ly/PBk4s
But traders
are not editors; they pick up on rumors, act on them and sometimes, share
them.
Now, let's
look at the impact of this. We can start with the timeline of events. This is
based only upon what I can see from the Internet. I'm not looking at the
underlying news pipes or tick streams.
2:06pm BBI
trading at $0.37
2:10pm BBI
trading at $0.18
2:13pm
Briefing.com headline reads " following Bloomberg
headline saying co hired Kirkland & Ellis for bankruptcy
advice"
In looking
at the timeline, it seems that the Twitter element was not a big factor in the sell-off. In
essence, the story is that Bloomberg posted a story indicating potential adverse
news for Blockbuster and the markets quickly responded, tanking the stock. From
that standpoint, this is no different than thousands of other market events in
the past. There's a sign of possible trouble with the stock, traders trade on
that rumor, then the final news comes out.
I'd also
question whether the final news really dispelled the rumor. Blockbuster quickly
came out with a response, saying they were not filing for Chapter 11. But the
reality is that they've hired a law firm to help them deal with impending capital
challenges. The ultimate outcome of that may or may not be a bankruptcy filing,
but it's clear that the already distressed company is liquidity-challenged in a
very difficult credit environment and that they've hired Kirkland & Ellis, a
bankruptcy counsel.
Returning to
the premise of this post, though, is 140 characters appropriate for sharing
information? While it has its limitations, they're no more so than those of the
traditional media for spreading rumors - the telephone or the trading floor.
And, while I'd encourage tweets to include a link to supporting data, the goal
of the tweet is not to provide a detailed analysis of the situation but rather
to give a quick alert that something is happening. Could Twitter be a tool that
people could use to knowingly spread false rumors? Certainly. And that creates
opportunities for sites like StockTwits and others, to define ways in which
participants earn trust from the community.