Institutions Are Selling To Retail Investors At An Unprecedented Pace

According to the latest EPFR fund flow data compiled by BofA"s Michael Hartnett, the great "institutional to equity" stockholding rotation is accelerating, with another $8.8bn allocated to equities, more than all of it from retail investors, and another $5.8bn going into bonds, offset by a $0.4bn outflows from gold.

Ironically, the one place where active investors are still putting back at least a token fight against the robots is in bonds, where $3.6bn went into active bond funds this week vs "only" $2.2bn into passive bond ETFs. And, as Hartnett writes, active AUM is fighting back, if only in bondland, where there have been $1.04tn in active bond inflows past 10 yrs vs. $0.93tn into passives...

.... a very different trend from what has taken place in stocks in the past decade (Chart 2) where institutions are delighted to dump to "low-cost" passive alternatives.

Of course, this particular "great rotation" is no surprise: earlier this week we were surprised to report that on its conference call, Morgan Stanley reported that the cash levels in its clients (retail) accounts, is the lowest it has ever been:

... we"ve been talking about our deposit deployment strategy for quite sometime, and we"ve been investing excess liquidity into our loan product over the last several years. In the beginning of the year, we told you that, that trend would come to an end. We did see that this year. It happened a bit sooner than we anticipated as we saw more cash go into the markets, particularly the equity markets, as those markets rose around the world. And we"ve seen cash in our clients" accounts at its lowest level.

Meanwhile we also showed that institutions continue to sell at a torrid pace, and as BofA reported, in the last week when the S&P hit new all time highs, its clients were net sellers of US equities for the fourth consecutive week. Large net sales of single stocks offset small net buys of ETFs, leading to overall net sales of $1.7bn. Net sales were led by institutional clients, who have sold US equities for the last eight weeks; hedge funds were also (small) net sellers for the sixth straight week.

The best way to visualize the institutional selling? This chart from BofA:

 

Who bought? Why retail"s favorite investment product of course, ETFs: "Private clients were net buyers, which has been the case in four of the last five weeks, but with buying almost entirely via ETFs. Clients sold stocks across all three size segments last week."

* * *

Going back to the latest fund flows report, BofA reports that for all the talk about an imminent surge in interest rates, yields are still winning: $6.3bn inflows to IG+HY+EM bonds this week; investors continue to discount low-rate environment. This happens as the 5s30s yield curve (88bps) is the flattest since GFC, a fact Mike Hartnett finds "remarkable given the Philly Fed Employment outlook hit a 50-year high today." Just as surprisng: bond funds have now seen 31 straight weeks of inflows, as investors continue to overwhelmingly pick yield over capital appreciation.

Across the globe, Japan is losing (for a change), with a record $4.4bn outflows from Japan equities (86% ETF redemptions, possibly via BoJ); which is odd considering the Nikkei hasn"t had a down day in the past 14 days: the longest stretch of gains on record! It likely won"t last however, with BofA predicting that after Sunday"s election "we expect Japan TOPIX to revert to tracking US bond yields (Chart 4)."

In the US, where the S&P just hit all time highs, there was a solid week of $7.5bn US in equity inflows.

Some more bad news for professional investors:  while there have been inflows in 17 of past 19 weeks, all of this continues to go into passive funds, with $11.1bn flowing into ETFs offset by another $2.2bn outflow from mutual funds.

As a result, Hartnett concludes that robots continue to win, especially since this week"s launch of the 1st ETF in which stocks will be selected by robots (AIEQ) comes as tech funds see biggest inflows in 38 weeks; AIEQ outperforming SPX thus far.

As for the retail equity euphoria, nowehere is it more obvious than in BofA"s high net worth client tracking where YTD flows show a decisive cyclical shift by private clients, who are buying bank loans, financials, EAFE ETFs, while shunning quality, utilities, large caps & dividends (Chart 6). And as the next chart shows, equity allocations among BofA private clients are just shy of all time highs, and well above where they were during the last market peak.

BofA"s takeaways:

• Alpha in bonds; inflows to active funds continue to outstrip passive


• AIpha in stocks: first ETF where stocks selected by robots launches amidst biggest Tech inflows in 38 weeks
   


• Tick-tock: risk-on equity & bond flows push B&B indicator up to 7.6

To which we can only add: the rush by institutions to dump their equity holdings to retail investors - courtesy of "low-cost" ETFs - has never been greater. The only question now is when does the Fed pull the trapdoor, as it always does just when the market peaks...

EU Regulators Take Aim At London's Asset-Management Industry

Brexit negotiations officially began three weeks ago, and whether the UK will retain access to the European Union’s single financial market once they’re over is unknown. Yet that hasn’t stopped regulators on the Continent from taking a swipe at more than a trillion euros in assets, and thousands of well-paying finance jobs required to manage them, that they think belong on the other side of the English Channel.

As Bloomberg reports, the European Securities and Markets Authority issued a ruling saying that “letterbox entities” nominally based in the European Union but managed from abroad will no longer be tolerated.

“The proposal would affect UCITS, a type of mutual fund domiciled in the European Union, that hold about 9.1 trillion euros ($10.3 trillion) of assets. The European Securities and Markets Authority said in May that passports to sell funds - effectively, a stamp of approval allowing fund managers to offer a product globally - should be rejected unless major decisions are made by management based within the bloc.”

The regulator says its Brexit-inspired guidance is intended to prevent “a race to the bottom in oversight standards,” ignoring the fact that the funds can be managed from anywhere in the world. Bloomberg neglects to specify how these funds would be treated according to existing rules: Without this guidance, would these funds be forced to re-domicile in the EU if the UK loses access to the single market? It’s unclear.

“ESMA, which could publish a second take on its opinion this week, said the guidance was prompted by Brexit as it seeks to avoid a race to the bottom in oversight standards. While almost 1.1 trillion euros of UCITS fund assets are domiciled in the U.K., according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the implications may spread beyond the City of London. UCITS products are often domiciled in Luxembourg and Ireland, but their fund managers can be based anywhere in the world to focus on local markets.”

At least one asset manager is worried about the collateral damage to fund managers who are already based outside of the trading bloc, but choose to domicile their assets in the UK, Ireland or Luxembourg using the “passport” system.

“It could be a threat to the viability of UCITS at the global level,” Dan Waters, managing director at fund management association ICI Global, said in an interview. “There are trillions of euros, dollars, pounds of investments going back and forth right now” through the products, and there’s a chance that the regulator “could inadvertently build barriers around that.”

ESMA already warned back in May that “passports” to sell UCITS should be rejected unless major decisions are made by management based in the bloc. The agency, which does not have legislative powers, said it published the opinion to help “unify European regulators’ approach to fund registration following Britain’s vote to leave the EU.”

Though European politicians have expressed eagerness to grab slices of Britain’s financial industry since the UK voted to leave the trading bloc in June."

Luxembourg and Ireland, two other popular destinations where UCITS funds are domiciled, could attract thousands of jobs in areas from governance to compliance if UK firms are forced to re-register within the EU because of the ESMA guidance, according to John Skelly, a Dublin-based principal at Carne Group, an adviser that helps set up UCITS funds. The guidance is also an important milestone in the Brexit process: It marks the first time that ESMA has said a certain amount of fund-management activity should be based in the EU. Though critics say the order lacks specifics about exactly what functions must be performed from within the bloc.

Some legal experts believe ESMA’s ruling is another example of an overly intrusive government. Simon Currie, a London-based partner at legal firm Morgan Lewis who advises clients on setting up operations in the EU, said “the opinion seems to overreach.”

“It’s quite clear in the directives that you can delegate decision-making in connection with portfolio management to a third country.”

If it stands, the ESMA ruling would leave UK-based firms with two choices: They could either apply to re-domicile in the EU – a process that typically takes about nine months. According to the current Brexit timetable, firms have until next June to submit those plans based on the current Brexit timetable. Fund managers could also opt to abandon UCITS and opt for the less developed passporting regimes in Asia or South America, ICI Global said.

“When ESMA releases its refined opinion, it should help show how many more people investment firms will have to employ in the EU after Brexit if they want to delegate management of the funds to an entity in the U.K., said Matt Huggett, a partner at legal firm Allen & Overy specializing in asset management.

Still, some critics say the regulators" guidance has nothing to do with "best practices."

"...the earlier guidance “looks like an opportunistic move to attract jobs to particular jurisdictions,” Waters said.

"That looks to us like protectionism or regulatory nationalism.""
 

Jack Bogle Warns Of Market "Chaos, Catastrophe" If Passive Investing Wins

In 2016 investors poured $480 billion into passive funds, a mix of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, while pulling more than $380 billion from active mutual funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Passive equity investments may become as much as 45 percent of the mutual fund industry within five years as investors move to low-cost funds, Bogle said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio in March. But just how much can the market take?

"If everybody indexed, the only word you could use is chaos, catastrophe," warned Jack Bogle, 88-year-old founder of Vanguard, at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting on Saturday.

“There would be no trading,” Bogle told Yahoo Finance editor-in-chief Andy Serwer. “There would be no way to turn a stream of income into a pile of capital or a pile of capital into a stream of income... the markets would fail."

“We have too much trading in the market,” Bogle said. “The index really just neutralizes x-percent of the market… And it just, those stocks don’t get traded. So the other stocks would get traded, the market would go on as ever."

“So [the market] gets a little less efficient, but if it gets less efficient some managers can win by more. And some managers will lose by more. This is the equation. So, I’m not concerned about it. It’s going to take a long, long time [for indexing to get] anywhere near 50% [of the market], and things will change a lot in other ways by then."

“Markets are going to be efficient as long as there are managers, or investors, trying to find little holes in the system... price discovery, as they call it,” Bogle said.

Yahoo"s Myles Udland reports that currently, Bogle notes, about one-quarter of the U.S. stock market is currently indexed. In his view, indexing could account for 50% of the market “easily.” Asked by Serwer what level of indexing would concern him, Bogle said he expects indexing could exceed 75% of the market and not have it become dangerous.

Passive Aggressive Pigs Get Slaughtered

Authored by Paul Brodsky via Macro-Allocation.com,

Passive Aggressive

Investment capital is in the process of shifting to fit investor objectives that have always been there but never satisfied. Passive investing, which is to say gaining mostly long exposure to stocks and bonds, is nothing new. ETFs are innovations for the majority of investors that directly or indirectly just want to be in the market. ETFs currently total about $2.6 trillion and PwC projects that figure to double by 2020, all at the expense of active management.

To be sure, ETFs are derivatives priced in the open market based on discrete supply and demand. As with all free-floating share listings, ETF prices are based on sentiment. Distortions between ETF performance and the performance of the underlying shares within the ETF can be especially stark when consensus opinion becomes very one-sided. We get it, but ask yourself this: will the fees saved by ETF investors over time offset the potential periodic distortions between ETFs and their component prices? It is a question we all must answer for ourselves.

Our take is this: good, cost-effective active management is more important than ever to a minority of investors seeking alpha or positive real returns over time.

Structural Shift

The popularity of ETFs has profoundly changed the asset management business. Long-only active management with higher fees using specific strategies to outperform a market must prove its value to prospective passive investors each year or risk redemptions. For them, good will and sound logic lasts only so long in a world where central banks are actively supporting markets (or managing them higher).

ETFs should not be scorned by old-school portfolio managers, like me, who resent the diminishment of the importance of knowledge and experience. Rather, ETFs and other passive vehicles should be used by active managers to gain long and short exposures to asset classes, sectors and geographies that fit their views and strategies.

Many in the equity markets recall a time when the basic choice among investors was growth or value. The better investors and allocators among us ultimately found that there was always room for both, and that owning expressions of each provided a better balanced, better risk-adjusted equity portfolio.

This is analogous to today’s investment environment in which the debate is active versus passive management. The smart play is to use both, or better yet, to find active managers that have reduced their fees and that embrace passive vehicles to express their views. (Full disclosure: The principals of MAI are floating a private fund in 2017 with modest fees that will use long and short positions in ETFs to express MAI views.)

Move On

Bad press surrounding ETFs stems from an asset management industry that, for most of the last thirty five-years, charged higher fees necessary to maintain a vast human infrastructure of portfolio managers, analysts, administration personnel and marketing teams and channels that attracted capital from the broadest cross section of investors.

ETFs are decimating assets-under-management of most conventional mutual funds and have begun to eat into hedge fund allocations as well. Who can blame passive investors and their advisors? Equities have risen, active managers have grossly underperformed and have been slow to reduce fees, and central banks are ensuring against bear markets. Such a setup has created a challenging headwind for higher-cost conventional active managers and a tailwind for ETF asset gathering.

In Get Angry, we argued passive investors will eventually suffer and that professional investors and allocators should remind themselves why they initially entered the business, and that they should begin to ply their knowledge again.

The way to do this is by first recognizing the facts on the ground: there is a smaller market for active management than passive management presently and active management is in the process of shifting from conventional to “alternative” investing. It is crazy that investing to beat the market has become the domain of alternative investing, but that is the case now that speculating in the markets has become culturally seen as “saving”.

Pigs Get Slaughtered

Most of the money supporting ETF asset growth is coming from investors ignorant (or willfully ignorant) of risk. As with active investing, ETFs provide mostly long exposure. Unlike active investing, the higher cap-weighted indexes move beyond sustainable value, the more likely ETFs will disappoint investors.

We do not necessarily endorse investment classifications; however, if the accepted convention has shifted from 60% equity/40% bonds to 40% DM equity/10% EM equity/30% bonds/20% alternatives, then professional allocators should use their alternative basket to offset – not enhance – their passive, all-long, all-the-time allocations. The way to do this is by first recognizing sustainable and unsustainable trends.

Fundamentals suggest the growing likelihood of long exposure to certain asset classes will produce negative real returns. Better talent within those asset classes will not be able to make up the difference through better asset selection. After all, the most influential determinant of returns is the level of overall sponsorship of the asset class. There will always be room for exceptional public stock pickers, venture capitalists and private equity financiers, but their performance will produce positive absolute real returns in a down market only if they keep an un-diversified portfolio containing uncorrelated businesses.

Investors, like large pension funds, using their alternative basket to allocate to managers that provide them leveraged long exposure to markets will be harmed greatly if/when bull markets end.

Sophisticated investors should allocate capital within their alternative basket to thoughtful managers using idiosyncratic strategies seeking returns uncorrelated to market indexes, or that seek exploit the passive market’s inability to look forward; candidly, that seek to actively exploit thoughtless investing.

As with all strategies in all markets, there are two basic ways to use ETFS – directional and arbitrage strategies. Professional ETF traders calculate the spread between the prevailing prices of ETFs on exchanges and the value of their underlying components so they can arbitrage out the difference. Directional positions in ETFs are taken by everyone else; traders, investors and allocators with certain views of equity indexes, industries and sectors, interest rates, credit, geographies, commodities, FX exchange rates, gold and someday Bitcoin.

The old saw that bulls and bears make money but pigs get slaughtered should not be forgotten. ETFs providing bad exposure are pigs that will punish investors. ETFs may be pigs gobbling up ignorant capital, but that is precisely why they can produce a lot of bacon for wise investors. Why not do the slaughtering?

This piece may seem self-serving for a PM launching a fund with a strategy described herein, but it was also written by a PM who has managed successful funds since 1996, recognizes the shifting investment landscape, and sees a very compelling opportunity.

JPMorgan Explains What Causes The Market's 3:30pm Ramp

While over the past several years many have observed the peculiar last half-hour ramp in the stock market, leading to a variety of amusing knock-off phenomena, perhaps nowhere was it more noticeable than what happened on the last two Friday afternoons, and especially the most recent one when with the market down notably going into the last 30 minutes of trading, the Dow soared in the last minute, turning green with 7 seconds of trading left, continuing the streak of 11 consecutive all time highs, the longest such stretch since early 1987. 

While traditionally the "serious" media has ignored this odd last hour/minute/second ramp, on Friday even Bloomberg was compelled to chime in.

It isn’t over till it’s over. Especially on Friday. For the second time in two weeks, a final-hour ramp in the S&P 500 turned the index green for bulls, with the benchmark equity gauge jumping 6 points in a little over 30 minutes to close with a 0.1 percent advance and help preserve a fifth straight weekly gain. A similar spike salvaged gains seven days earlier.

“The machines kicked in and brought all the averages positive at the close,” Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income for National Alliance Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients. “We think markets move big time next week off the Trump speech Tuesday.”

After the financial crisis, traders were afraid of bad news coming out over the weekend. Now it’s the other way around, according to Chad Morganlander, a money manager at Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Maybe it was the machines, maybe it was hedge funds covering (although as we reported earlier, they have actually been selling to retail investors in recent weeks), maybe it was a last minute tap on the shoulder by a certain central bank"s trading team.

However, what is known is that these farcial moves, which are draining what little confidence in a "fair and efficient market" remains, have attracted the attention of none other than the best quants at JPMorgan.

Earlier today, we showed how, according to JPMorgan (and BofA), the recent market levitation has been entirely on the shoulders of "animal spirited" retail investors plowing money into ETFs, coupled with CTA"s forced to cover into a gamma squeeze, even as hedge funds and institutions have been selling to retail investors. Well, as it turns out, the mechanics behind the recent move higher also explain such observations as Friday"s last second levitation.

As JPM"s Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou explains, "the picture we get is of institutional investors either lowering their equity exposure YTD or keeping it unchanged. This apparent unwillingness by institutional investors to raise their equity exposures YTD reinforces the argument that it is retail rather than institutional investors that most likely drove this year’s strong inflows into equity ETFs and as a result this year’s equity rally. And the fact that retail investors use passive rather than active funds to express their bullish equity views has important implications."

The main implication is that this shift towards passive funds is elevating the importance of retail investors in driving markets. And retail investors’ sentiment is transmitted to markets more quickly via passive funds. This is because these passive funds have to rebalance by the end of the day, different to active funds that have the discretion to wait before they deploy their cash balances.

In turn, JPM adds, this end of day rebalancing means that equity trading becomes even more concentrated at the end of the day as passive funds grow. Passive funds typically rebalance at the end of the day because transacting at the closing price better aligns the performance of passive funds to the performance of the index they track.

And this end of day trading concentration is reinforced by the secular reduction in market depth and liquidity since the Lehman crisis. As market depth declines, the execution of large trades is postponed until the end of the day when more trading takes place, reinforcing the end of day trading shift induced by the expansion of passive funds. To get a sense of the underlying market transformation, YTD 37% of the NYSE trading volume took place during the last 30 mins of trading.

So the next time someone points a finger at the market"s last 30 minute levitation, one very likely culprit is the retail investor whose choice of ETFs as a "long-instrument", leads to such ramps in the market as those shown above. It also means that as per the parallel JPM analysis, the institutional money continues to sell to the ultimate bagholder: Joe Sixpack.

As a side note, any time institutions start dumping to retail, whether with last minute ramps or not, the market"s inflection point has always been just around the corner. We see no reason why this time should be any different.

Slow death of the hedge fund era

2016 was a bad year for hedge funds, pension funds, and university endowments.  In fact, the last several years have been horrible.  But until now, there haven’t been many alternatives.  Hedge Funds became popular for investors who wanted to achieve more than the 4% or 6% offered by traditional managed investments like mutual funds.  Although their history evolved from the idea of ‘hedging’ the market (hedge funds could sell AND buy, can you imagine?) this quickly evolved into an asset class where managers employed strategies based on mathematics in order to achieve above than average and above than expected returns.  And some private funds such as Renaissance do very well year in and year out – continued to this day.  But the majority suffer from strategy fatigue, and failure to bring in a new generation of ‘quants’ that can do anything more than copy, paste, and cold call.  If we skip all the Soros bashing about how he manipulates politics (which, on the surface, is not a bad investing strategy if you have the money to do it, and to control both sides – this is a Rothschild invention not a Soros invention) – the Soros family of funds outperformed their peers by a significant multiple.  These funds were trading the markets, unlike what some may want us to believe.  Some of their policies to ‘influence’ foreign markets (historically, from the 80s) may have been seen as unethical – and it may be.  But the returns have always been spectacular.  We’ll see soon if Robert can continue the family legacy of great returns – it looks like – yes he can!  

But the few examples of extraordinary funds with consistent returns like Renaissance, they’re an anomaly.  The industry in general has suffered from poor returns, which when combined with the standard 2/20 fee model – can be disastrous for investors’ confidence.  Bloomberg ran a story recently with verbage such as "The year Big Money ditched Hedge Funds:

“There has been a massive blowback from public pension funds and private endowments,’’ said Craig Effron, who co-founded his Scoggin Capital Management nearly 30 years ago. An investor told him recently that many chief investment officers are so fed up that they would prefer to entrust their cash to a trader who charged no management fee, over one who did, even if they expected the latter to make them more money.

Public retirement plans from Kentucky to New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island have decided to pull money from hedge funds. So did a state university in Maryland and other endowments. MetLife Inc. and other insurers followed suit. Money-losing firms were forced to reduce their fees. Client withdrawals ($53 billion in the last four quarters) drove some managers out of business, including veteran Richard Perry, who until recently had managed one of the longest-standing and better-performing firms.

It"s not surprising that investors - especially institutional investors, are abandoning such strategies.  As they say in trading, "you"re only as good as your last trade."  According to Barclay Hedge Fund Data, 2016 is a little better than 2015, but not much:

4.89% is a good return, but it"s not much better than you can acheive with traditional mutual funds or tax free munis.  Certainly it"s not a compelling reason to drain your IRA from the markets and invest with hedge funds.  But, this is just an average, there are strategies out there that overperform this index, such as this one.

In the Pension Fund world, Calpers which is a head above its peers, hemorrhaged more than $30 Billion in losses due to poor strategy management:

The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is about to report the world’s largest public employee pension suffered an actuarial investment loss of $30.8 billion last year.

CalPERS manages the defined pension plan investments and record keeping for 3,007 California state and local government entities. The pension plan is also responsible for paying the pension benefits to 611,078 retirees and will eventually be responsible for paying retirement benefits to another 868,713 active and 335,908 inactive government workers.

Despite Governor Jerry Brown last summer demanding CalPERS immediately “lower its investment risk and volatility of returns” by reducing its “assumed” annual investment return from 7.5 percent to 6.5 percent, the CalPERS board voted 7- 3 on November 15, 2015 only to slowly reduce the investment return expectation over the next decade.

Practically, the slow death of the hedge fund industry is merely a milestone in its evolution.  Just like robotic strategies are now replacing traditional managers with a suit and tie, the structure of investments is evolving, too.  Hedge Funds aren"t going to go away anytime soon, but how they are structured, how the fees are charged, and the strategies that they use, will rapidly change in 2017.  For example, some strategies such as managed accounts have a fee structure that charges only a percentage of profit, called "performance fee" - with no other fees.  See one example the Magic FX strategy, for QEP/ECP US investors only - which charges a 30% performance fee from the profit.  In this model, if the strategy doesn"t perform for investors, there is no fee.  This type of pay for performance model has been around for years, but will become more useful in a climate of diminishing returns and investors angry at paying fees for getting no results or even losing money.  It really is crazy, why investors should pay managers millions of dollars for losing money - it just shows how programmed investors are by traditional media, as we explain in Splitting Pennies the book.

Bloomberg also notes that, while assets have only trickled out - this may be a sign of a larger trend:

While clients have only pulled a net 2 percent of assets so far, Tony James, the president at Blackstone Group, the largest investor in hedge funds, predicted in May that the industry would shrink by roughly a quarter over the next year. Hedge fund closures (782 in the first nine months) are on track to be the most since 2008, and startups (576) the fewest.

Any manager still standing applauds a smaller industry. Less money under management means fewer crowded trades and more chances to find the elusive alpha. Interest rates on the rise in the U.S., while still near zero or negative in the rest of the world, should also help. The Trump presidency, which promises less regulation, more infrastructure spending and the potential return of prop trading by banks, could also be a boon.

Where will the assets go?  The alternative investment industry is large - institutional funds, pension funds, hedge funds, are but a small part.  According to Barclay Hedge, there are 342 Billion in Managed Futures:

And, although the change from Q2 to Q3 of 2016 is a small percentage of @ $9 Billion, it is a positive figure, and shows that managed futures is one place funds are flowing into.  CTAs, CPOs, and other types of managed investments that have a track record should all benefit from the poor performance of traditional managers, especially those which don"t charge a management fee.  But in any scenario, investors only started to loathe the management fees when performance suffered.  When performance is good - who doesn"t mind paying for it?

And finally - it may shed light on the still standing FX manager industry.  While these hedge funds have suffered volatile returns, losses, and fee congestion - some FX managers have continued to perform year in and year out with the use of complex algorithms, that work in FX but not in other markets.  Now may be the time for institutional investors to take another look at such algorithmic FX strategies.

To get an education about the benefits of FX investing, checkout Fortress Capital Trading Academy.

Here"s a list of books to add to your bookshelf to get started:

read some of these books and articles:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.  

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People"s History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich