Andrew Haldane: Patience and finance
Speech by Mr Andrew Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, Bank of England,
at the Oxford China Business Forum, Beijing, 9 September 2010.
* * *
I am grateful to Geoff Coppins, Richard Davies, Salina Ladha, Pippa Lowe, Gareth Murphy, Rhiannon
Sowerbutts, Nick Vause and Iain de Weymarn for background research and comments.
In the East, it is said:
"One moment of patience may ward off great disaster
One moment of impatience may ruin a whole life"
[Chinese Proverb]
In the West, it is said:
"I often make more money when I am snoozing than when I am active"
[Warren Buffett]
These observations have common conceptual roots. Underlying both lies patience. Patience,
or its alter ego impatience, is a key factor shaping inter-temporal decisions. Whether to save
or spend, trade or invest, work or quit, stick or twist. As such, patience has important
implications for the evolution of economic and social systems.
This paper considers the role of patience in decision-making, in particular financial
decisionmaking. Patience is not static; it evolves. This paper brings together lessons from economics,
history, psychology, neurology, sociology to assess patience and its implications for the
evolution of economic and financial systems.
Evidence from social and economic systems points to two evolutionary paths. Along one,
patience becomes self-reinforcing. For example, financial liberalisation may encourage
patience and improve inter-temporal choice, unlocking growth. But there is a second path,
along which impatience is self-reinforcing. Financial liberalisation can also unlock impatience,
generating over-trading and under-investment.
These dual equilibria make choosing the right pace and path of financial reform crucial.
Some countries, like China, appear to be proceeding along the patient path. The choice is
how to pace reform to prevent overshooting onto the impatient path. For countries which
have already liberalised, the choice is how to promote patience while harnessing impatience.
These are real public policy choices.
Patience and impatience
Patience, we are told, is a virtue. That has been the verdict of theologians, philosophers and
authors for well over 700 years. Interestingly, it was also the verdict of the earliest
economists. In his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith declares:
"The qualities most useful to ourselves are, first of all, superior reasons and
understanding, by which we are capable of discerning the remote consequences
of all our actions; and, secondly, self-command, by which we are enabled to
abstain from present pleasure or to endure present pain in order to obtain a
greater pleasure in some future time".
So for Smith, patience was both a distinctive and valuable human commodity. Subsequent
research has shown he was right. Patience is peculiarly human. Our nearest evolutionary
relatives, discount almost entirely outcomes more than one minute into the future.1 It is not
that animals are incapable of far-sighted behaviour - for example, squirrels collecting nuts or
birds flying south for the winter. But these are not acts of spontaneous self-control, like
saving or dieting. Rather, they are genetically pre-programmed. The squirrel does not store
food as a dietary device.
The patience "gene"
The source of human self-command, or patience, appears to be neurological. Recently, this
has become detectable using brain imaging technology. That suggests the pre-frontal cortex
of the brain is key to self-control and patience in humans.2 The pre-frontal cortex develops
with age, being least developed in small children. In other words, neurology has confirmed
the suspicions, and frustrations, of generations of parents with impatient toddlers.
The pre-frontal cortex is also the part of the brain which has developed most recently.
Human skulls developed from prominent brow ridges of Neanderthal man to the high straight
foreheads of today's homo sapiens to accommodate the growth of the pre-frontal cortex.
That tells us the patient part of the brain was close to being fully developed perhaps around
30-50,000 years ago. Today, although the pre-frontal cortex in humans is no larger than in a
gorilla, its evolution has resulted in patience having become a distinctive, perhaps unique,
human attribute.
As such, it is not too big a leap to imagine patience having had important implications for the
evolution of human systems, economic and social. Take economic growth. The
NeoClassical growth model in economics provides a simple link between patience and
development. Patience generates savings by households which in turn finances investment
by companies. And capital accumulation by firms, growth theory suggests, is then the prime
driver of future output. Countless empirical studies, across time and countries, have
confirmed that theory.
Long-run patterns of growth are also consistent with a patience-based explanation. Relative
to animals, human systems have experienced extra-ordinary economic development,
especially over the past 400 years. And the timing of that development has a neurological
link. Between 1 million BC and 50,000 BC, world GDP per capita was roughly unchanged. By
the end of that period, Neanderthal man had gone the way of the dinosaurs. Inside our
skulls, patience and the pre-frontal cortex became, literally and metaphorically, front and
centre.
In the subsequent period, patience brought prosperity. Between 50,000 BC and 1000 AD,
world GDP per capita rose around 50%, at an annual growth rate of 0.00072%. Economists
today would classify that as anaemic. But, at the time, it must have felt like a Golden Age. In
the subsequent millennium, world GDP per capita has risen 50-fold, at an annual growth rate
of around 0.4%. Much of that growth has been since 1750 AD, since when world GDP per
capita has risen almost 37-fold, at an annual growth rate of 1.4% per annum.3 It is difficult to
imagine patience not having hastened this dramatic journey.
Some studies have drawn a more explicit link between patience and growth. Studies have
linked various cultural and religious characteristics to growth.4 For example, it has been
argued that pre-dominantly Protestant countries in Europe grew faster than Catholic
countries as a result of differences in patience and work ethic.5 This has echoes with recent
literature emphasising the role of "Asian values", such as thrift and patience, as a driver of
growth in the region.6
Patience is also likely to have been a key factor in the evolution of financial systems. At root,
banks and capital markets are simply a means of matching saving to investment. They are
about realising the benefits of patience and thus growth. There is strong evidence for such
effects. Financial deepening is known to be an important determinant of long-run growth.7
Why? Efficient financial intermediation increases the returns to patience, thereby
encouraging thrift and promoting growth.
The impatience "gene"
For every virtue there is a vice, for every ego an alter ego. So it is with patience. In Smith's
Theory of Moral Sentiments, he also spoke of a "two self" model. People had both a patient
and impatient component. This double-self principle was developed by psychologists and
philosophers, such as Freud and Berlin, during the 1950s and 1960s. Latterly the work of
behavioural economists, such as Thaler and Shefrin, has formulated the two selves as the
patient "planner" and impatient "doer".8
Using brain imaging, this model has recently been given neurological support. While patient
behaviour is associated with activity in the pre-frontal cortex, impatient behaviour is
associated with a distinct part of the brain - the limbic (or midbrain dopamine) system.9
Humans have distinct patience and impatience "genes". When making difficult inter-temporal
decisions, we are quite literally in two minds.
Impatience is no stranger to economics. It was discussed by Neo-Classical economists, such
as Marshall, Fisher and Pigou writing over a century ago. Pigou memorably described the
tendency of humans to discount excessively future outcomes as a "defective telescopic
faculty". Today, research has gone one step further: discounting is not just myopic but
inconsistent through time. This has been given a somewhat less memorable, if
mathematically more accurate, moniker by economists - "hyberbolic discounting".10
Hyperbolic discounting describes how people's preferences alter as distant outcomes
become closer to the present. Concretely, imagine a person who prefers $100 in ten years'
time to $90 in nine years' time. With hyperbolic preferences, this same person would also
favour $90 in one year's time to $100 in two year's time. They exhibit inconsistencies in
decision-making across time, or so-called preference reversals.
The implications of such behaviour are potentially far-reaching. The patient planner becomes
a spontaneous doer when outcomes are within reach. The cautious saver becomes a
reckless spender when nest eggs are close to hatching. The long-term investor becomes a
short-term speculator if assets can be cashed. As temptation beckons, the devil on one
shoulder whispers more seductively than the angel on the other. Preferences switch as the
distant becomes instant.
In these situations, the double-self becomes a practical reality for both animals and humans.
Experimental evidence lends strong support. Hyperbolic discounting has been found in such
diverse case studies as pigeons pecking corn, students choosing video games, women
choosing anaesthesia in childbirth and drug addicts assessing their next fix.11 Psychiatrically,
it may emerge as multiple personality disorders.
Addiction is, in some respects, hyperbolic discounting writ large.12 It is Pigou's defective
telescope being held the wrong way round. Immediate gratification (drugs, alcohol, sex, food)
is sought irrespective of the long-term consequences. There is a neurological explanation for
such behaviour. Drugs and some foodstuffs flood the brain with dopamine, which stimulates
the midbrain associated with instant reward. This might explain why addictive behaviour
appears to be more prevalent in humans than in animals. While few squirrels are dieters,
even fewer are glue-sniffers.
Impatience has implications for economic and financial systems every bit as profound as its
well-behaved twin. For economies, hyperbolic discounting would tend to generate
undersaving, as people seek instant gratification. And neo-classical growth theory says that
undersaving has adverse implications for long-run investment and growth. Some jam today would
come at the expense of a whole jam-jar tomorrow.
For financial systems, the implications are just as far-reaching. The flipside of under-saving is
over-borrowing. Consumer credit is one means of bringing forward tomorrow's spending to
today. In that sense, credit addiction and drug addiction are close relatives. And
accompanying over-borrowing is likely to be over-trading: a propensity to realise investments
sooner rather than later, to twist rather than stick.
So where does this leave us? Patience is an evolutionary human trait which has played an
important role in the development of economic and financial systems. But impatience is also
a human trait whose implications for growth are potentially malign. How have these two traits
evolved over time? Has the good gene, by a Darwinian process, deselected the bad?
The evolution of patience
In most economic models, people's rate of time preference is assumed to be fixed. Studies of
real-world behaviour suggest that assumption is rarely satisfied. People's preferences, and
their cognitive architecture, have evolved importantly over time. Patience evolved
dramatically from Neanderthal to modern man. It continues to evolve today from child to
adult. Preferences also adapt with the environment.
Consider people's risk preferences. Economists typically assume these too are fixed. But the
real-world suggests that the environment is key. For example, in the face of a losing streak,
experimental evidence shows that human risk preferences tend to flip from risk-averting to
risk-loving behaviour.13 That is why we often hear "double or quits". Such gambles for
resurrection can explain the ruin of bankers as well as gamblers, including most recently
Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
These shifts in risk preferences are not peculiar to humans. They are also observed in birds,
insects and mammals when faced with a losing streak.14 Birds foraging in mid-winter have
been found to take a calculated gamble by pursuing high-risk, high-return strategies, much
like the down-at-heel gambler or world-weary CEO. Although Lehman CEO Dick Fuld was
nick-named the gorilla, his behaviour during a losing streak was closer to that of a ravenous
robin.
Self-improving cycles
If preferences evolve over time, this gives rise to the possibility of self-reinforcing patterns of
behaviour. Such evolutionary trends have been extensively studied by sociologists,
psychologists and even some economists. These studies confirm the old aphorism: virtue is
its own reward. Specifically, patience is capable of setting in train a cycle of self-improving
behaviour in individuals, economic and social systems.
Take happiness. Studies have shown that happy people save more and spend less.15 Happy
people also take longer to make decisions and expect a longer life. In short, they are patient.
These patterns of behaviour are connected and reinforcing. Expecting a longer life, happy
people defer immediate gratification and save. In consequence, they enjoy a more
prosperous tomorrow as they harvest the fruits of their investment. In these models,
happiness is not just fulfilling; it is self-fulfilling.
Exercise and dieting generate similar self-improving behavioural cycles. Take gym
attendance. A recent study found that providing a small financial inducement to attend a gym
generated radically different fitness behaviour.16 It served as a catalyst for an exercise
regime which, once begun, was much more likely to be completed. Improving health
improved life chances, inducing long-sighted behaviour which was then both fulfilling and
self-fulfilling.
While self-improving cycles shape individual behaviour, they can also have broader social
consequences. Studies have found strong behavioural contagion not just between friends,
but between friends' friends and indeed friends' friends' friends. In other words, people's
behaviours have "three degrees of influence".17 Sociological contagion has been found in
studies of happiness, exercise and dieting. It may have a neurological explanation, as
imaging suggests we often incorporate friends' views and attitudes into our brains as if they
were our own.18
Latterly, models of economic systems have got in on the act. Growth, too, can be
selfimproving or endogenous - for example, because investment in human capital is
selfreinforcing.19 Working, like dieting, is good for self-esteem and long-term productivity. Idling,
like over-eating, is bad. History suggests a strongly self-reinforcing relationship between
saving and growth. That is probably why cross-country studies point to such strong growth
enhancing effects of financial deepening.
Self-destructive cycles
Just as patience can self-generate, so too can impatience. And while patience generates
self-improving cycles, its alter ego can create self-destructive cycles. Addiction is the classic
self-destructive cycle. Drugs and alcohol chemically alter the balance of the double-self,
increasing the value of instant gratification. This shortens time horizons, increasing further
the value of instant gratification in a downward spiral. Unless arrested, this unfulfilling
equilibrium becomes self-fulfilling.
Similar cycles have been found with a more commonly-prescribed drug - work. Workaholism
arises from a spiralling imbalance between work and life.20 Too much work lowers the value
of life away from work. This encourages even greater work and an even greater work/life
imbalance in a downward spiral. Obesity can likewise generate self-affirming negative
behaviours, often operating through low self-esteem.
As with self-improving cycles, these self-destructive spirals have a social dimension. Bad
behaviours rub off just as much as good, with three degrees of influence. It is not just
happiness, diet tips and gym membership cards which pass between friends' (friends'
friends). So too do depression, chocolate cake recipes and membership of addiction clinics.21
As patience is contagious, impatience is infectious.
So self-destructive cycles in social systems are the result of a neurological seed nurtured by
sociological forces. Self-destruction, like self-improvement, is part nature, part nurture.
Finance has both these raw ingredients. Most traders' brains harbour the impatience gene.
Often, they harbour little else. And traders' behaviour is shaped every bit as much by the
footfall of their friends in the herd. So, in theory, we might expect similar cycles of
selfdestruction and self-improvement in finance.
Gresham's law in finance
To illustrate these theoretical dynamics in action, consider a sketch model. Imagine three
classes of investor:
 an impatient short-term speculator, who follows the momentum of the herd, buying
when prices are rising and selling when they fall;
 long-term
a patient investor, who invests according to where prices are relative to
their long-term fundamentals;
 untested
an investor, who can mimic either the speculator or the long-term investor,
but whose performance either way is assessed at frequent intervals by
endinvestors who withdraw or maintain funds accordingly.
Market prices in this model are buffeted by two winds. Momentum-based speculators cause
deviations from fundamentals, while long-term investors drive prices back towards
fundamentals. These are the double-selves of the financial brain, the patience and
impatience genes. And as in social systems, the balance of these two genetic types results in
two very different evolutionary equilibria.
Under one equilibrium, patience wins the day. When long-term investors start in the
ascendency, prices tend to correct towards fundamentals. The performance of untested
investors pursuing momentum strategies falters, while those pursuing long-term strategies
flourish. The fraction of long-term investors rises. The self-correcting tendencies of market
prices are thus reinforced, further supporting long-term investors. The patience gene thrives,
the impatience gene dies. Natural selection results in a self-improving cycle, as with dieting,
happiness and exercise.
But there is a second equilibrium where this cycle operates in reverse gear. With a large
fraction of momentum traders, prices deviate persistently from fundamentals. Among
untested investors, momentum strategies now flourish while long-term fundamentalists fail.
The speculative balance of investors rises, increasing the degree of misalignment in prices.
The patience gene falls into terminal decline. Natural selection results in a self-destructive
cycle, as with drug, alcohol and food addiction.
These self-destructive dynamics would have been familiar to economist, and some-time
investor, John Maynard Keynes. He quipped: "markets can remain irrational for longer than
you or I can remain solvent". In the sketch model, a Keynesian dynamic selection process is
at work. Myopic finance bankrupts the long-sighted.
This echoes an earlier evolutionary game in finance - Gresham's Law. Named after English
financier Sir Thomas Gresham in the 16th century, this refers to the tendency for bad money
to drive out good. The first paper money example of Gresham's Law pre-dated Gresham. It
came from China during the Yuan (1271-1368) period. Then, paper money drove out silver
coinage.22 This bad money dynamic has since been replicated across many monetary
economies.
China also provided the world with its first example of the reverse phenomenon - a
selfimproving cycle of good money driving out bad. During the Ming (1368-1644) dynasty, paper
money was swept away by commodity money.23 This dynamic has also since been replicated
across a number of monetary economies, including dollarizing emerging market economies
over recent decades.
Today, finance faces its own Gresham's dilemma - the patient or impatient path. Innovation
has, of course, transformed finance over the intervening years. Liberalisation has resulted in
far greater information and liquidity in financial markets. Perhaps these developments have
helped good finance drive out bad, nudging money towards the patience path? Not
necessarily.
Take information. In an evolutionary game, information is a double-edged sword. It supports
the cause of the long-term investor, by allowing them more easily to compare prices with
fundamentals. But it also tests the patience of the untested investor subject to regular
performance evaluation. Investors whose judgement is right, but whose timing is wrong,
stand an increasingly high chance of exiting the game. More frequent information on
performance risks contaminating the gene pool, driving out the patient to the benefit of the
impatient.
Anecdotally at least, performance evaluation intervals have progressively shortened. Over
recent decades, companies have migrated from annual general meetings, to a six monthly or
quarterly reporting cycle to today's steady stream of within-cycle trading updates. In finance,
information is in general a good thing. But in finance, as in life, it is possible to have too much
of a good thing.
Liquidity is similarly double-edged. It reduces the impact of momentum trading on prices,
thereby increasing market efficiency. But it also reduces the costs of pursuing such
strategies. In other words, liquidity unlocks the impatience gene. Investors whose judgement
is wrong, but whose timing is right, can lock in immediate gains. Liquidity, too, can pollute the
gene pool by allowing the impatient to prosper. Like information, liquidity can be too much of
a good thing.24
So we have pitchfork equilibrium: along one prong virtue, along the other vice. As in other
social systems, these two financial equilibria have neurological roots and sociological
branches. They yield, however, very different economic fruit. This dual-self world is
structurally schizophrenic: financial innovation is both good and bad; information is both
solution and problem; liquidity is both cure and curse; investors are both abstemious and
addicts.
So which evolutionary gene is dominating finance in practice? Is bad money driving out good
or the reverse? Is history repeating itself as the Yuan or the Ming dynasties?
Patience in finance
There is ample evidence, theoretical and empirical, of self-improving financial cycles. From
the Medici banks in Italy in the 13th century to the joint stock banks of he 19th century to the
explosion of capital market finance in the latter part of the 20th century. Today, China
provides no better example of that self-improving cycle in motion.
But can financial systems overshoot onto the impatient path, where too much liquidity and
information unlock the impatience gene and its ugly progeny. Along that path lies excess -
excess trading, excess credit and excess volatility. What evidence exists on these
phenomena?
Patience and puzzles
One source is the enormous literature on financial market efficiency. If markets were
efficient, asset prices would mirror fundamentals. This would be indirect evidence against
impatience, which tends to cause prices to deviate persistently from equilibrium. In fact,
empirical finance is full of puzzles - economist code for deviations from market efficiency.
And, interestingly, many of these observed puzzles are consistent with impatient dynamics.
They include:

Excess volatility puzzle: There is strong evidence that asset prices, both real and
financial, are both considerably more volatile than fundamentals and can deviate for
persistent periods.25
 Serial correlation
puzzle: There is strong evidence that asset prices do not follow a
random walk, but instead exhibit short-term positive correlation (for example, due to
momentum traders) and medium-term negative correlation.26

Equity premium puzzle: The required yield on equity over safe assets is greater than
can be explained by conventional asset pricing theory - a puzzle which some have
explained using hyperbolic discounting.27

Excess sensitivity puzzle: Contrary to standard theory, consumption is "excessively"
sensitive to movements in income, violating the predictions of the permanent income
model - a puzzle which impatience and under-saving can also help explain.28
 Dividend payout
puzzle: In practice, there is strong evidence of high and persistent
dividend payout ratios, consistent with investors valuing immediate returns
(dividends) over future returns (capital gains).29

Discounting puzzle: The discount rates used to value firms, and to evaluate projects,
appear to be consistently higher than can be explained by fundamentals, a finding
consistent with short-termism in investment.30

Fund management puzzle: Actively-managed investment portfolios appear, if
anything, to underperform passively managed funds, consistent with the Buffett
"snoozing rule" for successful investment.31
Patience and efficiency
If impatience in the financial system is growing, there should be evidence of financial prices
having become more volatile and more divorced from fundamentals over time. Excess
volatility and misalignment would rise alongside short-termism, with market efficiency the
casualty. What does the evidence suggest?
Chart 1 plots equity prices in the US back to 1880, relative to a model-based measure of
equity market fundamentals based on discounted expected future profit streams. Chart 2
shows a measure of excess volatility in these series over time (a moving average of the ratio
of actual to fundamentals-based volatility), while Chart 3 shows a measure of price
misalignment (the absolute deviation of prices from fundamentals, expressed as a
percentage of prices).
Chart 2 suggests that, on average over the past century, US stock prices have been over
three times more volatile than fundamentals, confirming the excess volatility hypothesis. But
the trend in the degree of excess volatility is also telling. Up until the 1960s, prices were
around twice as volatile as fundamentals. Since 1990, they have been anywhere between six
and ten times more volatile. Excess volatility in equity prices has risen as financial innovation
has taken off.
The pattern is much the same with measures of misalignment. Up until 1960s, the average
absolute deviation of US equity prices from fundamentals was just over 20%. Since 1990s,
the average absolute deviation has been well over 100%. Charts 4-6 present the same
evidence for UK equity prices since 1920. While less dramatic, the patterns are much the
same. Misalignment correlates with innovation and liquidity.
Patience and profits
To bring these market inefficiencies to life, consider a simple experiment to gauge the
relative performance of momentum and long-term investors. Both are assumed to follow a
simple strategy: the speculator buys (sells) when prices have risen (fallen) in the previous
period; the fundamentalist buys (sells) when prices are low (high) relative to fundamentals.
Portfolios are evaluated and re-optimised on a monthly basis, based on a $1 initial stake.
How would these strategies have fared historically?
Charts 7 and 8 show cumulative returns to these strategies in the US and UK. They suggest
a dramatic evolutionary pattern. The speculator's $1 stake in US equities in 1880 would by
2009 have grown to over $50,000. The fundamentalist's same $1 stake would have fallen to
be worth around 11 cents. Impatience would have trumped patience by a factor of half a million.
This out-performance is mirrored in the UK, if less dramatically (Chart 8). Starting in 1920,
the value of the speculator's £1 stake would have risen to around £1.56, while the
fundamentalists' stake would have fallen to 32 pence. Momentum would have mopped the
floor with fundamentals. The sheep would have defeated the goats.
In an evolutionary game, these profit profiles would alter the balance of investors. Impatient
investors would have profited and thrived, while patient investors would have lost and died.
Nature would have deselected the patience gene. As Keynes predicted, market inefficiencies
would have supported the myopic and irrational at the expense of the solvency of the
far-sighted.
Patience and trading
If impatience strategies flourish, we would expect this to be reflected in a secular fall in the
average duration of asset holdings, as the fraction of short-term investors rises. Again, what
does the evidence suggest?
Chart 9 plots the average holding period of investors in the US NYSE index since 1940. This
is estimated by simply looking at the ratio of the market value of the shares outstanding to
the value of shares traded in any given year. It suggests a striking pattern.
In 1940, the mean duration of US equity holdings by investors was around 7 years. For the
next 35 years up until the mid-1970s, this average holding period was little changed. But in
the subsequent 35 years average holding periods have fallen secularly. By the time of the
stock market crash in 1987, the average duration of US equity holdings had fallen to under
2 years. By the turn of the century, it had fallen below one year. By 2007, it was around
7 months. Impatience is mounting.
Chart 10 plots the same measure for the UK over a shorter window. It shows a similar trend.
The average duration of equity holdings has fallen from around 5 years in the mid-1960s to
around 2 years in the 1980s. At the turn of the century, it had reached just over a year. By
2007, it had fallen to around 7 1⁄2 months.
Chart 11 shows the average duration of equity holdings across a wider set of international
equity markets over the past 15 years. The trends are much the same. Average holding
periods have fallen. Today, they are typically below one year. For the Shanghai stock index,
the mean duration is closer to 6 months. Some investors have bucked this trend. Warren
Buffett told Berkshire Hathaway investors in 1988 "our favourite holding period is forever".
But for an increasing fraction of the financial world, the favoured investment horizon seems
to be whenever.
A number of structural factors help account for these trends, some of them positive.
Transactions costs in equity markets have fallen significantly. This has encouraged growth in
a particular class of investor - high-frequency traders (HFTs). While HFTs are not new, their
speed of execution has undergone a quantum leap. A decade ago, the execution interval for
HFTs was seconds. Advances in technology mean today's HFTs operate in milli- or
microseconds. Tomorrow's may operate in nano-seconds.
HFTs operate in size as well at speed. HFT firms are believed to account for more than 70%
of all trading volume in US equities, 40% of volumes in US futures and 20% of volumes in US
options. In Europe, HFTs account for around 30-40% of volumes in equities and futures.
These fractions have risen from single figures as recently as a few years ago. And they look
set to continue to rise.
Asian is not immune from these trends. HFT is believed to account for between 5 and 10% of
Asian equity volumes. In China, HFT is still in its infancy. But market contacts suggest as
much as 80-90% of trading on the Shanghai stock exchange may be done by day-traders,
many small retail investors. Impatience is socially, as well as technologically, contagious.
This evolution of trading appears already to have had an effect on financial market dynamics.
On 6 May 2010, the price of more than 200 securities fell by over 50% between 2.00pm and
2.45pm.32 At 2.47pm, Accenture shares traded for around 7 seconds at a price of 1 cent, a
loss of market value close to 100%. No significant economic or political news was released
during this period.
The causes and consequences of this "flash crash" are no clearer now than at the time. But it
is known that a number of large HFT trading positions coincided with these chaotic
dynamics. In response, market-makers and liquidity-providers withdrew. Gresham's Law
re-emerged as bad money drove out good, its effects now taking milli-seconds rather than
months. Trading in securities generated trading insecurities. The impatient world was found,
under stress, to be an uncertain and fragile one.
Patience and dividends
Another way of gauging short-termism is to look at investors' implied preference