do some maths then you know making VIX raise 100% or more in few minutes is not really that hard for a giant player
LOL. Pumped and dumped SPX? Whatever it is you're smoking, please introduce me to your dealer...Yes, and we know the name of that player. It is David Casner at Goldman Sachs. His team pumped and dumped SPX while buying VIX calls, then made $200 million on February 5.

We are talking some random numbers here. A few billions to manipulate S&P on medium timeframe? Do you really think that quant funds (about 750 billion in total AUM, vast majority with a market neutral mandate) can move a 20 trillion dollar market by 7%? More so, do you really think the index vol desk of Goldman Sachs could? Granted, they are smart people (I know the senior guys personally), but magicians they are not.I smoke my own shit.
You can do a lot with a few $billion, especially when followed by $trillion of quant hedge funds. It's a known fact that the market went to the sky on January 31st and the largest trend-following bots followed. How else did it go so high? Did you do this? Or everyone was smoking something?
How exactly do you envision a single desk or a single fund (mine, Dave's or any other) precipitating a selloff in S&P? What would be the risk/reward for such a manipulation for a single player? Remember, we are not talking about the Elders of Zion who yearn for global domination at any cost.And it's also a fact that all this was followed by a huge sell-off in February, again followed by trend-following bots, and then the wide-spread panic. Or how else did this selloff start? Did you do this? Or 100 hedge funds started to smoke something all at the same time?
It's also a fact that David Casner's team made $200 million on Feb 5th. Did he just smoke something and cash fell out of the sky? Right.
Do you really think that quant funds (about 750 billion in total AUM, vast majority with a market neutral mandate) can move a 20 trillion dollar market by 7%?....
Well, sure, you can trigger a selloff. You just sell a lot of something. It's been done before. The only problem is that if you are triggering a selloff in something, you need to be able to profit from it more than you're risking by "triggering a selloff". Think price impact vs profit - such a strategy would only work if I am manipulating something illiquid that somehow effects something else where I am carrying a large position. For example, imagine that you the ability to manipulate the live cattle market (e.g. you are a large farming conglomerate), you can go long a lot of cattle futures and force non-farmers into delivery.And if someone discovers how/if they can trigger a selloff, the rest is just execution. It will happen again because obviously selloffs do happen and therefore are triggered by something.
Most of the equity is transacted by computer, but that does not mean that the trading decisions are made by the computer. Think of it this way. HFTs (who are mostly market makers) are truly "autonomous", so they compose 50-70% of the volume just by simply crossing longer term buyers and sellers. However, the decision to take a position (long-term long or short) in any given stock is still predominantly human.Assuming that most of the stock market is now traded by computers, the AUM of quant funds wouldn't matter. So regardless of the 20 trillion market, it was moved 7% by whatever trading was done, of which 75%+ could be done by computers.