NO MATTER AT

what level you play the trading game, you've got to understand what business you're really in. And when you buy XYZ Widgets at 90, you aren't getting into the widget business. You're getting into the business of providing liquidity to a company's float in this case, XYZ above 90.

What moves stocks, bonds or anything else is the relationship between demand and supply. By definition, traders and speculators profit by adding liquidity to illiquid markets. Doesn't matter if it's Cisco Systems or soybeans, traders narrow the spreads between the price at which someone's willing to sell and the price at which someone else is willing to buy, bringing down the cost of execution. Trading isn't about predicting the future, but about gaming the liquidity demands for a particular security. Generally speaking, I want to be long illiquid markets and short liquid markets.

First, a little background. You can't imagine how drastically the liquidity picture has changed in just a few short years. Back in the early 1990s, when most market pros still referred to the Nasdaq as the "over-the-counter" market, stocks traded in eighths. That meant there were only eight "price points" within a particular dollar increment in which you could own Nasdaq stocks. And while 12.5 cents one-eighth of a dollar was the minimum spread between every price fluctuation, many stocks traded with half-point spreads or more. With mutual funds exploding in popularity and a huge influx of Internet-driven retail trade, this made making markets a very profitable business. In a sense, you had a big "edge" on every trade.

Now the moment someone else makes speculative capital available to make markets, he's slicing off a piece of the liquidity pie. As competition to make markets grows, spreads become more narrow and there's less opportunity to make money by making markets. As the spread between the bid and offer gets smaller, so does the profit margin that comes from trading in that particular security.

You don't need a Harvard MBA to know that highly liquid industries are competitive, and competition is what brings down the cost of goods to consumers. It's what makes other mature industries like retail or restaurants so difficult. In an effort to gain market share, companies cut prices. Their sales expand, but their margins shrink. The only reason McDonald's can make any money selling burgers for 49 cents is because they sell hundreds of millions a year. What they lose in margin they make up for in volume. Cutthroat competition is terrific for the consumer, since it brings prices down. That's great when you're buying hamburgers but nightmarish when you're buying stocks for "the long haul."

This same maturation toward efficiency, competition and liquidity has occurred in the stock market over the past 10 years. As money has flowed into stocks, the Nasdaq hasn't just become more liquid...but sopping, dripping wet even after its 60%-plus decline.

How liquid has the Nasdaq become? According to the statistics complied by the National Association of Securities Dealers, spreads on Nasdaq stocks have fallen by over 75% in the past nine years. In 1992, the average relative spread was slightly above 1.70%. By September 2000, it had fallen to only 0.22%. Today, most Nasdaq stocks trade in 1/16th increments, with the typical spread being about 14 cents. Large-cap names routinely trade in increments of 1/256th, on average OTC volume of well over 1.5 billion shares. Decimalization will bring down spreads even further.

As markets become more liquid, traders must make up for small margins (small bid/ask spreads), by trading huge volume, and while I run a hedge fund, like most investors, I'm a small fry compared to the big boys. Think of it this way: When spreads were an eighth, if you snapped up a stock at 10 1/4, the least it could rise to was 10 3/8. So you didn't have to be particularly right, or trading in particularly high volume, to make some money. But there's less incentive to provide liquidity to markets that don't need it, like large caps on the Nasdaq today. If I bid for 10,000 shares of WXYZ at 15, someone else is simply going to bid .004 of a cent (1/256) higher. It's just not enough gravy in my book. I've either got to be right (that is, the stock has to go up) a lot more, or I have to trade in much higher volume to make any money.

The history of Internet stocks provides an object lesson in liquidity. What drove these stocks higher in the early years was that there were very few ways to get Internet exposure in 1995. While analysts suggested that "first-mover advantage" was huge, the real reason Internet stocks performed so well wasn't because of their business prospects, but because of the supply/demand picture for the stocks themselves. Lest we forget, among Yahoo!, Amazon.com, (then independent) Netscape and America Online (now AOL Time Warner but then trading on the OTC under ticker "AMER") there were only a few Internet stocks but tons of investor interest. If you wanted to own the future, you had only a couple choices. Remember when K-TEL or Zapata were seen as legitimate "Internet plays" that would own their respective markets? What happened, of course, is that the supply began to outstrip demand. As more issues came to market and companies learned how to embrace new technology, the demand for so-called pure-play Internet stocks evaporated. Somewhere down the line we realized that every company is an Internet stock.

As more companies went public, there were more choices of where to invest your Internet or technology dollars more companies and instruments siphoning off and using liquidity. How many exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that track large-cap tech do we really need? Generally speaking, when everybody else is getting into a business, that's when you should think about getting out. It goes for tech stocks as well as television-series formats.

And as the large-cap tech stocks that populate the Nasdaq continue to mark new 52-week lows, you might consider investigating some less liquid but technically strong markets that could use some speculative investment dollars. As I wrote a few weeks back, there is life beyond Cisco.

While I don't make investment recommendations, there are three areas worth checking out. One of them is the bond market, which has soundly outperformed stocks, and from my perspective looks exceptionally bullish. Fundamentalists suggest inflation could tank Treasurys, but I watch the charts. These securities look strong, and while there are 30 different ETFs that track tech stocks, there still are none that directly mirror bonds. Smells like an opportunity to provide liquidity.

Hot Property
APPLET PLACEHOLDER: archive= height=300 width=245
Data from April 2, 1999 to March 29, 2001 Source: DJNR

On the equities side, now might be a time to consider a position in real estate investment trusts, which have also soundly outpaced stocks. While the Nasdaq is making two-year lows, the Morgan Stanley REIT Index, or RMS, is near two-year highs. The two biggest REITS, Equity Office Property Trust and Equity Residential Properties Trust trade around one million shares a day, compared with Cisco, which trades over 100 million. Where is my speculative dollar going to get the most bang for its buck? Underowned, outperforming and not yet too terribly liquid, REITs might be an asset class deserving a position in your portfolio.

Finally, as new markets continue to need liquidity, you might consider diversifying your portfolio away from solely stocks. Rare books and fine collectables don't pay dividends, but are uncorrelated to equities and most certainly will benefit from new auction-driven liquidity. Our fund maintains a small position in first-edition copies of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Only about 100,000 were printed so the float isn't huge, and over the past few years prices have more than kept pace with inflation. It's one claim the highly liquid and much heralded Nasdaq can't make.

Jonathan Hoenig is portfolio manager at Capitalistpig Asset Management. At the time of publication, Hoenig's fund was short shares of Cisco Systems and AOL and long shares of Equity Office Properties and Equity Residential Properties, as well as several first edition copies of "Atlas Shrugged."