Showing posts with label Bloomberg News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloomberg News. Show all posts

Monday, December 4, 2017

Paul Tudor Jones: "This Market, Which Is Reminiscent Of The 1999 Bubble, Is On The Verge Of A Significant Change"

Just hours after Neil Chriss announced that his $2.2 billion Hutchin Hill hedge fund is shuttering due to underperformance and admitted that "we fought hard, but did not deliver the performance that you expected from us", another legendary hedge fund announced it was undergoing a significant restructuring as a result of relentless investor withdrawals: citing a November 30 letter, Bloomberg reported that Paul Tudor Jones" Tudor Investment Corp, which lost 1.6% YTD,  was closing its Discretionary Macro fund "and letting investors shift assets to the main BVI fund as of Jan. 1" with the letter clarifying that "Jones will also principally manage Tudor’s flagship BVI fund, which will be the firm’s only multi-trader fund next year."



The restructuring took place as clients pulled half a billion dollars from Tudor in the third quarter, leaving the firm’s assets at $7 billion, roughly half the level it managed in June 2015, Bloomberg News reported previously.  As part of the sweeping overhaul, Andrew Bound and Aadarsh Malde, formerly co-CIOs of the Tudor Discretionary Macro Fund, would depart. In a move reminiscent of George Soros" recent return to more active management, Jones, who ran the BVI fund with a team of managers, would now have a smaller team and will assume a more dominant role in the fund. 








"I will be the largest risk taker and will manage a notional capital account equal to the AUM of the Tudor BVI strategy itself," Jones said in the letter, referencing assets under management. "This means that my results will have a one-for-one performance impact on Tudor BVI. I relish this challenge."



Jones and other Tudor partners are the largest investors in the BVI fund, which unlike the soon to be shuttered TIC, is up 0.8% through Nov. 3. More details from Bloomberg:








The firm opened the Tudor Discretionary Macro Fund in 2012 with $500 million. It had 14 portfolio managers and was seeded with $150 million from the firm. At the time, funds that bet on macroeconomic themes were a big draw for investors who expected the strategy to benefit from events such as the European sovereign debt crisis.


 


Those expectations were dashed as the strategy has produced lackluster returns in recent years. Hedge funds betting on macroeconomic themes climbed an average of 3.8 percent this year through October on an asset-weighted basis, to rank as the worst strategy globally, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc.



Yet while the internal reorganization of multi-billion hedge funds are hardly of material interest to ordinary retail, or even institutional, investors, PTJ"s outlook on the market always is, and it was concerning: frustrated by the collapse of market vol as a result of record central bank monetary easing, Jones said "the environment is on the verge of a significant change" and that the current market is reminiscent of the bubble of 1999.


"That was a year in which Tudor BVI’s macro book was basically flat while U.S. equities experienced one of the greatest bubbles in history,” Jones, 63, wrote. “The termination of that bull market kicked off a three-year macro feast.” adding that "the plot is much the same today but we can substitute Bitcoin and fine art for the Nasdaq 100 of 1999."


Of course, critics will be first to point out that this is simply yet another prominent trader lamenting the end of markets as we knew them before the takeover by central banks, and Jones himself seems to partially agree, observing in a November 30 market note that the low volatility market environment has been an "anathema" to traditional macro funds and is becoming a "dangerous place," lulling investors into a false sense of complacency. 


"In the face of a shock, investors may be surprised to find themselves jammed running for the exit," he wrote. However, as Howard Marks has repeatedly cautioned in the past 3 years, this will be a problem as "the amount and quality of liquidity is lower than people recognize", and "hidden leverage in the market will make a mass exit even more challenging."


At a loss how to trade a market that appears to have little logic to it, Jones, a pioneer in the industry, has recently turned to more computer-driven trading and hired scientists and mathematicians to help revamp the firm. As Bloomberg reported previously, Tudor raised $300 million for a new macro fund, which started trading in October, that uses machine-learning algorithms to help its manager make trades.


It is unclear if that particular fund has had more success than more traditional, "fundamental" investing approaches.


As for PTJ"s warning that a 1999-style blow up is imminent, while many of his macro peers would be the first to agree, the real question is how will central banks react: after all in the face of trillions in liquidity created out of thin air, if there is one thing the past decade has taught us is that fighting central banks is not only hazardous for one"s health, but destructive to one"s professional financial career. Then again, amid countless such warnings from the "legends of investing" crowd, this may finally be the proverbial moment when the broken clock is right...









Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Cash-Hemorrhaging Uber Announces Plans To Drop $1 Billion On Driverless Volvos

Earlier this summer we noted Uber"s staggering 2Q cash burn of $600 million which equates to roughly $7 million in net cash outflows every single day.  The staggering, and consistently growing, cash burn figures resulted in several mutual funds announcing they would slash their valuations of the struggling rideshare company by up to 15%. 



Of course, if cash burn was a concern before for Uber investors before then they should probably take note of the company"s newly announced decision to drop roughly $1 billion on driverless Volvos.  According to Bloomberg, Uber has just penned a deal to pick up 24,000 brand new Volvo XC90"s in their push to flood the U.S. market with self-driving taxis.








Uber Technologies Inc. agreed to buy 24,000 sport utility vehicles from Sweden’s Volvo Cars to form a fleet of driverless autos, Bloomberg News reports.


 


The XC90s, priced from $46,900 at U.S. dealers, will be delivered between 2019 and 2021 in the first commercial purchase by a ride-hailing provider, Volvo said in a statement Monday. San Francisco-based Uber will add its own sensors and software to permit pilot-less driving.


 


“This new agreement puts us on a path toward mass-produced, self-driving vehicles at scale,” Jeff Miller, Uber’s head of auto alliances, told Bloomberg News. “The more people working on the problem, we’ll get there faster and with better, safer, more reliable systems.”


 


“The automotive industry is being disrupted by technology and Volvo Cars chooses to be an active part of that disruption,” Chief Executive Officer Hakan Samuelsson said. “It’s a new market that’s emerging and we’re the first to be delivering into that segment.”



Volvo


Of course, as we"ve pointed out multiple times before, to the extent the technology works consistently, avoiding the nasty consequences of death and mayhem in the event of failure, autonomous vehicles are worth big money to Uber and consumers...though not so much for the automotive OEMs (see "Ford Announces Plans To Self-Destruct Starting In 2021").  As we"ve pointed out, the cost of paying drivers is a substantial portion of the roughly $1.00 per mile charge paid by Uber riders.  To the extent that cost can be removed from the equation then fares charged by companies like Uber will decline materially.


Unfortunately, for the auto OEMs the story is the exact opposite.  In theory, truly autonomous cars could result in substantial increases in passenger car utilization rates and, therefore, declines in annual car sales.  But apparently, Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson isn"t worried (yes, we can sense the pure optimism in the quote below):








“That could be seen as a threat,” says Volvo Cars CEO Hakan Samuelsson. “We see it as an opportunity.”



But still, even if the technology works, the question remains how quickly consumers will adopt it, if at all. Certainly there certainly has been no shortage of videos hitting Youtube lately of driverless cars plowing through red lights and getting into accidents...which seems less than ideal.









Monday, November 6, 2017

Each Bitcoin Transaction Uses As Much Energy As Your House In A Week

While Bitcoin bulls will probably never have it so good as they have in 2017, we wonder whether many of them have stopped to think about the environmental downside of this roaring bull market. After all, back in the dot.com boom, people had ideas about potential internet businesses, issued pieces of paper representing ownership and watched their prices go parabolic parabolic. All it took was a Powerpoint presentation, some computer programming expertise and a “research” report, courtesy of Mary Meeker, Henry Blodgett et al.


The environmental downside we’re referring to in Bitcoin is, of course, is energy.



We alluded to this in a constructive way here when we noted that a new Bitcoin mining hub is developing in Iceland, where the natural temperature dramatically reduces the cost of cooling computing hardware.


The primary energy requirement, however, goes into the computing power to “mine” the Bitcoins. The Bitcoin mining industry can consume 24 terawatt hours of electricity and still be profitable – the Motherboard website provides some context...  


Bitcoin"s incredible price run to break over $7,000 this year has sent its overall electricity consumption soaring, as people worldwide bring more energy-hungry computers online to mine the digital currency. An index from cryptocurrency analyst Alex de Vries, aka Digiconomist, estimates that with prices the way they are now, it would be profitable for Bitcoin miners to burn through over 24 terawatt-hours of electricity annually as they compete to solve increasingly difficult cryptographic puzzles to "mine" more Bitcoins. That"s about as much as Nigeria, a country of 186 million people, uses in a year… De Vries also estimates that the worldwide Bitcoin mining industry is now using enough electricity to power 2.26 million American homes.


A rapid “Google” later and we discovered that there are 125.8 million American households, so almost 2%.


Another way of looking at Bitcoin’s energy consumption is divide the electricity use in Bitcoin mining each day by the number of daily Bitcoin transactions. As the Motherboard notes, each Bitcoin transaction now requires the same amount of electricity needed to power the average American household for one week.


Expressing Bitcoin"s energy use on a per-transaction basis is a useful abstraction. Bitcoin uses x energy in total, and this energy verifies/secures roughly 300k transactions per day. So this measure shows the value we get for all that electricity, since the verified transaction (and our confidence in it) is ultimately the end product…This averages out to a shocking 215 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of juice used by miners for each Bitcoin transaction (there are currently about 300,000 transactions per day). Since the average American household consumes 901 KWh per month, each Bitcoin transfer represents enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week. Since 2015, Bitcoin"s electricity consumption has been very high compared to conventional digital payment methods. This is because the dollar price of Bitcoin is directly proportional to the amount of electricity that can profitably be used to mine it.


Unfortunately for the environmentalists, the Bitcoin price – as every bull knows – entered the parabolic phase in 2017. This Bloomberg chart calculates the number of days for each $1,000 rise in price.



While Motherboard states that De Vries model isn’t perfect and “makes assumptions about the economic incentives available to miners at a given price level”, the website makes the point that there is clearly a “problem”. According to Motherboard...


That problem is carbon emissions. De Vries has come up with some estimates by diving into data made available on a coal-powered Bitcoin mine in Mongolia. He concluded that this single mine is responsible for 8,000 to 13,000 kg CO2 emissions per Bitcoin it mines, and 24,000 - 40,000 kg of CO2 per hour. As Twitter user Matthias Bartosik noted in some similar estimates, the average European car emits 0.1181 kg of CO2 per kilometer driven.


 


So for every hour the Mongolian Bitcoin mine operates, it"s responsible for (at least) the CO2 equivalent of over 203,000 car kilometers travelled.



However, you’ve probably been thinking what we’ve been thinking. While the price is going parabolic now, Bitcoin usage might go parabolic in the future, problem solved. While it might help, De Vries pointed out the structural flaw...


As goes the Bitcoin price, so goes its electricity consumption, and therefore its overall carbon emissions. I asked de Vries whether it was possible for Bitcoin to scale its way out of this problem.


 


"Blockchain is inefficient tech by design, as we create trust by building a system based on distrust. If you only trust yourself and a set of rules (the software), then you have to validate everything that happens against these rules yourself. That is the life of a blockchain node," he said via direct message.



Motherboard reflects on the cost of Bitcoin’s environmental footprint versus the benefits of a decentralized payment system which avoids the “Too Big To Fails” and their smaller brethren.


This gets to the heart of Bitcoin"s core innovation, and also its core compromise. In order to achieve a functional, trustworthy decentralized payment system, Bitcoin imposes some very costly inefficiencies on participants, for example voracious electricity consumption and low transaction capacity. Proposed improvements, like SegWit2x, do promise to increase the number of transactions Bitcoin can handle by at least double, and decrease network congestion. But since Bitcoin is thousands of times less efficient per transaction than a credit card network, it will need to get thousands of times better. In the context of climate change, raging wildfires, and record-breaking hurricanes, it"s worth asking ourselves hard questions about Bitcoin"s environmental footprint, and what we want to use it for. Do most transactions actually need to bypass trusted third parties like banks and credit card companies, which can operate much more efficiently than Bitcoin"s decentralized network? Imperfect as these financial institutions are, for most of us, the answer is very likely no.


It’s certainly food for thought, even for die-hard libertarians, like ourselves. Then again, perhaps less so for libertarians who’ve been loaded up with Bitcoins in the past few weeks. They would likely be more interested in the bull, bear and neutral cases for Bitcoin in the Bloomberg article linked above. Here is the summary.


With the rhetoric for and against heating up this week amid bitcoin’s barrelling gains, here’s a look at where some big names in finance stand -- from those who see it as the natural evolution of money, to the naysayers waiting for the asset to crash and burn.


Bitcoin’s Backers


  • The digital currency’s evangelists are led by Roger Ver, known in the industry as “Bitcoin Jesus.” Ver remains optimistic about bitcoin’s sustainability amid attempts from governments like China to curb some of the more speculative elements of trading. “The only way to stop (bitcoin) is to turn off the entire Internet in the entire world and keep it turned off,” he said in a September interview with Bloomberg News.

  • Some countries are jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon, with Argentina’s most important futures market considering offering services to investors in digital currencies, while Turkish Central Bank Governor Murat Cetinkaya said digital currencies may contribute to financial stability if designed well.

  • Ronnie Moas, who for the past 13 years has made more than 900 stock recommendations via his one-man show at Standpoint Research, upped his 2018 price forecast to $11,000 from $7,500 on Friday. He maintained his $50,000 target for 2027, though he said it was conservative.

Bitcoin’s Detractors


  • Severin Cabannes, deputy chief executive officer at Societe Generale SA, was the latest big bank official to weigh in, saying that “Bitcoin today is in my view very clearly in a bubble,” in a Bloomberg Television interview Friday.

  • Speculation around bitcoin is the “very definition of a bubble,” Credit Suisse Group AG CEO Tidjane Thiam told reporters in Zurich on Thursday. “The only reason today to buy or sell bitcoin is to make money,” and such speculation “has rarely led to a happy end,” Thiam said.

  • Themis Trading LLC raised a red flag this week after CME Group Inc. announced plans to introduce bitcoin futures, saying the world’s largest exchange owner appeared to have “caved in” to pressure from clients. “A bitcoin future would be placing a seal of approval around a very risky, unregulated instrument that has a history of fraud and manipulation,” the firm said in a blog post.

  • JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon remains one of Wall Street’s most strident bitcoin opponents, saying in October that people who buy the currency are “stupid” and that governments will eventually crush it.

On the Fence


  • While CME’s decision to offer bitcoin futures by the end of the year appears to be an endorsement of the currency’s viability, CEO Terry Duffy demurred when asked whether he’s concerned about a potential bubble. “I’ve seen a lot of different bubbles over the last 37 years,” he said on Bloomberg TV. “It’s not up to me to predict if it’s a bubble or not -- what I’m here to do is to help people manage risk.”

  • Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein isn’t sure what to make of bitcoin and is unwilling to reject the digital currency just yet. “I know that once upon a time, a coin was worth $5 if it had $5 worth of gold in it,” Blankfein said in another Bloomberg TV interview. “Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat ... maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus.”

  • While Thomas J. Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors has turned cautious on bitcoin in the short term because of its big gains, he remains a long-term bull on the digital currency -- maintaining a 2022 price target of $25,000.

Unfortunately for the environmentalists, we suspect the Bitcoin horse has bolted and only the dreaded hand of government can rein it back.









Thursday, October 26, 2017

ECB Preview: Here"s What Draghi Will Announce On Thursday

Thursday"s ECB meeting is expected to be one of the most important in recent years: Mario Draghi has signaled, and is widely expected to announce a blueprint of what the central bank"s QE tapering will look like beyond 2017, and while no actual tightening will be implemented - either via rates of asset purchases - the ECB is expected to announce it will cut its €60bn/month bond purchases in roughly half starting in January 2018 and lasting for the next 9-15 months.



Courtesy of RanSquawk, here are the key parameters of Thursday"s meeting:


  • Rate Decision due at 1245BST/0645CDT and Press Conference at 1330BST/0730CDT

  • The ECB is widely  expected to keep all rates on hold, with rate hikes not expected until after conclusion of current QE programme

  • The ECB is expected to unveil a road-map for reducing the pace of asset purchases given rhetoric from Draghi at the previous press conference

  • Consensus far from clear on how much the ECB will reduce purchases by and how long they will be extended for 

RATE/ASSET PURCHASE EXPECTATIONS


  • DEPOSIT RATE: Forecast to remain unchanged at -0.40%. The rate was last adjusted in March 2016, when it was cut by 10bps.

  • REFI RATE: Forecast to remain unchanged at 0.00%. The rate was last adjusted in March 2016, when it was cut by 5bps.

  • MARGINAL RATE: Forecast to remain unchanged at 0.25%. The rate was last adjusted in March 2016, when it was cut by 5bps.

  • ASSET PURCHASES: Views on this front are particularly wide-ranging. A Reuters poll suggests that the ECB will start trimming monthly asset purchases to EUR 40bln from current EUR 60bln in January. Views are mainly split on  whether this will be via a 6- or 9-month extension. However, Bloomberg News reports that the Bank will half purchases to EUR 30bln (a view backed by recent source reports) while extending the programme by 9-months in order to take the total size of purchases to around EUR 2.5trl; a level seen by some as their maximum purchase limit. (Discussed in greater detail later on in the report)

CURRENT ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE


  • RATES: “We expect [rates] to remain at their present levels for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases.” (ECB statement, 7/Sept)

  • ASSET PURCHASES: “Net asset purchases, at the current monthly pace of EUR 60bln, are intended to run until the end of December 2017, or beyond, if necessary” (ECB statement, 7/Sept)

  • GROWTH: “The risks to the growth outlook are broadly balanced.” (ECB statement, 7/Sept)

  • INFLATION: “While the ongoing economic expansion provides confidence that inflation will gradually head to levels in line with our inflation aim, it has yet to translate sufficiently into stronger inflation dynamics. Measures of underlying inflation have ticked up slightly in recent months but, overall, remain at subdued levels. Therefore, a very substantial degree of monetary accommodation is still needed for underlying inflation pressures to gradually build up and support headline inflation developments in the medium term.” (ECB statement, 7/Sept)

POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE


  • RATES: Expected to stick to current rhetoric with any adjustments on rates not expected until QE unwind as part of their ‘sequencing’ efforts.

  • ASSET PURCHASES: This will hinge on what action the ECB will take. (Expectations for this are discussed below).

  • GROWTH: No change to guidance expected on this front. RBC states there has been little in the way of economic data flows to materially alter the economic backdrop.

  • INFLATION: Similarly to the growth story, little has changed on the inflation front to require any adjustment to current guidance. 

FUTURE PATH OF QE PROGRAMME


Background:


Despite inflation in the Euro-area (1.5% Y/Y headline) still short of the ECB’s ‘close to but below 2%’ target, the Bank has

found itself under pressure to set out a road-map on how they will curtail purchases. This is a by-product of a pick-up

in Euro-area sentiment and growth expectations but more pertinently, the concerns on the governing council surrounding the

Bank moving ever closer to their alleged self-imposed purchase limit of around EUR 2.5trl (set to reach EUR 2.28trl by yearend)


Expectations for such a blueprint were stoked by comments from ECB Draghi at his most recent press conference stating that very

preliminary talks had begun on asset purchases with discussions based on the length of the programme and size of the

purchases. Draghi then went on to add that the ‘bulk of decisions will be taken in October’.


Since then, rhetoric from the Bank has done little to pull-back expectations of a major announcement this month. However, many

members appear to be trying to soothe markets by not being too bullish in the desires to remove accommodation with the likes of Draghi, Praet and Hansson all opting to use the phrase ‘recaliberation’ instead of ‘taper’ when talking about unwinding

purchases. Furthermore, even some of the more hawkish members such as Weidmann have tried to reassure markets by stating

that policy will remain accommodative even after QE exit, with his German counterpart Lautenschlaeger suggesting that current

downward forces on in inflation are merely temporary. As such, this suggests that any action taken by the bank will likely be mindful

of any market backlash by being too aggressive with members stressing the need for patience and persistence. However, there

has been little communication by policymakers on the specifics of what to look out for and as such, unless there are any

further developments heading into the meeting after this report has been published, consensus will likely be far from

clear.


Current expectations:


Overview: Expectations for the Bank’s future plans focus on two key aspects of the programme; it’s size and it’s duration with purchases currently running at EUR 60bln a month and due to expire in December of this year. For the reasons stated above, the current size is expected to be reduced from its current level with the programme to be extended in order to avoid any type of ‘taper-tantrum’.


Source reports: In the immediate aftermath of the previous press conference, source comments suggested the Bank could cut asset purchases to EUR 20 or 40bln a month, with extension options including 6- or 9- months. Given the wide range of potential future purchases from these source reports (EUR 120-360bln), markets have been struggling to get a gauge on where the balance of views at the Bank lies. As such, source reports have been one of the main tools used by the market to gain consensus. The most recent of these reports suggested that the Bank could cut purchases to EUR 30bln with a 9-month extension due to fears regarding limits on available purchases. The same sources also reported that EUR 25bln for 9 months could be a more secure approach to avoid falling short of available bonds. That said, the report highlighted that no key decision have yet been made and as such, the decision taken by the bank could be one that goes right to wire. Given the lack of market consensus, it is plausible that the ECB could release further source reports in order to communicate their potential decision  ahead of the event.


Newswire polling: Given the lack of clarity in market expectations it is useful to look at newswire surveys given they typically highlight where the balance of views lie in the market. However, even on this front, major vendors report differing views on what action the ECB could take. A Reuters poll suggests the ECB will start trimming monthly asset purchases to EUR 40bln from current EUR 60bln in January. Expectations were, however, relatively wide-ranging with expectations of cuts between EUR 5-40bln. Fourteen of 32 surveyed (who expect a fixed end-date) think the programme will run for a further 6-months from January, thirteen of 42 look for an extension to September (a view backed by recent source reports) and the remainder expect it to run until December 2018. Note, some also hold the view that the ECB could leave the programme open-ended in order to not cause too much of a stir in the market via a ‘taper-tantrum’. Separately, Bloomberg News reported that the consensus is for asset purchases to be cut to around EUR 30bln and extended by 9-months which would take the bank’s total size of purchases to just over EUR 2.5trl; the bank’s alleged self-imposed bond-buying limit.


 



Market reaction:


 The market reaction to this week’s meeting could carry a lot of volatility given the lack of clear consensus. As such, to help

clients we have referenced Rabobank’s, BofA"s and Citi"s cheat sheets to depict what could be interpreted as ‘hawkish’ or ‘dovish’ reactions. Note, a

hawkish reaction would typically lead to (all things equal and in very basic terms), appreciation of the EUR, downside in equities

and fixed income markets. A dovish reaction would be the converse of these moves. Note that the below categorizations are based

on views provided by Rabobank and not out own. Furthermore, the values stated below refer to what the pace of future purchases

would be, not the size of the cut.


Here"s Rabo:


  • Very hawkish: EUR 20bln and a 6-month extension

  • Hawkish: EUR 20bln and a 9-month extension or EUR 30bln and a 6-month extension

  • Neutral: EUR 20bln and a 12-month extension or EUR 30bln and a 9-month extension

  • Dovish: EUR 40bln and a 6-month extension or EUR 30bln and a 12-month extension

  • Very Dovish: EUR 40bln and a 9-month extension or EUR 40bln and a 12-month extension


Alternatively, here is Bank of America"s Matrix...



... and Citigroups.



Below are Citi"s conclusions:


  • For 10yr Bunds, yields fall around 25bp in the most dovish scenario (€40bn x 12mth) and rise around 24bp in the most hawkish scenario (€20bn x 6mth). Figure 1 above summarizes the full set of results for Bunds.

  • The most market neutral scenarios, according to the model, are €20bn x 12mth, €30bn x 9mth and €40bn x 6mth.

  • This is broadly consistent with the Reuters poll (taken 11-14 September) which suggested the consensus amongst economists was for €40bn (range €30- 50bn) over 6mths (range 3-12mths).

  • Cross-checking the model output (based on policy signals) with the total size of APP extension shows a clear relationship (Figure 2). The model therefore assumes that there is less of a role for the ‘intensity’ of purchases.

  • The market neutral size for APP upsizing appears to be around +€250bn

  • The Citi house view is for an extension in the form of an ‘envelope’ (without specifying a monthly purchase rate) of €150bn (with upside risk of €210bn). That could lead to a near-term sell-off of around 15-20bp.

  • The scenarios presented assume deliverability. But, the most dovish options undoubtedly would be more challenging to implement (see below) given scarcity constraints. In terms of likelihood, we would put less weight on these scenarios which skews the risk towards a bearish reaction on 26 October.

Finally, a breakdown of expectations by bank:


  • Barclays - Think that QE will be extended for a longer period (nine months) but at a lower pace of EUR 30bln per month, and do

    not rule out a 12-month extension at an even lower pace of EUR 20-25bln. Do not expect the ECB to commit to tapering towards

    zero at the end of the extended programme as the GC will likely want to keep all options open in case economic or market

    conditions deteriorate in the meantime.

  • Deutsche Bank - Now expect a larger reduction in the pace of QE – from EUR 60bln to EUR 30bln (not EUR 40bln). To

    compensate, expect (i) a longer extension of QE – nine months rather than six months – (ii) a commitment to not changing the

    sequencing of exit and (iii) the introduction of conditionality into the definition of “well past” within the rates guidance.

  • HSBC - Expect six months of asset purchases at a reduced pace of EUR 40bln per month to start in January. Although, it is hard to

    have huge conviction given the near infinite possibilities. Do not think the ECB will set an end-date for purchases given concerns

    that underlying inflation pressures are still insufficient.

  • IFR - Central scenario is for the ECB to buy EUR 20bln per month over 12-months. The most important element to the ECB’s exit

    strategy is not QE but sequencing of when rate hikes will happen.

  • ING - Expect the ECB to announce a ‘lower for longer’ tapering, as in December 2016, reducing the monthly QE purchases to 25bn

    and extending them until the end of 2018. Expect Draghi to emphasise ‘sequencing’, i.e. the fact that interest rates will remain low

    (far) beyond the end of QE which should help to anchor interest rate expectations. Such a strategy would also help to immunise the

    ECB’s monetary policy against further exchange rate fluctuations.

  • Lloyds - Forecast an announcement of a reduction in monthly purchases to EUR 30bln from the current pace of EUR 60bln, but

    an extension of the programme to at least September 2018. The ECB is likely to maintain its flexibility, keeping open the option to

    increase monthly purchases, should it be needed.

  • Morgan Stanley - Have slightly amended their call and now expect the central bank to announce that the APP will be extended up

    to September 2018, or beyond if necessary. But, from January onwards, the pace of purchases will likely be lowered to EUR 30bln

    per month.

  • Nordea – Expect an extension of the asset purchases by at least six months, by reducing the monthly net purchase volume from

    EUR 60bln per month to EUR 30bln, effective from January 2018. This would be in line with the need for further substantial

    monetary accommodation, while at the same time reflecting bond scarcities and the ECB’s confidence that ongoing growth above

    potential should drive core inflation further up over time.

  • Pictet – Expect the ECB to announce a 9-month extension of asset purchases, until at least September 2018, at a monthly pace of

    EUR 30bln. The ECB’s emphasis on “patience and persistence” means that an even longer QE extension is possible, e.g. at EUR

    20-25bln for 12 months.

  • Rabobank – Believe that QE will be wound down in three steps of EUR 20bln, bringing purchases to zero in H2 2018. Rabo admit

    that their scenario is on the more hawkish side of the tapering spectrum. If the ECB opts for such an exit, this could lead to a

    negative market reaction in the short-run. However, they would argue that ultimately the flexibility given by this approach could

    actually help stabilising yields in the long run (and so limit sharp movements).

  • RBC - Look for a reduction by at least EUR 30bln in net terms, possibly even more. The duration of the programme is likely to

    remain open ended with an initial date set at least 9 months from the current end date, i.e. in Sep 2018. Forward guidance should

    be strengthened and re-iterated in the press conference and Q&A – particularly the sequencing element.

  • SocGen - Expect the ECB to extend QE for nine months, at a monthly pace of EUR 25bln. Expect the ECB to keep the door open

    to more QE thereafter if needed. Maintain their view of rate hikes in March and June 2019 to put an end to the negative deposit

    rate.

  • TD Securities - look for the ECB to announce QE at EUR 30bln/month for 12 months. Recent ECB communication has suggested

    that emphasis will be on the duration of QE rather than the pace. This longer extension of QE should be coupled with unchanged

    forward guidance, where Draghi will emphasise that purchases will continue through December 2018 “or beyond, if necessary” and

    will remain firm on sequencing, with rates not rising until “well past” the end of QE. This should see any expectations for rate hikes

    pushed back into the second half of 2019.

  • UBS - Expect the ECB will cut its monthly asset purchases from EUR 60bln to EUR 30bln as of January, with a commitment for

    nine months, i.e., until end-September 2018. UBS think the ECB will leave open whether it will extend QE after September and hint

    that this decision will be taken in a data- dependent fashion, closer to the time.






Wednesday, October 25, 2017

China Regulator Instructs Companies To Delay Bad Results Until After Congress

In the U.S., equity markets have officially reached the phase in the bubble where fundamentals are almost entirely irrelevant and stocks trade up irrespective of whether company earnings are positive or negative...in technical terms you could say we"re in the later stages of the BTFD phase of the economic cycle. 


That said, as Bloomberg points out today, regulators in China still have to be a bit more "creative" to quell market volatility during important national events.  As such, the China Securities Regulatory Commission has sent out a notice to public companies kindly requesting that they delay their earnings report during China"s Communist Party Congress...but only if they"re going to be bad.








China’s securities watchdog has asked some loss-making companies to avoid publishing quarterly results this week as authorities seek to ensure stock-market stability during the Communist Party Congress, according to people familiar with the matter.


 


The China Securities Regulatory Commission made its requests via the country’s stock exchanges, the people said, asking not to be named as they’re not authorized to talk to the media. At least 17 Shenzhen-listed companies announced delays to their earnings reports from Oct. 20 to Oct. 24, up from three during the same period last year, exchange filings show. The CSRC declined to comment, while China’s bourses didn’t respond to faxed questions.


 


Chinese regulators have stepped up efforts to quell market volatility during the twice-a-decade congress, a highly-choreographed reshuffling of the country’s top leadership that’s expected to shape President Xi Jinping’s influence into the next decade. While the smallest equity swings in 25 years suggest government interference has worked, critics argue that China’s leaders have backpedaled on a pledge to give market forces a more central role in the world’s second-largest economy.



And, to our great shock, the strategy seems to be effective:



Of course, you can"t be too blatant in your attempts to control markets so a lot of companies have suddenly decided they need to "finish checking earnings reports" while others simply said they "have a lot on our plate to deal with" and can"t be bothered by silly regulatory filings at this point in time.








Shandong Minhe Animal Husbandry Co., which farms chickens, and Shenzhen Hifuture Electric Co., an electrical equipment maker, were among the Shenzhen-listed companies asked to withhold their results this week, the people said.


 


Shandong Minhe, which estimated a loss for the Jan.-Sept. period in an Oct. 13 filing, said on Sunday that it hasn’t finished checking the content of its earnings report and will postpone its release, previously scheduled for Tuesday, to Oct. 30. Shenzhen Hifuture, which also projected a Jan.-Sept. loss on Oct. 13, gave this explanation for a similar delay in a Sunday filing: “We have a lot on our plate to deal with.”


 


Shandong Minhe declined to comment further when contacted by Bloomberg News. The stock dropped 1.1 percent on Tuesday and is down 35 percent this year. Shenzhen Hifuture, whose shares have been suspended since January, didn’t immediately reply to an email.


 


Most of the 17 Shenzhen-traded companies that announced delays to their results had previously predicted losses or steep earnings declines, filings reviewed by Bloomberg show. Ten of the companies declined on Tuesday, while one was little changed and one rose. Trading in five of the stocks was suspended.



Of course, now that the cat"s out of the bag, we"re going to go out on a limb and suggest it might be a safe bet to go ahead and unload any company that delays earnings reports over the next week or so...just a hunch.









Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Human Traders Are Trouncing The Machines

The contemporary low volatility trading environment has been kind to actively managed equity funds - particularly if they piled into large-cap momentum stocks like Facebook and Amazon, which have been responsible for the bulk of this year’s rally.


But while active managers have enjoyed three quarters of strong returns, quant funds – purportedly the future of asset management, according to many an “expert” on Wall Street – are falling further and further behind. As Bloomberg reports, during the first nine months of 2017, the average equity fund was up 9.7 percent while quant funds rose only 0.6 percent, according to data from Hedge Fund Research.



The striking reversal has validated the views of the handful of quant-fund skeptics on Wall Street, many of whom were previously branded as “luddites” for questioning the inherent superiority of algorithm-driven investment strategies. Quant funds, as we are learning, don’t function well in a low volatility environment because there are fewer opportunities to exploit small disparities in price.





The environment that lifts stock pickers - steady markets that enable their long-term trades - is not so friendly to quants. They do best in periods of volatility and dispersion, when their algorithms can find small price disparities to exploit. But the U.S. stock market has been unusually tranquil since last year’s presidential race. At an average level of 11.6 since Election Day, the CBOE Volatility Index has hovered about 40 percent below its lifetime average.



“To a certain extent they are lowly correlated," Tim Ng, chief investment officer of Clearbrook Global Advisors, said of the two strategies. “The factors that drive positive returns in each are different, so what helps one doesn’t necessarily help another.” His firm invests in hedge funds.



Despite their recent underperformance, quant funds have continued to receive the bulk of hedge fund inflows. Last year, total hedge fund assets AUM dropped for the first time in years as investors pulled money from actively managed funds and reallocated to both passive and quantitative strategies.


Still, both quant funds and traditional discretionary managers have on average continued to underperform the S&P 500.





Equity funds betting on technology have posted some of the biggest gains in the first three quarters. Light Street Capital Management’s Halogen fund, which focuses on technology, media and telecommunications stocks, soared 44 percent, said a person familiar with the matter. The flagship fund at Philippe Laffont’s tech-focused Coatue Management jumped almost 24 percent, according to an investor letter seen by Bloomberg News.



Computer-driven funds struggled to keep pace in the period. BlueTrend, the main fund at Leda Braga’s Systematica Investments, dropped almost 7 percent, another person said. The Diversified fund at $6.6 billion Aspect Capital fell 4.7 percent, according to an investor letter seen by Bloomberg News. Winton Group’s Futures fund is about flat on the year, according to a person with knowledge of the returns.



While the hedge fund industry’s overall performance is improving, it still lags behind the S&P 500 Index, which was up 14.2 percent with reinvested dividends this year through September. Funds across all strategies on average returned 4.3 percent on an asset-weighted basis in the period, compared with 0.7 percent in the first nine months of last year, according to Hedge Fund Research.



As we noted above, funds focusing on tech stocks have posted some of this year"s biggest gains:





Equity funds betting on technology have posted some of the biggest gains in the first three quarters. Light Street Capital Management’s Halogen fund, which focuses on technology, media and telecommunications stocks, soared 44 percent, said a person familiar with the matter. The flagship fund at Philippe Laffont’s tech-focused Coatue Management jumped almost 24 percent, according to an investor letter seen by Bloomberg News.



And to be sure, not all quant funds have had a bad year. Bloomberg managed to find one that’s up 53%.





Not all quants have had a bad year. The QIM Tactical Aggressive Fund gained 53 percent in the first nine months, according to a letter seen by Bloomberg. Nor have all traditional stock pickers done well. Crispin Odey, who is known for his bearish bets, saw his European equity fund sink 14 percent this year through Sept. 15 in its U.S. dollar share class.



* * *


After Eagle’s View Asset Management, a $500 million fund-of-funds that invests with 30 managers, half of them quants, recorded its worst monthly performance ever in June, the fund’s manager Neal Berger penned a letter to clients explaining why quant strategies have broken down over the past year.


It comes down to two factors, he said:


1.Increased competition: more investors are using algorithms to fight over the same inefficiencies in the market.





“Now every bank has a factor model,” said Benjamin Dunn, president of the portfolio consulting practice at Alpha Theory LLC, which works with managers overseeing about $200 billion.



“You’ve had a democratization of a lot of data and analytics that were once the domain of very systematic quant investors. Everything is getting arbitraged away.”



2. Low volatility: quantitative funds are most successful in an environment where there is large disagreements in the market over the prices of assets. Today there is little disagreement, and the best way to earn outsized returns is placed highly leveraged bets that the market will remain calm. That"s working for some investors, but is far too risky for others.





In fact, the persistently low level of volatility has brought out an increasing number of hedge funds strategies oriented toward regularly selling volatility. Although we believe that this is "picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer", shockingly, these Funds have been some of the best performing strategies over the past years.



Although our guess is as good as anyone"s, we believe the shockingly low levels of volatility has to do with an increase in computer driven, quantitative trading coupled with banks selling options to offer "yield enhancement" structured products to investors who are starving for this yield.



This feedback loop, the increase in assets run by hedge funds, and, the rise of quants, has created unusual patterns, dislocations, and low levels of volatility.



While those simply following the broader market indices wouldn"t realize anything is amiss, it is our belief that these factors have created a challenging mix for trading oriented strategies. It won"t last forever, but, it could last longer than we can.



Additionally, he explains, systematic strategies require an endless supply of victims to thrive, and the growth of quant and passive funds has caused dumb money to behave unpredictably or disappear altogether.





With all the geniuses in quant, high-powered computers, and enormous data, where are the "suckers" who are providing the juice for all of these absolute return quantitative strategies?



Simply put, the "edge providers" have moved aggressively into passive index funds and broader market ETFs.



As such, we have a condition amongst the traditional quantitative strategies whereby we have robots trading against robots. Without a steady source of "edge providers", these "edge demanders" are just trading money back and forth with each other.



We believe increased quantitative trading coupled with passive indexation by retail, and, low levels of realized and implied volatility may be creating a feedback loop that has caused unusual price movements in a variety of securities that have challenged trading oriented strategies.



Of course, all of this could change shortly as market strategists like Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett warn that a sharp selloff could be in store for the fourth quarter. Investors have upped their bullish bets through S&P 500 calls, buying more S&P 500 delta over the past two weeks than at any point since 2007.



In summarizing the contemporary market, Hartnett explains that the "best reason to be bearish in Q4 is there is no reason to be bearish.”


Complacent active managers ought to keep this in mind.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Caught On Video: Americans Beaten By Erdogan Supporters In New York City

Once again supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have roughed up American protesters on American soil. As Erdogan delivered a speech to supporters in New York City at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square on Thursday, a handful of protesters began holding up signs and yelling anti-Erdogan slogans. Men in black suits immediately rushed the protesters and began violently removing them while the crowd punched and shoved those being carried out.


Video released by Turkish media present at the event clearly shows at least two of the protesters being repeatedly punched in the face by Erdogan supporters as they were taken out of the room. And it appears that Erdogan actually encouraged the violence from the podium, calling the protesters - which included Americans - "terrorists". 



Violence erupts at an Erdogan speech Thursday: After American protesters were beaten by Erdogan supporters, he called the protesters "terrorists" from the podium (see 1:40 mark). 



The disruption appears to have started when Lucas Chapman - a young American activist and former YPG volunteer fighter (Kurdish "People"s Protection Units") - yelled out in the middle of Erdogan"s speech: "Murderer! You"re a terrorist, get out of my country!"



Video shows Chapman immediately being shoved to the ground from behind, just before being seized by what appear to be security guards, though it"s not confirmed if any of the guards were part of Erdogan"s presidential security detail. Chapman was punched in the face by an unidentified man wearing a suit before disappearing off camera as he was carried out of the room.




Chapman told Zero Hedge that the moment the protest began, he was assaulted by the crowd. "Erdogan"s supporters jumped on me almost immediately, shoving me out of my chair and eventually throwing me to the floor," he said. "They kicked and punched me repeatedly until the security guards lifted me and dragged me out. As I was being dragged out, Turks leaned into the aisle and continued punching me in the head and stomach."


Chapman is uncertain whether or not Erdogan"s body guards were directly involved as he says his face was quickly pressed to the floor and was thus unable to see while being beaten in the initial moments of the event. There were seven protesters total in the group and they escaped with only minor injuries. 


The ordeal caused Erdogan to pause his speech while the entire room erupted in pandemonium as body guards rushed through the crowd. The Turkish president leaned over to one of his aides in confusion and was visibly angry while glaring out at the audience.



Another man, carried out after Chapman, was shown on video being viciously assaulted by Erdogan loyalists waiving Turkish flags. Footage shows the man initially on the ground being kicked while what appears to be hotel security attempted to hold the crowd back. The protester was repeatedly punched in the face while being escorted out.


In addition, Erdogan seems to have encouraged the violence in the very moments it was taking place by calling the protesters "terrorists". Erdogan announced from the podium: "My dear brothers, my dear brothers, my dear brothers, I have an important request from you: don"t let three to five impertinent people, three to five hall terrorists ruin our lovely gathering."



Referencing a familiar theme, Erdogan"s speech singled out the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Gülen movement as "terrorists" while equating both groups with ISIS. Thursday"s violence follows a major incident last May in which at least 12 people were seriously injured after Erdogan"s personal security detail attacked peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC. Turkey has a history of aggressively cracking down on both protests and journalists, especially in relation to Kurdish issues. US federal indictments have been issued for 15 of the Turkish security officials involved in the May attacks, which occurred on American soil. 


Meanwhile, it appears that Erdogan was caught lying about the May incident this week. He claimed in an interview on Monday that Trump personally apologized to him for the violent encounter, which Turkey blames on Kurdish groups and DC police: "President Trump called me about a week ago about this issue. He said that he was sorry, and he told me that he was going to follow up on this issue when we come to the United States within the framework of an official visit." However, the White House denied that any apology had been issued over the embassy violence.


On Wednesday the Turkish president shocked an audience at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum in New York when he said that the hundreds of journalists currently imprisoned in Turkey after a recent crackdown on government critics are "not journalists, they"re terrorists." When asked by Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait why his country has put more journalists in jail than any other nation, Erdogan responded, “The ones who have been sentenced, who have been imprisoned, are not journalists." He then made the bizarre claim that, "Many have been involved in burglaries and some have been caught red handed as they were trying to empty ATM machines.” And added, “Everyone else seems to think they’re journalists just because they say so."


Turkey has recently topped the list of countries routinely engaged in Twitter censorship and has over the past years completely blocked social media platforms nation-wide at various times. 


All of this causes us to ask: how long before both American leadership and the media begin acknowledging Erdogan for the thuggish tin pot dictator that he truly is? Apparently, he"s no longer content to crackdown on speech in his own country, but now willingly sics his fanatical mob even on Americans exercising free speech on American soil.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Ban On Kaspersky Software Exposes The Hypocrisy Of US' Internet Agenda

Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,


On September 18, the US Senate voted to ban the use of products from the Moscow-based cyber security firm Kaspersky Lab by the federal government, citing national security risk. The vote was included as an amendment to an annual defense policy spending bill approved by the Senate on the same day. The measure pushed forward by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen has strong support in the House of Representatives, which also must vote on a defense spending bill. The legislation bars the use of Kaspersky Lab software in government civilian and military agencies.



On September 13, a binding directive issued by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke, ordered federal agencies to remove Kaspersky Lab products from government computers over concerns the Russia-based cybersecurity software company might be vulnerable to Russian government influence. All federal departments and agencies were given 30 days to identify any Kaspersky products in use on their networks. The departments have another 60 days to begin removal of the software. The statement says, «The department is concerned about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies, and requirements under Russian law that allow Russian intelligence agencies to request or compel assistance from Kaspersky and to intercept communications transiting Russian networks». The Russian law does not mention American networks, nevertheless it is used as a pretext to explain the concern.


Similar bans against US government use of Kaspersky products have been suggested before. In 2015, Bloomberg News reported that the company has «close ties to Russian spies».


According to US News, scrutiny of the company mounted in 2017, fueled by U.S. intelligence assessments and high-profile federal investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This summer, the General Service Administration, which oversees purchasing by the federal government, removed Kaspersky from its list of approved vendors. In June, a proposal prohibiting the US military from using the company"s products was reportedly included in the Senate"s draft of the Department of Defense"s budget rules. US intelligence leaders said earlier this year that Kaspersky Lab was already generally not allowed on military networks.


Kaspersky Lab has been producing widely lauded anti-virus software for 20 years. Today, it boasts 400 million customers around the world. Suspected of being involved in cyber espionage, the leading antivirus programs producer concluded that it was «caught in the middle of a geopolitical fight» and is being «treated unfairly even though the company has never helped, nor will help, any government in the world with its cyberespionage or offensive cyber efforts». Eugene Kaspersky, co-founder and CEO of Kaspersky Lab, has repeatedly denounced the allegations against his company as false and lacking credible or public evidence. He accepted the invitation to testify before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The testimony is scheduled on Sept. 27. Too late! Even if he proves that his company is innocent, the ban will be in force. It has been introduced without giving him a chance to speak on the issue and dissipate the fears.


Kaspersky highlighted that more than 85% of its revenue comes from outside Russia. The US measure will inevitably damage the company’s image and undermine the competitive position of the Russian company internationally. Best Buy has already said it will no longer sell software made by the Russian company.


All the decisions have been taken without giving the company a chance to openly address or mitigate the concerns. There has been no thorough investigation of its activities on US soil. No credible evidence has been presented to support the accusations. It all smacks of unfair competition. The Kaspersky Lab software is quite popular in the United States, and the company’s competitors will no doubt look to capitalize on this opportunity.


The move is part of anti-Russian hysteria that hit the United States. Kaspersky Lab has come under a politically-charged attack simply because it is Russian. Can anybody imagine Russia’s authorities saying that Apple and Microsoft were working hand in glove with the CIA and, therefore, their products were considered a security threat and should be banned?


A few months ago the authorities of New Hampshire, the state Jeanne Shaheen is from, were seriously considering a ban on Russian vodka imports and sales! Meanwhile, the US energy exporters use the Countering America"s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to vie for the European energy market.


On August 14, President Trump signed a memorandum that directs US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to determine whether an investigation is needed into alleged unfair Chinese trade practices. The move represents the first step in a process that could allow the president to impose tariffs on Chinese imports or other punishing trade actions. The struggle for «fair trade practices» takes place against flagrant violations of international competition rules by the United States as illustrated by the unfair treatment of Kaspersky Lab.


At the same time, the US takes no measures against Microsoft, which is abusing its dominance in the PC operating system market, creating obstacles for independent software security vendors by distributing its own Defender anti-virus software with the ubiquitous Windows operating system.


The message has been sent. Hypocrisy at the core of US internet agenda is becoming untenable. It cannot continue to advocate for an open web, while at the same time using the tactics of unfair competition. The narrative that United States is the defender of free Internet appears to be dead.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Stossel slams BOC Alt-Media ban: "Be nice or we kick you out."

Contributed by Sprott Money


Original available here:



Stossel, Moen Weigh In on Bank of Canada Free Market Economist, Alt-media Ban - Peter Diekmeyer


September 15, 2017



Criticism continues to mount in the wake of the Bank of Canada’s exclusion of free market
economists and the two-tier media strategy it implemented for a key policy-making conference, held yesterday in Ottawa.


The conference’s goal was to air out preliminary issues related to the BOC’s inflation-control
agreement with the Canadian government, which is renewed every five years.


Canada’s monetary policy politburo, which, through its interest rate policies, sets or influences
prices throughout the economy, is currently reflecting on how much more it
will ask ordinary Canadians to pay for their food, clothing and shelter during
the coming years.


Stossel: the establishment protects itself


However, there were few ordinary Canadians to be seen at the BOC workshop, which was essentially paneled
by bureaucrats, university professors and other government-financed officials.


“The establishment protects itself,” said John Stossel, a Fox News contributor, who was in town to address the
Montreal Economics Institute about the perils of central planning.
“People have become comfortable with the idea of a few old men setting public
policy in a back room.”


The long-time investigative journalist, author and consumer activist, who has followed
government closely for decades, was more nuanced regarding the Bank of Canada’s
ban on alternative media.


“I can understand their reasoning,” said Stossel. “You can’t really have a rabble disturbing things.”


BOC to MSM: be nice or we will kick you out


Stossel was more concerned about the message the BOC ban sends to mainstream media, such as the
Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, who were given preferential
access to the policy event.


“That’s a club that all governments have,” said Stossel, who recently began contributing to
Reason TV, a US-based free markets
web-cast. “It’s “be nice or we will kick you out.” The White House does that
too.”


Tim Moen, leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada, also broke his silence on the issue by
issuing a strong condemnation.


“The Bank of Canada is suffering from a real lack of free market input,” Moen wrote on a party-affiliated social media page. “It"s probably naive to imagine an institution charged with centrally planned
money creation would want input from critics.”




A perfect time to look “outside the box”


Surprisingly, one of the most obvious free market voices that the Bank of Canada ignored during
its consultation process came to the central bank’s defence.


“The reality is that most top monetary policy experts already work at central banks or at
university research departments that accept their ideas,” said David Howden, academic vice-president at the Mises Institute of Canada, and author of numerous papers dealing with monetary policy from a free markets
perspective.


“The bad news is that central banks are forced to refer to the same specialists over and over
again,” said Howden, who is currently working on a paper dealing with central
bank balance sheet analysis. “The fact that the current process is a multi-year
reflection makes it especially important that they consult outside opinions and
not rely on the presumption that the current framework is OK.”


Howden cited George Bragues, a professor at the University of Guelph-Humber, as one
example of an “outside the box” thinker who the BOC might have consulted.


A return to a gold standard?


Ironically, Stossel, who admits to not being a monetary expert nor an expert on Canada, has
offered interesting advice on the subject in the past.


“(Americans) should learn from Canada,” he wrote back in 2013. “The Canadians had no central bank when the Great Depression began, just
private banks issuing currency backed by gold. During the 1930s, not even one
Canadian bank failed. Thousands failed in the U.S.”


Stossel, who during his many years at ABC was regarded as one of America’s top
reporters, may be right. But a cursory glance suggests that they don’t make Canadians like they used to.


They don’t make economists the way they used to either.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Would You Pay $1,000 For Each Equity Research Piece You Read? Autonomous Research Thinks You Will

Would you pay $1,000 for each piece of equity research you read throughout the day?  How about $5,000 for an industry piece? 


Well, Autonomous Research, which was founded in 2009 by former Merrill Lynch analysts, is really hoping you"ll agree that those are appropriate clearing prices for their daily market wisdom.  According to Bloomberg, as equity research providers in the Europe continue to figure out how exactly to best comply with upcoming MiFID II rules, Autonomous thinks that a piecemeal approach will allow them to reach smaller funds that lack the resources to purchase more expensive annual contracts for bulge bracket research.





Autonomous Research LLP is offering a pay-as-you-go model for its European equity product in the run-up to the MiFID II rules, which are set to shake up the way money managers pay for analyst reports, people with knowledge of the matter said.



The prices for the new service start at $1,000 for a single stock report and climb to $5,000 for high-end industry research, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. Autonomous Research, which specializes in analysis of financial companies, also charges a single user $5,000 for access to its daily round-up of news and analysis, with the price per client falling as more sign up, the people said.



“We have been transparent with our clients on pricing for research since inception eight years ago,” said Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Firkins. “We have a clear and transparent pricing menu which we discuss proactively with existing and prospective clients.”



ER


Of course, as we recently pointed out, bigger firms like Barclays have opted for larger 1x, all-you-can-eat packages priced at the bargain basement rate of just $455,000 per year...it"s hard to imagine how hedgies won"t be knocking down their doors to gain access.





The firm is proposing three levels of service -- bronze, silver and gold -- with the premium package comprising unlimited reports, field trips and “occasional” one-on-one meetings with analysts and corporate executives, according to a pricing document seen by Bloomberg News. At the bottom end of the scale, read-only access to European research will start at 30,000 pounds.



At Barclays, even if clients stump up 350,000 pounds for the gold “trans-Atlantic” package, they could still end up spending more. “Bespoke” analyst work and corporate access is priced separately, according to the document. Field trips, industry events and company management meetings are also at the bank’s discretion, and analyst one-on-ones are “capped,” it shows.



Prices in the document may not apply to all clients, have been in flux and could still be subject to change, a person familiar with the process said, asking not to be identified discussing the matter. A Barclays spokesman declined to comment.



Banks are scrambling as they enter the last six months before the decades-old practice of sending out free analyst reports as a courtesy and marketing strategy comes to an end. The European Union’s MiFID II regulations, enforced from Jan. 3, require money managers to separate the trading commissions they pay from investment-research fees. This means banks in turn have to be more transparent, providing specific charges for their analysts’ time and work in order to comply.



Of course, the logical takeaway from these exorbitant offering prices, if they hold, is that institutional clients will ultimately be forced to consolidate their vendors...translation, so long to the small independent research shops.  Meanwhile, investment banks will be forced to control costs by trying to focus on writing reports that people actually read (vs. the 1% hit rate they have today).  All of which means that those shrinking analysts pools are about to completely collapse.




In fact, as McKinsey recently noted, up to 30% of research analysts could be at risk of losing their cushy banking jobs as result of Europe"s new regulations.





Europe’s impending ban on free research will cost hundreds of analysts their jobs with banks set to cut about $1.2 billion of investment on the area, according to a report by McKinsey & Co.



The consultancy estimates the $4 billion that the top-10 sell-side banks currently spend on research annually is likely to fall by 30 percent as clients become pickier about what they pay for, McKinsey Partner Roger Rudisuli said in an interview. Investment banks’ cash equity research headcount has fallen 12 percent to 3,900 since 2011 compared with as much as 40 percent in sales and trading, leaving the area facing “big cuts” to catch up, he said.



“Two to three global banking players will preserve their status in the new era, winning the execution arms race and dominating trading in equities around the globe,” McKinsey said in a report Wednesday, which Rudisuli helped write. “Over the coming five years, banks will need to make hard choices and play to their strengths. Not only will the top ranks be thinned out, there will be shakeouts in regional markets.”



Of course, as we"ve said before, almost any amount of money seems, at least to us, to be too much to have the same people give you the same advice over and over again, namely "buy more stocks, faster."

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

The Volcker Rule & The London Whale: "Dear Big Media, Get A Clue"

Authored by Chris Whalen via The Institutional Risk Analyst,






"It is not down in any map; true places never are."



"Moby Dick"


Herman Melville



News reports that prosecutors have dropped their case against Bruno Iksil, the former JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) trader many know as the “London Whale,” comes as no surprise to readers of The IRA Iksil, who resurfaced earlier this year, has been living in relative seclusion in France for the past few years.


In previous comments posted on Zero Hedge, we dispensed with the notion that the investment activities of Iksil and the office of the JPM Chief Investment Officer were either illegal or concealed from the bank’s senior management.  The fact is that Iksil and his colleagues at JPM were doing their jobs, namely generating investment gains for the bank.


The outsized bets made by the “whale” in credit derivatives contracts resulted in a loss in 2012, but the operation generated significant profits for JPM in earlier years.  As veteran risk manager Nom de Plumber told us in Zero Hedge in 2012:





“This JPM loss, whether $2BLN or even $5BLN, is modest in both absolute and relative terms, versus its overall profitability and capital base, and especially against the far greater losses at other institutions. In practical current terms, the hit resembles a rounding error, not a stomach punch.  As either taxpayers or long-term JPM investors, we should be more grateful than sorry about the JPM CIO Ina Drew.   If only other institutions could also do so ‘poorly’………”



When JPM and other large banks began to implement the Volcker Rule after the passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the activities of Iksil and his colleagues in New York began to come to light. Principal trading, which is now outlawed by the Volcker Rule, creates enormous opportunities – and conflicts -- for banks that act both as traders and lenders.  We wrote in ZH in 2012:





“[D]ear friends in the Big Media, it is time to get a collective clue.  The real problem with CDS trading by large banks such as JPM is not the speculative positions taken by traders like Bruno Iksil, but instead the vast conflict of interest between the lending side of the house and the trading side, whether the trader is on the arb desk or, in the case of Iksil, working for the CIO trading for the bank’s treasury.”



When caught in the act, the bank naturally cast Iksil’s activities as being somehow illicit and against company policy.  But in fact his trading activities had been understood, blessed and even directed by the JPM’s senior management going back years. Far from being a hedge for other exposures of the bank, in fact the strategy of the CIO’s office was to generate returns as the bank’s internal hedge fund.


When as early as 2010 discussions reportedly occurred about “hedging” Iksil’s illiquid credit derivative positions, presumably those involved understood that this was a risk position taken as part of a deliberate investment strategy. That Iksil apparently believed that he could not be bullied by other counterparties because of the fact of trading for JPM speaks to how he viewed his activities, which were entirely visible to other market participants.


The JPM CIO’s office under Ina Drew ran an active trading strategy, making markets around positions on a continuous basis to provide live valuations and generate short-term returns.  The fact that big banks no longer trade their investment books illustrates the diminution of liquidity that has occurred since the adoption of the Volcker Rule. But for the banks, the legacy of the London Whale and the larger implementation of Dodd-Frank has left a deep mark on risk managers and those concerned with maintaining internal systems and controls at large banks.


But now Iksil has accused JPM"s Chief Executive James Dimon of laying the ground for what was eventually a $6.2 billion loss, Reuters reports.  In an account on his website, Iksil also blames senior executives at the bank for the investment strategies that led to those losses.  Iksil’s account now sounds an awful lot like what we heard from his former colleagues in New York some six years ago.


At the time, JPM’s counsel had already mandated the elimination of the managers and traders in the CIO’s area as part of implementing the Volcker Rule, leading to a number of redundancies in New York.  We know about the Whale because of the implementation of the Volcker Rule.  But the key event that broke the scandal open was the public statement by Dimon, this in response to persistent press queries from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, that the rumors of losses in the CIO’s office were “a tempest in a teapot.”


But for the public statement by Dimon, which required additional clarification and disclosure, the activities of the CIO that might otherwise have been dealt with in the fine print of JPM’s earnings release.  Instead, JPM was forced to not only enhance disclosure of the CIO’s trading results, but then went through a firestorm of congressional hearings, regulatory questions and litigation that continues to this day.  We recall sitting in the analyst presentation at JPM’s HQ dealing with the London Whale as Ken Langone glared at the assembled audience of Sell Side analysts.


In his congressional testimony, Dimon attributes the bank’s loss to a modeling error, but in fact the exposure was simply ignored.  Notice that at no point has the financial media or regulators questioned the company line about what actually happened and when. Iksil’s statements seem to take us back down that road and, specifically, to suggest that senior management at JPM was actively aware of the strategies taken by the CIOs office years before the big losses occurred.  Our old pal Nom de Plumber commented over the weekend:





“In the end, the London Whale disaster reflected the mis-marking of generic Index CDS trades, which then-CFO Doug Braunstein ignored.   The problem was not complex risk modeling or market risk measurement.   The quants tried to re-jigger VaR measurement of the trades, to avoid breaching risk limits-----for CIO trades which Jamie specifically demanded of Ina Drew......regardless of preceding protests from risk managers like John Hogan and Robert Rupp.”



Nom de Plumber tells The IRA that Ina Drew was essentially running a hedge fund directed by Dimon and other senior managers, a fund that was largely kept outside of the bank’s risk management and reporting procedures. Consider the bizarre situation in 2011-2012 when counterparties of Iksil facing the JPM commercial bank were unable to make margin calls, but the JPM investment bank was making margin calls on these same counterparties for positions in the very same indexed credit derivatives.


Bruno Iksil has waited for the proverbial concrete to harden over the past few years before coming forward with his latest accusations. This makes it difficult or impossible for Dimon and his lieutenants to change their story now.  It will be very interesting indeed to see if anyone from the financial media or even the regulatory community picks up the new trail illuminated by Iksil’s statements.


The episode involving the London Whale illustrates how difficult it is to learn the truth about the inner working of large banks.  Big banks profit by exploiting information and conflicts found between the world of credit and the world of securities.  Indeed, the CIO"s office generated big returns for JPM over the decade or so that Iksil was with the bank. 


But the London Whale episode also shows in graphic terms why the Volcker Rule prohibitions against banks trading for their own account need to be preserved and strengthened.  There is a fundamental conflict between a bank acting as a lender and trading credit derivatives. 


More, if the CEO of a bank – any bank – can short circuit the internal controls of his institution in order to enhance returns with a bet at the credit derivative roulette table, then by definition that bank cannot be safe and sound.