Showing posts with label Institutional Investors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Institutional Investors. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Is Amazon Killing NYC Retailers Or Is The "Rent Just Too Damn High?"

A few weeks ago, the office of Council Member Helen Rosenthal of New York"s 6th District published the results of a business survey conducted on the Upper West Side that showed, among other things, that some 12% of retail store fronts lay vacant. 








Of the 1,332 storefronts that we surveyed, we identified 1,170 active businesses -- 88%.


 


Twelve percent of storefronts (161) were unoccupied. Please note that "unoccupied" includes recently closed businesses, as well as new spaces that were not yet leased.


 


Of the major commercial streets, Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue had the highest percentage of empty storefronts. Broadway had the largest number of empty storefronts (57), followed by Amsterdam Avenue (44) and Columbus Avenue (32).




What"s worse, the survey results revealed that retail vacancies in certain areas of the Upper West Side have nearly doubled over the past 10 years.



Of course, the fact that bricks-and-mortar retailers are struggling is hardly a new phenomenon...here are just a couple of our recent posts on the topic:


The question is whether New York City retailers, who have direct access to the wealthiest, and most densely populated, shoppers in the world, are simply succumbing to the "Amazon Effect" like the rest of the country or whether Manhattan landlords are contributing to their own demise by continuously hiking rents while ignoring softening demand in hopes that it goes away?  According to Rosenthal"s office, the "blissful ignorance of landlords" theory should not be underestimated.








There are many reasons why businesses open and close in our community — major rent increases being a central one. A recent report from the office of State Senator Brad Hoylman cites two separate studies, one estimating that the average commercial rent in Manhattan increased by 34% from 2004 to 2014; and another showing that rents jumped by 42% in Manhattan from 2012 to 2015.


 


Our office is also aware of instances where building owners have plans to re-develop their properties and are not interested in renting to commercial tenants in the short term.


 


An added challenge throughout our city is the fact that a significant number of family-owned businesses do not have a successor ready to take over when the owner is ready to retire. Earlier this year, the New York City Public Advocate released a policy brief which reported that an estimated 3,700 businesses across the state close each year due to an owner"s retirement --leading to the loss of over 13,000 jobs annually.


 


Commercial vacancies are an issue throughout Manhattan. The New York limes reported this summer that sections of Broadway in SoHo had vacancy rates as high as 20%.



Retail


But, as The Guardian points out, the key to understanding New York"s soaring retail vacancies might lie in the changing make-up of the city"s landlords.  Unlike prior decades in which more buildings were owned by mom-and-pop operations, today"s Manhattan landlords are more likely to be large institutional investors and/or hedge funds that are unwilling to drop rents to match retail conditions and are more eager to get a markup on their portfolio by leasing to a large, recognizable, luxury tenant.








“It’s not Amazon, it’s rent,” says Jeremiah Moss, author of the website and book Vanishing New York. “Over the decades, small businesses weathered the New York of the 70s with it near-bankruptcy and high crime. Businesses could survive the internet, but they need a reasonable rent to do that.”


 


“They are running small businesses out of the city and replacing them with chain stores and temporary luxury businesses,” says Moss.


 


In Vanishing New York, Moss writes of the toll the evisceration of distinct neighborhoods through real estate over-pricing has on the city. “It’s homogenizing and changing the character of the city,” he says. Even where landlords are offering competitive leases, they are often for two or five years, not the customary 10.


 


“We’re seeing more stores front emptying, and we’re seeing a lot of turnover where you see spaces fill temporarily and then empty. And it’s continuing to get worse,” he says.



New York retail property agent Robin Zendell also says it"s just too simple to blame Amazon. “When you see [that] every corner has a bank or a pharmacy, and there is a gym on the second floor, there’s a simple reason for that: people can’t afford the rent. Why did restaurants go to Brooklyn? Because it’s cool? No, because it was cheap, and [because] restaurateurs were sick of giving investors’ money away so they could pay thir rent.”


Of course, while "greedy" NY landlords are always a convenient scapegoat, we"re going to go out on a limb and suggest that a tripling of online sales as a percent of overall retail over the past 10 years may have something to do with Manhattan"s increasingly vacant store fronts...










Thursday, December 7, 2017

Banks Issue Last Minute Warning About Risks Of Bitcoin Futures, Ask Regulator For Review

As we countdown to the launch of bitcoin futures trading on the CBOE (10 December) and CME (18 December), the big banks – via the Futures Industry Association - have suddenly got cold feet about the risks. We don"t blame them, somebody"s going to get hurt, the only question is who. The banks are worried it could be them. The FIA’s “primary” members include all of the usual suspects like JPM, Goldman, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, etc. The risk they are most concerned about relates to clearing houses which, ultimately, they stand behind. The problem, of course, boils down to Bitcoin’s volatility, something we flagged after the CME announced circuit breakers early last month.


Having taken a gamble on bitcoin futures, which are set to begin trading by the end of the year, the CME is now seeking to avoid the consequences of what has emerged as both the cryptocurrency"s best and worst selling point: its unprecedented volatility…While the CME already uses daily vol limits on most other markets, including crude, gold and market futures, to temporarily halt trading when price swings get out of control, the CME has never before dealt with something like bitcoin



In June, Bloomberg showed how Bitcoin’s 30-day volatility had risen to 100%, which was comparable (at the time) with one of the most volatile financial instruments they (and we) could probably think of - a three-times levered ETF in junior gold miners.



The CME has proposed three trading limits for Bitcoin futures, 7%, 13% or 20% up or down from the previous day’s closing price. The first two thresholds, for 7% and 13% moves, are “soft” limits, which would trigger a two-minute pause in trading of bitcoin futures. The 20% limit would be a hard stop after which trading would be halted. In the first ten months of Bitcoin trading in 2017, Coindesk calculated there had been 69 days in which Bitcoin moved at least 7%, 11 days in which it moved 13% and two days in which it moved 20%. In fact, we had another 20% intra-day move on 29 November 2017.



As the Financial Times reports, the banks – via the Futures Industry Association – is sending a letter to the CFTC which it will publish today.


The world’s largest banks are pushing back on the introduction of bitcoin futures, raising concerns with US regulators that the financial system is ill-prepared for the launch of the contracts as the value of the volatile cryptocurrency has soared. On Wednesday, the price of bitcoin climbed to a fresh record high of more than $14,000. Institutional investors have been keen to trade the asset but only via a regulated market.



However, the planned launch in the next 10 days of futures contracts by the Chicago exchanges CME Group and CBOE Global Markets, given a green light from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last week, has prompted a backlash among the major brokers who backstop trading across the industry. The Futures Industry Association, the main futures industry lobby group, plans to send a letter to the CFTC that will be published on Thursday.



We could be forgiven for thinking this is all very “last minute”. The CME announced its launch of Bitcoin futures trading back in October and had been canvassing opinion from market participants, including the banks, for months beforehand. The FT confirms that it was seen a draft of the FIA’s letter in which the latter states that the introduction of Bitcoin futures “did not allow for proper public transparency and input”. This is self-evident, resulting from the launch of futures trading contracts being fast-tracked by all parties after Bitcoin’s price rose parabolically this year. As part of this fast track process, the CME and CBOE adopted a “self-certified regime” for the contracts, meaning that the normal regulatory oversight didn’t take place. As the FT notes, the FIA is belatedly calling for a review.


Using it (self-certified regime) for “these novel products does not align with the potential risks that underlie their trading and should be reviewed”, the draft reads. The CFTC warned last week during its approval process that the emerging cryptocurrency markets were largely unregulated and the agency had “limited statutory authority”. “It is also our understanding that not all risk committees of the relevant exchanges were consulted before the certification to launch these products,” the letter added.



Getting into the “nitty gritty”, even though the banks have been discussing the specification of the contracts for about six months (according to the CME), as the moment of truth approaches, they’ve “zeroed in” on the fragility of clearing houses. With so much Bitcoin trading occurs on other exchanges and outside the hours of CME/CBOE (even if they trade Sundays), the banks have realised their vulnerability.


Futures brokers are worried they will bear the brunt of the risk associated with bitcoin futures, because the margin that backstops the contract is placed in a clearing house. Clearing houses stand between two parties in a trade, managing the risk to the rest of the market if one side should default. They are mutually funded in part by banks to guard against the failure of their largest members. Several brokers among the top 10 largest providers have privately confirmed to the Financial Times that they will not clear the products immediately.



One clearing broker said that it would be open-minded about cryptocurrencies, as they were US dollar products, but only if they were “properly controlled and regulated”. However he added: “We’d still be on the hook in a worst-case scenario as we are exposed as members of the clearing house.”



Sometimes “old heads” are useful in these circumstances. Speaking on Bloomberg TV, Royal Bank of Scotland Chairman, Howard Davies, said he would advise the CME and CBOE against launching Bitcoin futures.


"I’m not quite sure that they know enough about what the underlying is, about the nature of the supply and demand of the underlying. I think it would be a very risky move for them in reputation terms. This is irrational exuberance. This is a very, very unusual market, that shows we’re not in a normal two- way trading market. Blockchain is much more interesting. The idea of a distributed ledger, which makes transactions and payment systems much cheaper and faster in real time is a good one. Blockchain, I think, has got life in it.”



Thomas Peterrfy, the founder, Chairman and CEO of Interactive Brokers (the one who fronts the company’s slightly irritating TV ads) is one of the “giants” of electronic trading in US financial markets. The FT noted Interactive Brokers" stance.


”Thomas Peterffy, a pioneer of electronic trading and head of Interactive Brokers, has warned that the introduction of bitcoin futures into a clearing house could increase systemic risk. On Wednesday Interactive said its clients would be unable to short the bitcoin futures market because of the extreme volatility of bitcoin.



It looks like the banks have realised Peterffy might be right in limiting trading of Bitcoin futures.









Monday, December 4, 2017

Jim Grant Interviews Alan Fournier: "Pension Funds Are So Desperate For Yield, They"re Systemically Selling Vol..."

In the latest installment of RealVision"s interview series featuring Jim Grant, longtime publisher of Grant"s Interest-Rate Observer, the newsletter publisher sits down with Alan Fournier, the billionaire founder of Pennant Capital, to discuss one of the most widely discussed topics across modern asset markets: Volatility - or rather, the systemic risks posed by not only the paucity of volatility in modern markets, but how risk parity and low-vol targeting strategies have created imbalances that could lead to massive dislocations should volatility spike.



In the beginning of the talk, Fournier and Grant discuss how volatility has been artificially suppressed for so long that it"s essentially become an asset class unto itself. Investors have devised all these new volatility targeting strategies - like risk parity, for example, that have generated outsize returns since the financial crisis. But many don"t recognize the underlying risks. With so much money piled into the short-volatility trade, a large enough spike could trigger extremely painful selloffs in both bond and equity markets.


JG: And one would expect that if interest rates are going to turn, it might be kind of a noisy and dramatic turn.


 


Are you plugging in the interest rate aspect to this as well the bond market side of things?


 


AF: Well the thing that concerns me the most about this sort of overall technical setup, if you will, is that the reason people own bonds is they don"t correlate with stocks. So if something bad happens in the stock markets, bonds rally, right? So risk parity, some stocks in a levered bond fund, it"s been fabulous because that"s been what we"ve seen for the last 15 or 20 years. Well if we get a turn, which is just driven by a normal business cycle and that correlation comes apart, who knows what happens? But there"s a lot of money that"s been dedicated to these kinds of strategies, whether they"re vol targeting, risk parity. We"re in sort of a spooky time.


 


JG: You use the phrase the setup, which I think is a wonderful way of expressing the notion of an overall context of things, how the forces are aligned or misaligned. And so many of those forces in this particular cyclical moment seem to be unusual if not unprecedented. Certainly the level, the nominal level and real level of interest rates is one of those forces. The positive preoccupation with the efficacy and with the certainty of outcome of passive investing must be another, right?


 


AF: Yes.


 


JG: And the peace and quiet in the markets as reflected in readings in both the MVE Index, which registers bond activity, and the VIX Index, which measures agitation in the stock market, those things are at record or near level lows. So Alan, how do you see the constellation of these forces?


 


AF: Well, we joke on a trading desk when we come in the morning if the futures are down-- like today they were down a bit this morning. But we joke about what time they"re going to go positive during the day, and usually it"s after the Europeans go to the pub or something at around 11 o"clock. By 2 o"clock they"re positive.


 


And I just mentioned this because it"s very unusual and something I"ve never seen in 30 years or so of doing this that sort of nothing rattles this market. And I think some of it is the vol being depressed.


 


JG: Now let"s explain this. So volatility now, it"s like a thing. It used to be stocks and bonds.


 


AF: It used to be observed based upon how options are priced. Now it"s actually a source of income.


 


JG: Right. It"s like an asset class.


 


AF: It"s a bond.


 


JG: But it"s movement. It"s kind of capitalized movement, right?


 


AF: Right.



Toward the beginning of the interview, Fournier shared a story with Grant about how a high-net worth broker recently asked for meeting to pitch a suite of new "short volatility" investment products. After grilling the broker about the details of how the products are managed, he asked how the funds are protected in case of a sudden spike in volatility. The broker waved his question aside and said there products are all adequately hedged.


After doing some more due diligence, Fournier discovered that the broker was wrong. And it"s not that he lied, Fournier surmised - it"s that the broker didn"t have an appropriately deep understanding of how the products work.


AF: Yeah. So I"m going to tell you a little story which is interesting, which is suggestive of the idea that we"re pretty late in this tick-tock game.


 


JG: All right, I"m ready.


 


AF: Well a friend of a friend asked to come see me who is a high net worth broker at one of the investment banks. And he said, "Look, I know I can"t help you in the stock market because you"re doing your own thing in your fund and get that, but maybe we can help here with fixed income." I said, "Sure, come on by. Let"s talk."


 


He comes in and I ask the question, "So what are people doing for income?" And he said, "We have this great product that sells vol." And I said, "Oh, how does that work?" And, well, it was a very basic explanation. Selling puts, selling calls, straddles, blah, blah, blah. And I said, "What happens if the market goes down?" And he said, "Well, there are ways they protect against that." I was like OK, and I just was very curious. So I said, "Send me the documentation." So he sends me the brochure with all the legal details and so forth, and there"s really no protection. They"re just selling vol and collecting income, which has been successful.



In the most unsettling excerpt from the interview – for mom and pop investors, that is – Fournier shared a story about a talk he gave to a group of pension-fund investment-committee members. Some investment bank trying to scrounge up brokerage business had taken the group of these investors on a tour of Washington, D.C., and Fournier was recruited to speak about his experiences in the hedge fund industry as sort of a keynote for the day’s events.


So, Fournier told a story that emphasized the risks of selling volatility.


Afterward, his audience sat there, stone-faced. As he would come to find out, many of their funds were running vol-selling strategies which – as we’ve explained time and time again – are much riskier than most investors realize.


And these are pension funds – purportedly some of the most risk-averse institutional investors.


JG: So when you sell vol, what do you do exactly? Do you sell puts on the VIX Index?


 


AF: Yes, and different tenors. And there are strategies that will sell vol at a level and buy vol further down and try to dampen potential crash risk and those kinds of things. But essentially you"re just collecting income by being a house, selling puts.


 


So a few weeks later another investment bank invites me to come and speak to some pension investors. And they were taken them to Washington to sort of hear what was going on down there. And then they brought them up  to New York and I was sort of the end of the day, talk to a hedge fund practitioner kind of thing. And I sat there and I told the story about how this guy was trying to sell me vol, expecting some kind of reaction from them.


 


JG: And they said so?


 


After doing some more due diligence, Fournier discovered that the broker was wrong. And it"s not that he lied, Fournier surmised - it"s that the broker didn"t have an appropriately deep understanding of how the products work.


 


JG: This is a group of--


 


AF: Pension funds, large European pension funds. And he said, "Yeah, but they have a strategy where, when you get a selloff, they sell more into the selloff." So if the VIX spikes from 10 to 15, you sell more. And then you continue to have this tremendous monthly pattern of income.


 


So as I was walking out of there I thought, my goodness, the central banks have succeeded in pushing people out on the risk curve. They"re taking people that are managing the pensions of state pensioners and they have them in negative earning sovereign instruments. And now they have them-- they"re so desperate for some yield, they"re systemically selling volatility, which is remarkable.



In one of the most interesting excerpts from the interview, Fournier explains how a chance breakfast meeting inspired him to switch from long subprime lenders to short a few years before the housing crisis began.


The timely switch allowed Fournier to book winning trades on both the long side – he cashed in as home prices climbed toward their pre-crisis peak – and against during the collapse. He was inspired to change his position after learning from a subprime mortgage broker how the loans the broker was selling worked.



After their discussion, it quickly became apparent to Fournier that the whole subprime lending model was reliant on home-price appreciation, and the minute housing prices peaked, there could be a very significant credit event.


JG: This is where we have different lines of work Alan, because in the years 2001, "02, "03, "04, "05, "06, Grant"s Interest Rate Observer deplored these queues of people lining up irrationally and uneconomically to buy the houses, the makers of which you were long.


 


It takes all kinds of people to make a world. I’m not throwing stones.


 


AF: We also got long subprime lenders. And we got to know them well. And early on it was clear that this was going to be a booming opportunity for subprime lenders. I mean, you were taking debt that was costing folks very high rates on credit cards and pulling equity out of homes. And so that was a natural arbitrage that created this big opportunity. And then using subprime to fund the purchase of second homes, driving up real estate prices. And I was actually at a breakfast with a company coming public that I ended up investing in where I asked them a number of questions about how these loans work. And it became very clear that the whole key to those loans was home price appreciation. And at that breakfast, I kind of logged this view, that, wow, when this turns, it"s going to be a very significant credit event.


 


JG: Let me, if I may just interrupt to observe, how unusual it is for someone who has been long, a big theme, to turn around and successfully to change views and become short, successfully, that same theme. It"s done sometimes at a bar in recounting fabulous fabled stories, but rarely in real life. Tell me about kind of the intellectual flexibility this requires. When did you decide to kind of jettison the bullish view on subprime?


 


AF: Well, it was a matter of first developing understanding of what was going on and how this reflexive process, classic Soros reflexive process was interacting with the real world. And it was very simple. Easy credit drive up home prices. The fact that home prices was growing up was making credit easier. And so it was a matter of how long that would play out and when it would end. We had the patience to wait. And we made some money in long side of some of the subprime lenders during this period. And it was really gaining the knowledge of what these CDO and CDS securities were that was an eye-opening opportunity for me.



So Fournier switched from being long doomed mortgage lenders like American Home Mortgage to shorting the mortgage-backed security products that would eventually slide all the way to zero.


Later in the interview, Grant asks Fournier for his thoughts on bitcoin.


In a heartening display of modesty and intellect, Fournier demurred, instead of offering a barrage of chaotic, unqualified opinions like some of his peers have tended to do.


“That’s something I don’t understand well.”
 










Sunday, December 3, 2017

Signs Of A Market Top? This Pole Dancing Instructor Is Now A Bitcoin Guru

Pole dancing instructor Dee Heath built a successful fitness business in western Sydney teaching “stripper fitness” classes that seem to be in vogue among millennial women.


But recently, Heath has discovered a new passion: Investing in digital currencies.


Heath has spent $5,800 on Bitcoin since July and has more than tripled her investment.


"Look, I love pole dancing but lately my passion has definitely been Bitcoin," she told SBS News.



   Heath is spending less time on the pole and more time advising would-be bitcoin investors about navigating the world of digital currencies, even starting a website to explain the digital currency to novices.  


"It comes with any investing, it"s volatile at times, especially cryptocurrencies," she said.


 


"The good thing is when it goes down, you can buy some more, and you know it"s going to go up at some point."




Dee Heath


"As long as you"re calm and you don"t let emotions run you when you"re dealing with any sort of cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin, then you"re safe."



Still, there are plenty of skeptics in her native Australia, where digital currencies are still largely associated with the black-market economy thriving on the dark web.


"Australia in particular has been involved in buying and selling drugs on the dark web using cryptocurrencies," said Professor David Glance from the Centre for Software Practice at The University of Western Australia.


 


"Many are comparing the buzz around Bitcoin to tulip mania that hit the Netherlands in the 17th century."



Professor Glance said with such a volatile currency, investors should only buy what they can afford to lose.


But with the digital currency recently peaking above $11,000 – a valuation that represents a 950% return since the beginning of the year in US dollar terms – mom and pop investors who had previously never heard of bitcoin are trying to get a piece of the action. Recently, the CME Group and other exchanges around the world have launched – or announced they’re planning to launch – new bitcoin derivatives that will make it easier for institutional investors like hedge funds to play in that market. Though many new funds have been established already this year to get in on the action.


Earlier this week, pioneering cryptocurrency investor Mike Novogratz, whose digital-currency focused fund has recorded astronomical returns this year thanks to the performance of bitcoin, Ethereum and many other digital currency copycats. After accurately predicting that bitcoin would reach $10,000 this year, Novogratz now says he sees it going to $40,000 by the end of next year.


Other financial luminaries like Warren Buffett and – most famously – JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon have said they believe bitcoin is a bubble. Dimon famously opined that the digital currency could get somebody killed.


And while bitcoin has given investors no reason in recent months to believe the rally is slowing down, the idea that strippers are starting to pour their cash earnings into bitcoin is eerily reminiscent of a scene from the movie “The Big Short” where two of the film’s protagonists interview a stripper who took out subprime mortgages to buy nearly half a dozen properties.


Should investors pay attention to this “stripper indicator”?









The "Pecking Order" In A World Of Hollow Freedoms

Authored by Ben Hunt via Epsilon Theory blog,


"If we can agree that trickle down is just a ruse invented to trick the gullible, we should also agree that any and all QE is robbery in plain daylight."



Out of all the animals we keep on our “farm”, chickens are the only ones that bring me no joy. Chickens are, by nature, brutal and cruel. They will torture the weak to death with their pecks, not because they have to, but because they can. It’s the way their brains are hard-wired, and it works for them, as a species. So I pretend that chickens aren’t evil and I’m not complicit. Because I really like the eggs.


We are trained and told that the pecking order is not a real and brutal thing in the human species. This is a lie. It is an intentional lie, one that we pretend isn’t evil and where we are not complicit.


Because we really like the eggs.



And that’s the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.


 


- Garrison Keillor



We can’t all be rich.


We can’t all be famous.


We can’t all be Someone Who Matters to the World.


[Team Elite Narrator: OR CAN WE?]



Blake:    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee’s for closers only. You think I’m f**king with you? I am not f**king with you. I’m here from downtown. I’m here from Mitch and Murray. And I’m here on a mission of mercy. Your name’s Levine? You call yourself a salesman, you son of a bitch?


 


Moss:    I don’t gotta sit here and listen to this s**t.


 


Blake:    You certainly don’t, pal, ’cause the good news is — you’re fired. The bad news is — you’ve got, all of you’ve got just one week to regain your jobs starting with tonight. Starting with tonight’s sit. Oh? Have I got your attention now? Good. ‘Cause we’re adding a little something to this month’s sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you’re fired. Get the picture? You laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money for their names. You can’t close the leads you’re given, you can’t close s**t. You ARE s**t! Hit the bricks, pal, and beat it ’cause you are going OUT!


 


? Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)



The truth is that unless you are really rich, you work for Mitch & Murray. Yes, that includes you, Vox writer changing the world one smarter-than-thou opinion at a time. Yes, that includes you, tech start-up developer kicking back in your flair-bedecked WeWork cubicle.


We don’t feel the crushing power of the Mitch & Murray pecking order as palpably as the salesmen berated by Alec Baldwin feel it, because the language of David Mamet has been replaced by the language of Dick Thaler and Cass Sunstein. The modern Mitch & Murrays don’t browbeat us. They nudge us. They convince us that a set of steak knives is a darn good outcome, that it’s a promise kept rather than a threat delivered. Coffee’s not just for closers. No, no … coffee is for EVERYONE. In fact, let’s put some caffeine into everything you drink. Something nice and caffeinated to wash down that big slice of office birthday cake.


Most importantly, today’s Mitch & Murray writ large — the system of Mitch & Murrays — provides credit to the non-rich, essentially limitless credit for anything that’s intangible or depreciates quickly, anything that lets the non-rich FEEL rich. How about a nice dinner out? New smartphone? You deserve it! How about a couple of years of graduate school? More than a couple of years, shooting for a tenure track position? [Heh, heh] I mean … why certainly, even better!


Go on, try the eggs. They’re delicious.



And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.


 


- Ben Bernanke (2010)



Step One in the Pecking Order Lie is to promote a narrative of trickle-down economics - that making the rich even richer is a good thing for the non-rich.


This is exactly what Ben Bernanke is saying here, that the Fed’s extraordinary efforts to prop up the stock market aren’t just good for the rich, but will be good for everyone once the “wealth effect” kicks in and the rich start spending their money.


Whenever someone uses the phrase “wealth effect”, they are promoting a trickle-down narrative.  


How does trickle-down monetary policy work? By spending TRILLIONS of dollars to buy financial assets, the world’s central banks have inflated the prices of ALL financial assets, EVERYWHERE in the world.


This is not a secret plan. This is not a hidden agenda. This is the avowed purpose of what central bankers call Large Scale Asset Purchases (LSAPs). The goal is to force us to “reach for yield”. The goal is to force us to buy more and more risky assets (stocks) at higher and higher prices. The Fed is trying to make the stock market go up. And they’re succeeding.



Here’s a great chart from TCW showing how this works. The orange line is the growth rate of the US economy. The blue line is the growth rate of how rich we are. By tripling the stock market, the Fed has made us much richer than our economy has grown … SOOO much richer than our economy has grown.


But the goodies of a trebled stock market aren’t evenly distributed. Who owns stocks? If we’re talking about households, leaving aside pension funds and endowments and other institutional investors, it’s the rich, mostly. And that household share of the Central Bankers’ Bubble doesn’t increase linearly with wealth, but exponentially, meaning that the really rich own a lot more stocks than the merely rich, so the really rich have gotten a lot richer than the merely rich.



Here’s a chart from Deutsche Bank showing the impact (it’s a year old, so the effect is even more pronounced today with the stock market 20% higher). Thirty years ago, the non-rich (the bottom 90% of American households by income) owned 35% of American household wealth. Today they own about 22%. Forty years ago, the really rich (the top 1/10th of 1% of American households by income) owned about 7% of American household wealth. Today they, too, own about 22%. Moreover, the gains of the really rich have mirrored the losses of the non-rich, which means that the well-off and merely rich (the remaining 9.9% of American households) haven’t seen much of a change one way or another.


Now this shift in relative wealth of the non-rich and the really rich didn’t start with the Central Bankers’ Bubble and its narrative of trickle-down wealth effects from monetary policy. It started roughly in 1980 with the Reagan narrative of trickle-down wealth effects from fiscal policy. And before we make overly facile comparisons with the 1920s and 1930s, this chart isn’t taking into account pensions and social security and other safety net features of the modern semi-sorta-welfare state. So I don’t know how historically abnormal today’s level of significant wealth inequality might be, whether it’s Louis XVI level inequality or simply robber baron level inequality.


But I know that it IS.


I know that inequality is growing. I know that the pecking order has been getting stronger for a couple of decades now, and that it’s been driven by the Central Bankers’ Bubble over the past decade. I suspect that this is probably a good thing for global egg production. I also suspect that this is a bad thing if you care about liberty and justice for all.



The narrative around trickle-down fiscal policy has become highly politicized, as the good Democrat soldiers at the usual Team Elite bastions never tire of telling us how those Republican tax policies will increase wealth inequality. And they’re right.


But these same tireless foes of trickle-down fiscal policy trip over themselves praising and promoting the narrative of trickle-down monetary policy under Bernanke and Yellen, which has been FAR more effective at delivering windfall gains to the really rich than Ronald Reagan or Paul Ryan could ever dream of achieving through tax “reform”.


Lenin called communist sympathizers in the West “useful idiots”. The Nudging State and the Nudging Oligarchy have their own willing crew of stooges, drawn primarily from children of privilege (well off or merely rich, not really rich) who want to “make a difference”, who want to be Someone Who Matters to the World.


[Team Elite Narrator: But you DESERVE to be Someone Who Matters to the World, my young friend. You’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. Why, here as a WaPo staffer you’ll be making the world a more succulent host for Jeff Bezos better place for all!]



The picture on the left is Jeff Bezos, age 40, worth a billion dollars or so. The picture on the right is Jeff Bezos, age 52, worth 100 billion dollars or so. HGH looks good on you, Jeff.


I think that at some point in the next decade, it’s inevitable that oligarchs like Bezos will gain access to life extension technologies unavailable to ordinary mortals. At that point, the pecking order will take on an entirely new dimension. At that point, we have a war. Which the non-rich will lose.



You’ll be pleased to know that Janet Yellen, with a reported net worth of about $15 million, is “greatly concerned” about growing inequality, but regrets that the Fed has no purview on this terrible problem. Perhaps Congress should do something, she suggests, like “making college more affordable” — by which she means extending even more debt financing — or “supporting early childhood education” — by which she means publicly funded daycare so that both parents can work in support of the Nudging State and the Nudging Oligarchy.


This is Step Two of the Pecking Order Lie — the provision of massive debt financing to the non-rich, preferably for non-appreciating experiences like going to college or quickly depreciating things like cars and smartphones.


Why? So that the non-rich will FEEL RICH even as they BECOME POORER.



Student debt (and every other form of consumer debt) is the functional equivalent of an office birthday cake. Debt provision and a pleasant narrative to go with it is a highly cost-effective behavioral tool for maintaining worker morale in the face of objectively deteriorating labor conditions.



Milton:   The ratio of people to cake is too big!


 


- Office Space (1999)



Unless, like Milton, you don’t get your slice of cake. Then you burn the office down. Or vote for Trump. Same thing.



It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.


 


- Garrison Keillor



The pecking order is real. It is beautifully masked in modern human society, but no less brutal and no less cruel than in the chicken coop.


How do you escape the pecking order? How do you quit Mitch & Murray? Well, you can make a lot of money. That’s the tried and true method. Enough money to build a walled garden around you and yours, expanding it as you can to take in others. F-you money. Somewhere between merely rich and really rich should do the trick, depending on how many generations you want to protect within those walls. Unfortunately, that’s a big gulf these days, that distance between merely rich and really rich, and it’s getting wider every day.


But there’s another way.



No matter how much money we have or don’t have, we can reject the idea that we can be Someone Who Matters to the World and instead embrace the idea that we must be Someone Who Matters to the Pack. Now maybe your pack IS the world. Probably not, but maybe. If it is, then be bold and matter to the world. But more likely it’s your family. More likely it’s your friends. More likely it’s your partners and employees. More likely it’s your church. More likely it’s your school. More likely it’s your country. It’s damn sure not your political party. It’s damn sure not an oligarch.


Why should we reject this notion of being Someone Who Matters to the World? Because that’s the shiny lure that the Nudging State and the Nudging Oligarchy dangle in front of bright young things. And bright not-so-young people, too. The shiny lure of mattering is how they set the hook — which is debt — and that’s how they reel you in. Because once you’ve got that hook in your mouth … once you’re up to your eyeballs in debt … it’s soooo hard to ever get free. I know of which I speak. So do a lot of people reading this note, I bet.


The simple truth is that we can’t escape the pecking order. We can’t escape economic inequality and the hard-wired impulses to brutality and cruelty used to support inequality. Not for long, anyway. Walled gardens never last.


But we can do better. We can reject the lies used to justify inequality even as we accept the reality of inequality. We can be IN the pecking order world without being OF the pecking order world.


There is an autonomy inherent in rejecting the lure of the Nudging State and the Nudging Oligarchy, an autonomy that can power a life well lived. It doesn’t mean rejecting the world as it is. It doesn’t mean leaving the grid for Alaska homesteading. No, that’s a prison of quite another sort. It doesn’t mean mattering to nothing. It means mattering to other humans who see YOU as an autonomous end-in-itself and not as a means to an end. THAT’S your pack. Make a difference for THEM.


In January 1941, eleven months before Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II, Franklin Roosevelt gave his Four Freedoms speech — Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear — memorialized over the next few years by Norman Rockwell in these famous paintings.



What is autonomy? It’s freedom.


What freedoms? These.


If you get nothing else from Epsilon Theory, get this: these freedoms are not granted to us by the State or the Oligarchs. They are not theirs to give. They are not rewards for good behavior or allocations from a central pot. They are ours. They have always been ours. They cannot be taken away.


But we can give them away. We can sell our birthright for a mess of pottage in the form of student debt and a tasty slice of office birthday cake. We can allow ourselves to be beguiled by the glamour of mattering for a Mighty Cause, giving away our allegiance to those who would use us as fodder or feed. We can embrace the pecking order lie and exchange our True Freedoms for Hollow Freedoms, for a freedom of socially acceptable speech and a freedom of socially acceptable worship and a freedom from socially manufactured wants and a freedom from socially manufactured fears.


We can’t escape from a world dominated by the Hollow Freedoms any more than we can escape from a market dominated by Hollow Liquidity and Hollow Volatility. But in markets and in politics we can call things by their proper names. We can maintain our autonomy of mind. We can find our pack and matter to them. We can recognize that a politics without shame is a politics without honor, just as a market without risk is a market without reward. We can take a loss in the short term, knowing that we’re playing the long game. We can do this handshake by handshake, investment by investment, candidate by candidate, good deed by good deed.


And watch how our world starts to change. Watch how we Make America Good Again.









Saturday, November 25, 2017

"This Is A Paralyzed Market": Hedge Fund Turnover Drops To All Time Low

Back in July, Canaccord analyst Brian Reynolds put out a contrarian piece which broke with numerous conventional wisdom norms about the state of the market, key among which was that traders are not complacent, but rather - in light of collapsing trading volumes, something which has plagued bank income statements in the past 2 quarters - simply paralyzed, as they no longer have a grasp of financial "logic" when it is all superceded by central bank liquidity injections, and as such most trades feel fake, forced and just part of the FOMO charade to avoid losing one"s job.


As Reynolds explained, "Investors are not complacent. Their stances range from extremely aggressive to bearish" and added that these "opposing forces have led to a compression of volatility. When stocks have rallied strongly, they have then been met with investor selling. When stocks sell off, the buybacks have picked up after the selling runs its course. That has been the case for more than eight years. Those forces have led to an equity bull market that moves higher in fits and starts, with some brief pullbacks from time to time. Given the positioning of equity investors and continued flows into credit, we do not see that pattern changing for some time." Meanwhile, sandwiched inbetween these two trends, investors - both retail and institutional - find themselves in trade limbo, and the outcome is a gradual decline in trading volumes "which is more reflective of paralysis than complacency among equity investors."


And while one can posit theories explaining this bizarre market until one is blue in the face, the most vivid confirmation of Reyonld"s "paralysis" thesis emerged in the latest batch of hedge fund 13Fs, which was analyzed by Goldman earlier this week, and noted here in "These Are The Top 50 Hedge Fund Long And Short Positions."


In the report, Goldman highlighted various notable outliers, such as the latest record high in hedge fund leverage...



... coupled with the recent plunge in short interest (which as a share of S&P 500 market cap sits just below 2.0%, matching January of this year as the lowest level since 2012)...



... even as hedge fund "crowding" in a handful of top names hits an all time high:



But the most interesting to us, and the hedge fund community, we believe is the following chart, which shows that hedge fund portfolio turnover continued its downward trend and reached a new record low in the third quarter Across all portfolio positions, turnover registered 26% in 3Q. Turnover of the largest quartile of positions, which make up the vast majority of fund portfolios, fell to just 13%.



This means that once hedge funds have established positions, they no longer trade in and out, but simply lean back and let it ride. And why not: with the most popular hedge fund positions this year being also the best performing ones, namely Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba, Alphabet and Microsoft, why ever both selling.  Indeed, as the next chart shows, the bulk of the collapsing turnover is largely due to tech stocks:



Of course, this strategy of loading up on winner and letting them ride is a two-edged sword. while it is the best strategy on the way up, it also becomes a quasi private equity strategy, in which the price formation is created on the margin with increasingly less volume. And, since such tech holdings are becoming ever more illiquid, the threat is what happens once the narrative shifts and instead of buying, hedge funds start to sell these most concentrated of growth names. One could say that a tech selloff is emerging as one of the more concerning black - or at least gray - swans in the market. In fact, we are did say just that...








Friday, November 24, 2017

French Asset Manager Launches World"s First Bitcoin Mutual Fund

Since bitcoin first entered mainstream consciousness in 2013, regulators have been wary of authorizing the creation of bitcoin-linked financial products that would create a patina of legitimacy for a product that was all-too-recently associated with dark-web bazaars like the Silk Road. So far, the only bitcoin-linked financial product is the Nasdaq Stockholm-traded ETN that JP Morgan Securities famously purchased – purportedly for its clients’ accounts - after Jamie Dimon called the digital currency a “fraud” and said he would fire any JPM traders caught trading it.


Back in March, the SEC rejected not one, but two proposed bitcoin ETFs. Recently, CME Group announced it would launch bitcoin-linked derivatives by the end of the year. Their prices will be set using a daily reference rate designed by the exchange that some critics have pointed out could strengthen the case for the SEC to approve a bitcoin-linked ETF in the US.


Well, one French asset manager just created a newfound sense of urgency for its rivals in the US by introducing the first bitcoin-linked mutual fund.


Announced today, Tobam"s alternative investment fund perhaps represents the latest bid to attract institutional investors to cryptocurrencies (though, as in the case with similar financial instruments, investors wouldn"t be holding bitcoin directly).


 


…the mutual fund"s launch follows approval from the Autorité des Marchés Financiers, one of the country"s top financial regulators. Per the report, PwC will perform auditing services while Caceis, the asset servicing banking group of France-based Crédit Agricole, will hold custody of the bitcoins tied to the fund.


 


"This first move in the world of cryptocurrencies showcases our dedication to remaining ahead of the curve and to provide our clients with innovative products in the context of efficient (i.e. unpredictable) markets," Yves Choueifaty, Tobam"s president, said in a statement.



Choueifaty said he expects the fund to swell to an AUM of $400 million over the next several years.


Investors are already expressed interest, he said.


"We found some investors to launch the fund and we have had a lot of interest from an intellectual point of view," he told the publication.



As CoinDesk pointed out, the idea that institutional investors want to gain access to bitcoin is unsurprising, given recent reports from the traditional hedge fund world. Whether products like Tobam"s will further stoke interest remains to be seen.



The announcement coincides with another all-time high for the digital currency, which has climbed more than 700% this year despite a crackdown in China, a hard fork, the collapse of several high-profile ICOs, declarations by Dimon and others that bitcoin is a bubble, a hoax or is outright dangerous (“It’s going to get somebody killed”)…the list goes on.


However, bitcoin has benefited in part from the fact that there’s no easy way for retail traders to bet against it. That will soon change, now that a Swiss company has introduced futures contracts that will make it easier for retail investors to short bitcoin.



Of course, that would mean the investors buying into this mutual fund would be getting in right at the market top…
 









Wednesday, November 22, 2017

These Are The Top 50 Hedge Fund Long And Short Positions

In its latest quarterly hedge fund trend monitor - a survey of 804 hedge funds with $2.1 trillion of gross equity positions ($1.4 trillion long and $704 billion short) - which analyzes hedge fund holdings as of Sept 30, Goldman makes some interesting observations about the current state of the hedge fund industry. First and foremost, it finds that the average equity long/short hedge fund has posted a 10% YTD return, which while the strongest since 2013 is once again underperforming the S&P for the 7th consecutive year.



In terms of holdings, it"s a continuation of what we discussed the last two quarters - everyone and their kitchen sink is plowing into high beta, "growty" and "momentum" tech names, and since most funds still underperform the S&P, the average net leverage is at all time high. Here"s Goldman:








Fund performance has been lifted by sector (Information Technology) and factor (growth, momentum, large-cap) exposures. Our Hedge Fund VIP list of the most popular long positions,  whose top five stocks are FB, AMZN, BABA, GOOGL, and MSFT, has outperformed the S&P 500 by 770 bp YTD (25% vs. 17%).



Also notable, while at least on paper hedge funds are expected to diversify, in reality the average HF carries 68% of its long portfolio in its top 10 positions, just below the record high reached in early 2016. Meanwhile, confirming that the market is afflicted by a creeping paralysis, portfolio position turnover fell to a new record low last quarter, at just 13% for the largest fund positions. Oh yes, and nobody is short: hedge fund short interest as a percent of S&P 500 market cap remained close to 2%, near the lowest level in five years.



Below are Goldman"s 5 key observations from this edition of the HF Trend monitor:


  1. PERFORMANCE: The average equity long/short hedge fund has returned +10% YTD on the strength of the most popular long positions, high exposure to Information Technology, and atypical factor tilts toward large-caps and away from value stocks. This ranks as the strongest return since 2013 and compares with 17% for the S&P 500, 16% for the average large-cap core mutual fund, and 2% for macro hedge funds.

  2. SECTORS: Information Technology remains the largest net sector exposure, accounting for 27% of fund portfolios. However, the 307 bp overweight tilt relative to the Russell 3000 is 100 bp smaller than at the start of 3Q. Materials represents the largest sector overweight. Financials is the largest underweight and a major source of disagreement with large-cap mutual funds, which are overweight the sector. Current overweights in Energy and Consumer Discretionary are nearly the smallest tilts in recent history, as is the underweight in Utilities.

  3. LEVERAGE: Hedge funds increased net leverage in 3Q 2017 as the most popular positions continued to outperform a rising equity market. Short interest as a percent of S&P 500 market cap remained close to 2%, near the lowest level in five years.

  4. VERY IMPORTANT POSITIONS: Our Hedge Fund VIP list (ticker: GSTHHVIP) of the most popular long positions has outperformed the S&P 500 by 770 bp YTD. The VIP list contains the 50 stocks that appear most often among the top 10 holdings of fundamentally-driven hedge fund portfolios. The basket’s absolute and risk-adjusted YTD returns rank as the strongest since 2013. The list’s top 5 stocks are FB, AMZN, BABA, GOOGL, and MSFT. The basket has outperformed the S&P 500 in 65% of quarters since 2001, generating an average quarterly excess return of 62 bp. 10 new constituents entered the basket this quarter, compared with a quarterly average of 16 stocks since 2001: EQIX, GDDY, IAC, IQV, MGM, MPC, NRG, SBAC, TTWO, and XPO.

  5. CROWDING AND TURNOVER: Hedge funds continue to demonstrate high conviction in their favorite positions. The typical hedge fund has 68% of its long equity assets in its top 10 positions, just below the record high of 69% in 1H 2016. Similarly, our crowding index increased but remains shy of its 2016 extremes. Quarterly turnover of the largest portfolio positions fell to new historical lows, at 13%, declining in all sectors but Health Care.

The biggest component of the favorable hedge fund return in Q3 was a result of the outperformance of the Goldman Hedge Fund VIP basket, also known as the "hedge fund hotel"index, a list of 50 names which are the most widely held hedge fund stocks. Good luck selling them during a firesale, as happened in early 2016 when the GSTHHVIP basket crashed, wiping out four years of gains in a few months.


With no crash yet, and despite softness during the last month, Hedge Fund VIP names outperformed the broad market YTD both in absolute and risk-adjusted terms according to Goldman.








The basket’s strong  return has more than made up for its higher volatility (8 vs. 6 for S&P 500), combining for a YTD ratio of return/volatility of 3.0, above the ratio of 2.8 for the S&P 500 and the best since 3.2 in 2013.




What is more concerning is that as discussed the past two quarters, the trend of growing hedge fund leverage (to make up for loss of alpha), continues, and according to Goldman, funds added net leverage entering 4Q. Data calculated by Goldman Sachs Prime Services on exposures in their business show that net leverage has risen in recent months and is near cycle highs.



Meanwhile, everyone has given up on shorting: in fact, short interest as a share of S&P 500 market cap sits just below 2.0%, matching January of this year as the lowest level since 2012. Relative to trading volumes, the short interest ratio (days to cover) ranks higher compared with history but still far below the cycle high in 2015.



Predictably, with market leadership increasingly more concentrated, and with fewer leaders, the density of hedge fund portfolios is near all time highs.


Hedge fund crowding in the most popular positions rose slightly in 3Q 2017 but remains below the extremes reached in 2016. The average hedge fund holds 68% of its long portfolio in its top 10 positions, just below the record “density” of 69% in 1H 2016. The increase in hedge fund portfolio density mirrors the growing share of S&P 500 market cap accounted for by the 10 largest index constituents, which has risen steadily for two years but even now sits near the average level since 1990.



As a tangent, those who were long tech, remained long tech as the average infotech portfolio turnover dropped to the lowest on record.



So putting it all together, here are the 50 positions which make up the latest GS VIP list, i.e., the 50 most popular hedge fund longs...



... and the list of 50 stocks representing the most important short positions.



Finally, here are the 20 stocks with the highest positive and negative changes in popularity.



As a reminder: traditionally, being long the most shorted hedge fund names and shorting the most favored ones has been a source of double digit alpha ever since 2011, and while this year that may have been different, for now, there is no reason to assume this normalcy will persist especially once the revulsion with tech names reappears once more.