Active ETF's - just a type of Closed-end fund?

ETF's have not been really tested in a major market downturn or panic. 2008-09 does not count as amounts involved were still quite small, and focused on simple structures linked to major indices. The next 'Big One' will be different. As I see it, active ETF's are pretty similar to Investment Trusts (UK) or Closed-end Funds (USA). They are just trying to keep NAV and Market Prices as close as possible. But will they succeed? Only time will tell. I for my part will be happy to capitalize on any price distortions - and distortions there will be (or the 'Authorities' will shut the market).

Vanguard to launch active ETF's

Goldman Sachs is scaling back market-making for exchange-traded funds

This will not make it easier to maintain orderly markets if and when the tide turns and markets enter a bear market. Markets move faster on the downside and panic is never far away then, even more so now that global markets are linked by ultra-fast communication and the crowd/herd effect can accerate trends.
Goldman Sachs is scaling back its role as a lead market maker for exchange-traded funds

Untested Robo-Advisers Are Becoming a Big Market Risk - Bloomberg View

Assets under Management by Robo-Advisers are not yet that large. But when they are in the hundred of billions it will create the mother of all panics. The programs behind them - in addition to 'sophisticated' quant funds - will all rush to the exit at the same time! Sprinkle a few billions of ETF into the mix and the fun can start! No amount or margin/collateral will be able to cope with the resulting price changes. As I often said in this blog - near instantaneous price moves of 20-25% have to be expected. Remember October 1987! It DID happen, and that was at a time when overall volumes and assets where quite a bit smaller.
Untested Robo-Advisers Are Becoming a Big Market Risk - Bloomberg View

Dark Pools - who brings light into them?

News that Credit Suisse has reached a settlement on the 'dark pool' probe may bring relief to its shareholders, management and some market professionals. But it still leaves open the question how the practice of executing orders in these pools is policed. By definition the transactions are designed to provide a certain (total?) amount of privacy and anonymity. Market impact is (hopefully in the eyes of the users) lessened. But are the prices achieved fair - especially for the ultimate owners of the assets bought or sold, the investors holding the mutual funds or pension funds that are using dark pools? Are all transactions logged and published so that the end investor can check them against a consolidated tape (price, amount and exact time?). If not then this leaves too much leeway and encourages trickery that would rival the abuses that came to light in the foreign exchange and interbank (Libor) markets.

The 'fun' (ugly?) face of the City

The one thing that surprises me - given the amount of ever-more sophisticated technology that is available - is the survival of the voice-based interdealer brokers. As this incident demonstrates the level of sophistication needed to fulfill the role of go-between is not all that great. So may the level of 'client entertainment' have a significant role to play? Sooner or later the penny will drop and another source of generous income for many staffers will be rationalised away, or fall foul of tightening regulation.
City traders make new recruit eat 8 quarter pounders (Mail on Sunday)

Single Capacity to protect counterparties - notes on Goldman/LIA dispute

Not a question of being smarter, though that may well be the case. It is a question of morality - or lack thereof. When firms are feted as being the 'most powerful' investment bank this may go into the head of staff and senior management. That success is only measured by the size of the pay packet shows that morality is unlikely to be top of the priorities in the organisation. The setup of financial markets invites problematic relationships between firms and their customers (client would be an inappropriate term though it is used ad nauseam by staffers). A lawyer is smarter than the average user of legal services, but only in this narrow field of expertise. No one would need a lawyer unless he has an informational advantage, i.e. knows the law better than the client (here the term can be applied with justification). Goldman and other financial service providers WILL know more than the client, that is their job. But the (moral) imperative is not to abuse this advantage. This particular case will make its way through the courts but it appears from the outside that the Libyans were in all likelihood even more in need of being protected as a client and not just considered a counterparty in an equal exchange. A system of single-capacity, splitting market making and 'advice' would go some way in preventing similar scenarios. It would not automatically eliminate conflicts of interest, maybe a code of practice for the protection of customers would also be appropriate. Self-styled 'Business principles' devised by the firms themselves are not sufficient.
Goldman Sachs profit on disputed LIA trades back in focus (Financial Times)

Bond business - down but not out

My prognosis for interest rates, esp bond rates, for the next few years gives a high probability that rates will meander around a relatively low base level. So the view that the bond trading business will be less profitable from now on is quite justified. But one has to remember that volumes during the previous 5-10 years were abnormally high. Declining and/or volatile interest rates are manna for bond traders. In addition, many innovations - some useful, some less so - in the bond market created new business opportunities. But there are no new products on the horizon, and some 'innovations' turned out to be duds. But taking all this into consideration, given the enormous volume of outstanding bonds and the large number of investors and issuers in a globalised bond market one can expect a good but down-sized bond market business from now on.

Rating Agency reform- new idea but not enough

John Carney (CNBC) makes a new suggestion when he writes that rating agencies should not receive non-public information. While this may be a useful step in the right direction he does not explain why the shift to a different payment model would not be appropriate. The current system of having the issuer pay for the ratings is not only fraught with conflicts of interest, it is also expensive as usually more than one agency has to be hired thus duplicating effort and expense - and in many cases a third agency gets its pound of flesh. Agencies might be less profitable but this reduction in cost is only appropriate in the current climate of austerity. If the Value Line Investment Survey can achieve a long history of excellent service to the investment community there is no reason why there should not be enough demand for rating services that have to be paid by the investor. Does the financial community really want for the dead hand of bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere to get involved by dragging its feet and hoping that the current state of affairs can continue?

JP Morgan 'loss' - too much ado about nothing?

The reported 'loss' that JP Morgan took on its investment account may appear to be large but in the context of a portfolio size of $ 300+ billion and a total balance sheet of more than $ 2000 billion it really is small beer. Every investor or trader worth his salt will know that no investment goes up in a straight line. Daily fluctuations of one percent are the norm. That would mean that the investment book could be up or down three billion dollars on any given day. Hedging is no panacea. If you fully hedge all risk out of a portfolio you may as well stay in treasury bills as the cost of the hedge will eat up all the expected profit. I am sure that some aspects of the portfolio could probably have been handled better but loan books - even surrogate ones - are usually meant to be held to maturity so the mark-to-market loss should not have been of any consideration. That various busy-bodies (media, various officials like the department of justice or the New York Auditor) should feel competent to be backseat drivers for JP Morgan's investment department adds a twist of absurdity to the whole affair. Jamie Dimon also made a mistake to preemptively excuse himself in front of a baying media crowd rather than calmly explain the realities of the investment game.

Conflicts of Interest in Investment Banking

The discussion about separating banking and securities and investment banking has reached a dead end. But the inherent conflicts of interest in an investment banking world where intermediaries directly compete with their supposed customers (the word client is no longer appropriate) will always tempt service providers to treat their clients as 'muppets'. Maybe not even reverting to the rules imposed by Glass Steagall would be enough to improve the situation and the principal trading function and the customer advisory side should be separated like they were in the UK brokerage business before 'Big Bang'. This would mean that salespeople and corporate finance advisers would have more incentive to work with and for their clients. As long as this is not feasible the only protection for customers - be they individual investors or 'sophisticated' professionals working for fund managers or corporates - is to follow the old rule of  'Buyer Beware' and not to be too trusting when dealing with their sell-side counterparts. All too often they fall for sales patter, get taken in by glossy brochures and forget to check if there are better terms available in the market.

Political pressure to prevent CDS on Greece to pay out?

The example of a minor Austrian bank demonstrates the potential fallout that can be expected if CDS sellers are required to pay out in case Greece is 'officially' (by the insider-dominated ISDA committee) declared to be in default. Kommunalkreditbank - already rescued by the Austrian government - could be required to pay out in the high hundreds of millions of Euros if it is required to pay out on the CDS contracts it has sold. One has to assume that the Austrian government - and quite a few others - are not too keen to see the ISDA committee to declare that a credit event means that CDS contracts have to be paid out. Who will be brave enough to sue the Committee? Don't expect any help from the regulators - they are in the pockets of politicians who probably snigger about the fact that the CDS market has been little less than a game like the many online games - a financial markets farmville.
"Since when is a country's defaulting on its debt not a credit event?" asks Alan Abelson (Barron's)

CDS - a misconceived instrument is Null and Void

Says today's headline in a newspaper (City AM). To leave the decision about whether or not a CDS pays out in a 'credit event' to a group of market insiders at a private industry association such as ISDA makes a mockery of proper regulation in financial markets. Especially as the members of the relevant ISDA committee are the largest users and providers of credit default swaps who have made vast profits from this market during the past ten years. No surprise that the author states that "The decision has been criticised by some as making a mockery of credit default swaps on sovereign debt. These critics believe that their value has now been permanently undermined." We could not agree more and every user of this market has to face a negligence claim from his investors if he uses this product in the future. We always thought that the construction of the CDS contract was overly complicated and likely to lead to disagreement exactly at the point in time when they would be needed most, i.e. in a credit event. Would it not have been more sensible to design a product similar to an option? This could have been exercised at any time - credit event or not - simply based on the price performance of the underlying securities.

Charlie Munger on Derivatives in 2003

"But I confidently predict that there are big troubles to come. The system is almost insanely irresponsible. And what people think are fixes aren’t really fixes. It’s so complicated I can’t do it justice here – but you can’t believe the trillions of dollars involved. You can’t believe the complexity. You can’t believe how difficult it is to do the accounting. You can’t believe how big the incentives are to have wishful thinking about values, and wishful thinking about ability to clear."

Tobin Tax: Political Caste in Germany wants your blood!

Norbert Lammert is the current President of the German Lower House (Bundestag). Today a headline tells us that he is also 'supporting' the introduction of a financial transaction tax. While some might argue in favour of such a tax it is revealing that its supporters have mainly one common denominator: they are supporters of more state spending and indirectly in support of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' (or pay themselves or their political clients). Particularly galling is the fact that people such as Lammert - who as far as we could find out has never held a proper job in the private sector - have the temerity to put more and more onerous taxes and 'charges' onto the shoulders of the powerless citizens. In the case of Germany one also has to say that the country has a long tradition of putting (too much) faith into regulations and top-down dirigism. Despite the economic and political success after 1945 one should not forget that this was just to compensate for the disastrous policies pursued in the decades before and as a consequence the net balance is not that encouraging. The irony is that Germans worked hard in order to deliver goods on credit to all their customers in the Eurozone who now can not repay the loans. So there is a huge bill coming due and the good standing of Germany in the credit markets is to a large extent only the reverse side of the fact that many other countries are in distress. So by necessity some markets must have low interest rates as they offer a refuge - but they are not of much higher quality. Putting another tax on business will not improve things for anyone - but it will guarantee that the German financial markets will become even more a backwater.
PS: Readers who want to support a fundamental change in political systems that allow professional politicians and lobbyist to run roughshod over the interests of citizens may want to support Dirdem - Campaign for Direct Democracy here and here

UK: Regulatory Black Hole?

The amounts hidden from balance sheet in the shadow banking system are truly frightening and can only be described as a house of cards. That hardly any regulatory capital has to be set aside for derivative positions and guarantees borders on the severely negligent. It is simply no excuse for regulators and their overseers in politics that this field of finance has grown exponentially during the past 10-15 years and has clearly overtaken the capacity of the authorities to deal properly with this relatively new phenomenon. If is accolade for London as a leading global financial centre to be seen as the epicentre of the global re-hypothecation game that played a significant role in the downfall of several major financial service firms during the past few years.

What should be the right level of Margin?

An article in today's Financial Times bemoans the shrinking level of collateral and gives the impression that this would be something to be concerned about - rather than give an indication that the financial system is on the way to a more sensible future. Haircuts or Margins are still way below levels required if prudent standards would be applied. As I said from long before the 2007-2009 credit crisis they should allow for one-day moves in asset prices of as much as 30 percent.  This would of course drastically reduce the overall volume of speculative and risk positions and therefore make it much less likely that price moves of such a magnitude would happen.

MF Global Bankruptcy torpedoes Futures Markets

When Warren Buffett spoke of derivatives as 'weapons of mass destruction' not a few belittled him as old-fashioned. Now that the full horror story surrounding this case of cronyism and ineptitude unfolds not many are laughing, least of all the victims of Corzine's megalomania. Maybe it is time to bring in full personal liability to all senior managers of financial institutions?

Derivative Risks - URGENT ACTION REQUIRED

While we are not in the camp of those predicting a black swan event in the global market for OTC derivatives we would none-the-less urge regulators to address the real - and perceived - risks associated with the gigantic nominal amount of out standings. These dwarf the total of the World's GDP by a substantial amount and while they may be hedged or netted we all know that systems of risk management and control can (and do - see MF Global!) fail. To this effect regulators should decree strong incentives to bring as much of the derivative trading onto a trading platform that assures proper netting and clearing. In addition, capital requirements on OTC trading should be brought into line with those assessed on lending and trading in securities.

Advice to the City of London: stop the bureaucratic control freaks before it is too late

Reading Monsieur Barnier's latest utterings (pity he has no pregnant young wife, maybe that would put a stop to his unnecessary activities) makes one wonder what the reaction of the representatives of British interests - be it the cacophony of associations pretending to speak for the 'City' or the arms of Government (FSA, Bank of England, Treasury) will be. Pious talk will get them nowhere against the hunger of the typical continental bureaucrat (statist control freaks) for ever more power. As an Austrian who works in the City for 30+ years I am allowed to say that. Call their bluff or face certain defeat, the choice is there.

OTC Derivatives - a dangerous house of cards?

The renewed crisis in the credit markets that has been triggered by concerns about peripheral member states of the Eurozone festers like a slow-burning bush fire. As we have warned before, the regulators and politicians have still not come up with a credible solution (we avoid the expression 'final solution' but that is what the financial markets would really need).
Case in point is the concern about the gigantic gross exposures that nestle within the financial markets - and the extreme level of risk concentration that does little to assuage concerns. No one can really predict what would happen if there is a new bout of extreme market volatility - if key variables like stock markets would move by 20 per cent of more in one day. At a time when markets get excited about wholly inadequate hikes in margin requirements for gold futures for example one has to assume that drastic moves would take the majority of market participants by surprise.
A simple remedy - no PhD's required, or expensive 'accountant.consultants' - would be the introduction of meaningful margin and capital requirements for ALL derivative contracts that are on the books of any bank, fund manager or other counter party.