PrefBlog

The Credit Suisse bonus pool is doing well:

Credit Suisse Group AG, the largest Swiss bank by market value, told bankers a pool of toxic bonds and mortgages set aside as part of their compensation gained 17 percent since January, a person familiar with the matter said.

About 2,000 bankers were told of the return, based on a $5 billion fund of bad mortgages and bonds, the person said, declining to be identified because the matter is private.

When the mechanism was announced on December 18, I commented:

If I am correct – with the support of the BoE – and bank assets have, in general, been written down to far below fundamental value, this is a clever way for the executives to (a) earn brownie points, and (b) give themselves enormous bonuses.

The Globe and Mail had a host of adulatory articles about the MFC Dividend Cut today, by Tara Perkins, Steve Ladurantaye and Andrew Willis, all praising Guloien’s forthright and incisive action in repairing the battered balance sheet. None of them mentioned the pending charge of about $500-million due to changing assumptions or speculated as to whether tough times might cause a decrease to the marketting budget, but the Perkins story did add some colour regarding the hurried changing of the capital rules last fall:

On Sept. 30, the head of Canada’s regulator, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, wrote an e-mail to various OSFI officials. “D’Alessandro just called and asked that we try to meet next week with the company to discuss capital,” Julie Dickson wrote, noting that the meeting would replace one that had been arranged for November. Mr. D’Alessandro wanted to discuss the capital requirements for the variable-annuity, or segregated funds, business, other e-mails show.

Discussions took place in October in which he laid out why he felt the rules were too onerous, and OSFI officials had a flurry of internal discussions. On Oct. 28, the rules were changed.

OSFI consulted with more than one insurer that month, but the changes were most important to Manulife.

Federal lobbyist records show that Mr. D’Alessandro also met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Nov. 6 to discuss “financial institutions.” It is not known what was discussed at the meeting with Mr. D’Alessandro.

On Nov. 18, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty received a memorandum from OSFI updating him on Manulife.

“In short, while Manulife’s results have been very good historically, the recent downturn in equity markets has had a significant impact on its capital levels,” the memorandum stated.

The arbitrary rule change was highlighted in my opinion piece OSFI and the Third Pillar. Lynx-eyed analysts at Credit Suisse AG and CIBC World Markets, however, noticed that dividend cuts are not a Good Thing and downgraded the common.

Citigroup is considering selling its energy trading unit:

— Citigroup Inc. may give up control of its Phibro LLC energy-trading business to outside investors, a person familiar with the matter said, as the bank faces what may be a $100 million payday for the unit’s chief, Andrew Hall.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett also held talks with New York-based Citigroup about buying the business, and those negotiations have now ended, according to the person, who declined to be identified because the discussions are private.
…
Hall’s payout, which will be determined at the end of this year based on Phibro’s profits, may raise concern among lawmakers and regulators who are scrutinizing Citigroup’s compensation practices after a $45 billion government bailout last year.

On the one hand, I think is good news because I am in favour of a separation of banking & trading – with the strict proviso that this be accomplished by transparent nudges to capital rules, so that any regulated entity may determine whether it is primarily a banker or trader and have its regulatory capital calculated in an appropriate manner.

Even the whisper of this story is bad news, however. Citigroup isn’t examining the issue based on things like risk and reward – that’s too old fashioned for the new era. It appears that the basis for the decision will be cosmetic appeal: it’s a disgrace. I am, however, please to see that they have the moral character to resist the temptation to unleash an army of lawyers and accountants on Philbro, desperately seeking an uncrossed t in the regulatory requirements so they can pretend to be shocked and cancel the contract. There is still some integrity, at least, left in the world.

Today’s fascinating question is: Are Ken Lewis & Mom Boucher related, or what?

Ken Lewis CEO Bank of America

Mom Boucher President Hells Angels, Montreal

This question came to mind during the PrefBlog Sloppy Investment Thinking Awards Ceremony, which honoured Richard X. Bove of Rochdale Securities:

Mr. Bove notes that on Dec. 29 – when the new information concerning Merrill Lynch’s losses were disclosed to Bank of America’s management – that the bank’s stock was selling at $12.94 per share, whereas today the combined banks’ stock is trading close to $17 a share.

“Thus, one cannot argue that shareholders have been harmed by the bank’s decision that this was not a material reason to put off the merger,” he said in the note to clients.

The award is made with the assumption that the published extract has not distorted the main argument, which is akin to suggesting that blowing 90% of your paycheque on beer and prostitutes doesn’t do you any financial harm, since you’ve still got 10% left.

PerpetualDiscounts continued their winning ways of the week, up almost 45bp and leaving FixedResets in the dust again. These results were aided by superb performance from POW, which announced earnings today … no disaster, but held back by sub-par results from PWF (which owns GWO). Volume continued to be quite strong.

DBRS has published a new study Canadian Private Pension Plans – Are They Losing or Cruising?.

The SEC has extended the comment period for the short-selling proposals.

The BoE is monetizing debt like there’s no tomorrow:

The Bank of England expanded its bond purchase program beyond its original limit in an effort to spur lending and fight a recession that’s deeper than previously anticipated.

Bond yields plunged after the Monetary Policy Committee, led by Governor Mervyn King, kept the key interest rate at 0.5 percent and increased its purchase program by 50 billion pounds ($84 billion) to 175 billion pounds.
…
The Bank of England’s tone on the economy was less optimistic. It said in a statement that the recession “appears to have been deeper than previously thought.”

“While some recovery in output growth is in prospect, the margin of spare capacity in the economy is likely to continue to grow for some while yet, bearing down on inflation in the medium term,” the bank said.

PerpetualDiscounts continued to roar ahead today, shrugging off the woes of the equity market sparked by the slashing of the MFC common dividend. Somewhat surprisingly, the MFC PerpetualDiscounts were little affected, although one of the two FixedReset issues and the OpRet issue made it into the unpleasant part of the price movement table; both FixedResets were in the volume table.

Goldman Sachs is making tons of money:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. made more than $100 million in trading revenue on a record 46 separate days during the second quarter, or 71 percent of the time, breaking the previous high of 34 days in the prior three months.

Trading losses occurred on two days during the months of April, May and June, down from eight in the first quarter, the New York-based bank said today in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company made at least $50 million on 58 of the 65 trading days during the quarter, or 89 percent of the time.
…
Banks such as Goldman Sachs are benefiting from lower borrowing costs after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in October started guaranteeing bank debt issues that mature within three years. Goldman Sachs said in today’s filing it had $25.1 billion of debt guaranteed by the FDIC under the agency’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. The bank sold about $30 billion of the FDIC-backed securities between November and March, according to company filings.

There will be howls of outrage when they announce their bonuses next year! How much of this is due to the skill and salesmanship of their traders and sales desks and how much is due to the fact that smiley-boy has a big whack of capital behind him? You can bet that the politics of envy will be a major political theme in the coming year.

However, we must be fair. Particularly with respect to Flash Orders. It is only fair that large, politically connected companies be protected from that horrible competition stuff. Competition, you know, leads to bonuses:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s move to ban so-called flash orders may help NYSE Euronext take back market share of U.S. stock trading at the expense of three-year-old rival Direct Edge Holdings LLC.

The debate regarding position limits in commodity futures is getting interesting:

John Hyland, chief investment officer for the world’s largest exchange-traded fund in natural gas, said assertions his company helped drive up energy prices were “self-serving statistical gibberish.”
…
Hyland’s Alameda, California-based U.S. Commodity Funds LLC owns a family of exchange-traded funds that invest in oil, gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. One of them, the United States Natural Gas Fund, has grown 11-fold since the start of the year, to 347.4 million shares outstanding.

The fund ran out of new shares on July 7 and is seeking permission from the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell a billion more.

The $4.8 billion natural gas fund has at times owned almost 20 percent of the open interest in the near-month natural gas contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange, plus hundreds of thousands of natural gas swaps on the InterContinental Exchange.

Hyland said government-imposed caps would splinter large exchange-traded funds like his into smaller funds, reducing liquidity they provide to the futures market.
…
[CFTC Chairman Gary] Gensler said in the hearings last week that there is a consensus that position limits are needed in derivatives markets, leaving regulators to answer three questions: What should the limits be, who will set and monitor the rules, and who needs to be exempt?
…
“Position limits on financial contracts will decrease liquidity, increase transaction costs and increase volatility associated with expiration — all without achieving any of the reforms that the commission seeks,” said [John] Arnold, the founder of $5 billion energy hedge fund Centaurus Advisors LLC in Houston.

It depends a lot on what, precisely, is meant by “Exchange Traded Fund”. If it’s a straight pass-through, with one-share being equal to one barrel of oil, or one cubic meter of natural gas, or whatever, then I have no problems with it being exempt from the position limits. However, if it is indeed a straight pass-through, than this makes a mockery of the notion that it provides liquidity. You do not provide liquidity by taking a position, you suck it up. You do not provide liquidity by holding a position. You only provide liquidity by taking discretionary market action to offset actions of other market participants … and if you do that, you’re not an exchange-traded fund, you’re just another speculator and you should be subject to position limits.

Another rip-roaring day for PerpetualDiscounts, which gained just over 84bp in total return (BMO went ex-dividend) to bring the weighted median YTW below 6% for the first time since September 12, 2008, just before Lehman’s bankruptcy. Very good volume today and FixedReset issues made it back to their accustomed (well, accustomed in the last six months, anyway) dominance of the volume highlights table.

PerpetualDiscounts now yield 5.99%, equivalent to 8.40% interest at the standard conversion factor of 1.4x. Long Corporates now yield 6.1%, so the pre-tax interest equivalent spread is now about 230bp, a widening from the 215bp estimate of July 31 and July 29.

The Bank for International Settlements has released a paper by Fabio Panetta, Thomas Faeh, Giuseppe Grande, Corrinne Ho, Michael King, Aviram Levy, Federico M Signoretti, Marco Taboga and Andrea Zaghini, An assessment of financial sector rescue programmes:

We analyse the wide array of rescue programmes adopted in several countries, following Lehman Brothers’ default in September 2008, in order to support banks and other financial institutions. We first provide an overview of the programmes, comparing their characteristics, magnitudes and participation rates across countries. We then consider the effects of the programmes on banks’ risk and valuation, looking at the behaviour of CDS premia and stock prices. We then proceed to analyse the issuance of government guaranteed bonds by banks, examining their impact on banks’ funding and highlighting undesired effects and distortions. Finally, we briefly review the recent evolution of bank lending to the private sector. We draw policy implications, in particular as regards the way of mitigating the distortions implied by such programmes and the need for an exit strategy

Paul Krugman wrote a piece in the New York Times titled Rewarding Bad Actors, which dealt in part with High Frequency Trading:

It’s hard to imagine a better illustration than high-frequency trading. The stock market is supposed to allocate capital to its most productive uses, for example by helping companies with good ideas raise money. But it’s hard to see how traders who place their orders one-thirtieth of a second faster than anyone else do anything to improve that social function.
…
And there’s a good case that such activities are actually harmful. For example, high-frequency trading probably degrades the stock market’s function, because it’s a kind of tax on investors who lack access to those superfast computers — which means that the money Goldman spends on those computers has a negative effect on national wealth. As the great Stanford economist Kenneth Arrow put it in 1973, speculation based on private information imposes a “double social loss”: it uses up resources and undermines markets.

Far be it from me to dismiss the thoughts of a Nobel-winning economist, but I fail to see his point here – at the very least, it needs elucidation.

Mr. Krugman implies that there is a lower limit to trading reaction speed, below which improvements in reaction time have deleterious effects on national wealth. I don’t see how you would go about defining such a thing. It should also be noted that High Frequency Trading does not necessarily have anything to do with Flash Orders; HFT is simply a method of arbitrage. If, for instance, there is a huge seller of SLF.PR.A, and I can arbitrage that by selling SLF.PR.E to buy it, surely this is a Good Thing for capital markets, and the faster the better? HFT deepens the markets by converting supply and demand for one particular financial instrument into supply and demand for related financial instruments; deepening the market and providing better liquidity for those who want it.

From the point of view of the original seller of SLF.PR.A, I’m doing him a favour … instead of taking trading costs of ten cents per share, he’s only spending nine cents. My nine-cent reward for executing the near-arbitrage (it’s not pure arbitrage since the two issues are not interconvertible) serves as a carrot for my competition … if they can do it faster, stronger, better, the original seller’s cost will drop to eight cents – and they’ll get to keep it all while I go back to the drawing board in an effort to make it seven cents.

But it looks like Flash Orders will be banned. I must say, I’m disappointed with the press coverage of the issue: I haven’t seen an interview anywhere with a supporter (or at least a user) of Flash Orders, willing to stand up on his hind legs and say ‘Flash Orders are Good because …’. But that’s modern journalism for you … all they do nowadays is copy things down from press releases and occasionally call the number at the bottom so they can claim they’ve got an exclusive.

A rip-roaring day for PerpetualDiscounts, with FixedResets doing quite well but trailing badly and shut out of the volume tables.