PrefBlog

Jobs, jobs, jobs!

The American jobs machine has produced a spring spurt to banish the winter weakness.

Employers added 280,000 jobs in May, the most in five months, further dispelling fears that a first-quarter slowdown would take hold, figures from the Labor Department showed Friday. That followed a revised 221,000 April advance.

Hourly earnings climbed from a year ago by the most since August 2013, while an increase in the number of people entering the labor force caused the unemployment rate to creep up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent
…
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index added 0.8 percent, with the greenback rising to 125.64 yen at 4:03 p.m. in New York. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note climbed to 2.40 percent from 2.31 percent late Thursday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 0.1 percent at the close.

The world’s largest economy shrank at a 0.7 percent annualized rate in the first quarter, according to the Commerce Department’s latest report on gross domestic product.
…
The Labor Department said average hourly earnings increased 0.3 percent in May from the prior month, the biggest gain since January. They were up 2.3 percent from May 2014, exceeding the 2 percent gain on average since the current expansion began six years ago.

The agency’s survey of households, used to derive the unemployment figure, showed the participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, increased to a four-month high of 62.9 percent from 62.8 percent in April.

There were jobs in Canada, too:

The Canadian economy saw a burst in hiring last month as private-sector firms, such as factories, added to head count.

Employers created a stronger-than-expected 58,900 jobs in May, the most in seven months. The country’s jobless rate stayed at 6.8 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday, as more people entered the labour market in search of work.
…
Average hourly wage growth accelerated to 3.1 per cent, year over year, from less 2 per cent as recently as March, BMO noted – well above the rate of inflation.
…
Productivity was a soft spot for Canada. Labour productivity fell in the first quarter, Statscan said in a separate release, the first drop in a year as output declined for the first time since 2011.

So the US derivatives market incorporated higher expectations of a 2015 hike:

U.S. bond traders had a very clear message for Christine Lagarde on Friday morning: Your advice to the Federal Reserve is wrong.

Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, advised the Fed on Thursday to wait until 2016 before hiking interest rates.

Bond traders don’t think the U.S. central bank will heed that recommendation. On Friday, they quickly pulled forward their expectations for a rate increase — assigning better than even odds of a move in September after a jobs report showed American payrolls climbed the most in May in five months. That’s up from a 46 percent probability on Thursday, according to Bloomberg calculations.

Naturally, this caused great excitement among the Fed and its watchers:

The 280,000 rise in payrolls in May suggests that the central bank is making progress toward its goal of maximum employment, William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said on Friday. The gains were widespread and were accompanied by a bit higher wages, he added.

“It is likely that conditions will be appropriate to begin monetary policy normalization later this year,” Dudley, who is vice chairman of the central bank’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee, said in a speech in Minneapolis.

While Dudley hedged his forecast by saying a move wasn’t certain, his assertion was more definitive than comments earlier in the week by some other officials who voiced doubts about the strength of the economy. Fed watchers consider Dudley a confidant of Chair Janet Yellen and thus see his views as more indicative of where the central bank is heading.

Traders of money-market derivatives lifted the chance of the Fed raising rates this year following the jobs data. Futures show a 50 percent chance the Fed will increase interest rates by its October meeting, up from 43 percent Thursday, according to CME Group data.

So Treasuries got whacked:

Yields on 10-year notes climbed 10 basis points to 2.41 percent at 5 p.m. New York time, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. They touched 2.43 percent, the highest since Oct. 6. The low yield for the year was 1.64 percent on Jan. 30.

“It’s sell, sell, sell,” said Thomas Simons, a government-debt economist at Jefferies Group LLC, a primary dealer. “This alleviates a lot of the concern that the economy was not going to bounce back in the second half.”

Matt Levine writes an interesting column on activist investor communication:

If corporate America thinks that activist investors have too much power to affect corporate policies and cause short-term thinking and other bad results, and if the SEC agrees, then it might want to just make it harder and riskier for activists to discuss companies with each other, and to solicit support from other investors. Here’s Phil Goldstein of Bulldog Investors, one of the targets of the SEC’s inquiries:

Scrutiny from the SEC could chill legal discussions between investors, he said, adding that it isn’t surprising that underperforming companies would draw interest from several activists.

“If you go to a Grateful Dead concert, you’re going to find a lot of Grateful Dead fans,” he said. “They’re not a group. They just like the same music.”

Activists make their living by being persuasive, and the less they can talk to other investors, the less opportunity they have to persuade. Cutting down on those opportunities is a little weird for corporate democracy: Shareholders can vote, but they’re afraid to talk to each other about how they’ll vote. But if you worry that activists have too much influence, this is a pretty direct way to fix that.

Meanwhile, the war on banks is having an effect:

Britain’s largest banks are urging the U.K. Treasury to start a formal review of taxes on the industry, amid concern HSBC Holdings Plc and Standard Chartered Plc could move overseas to avoid a levy on balance sheets.
…
A review of taxation could persuade HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver to keep Europe’s largest bank based in London, after it started a formal evaluation of its domicile in response to a rising U.K. levy and tougher regulation. The tax on balance sheets, imposed after the financial crisis and which applies to banks’ assets globally, cost HSBC 750 million pounds ($1.1 billion) last year, more than any other bank.

Standard Chartered, which like HSBC makes most of its earnings in Asia, has said it’s also keeping its London headquarters under review and it’s one of the first issues shareholders have said they want new CEO Bill Winters to examine after he starts next week.

Matt Levine has a nice column on communication between activist investors:

If corporate America thinks that activist investors have too much power to affect corporate policies and cause short-term thinking and other bad results, and if the SEC agrees, then it might want to just make it harder and riskier for activists to discuss companies with each other, and to solicit support from other investors. Here’s Phil Goldstein of Bulldog Investors, one of the targets of the SEC’s inquiries:

Scrutiny from the SEC could chill legal discussions between investors, he said, adding that it isn’t surprising that underperforming companies would draw interest from several activists.

“If you go to a Grateful Dead concert, you’re going to find a lot of Grateful Dead fans,” he said. “They’re not a group. They just like the same music.”

Activists make their living by being persuasive, and the less they can talk to other investors, the less opportunity they have to persuade. Cutting down on those opportunities is a little weird for corporate democracy: Shareholders can vote, but they’re afraid to talk to each other about how they’ll vote. But if you worry that activists have too much influence, this is a pretty direct way to fix that.

TransCanada Corporation, proud issuer of TRP.PR.A, TRP.PR.B, TRP.PR.C, TRP.PR.D, TRP.PR.E, TRP.PR.F and TRP.PR.G, was confirmed at Pfd-2(low) by DBRS:

DBRS Limited (DBRS) has today confirmed the ratings of TransCanada Corporation (TCC or the Company) and its wholly owned subsidiary, TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TCPL), both with Stable trends. The preferred share rating of TCC, which owns 100% of TCPL and holds no other material assets, is based on the strength of TCPL and the expectation that no debt will be issued at TCC. The ratings primarily reflect (1) expected improvement in TCC’s overall business risk profile over the medium term, (2) potential medium-term pressure on its credit metrics and (3) environmental, regulatory and political risks with respect to its natural gas and liquids pipelines segments.

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts down 27bp, FixedResets gaining 12bp and DeemedRetractibles off 16bp. TRP FixedResets are notable winners on the Performance Highlights table. Volume was very low.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 23.70 to be $1.28 rich, while TRP.PR.G, which resets 2020-11-30 at +296, is $0.60 cheap at its bid price of 24.77.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule). It is clear that the lowest spread issue, MFC.PR.F, is well off the relationship defined by the other issues, but this doesn’t resolve the conundrum – it just makes it more conundrous.

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.75 to be $0.84 rich, while MFC.PR.G, resetting at +290bp on 2016-12-19, is bid at 25.08 to be $0.60 cheap.

Click for Big

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PF.B, resetting at +263bp on 2019-3-31, bid at 22.86 to be $0.46 cheap. BAM.PF.G, resetting at +284bp 2020-6-30 is bid at 24.94 and appears to be $0.53 rich.

Click for Big

FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.07, looks $0.96 cheap and resets 2020-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 21.65 and is $0.50 rich.

Click for Big

Investment-grade pairs predict an average three-month bill yield over the next five-odd years of about 0.50%, including FTS.PR.H / FTS.PR.I at 1.00%. On the junk side, four pairs are outside the range of the graph: FFH.PR.E / FFH.PR.F at -1.03%; AIM.PR.A / AIM.PR.B at -0.35%; BRF.PR.A / BRF.PR.B at -0.80%; and DC.PR.B / DC.PR.D at -1.64%.

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?

I have reiterated to the point of boredom (some might say past it) that exchange trading will give you tight spreads, sure, but thin brittle markets. And yet people keep trying:

The $7.8 trillion U.S. corporate bond market has yet to figure out how to trade large chunks of debt electronically, according to industry executives.

Alerting other investors that you want to buy or sell a certain security is the problem, said Robert Douglass, chief operating officer of U.S. corporate debt trading at Barclays Plc. Once that’s done, your competitors can steal a potentially profitable trade by executing an order ahead of yours.

“There is so much sensitivity about information leakage,” Douglass said Wednesday during a panel discussion at a Sandler O’Neill & Partners LP conference in New York. Being able to show the market a desire to buy or sell a large amount of an illiquid bond without the price immediately moving against you “would be a great market for everyone,” he said.

I mentioned the ding-dong Avon investors on May 14 … profits from their hair-trigger idiocy have been frozen:

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced an emergency asset freeze of two U.S. brokerage accounts connected to schemes to manipulate Avon and other stocks, thwarting any ability to cash in on ill-gotten proceeds.

According to an SEC complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, the agency has tracked a filing on its EDGAR system last month about a false Avon tender offer to a foreign entity using an IP address located in Sofia, Bulgaria. A Bulgarian trader named Nedko Nedev controlled at least one of the two now-frozen brokerage accounts, and his account held a substantial position in Avon contracts-for-difference (CFDs) that were losing value in recent months. The SEC alleges that Nedev generated approximately $5,000 in excess profits by selling almost half of the account’s Avon CFDs at inflated prices after the EDGAR filing led to a 20-percent increase in the value of Avon stock on May 14.

The court issued an order at the SEC’s request freezing the two accounts, which contain approximately $2 million in assets.

Can there possibly be a misprint there? “$5,000 in excess profits”? Really?

David Parkinson of the Globe passes on some poor Canadian economic news:

The merchandise trade report released by Statistics Canada on Wednesday was, in a word, grim. The April trade deficit of $2.97-billion was the second-biggest on record – trailing only the March deficit, which was revised to $3.85-billion from the originally reported $3.02-billion. That’s a $6.8-billion trade hole in just two months; for the year to date, the cumulative trade deficit is nearly $11-billion.
…
Yes, exports to the U.S. rose 1.6 per cent in April, but that comes after eight consecutive months of declines. Over the past 12 months, exports to the U.S. are down 4.3 per cent. While April’s upturn in U.S. shipments may provide a glimmer of hope, it appears largely driven by a rebound, from great depths, of the energy sector.

Several key non-energy sectors that were supposed to benefit from an accelerating U.S. economy this year have gone AWOL. Exports of metal ores fell 5.8 per cent in April; metal products fell 1.4 per cent. Building and packaging materials dropped 5.8 per cent. Consumer goods slumped 6 per cent. Industrial machinery and equipment flatlined in the month, after slipping 1.2 per cent in March.
…
There’s little question that the elements in trade for an economic recovery remain missing in action. Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz has remained optimistic about a brighter second quarter and a strong second half, but with each new economic release, the doubts creep in. Maybe the cavalry won’t arrive on time; maybe reinforcements, in the form of another interest rate cut, might need to be called in.

And the IMF’s Lagarde has appointed herself a Fed governor, but it remains to be seen whether anybody’s listening:

The Federal Reserve should delay raising interest rates until the first half of 2016, the International Monetary Fund said as it cut its U.S. growth forecast for the second time this year.

The lender also said that the dollar was “moderately overvalued” and a further marked appreciation would be “harmful,” in a statement released in Washington on Thursday on its annual checkup of the U.S. economy.

“We still believe that the underpinnings for continued expansion are in place,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said at a press briefing in Washington. “The inflation rate is not progressing at a rate that would warrant, without risk, a rate hike in the next few months.”

That means the Fed should wait until early 2016, even if there’s a risk of “slight overinflation” relative to the central bank’s 2 percent target, Lagarde said.
…
The fund’s latest U.S. monetary-policy advice is among its most explicit on record. In 2012, for instance, IMF staff suggested that further easing might be warranted if the outlook worsened, while in the crisis of 2008 they said rates “should stay on hold” until a recovery is established.

“The IMF is making a pronouncement on the Fed because the U.S. economy is still so important to the globe,” said Joe LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, who expects a September rate increase. “The question is: Will the Fed listen and does it have any bearing on monetary policy decision-making? And my guess is no.”

And there’s more chatter about the global bond rout:

It all started with German government bonds. Yields on 10-year bunds, which move inversely to price, jumped as much as 51 basis points over the week to touch the highest in more than eight months on Thursday as investors reacted to signs of inflation in the eurozone. Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, helped fuel the sell-off by saying investors should “get used” to bond market volatility thanks to very low interest rates that can exacerbate price swings on the debt.

Yields on U.S. 10-year Treasuries followed suit, rising about 30 basis points to the highest since October. With the rout spreading, traders cancelled meetings and rushed back to the office to deal with the swings.

“Traders” in the last sentence was a misnomer. Clearly, from the fact that these guys had meetings as a matter of routine and had to rush back to the office, they are “salesmen”. Salesmen with authority to trade, to be sure, but basically salesmen.

However, Lisa Abramowicz of Bloomberg mocks the idea that this decline can be called a rout:

Yes, German and U.S. bond yields have soared to their highest levels this year. And, yes, more than $626 billion of value has simply evaporated from an index of global sovereign bonds since the end of March.

But all bond owners aren’t racing to the exits just yet. Investors have actually poured almost $1 billion into fixed-income exchange-traded funds over the past week, just one proxy showing sustained demand for debt, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. While trading volumes are somewhat higher than average in Treasuries this year, they’re pretty typical for corporate bonds and not what you’d expect in the case of a wholesale exodus.

“Volume has been significant but not frenetic given the move in yields,” wrote Jim Vogel, an interest-rate strategist at FTN Financial, in a note Thursday. “It is still not clear to most market participants what is driving the intense sale” of European bonds.
…
Without a significant change in the fundamental backdrop of central-bank stimulus and relatively slow growth worldwide, big investors are showing they’re not quite ready to part ways with their bonds. When they are, that’s when the drama will really ensue.

That was a very good article, that was, and introduced me to the paper Investor Flows and Fragility in Corporate Bond Funds.

Brian Milner of the Globe comments:

The Canadian market has so far avoided the worst of the upheaval experienced in Europe and the U.S. But RBC sees longer-term yields climbing another 50 basis points in both Canada and the U.S. by the end of the year.

“We won’t quickly get back to yields of 4 to 5 per cent,” [head of Canadian fixed income and currency strategy at RBC Dominion Securities Inc.] Mr. [Mark] Chandler said. “But to expect us to rewind what we saw in the last six to eight weeks is wrong.”

Central banks have been “complicit” in the selloff, he said, because several took advantage of lower world oil prices and higher headline inflation to cut interest rates.

“For them to have piled on as they did exacerbated the rally that we saw in the first couple of months this year. Now that oil has sort of stabilized and turned the other way, they’re almost living by the sword and dying by the sword.”

Assiduous Readers will remember that Bernanke took some shots at the Wall Street Journal regarding fiscal and monetary policy, as reported April 30. Kevin Carmichael blames fiscal policy for the current woes:

The recovery from the financial crisis has been painfully slow for two reasons. One is private debt, which has weighed on households’ propensity to spend. The other is that governments have contributed almost nothing to gross domestic product since before the crisis.

Remember the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit? Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper used his influence as chairman to get the Group of 20 to endorse a pledge to quickly reduce budget deficits and pay debt. In retrospect, it was a bad idea. Mr. Harper and the G20 mistakenly assumed that the passing of the storm meant things would get back to normal. But the sun refused to shine. Private demand remained weak, forcing central banks to get ever more creative. Most governments carried on as if nothing was the matter. They restrained spending, exacerbating the situation.

Back to Canada. The country’s politicians accept no blame for the poor state of the economy. For many, this spring was a moment of triumph, for – in the face of that devastating oil shock – the federal government and some provincial ones were able to keep their budgets in check.

It was a mildly negative day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts down 12bp, FixedResets flat and DeemedRetractibles off 8bp. The Performance Highlights table is quite short, by this year’s standards. Volume was below average.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 23.50 to be $1.23 rich, while TRP.PR.G, which resets 2020-11-30 at +296, is $0.76 cheap at its bid price of 24.56.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule). It is clear that the lowest spread issue, MFC.PR.F, is well off the relationship defined by the other issues, but this doesn’t resolve the conundrum – it just makes it more conundrous.

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.75 to be $0.88 rich, while MFC.PR.F, resetting at +141bp on 2016-6-19, is bid at 17.90 to be $0.75 cheap.

Click for Big

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PR.Z, resetting at +296bp on 2017-12-31, bid at 24.54 to be $0.36 cheap. BAM.PF.G, resetting at +284bp 2020-6-30 is bid at 24.93 and appears to be $0.62 rich.

Click for Big

FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.05, looks $0.90 cheap and resets 2020-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 21.61 and is $0.42 rich.

Click for Big

Investment-grade pairs predict an average three-month bill yield over the next five-odd years of about 0.55%, including FTS.PR.H / FTS.PR.I at 1.34%. On the junk side, three pairs are outside the range of the graph: FFH.PR.E / FFH.PR.F at -0.78%; AIM.PR.A / AIM.PR.B at -0.89%; and BRF.PR.A / BRF.PR.B at -1.27%.

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?

SEC Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher has updated his Crazy Quilt Chart of Regulation:

Click for Full Version

SEC Chair Mary Jo White touts efforts to open up the market to smaller IPOs … but instead of simplifying the rules, they’re trying to create a web of exceptions:

Indeed, more than 20 states have enacted some form of intrastate crowdfunding legislation or rules, and a number of others are considering similar initiatives. As states are seeking to expand the avenues in which issuers may conduct intrastate offerings, we have focused on the fact that some of our laws and rules were put into place years ago prior to widespread use of the internet and may present challenges to the states’ efforts.

For example, Securities Act Rule 147, which you will be discussing today, created a safe harbor that issuers often rely on for intrastate offerings. Rule 147 was adopted in 1974, and how an issuer might conduct an intrastate offering using the internet was not contemplated at that time. The staff in the Division of Corporation Finance is currently considering ways to improve the rule, by looking at, among other things, the conditions included in the rule for an offering to be considered intrastate. Securities Act Rule 504, an exemption that could be used to facilitate regional crowdfunding offerings for up to $1 million that are registered in one or more states, is another rule that may benefit from modernization and the staff is considering ways to do that. We look forward to having your input on these topics and to hearing your thoughts on whether there are aspects of these or other rules that could be usefully updated or changed.

The global bond rout is becoming a headline standard:

The global bond rout gathered pace, with Japanese notes slipping a fourth day after Mario Draghi forecast faster euro-area inflation and continued market volatility. Australia’s dollar dropped as most Asian shares rose and oil held losses.

Yields on 10-year Japanese government bonds climbed 3 basis points to 0.49 percent by 11:51 a.m. in Tokyo, the highest level since November, while Australian yields increased for a third day. The Aussie declined 0.8 percent after data showed the nation’s exports slid in April. A measure of Chinese shares in Hong Kong and Japanese stocks advanced while U.S. index futures fell 0.1 percent. U.S. oil held below $60 a barrel before Friday’s OPEC meeting.

This year’s gains in global bonds evaporated as the European Central Bank chief inflamed a selloff in German bunds, saying price growth in the region would pick up further. Greece’s premier claimed to be near agreement with creditors, adding there was no need to worry about an International Monetary Fund payment due Friday.

Meanwhile – and related to the discussion on liquidity, below – there are dark mutterings about taper tantrum redux:

Prices on U.S. investment-grade bonds have fallen 1.1 percent in the first two days of June, a pace so fast it’s reminiscent of the notes’ 5 percent selloff in two months in 2013 when speculation emerged that the Federal Reserve was poised to scale back its bond buying. Bank of America Corp. strategists see the pain deepening from here.

The reason? Investors who like these bonds tend to prize safety and reliable returns above all. They plowed into corporate bonds, often instead of more-creditworthy notes such as U.S. Treasuries, for higher yields as the Fed purchased debt and held interest rates at record lows to ignite growth.

These buyers, in particular, don’t like to see losses on their monthly mutual-fund statements. When the prospects for their debt look shaky, they’ve often responded by yanking their money. And that’s what they’ll likely do now, according to Bank of America analysts.

“We expect high-grade fund flows to turn generally negative in line with the initial experience during the Taper Tantrum,” Hans Mikkelsen, a strategist in New York, wrote in a June 2 report. “Corporate bond prices are declining at a pace eerily similar to what we saw” during that selloff of 2013.

That year, U.S. bond funds reported record withdrawals as investors girded for a period of steadily rising debt yields — or, in other words, losses. Investors pulled more than $70 billion from bond mutual funds in 2013, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.

Matt Levine is one of my favourite columnists, if for no other reason than disproving the idea that PrefBlog hates everybody. He’s written a great column on bond market liquidity:

People are worried about bond market liquidity, is the point I’m trying to make here.

Should they be? I don’t know. I don’t even entirely know what the question means; it is really an assortment of interrelated questions. (What even is the “bond market”? Corporates? Treasuries? Loan ETFs?) Still I figured I would make a series of disconnected observations here, since this stuff keeps coming up.
…
The risk, it seems to me, can’t be located in the dealers (i.e. the banks). Volcker, capital requirements, etc., drive up the cost of immediacy, but they don’t increase the risk of a crash, because bond dealers were never in the business of buying all the bonds all the way down. If there’s a bond crash, the banks won’t be buying bonds, but they would never have been buying bonds in a crash. That was never their job.
…
People are also really worried about liquidity in the Treasury market, in ways that seem to me to be mostly unrelated to the worries about the corporate market. One obvious thing here is: Treasuries look much more like stocks than corporates do. Treasuries trade a lot on electronic exchanges, and banks are relatively unimportant in intermediating Treasury trades. “For Treasuries, the share of transactions by primary dealers has dwindled by more than half to 4 percent since the end of 2008,” with electronic traders like Citadel expanding their role as dealers, and the complaints about the Treasury market sound a lot like the complaints in the equity markets about human market makers being replaced by algorithmic traders.
…
The worries about the Treasury market seem to be largely microstructural; Pimco uses words like “flash crashes” and “air pockets,” not “crises” or “crashes.” The latest Treasury-market news is from ICAP, which “is studying the possibility of temporarily halting Treasurys trading following large price moves,” a classic idea imported from the equity markets. The idea is that sometimes algorithms lose their cool, and rather than letting markets chase the algorithms all the way down, you turn off the whole market for five minutes until human investors can get to their desks and realize that Treasuries are going for bargain prices. People hate flash crashes, and obviously they cause some people to lose money, but they have always struck me as sort of non-systemic, a technical glitch rather than a major fear. A sharp permanent drop in asset prices is scary. A sharp temporary drop in asset prices is kind of funny, honestly.

His first point, distinguishing the role of dealers in terms of liquidity provision vs. crash prevention, echoes the point I made yesterday when I mocked Nouriel Roubini.

Bloomberg published another illustration of the shift in holdings:

Click For Big

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts up 7bp, FixedResets off 24bp and DeemedRetractibles gaining 4bp. The Performance Highlights table is dominated by losing FixedResets. Volume was slightly below average.

PerpetualDiscounts now yield 5.07%, equivalent to 6.59% interest at the standard equivalency factor of 1.3x. Long corporates now yield about 4.05%, so the pre-tax interest-equivalent spread (in this context, the “Seniority Spread”) is now about 255bp, a meaningful narrowing from the 265bp reported May 27.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 23.50 to be $1.23 rich, while TRP.PR.B, which will reset June 30 at 2.152% (GOC5 + 128bp), is $0.64 cheap at its bid price of 14.57.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule). It is clear that the lowest spread issue, MFC.PR.F, is well off the relationship defined by the other issues, but this doesn’t resolve the conundrum – it just makes it more conundrous.

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.75 to be $0.88 rich, while MFC.PR.H, resetting at +313bp on 2017-3-19, is bid at 25.42 to be $0.85 cheap.

Click for Big

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PR.Z, resetting at +296bp on 2017-12-31, bid at 24.50 to be $0.40 cheap. BAM.PF.G, resetting at +284bp 2020-6-30 is bid at 24.91 and appears to be $0.59 rich.

Click for Big

FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.10, looks $0.89 cheap and resets 2020-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 21.62 and is $0.45 rich.

Click for Big

Investment-grade pairs predict an average three-month bill yield over the next five-odd years of about 0.65%, including TRP.PR.A / TRP.PR.F at 1.12% and FTS.PR.H / FTS.PR.I at 1.43%. On the junk side, four pairs are outside the range of the graph: FFH.PR.E / FFH.PR.F at -1.01%; AIM.PR.A / AIM.PR.B at -1.38%; BRF.PR.A / BRF.PR.B at -1.26%; and DC.PR.B / DC.PR.D at -1.75%.

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?

YiLi Chien of the St. Louis Fed writes a piece titled What Drives Long-Run Economic Growth?:

It has been shown, both theoretically and empirically, that technological progress is the main driver of long-run growth. The explanation is actually quite straightforward. Holding other input factors constant, the additional output obtained when adding one extra unit input of capital or labor will eventually decline, according to the law of diminishing returns. As a result, a country cannot maintain its long-run growth by simply accumulating more capital or labor. Therefore, the driver of long-run growth has to be technological progress.

Click for Legible

Good work by Canada, eh? We managed to beat Spain!

Nouriel Roubini, aka “Dr. Doom”, showed his total ignorance of markets:

So what accounts for the combination of macro liquidity and market illiquidity?
…
For starters, in equity markets, high-frequency traders (HFTs), who use algorithmic computer programs to follow market trends, account for a larger share of transactions. This creates, no surprise, herding behavior. Indeed, trading in the US nowadays is concentrated at the beginning and the last hour of the trading day, when HFTs are most active; for the rest of the day, markets are illiquid, with few transactions.

A second cause lies in the fact that fixed-income assets – such as government, corporate, and emerging-market bonds – are not traded in more liquid exchanges, as stocks are. Instead, they are traded mostly over the counter in illiquid markets.

Third, not only is fixed income more illiquid, but now most of these instruments – which have grown enormously in number, owing to the mushrooming issuance of private and public debts before and after the financial crisis – are held in open-ended funds that allow investors to exit overnight. Imagine a bank that invests in illiquid assets but allows depositors to redeem their cash overnight: if a run on these funds occurs, the need to sell the illiquid assets can push their price very low very fast, in what is effectively a fire sale.

Fourth, before the 2008 crisis, banks were market makers in fixed-income instruments. They held large inventories of these assets, thus providing liquidity and smoothing excess price volatility. But, with new regulations punishing such trading (via higher capital charges), banks and other financial institutions have reduced their market-making activity. So, in times of surprise that move bond prices and yields, the banks are not present to act as stabilizers.
…
This is the paradoxical result of the policy response to the financial crisis. Macro liquidity is feeding booms and bubbles; but market illiquidity will eventually trigger a bust and collapse.

With respect to his second point: exchange trading harms liquidity. It’s been shown time and time again … on an exchange, you get tighter spreads, but much less depth.

With respect to his fourth point … true enough as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. Banks have been willing to keep large inventories for a few days, but not for much longer than that; and even then, only when their market intelligence gives them cause to believe that it’s just a greater than usual dose of greed or fear that’s causing a transient market move. When things are wild, they increase their spreads just as much as anybody else; when something fundamental is happening, they don’t stand in the way of the freight train. Their ability to smooth out transient spikes has been impaired by post-crisis regulation; they never had any ability to do more.

My own view is that post-crisis regulation has directly harmed liquidity of corporate bonds by the restrictions on inventory; but that it is financial repression that has harmed liquidity of Treasuries. New regulation has both increased the requirement for banks to hold treasuries, while the Fed’s low policy yields have decreased the incentive for anybody else to hold them. In fact, I will suggest that there are exactly two classes of investor holding US and Canadian government debt in significant size at the moment:

• Regulated entities
• Idiots

Remember the quotation from April 20:

Moreover, Gluskin Sheff + Associates chief economist David Rosenberg pointed out in a note to clients that 80 per cent of the new Treasuries supply over the past year have been bought by foreign central banks, pension funds, insurers, banks, and insurance companies.

If you want a liquid market, the most efficacious way of getting it is to ensure that the population of potential investors is heterogeneous … as much as possible, you want to ensure that no matter what is going on in the economy or in the marketplace, there is a broad group of participants who have a good reason to sell and a broad group of participants who have a good reason to buy. Treasury and Canada markets don’t have that at the moment.

But, on cue, there is some bearish growling from Europe:

Another bond market meltdown is brewing where the initial one began in April, in signs of a reinflating European economy.

Traders piled on sell orders from Germany to Italy on Tuesday as the first increase in consumer prices in the euro zone in six months suggests growth in the 19-nation economy and the risk of the return of the main nemesis of fixed-income investors: inflation.

SEC Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar made an interesting speech titled Capital Unbound: Remarks at the Cato Summit on Financial Regulation:

Over thirty years ago, economist Bruce Yandle famously coined the term “Bootleggers and Baptists” to describe a public choice theory of economics, which observes that, for regulation to endure, groups that otherwise have opposite points of view choose a regulatory structure that results in private benefits for both but perhaps is suboptimal for society.[1] In Yandle’s illustration, Baptists support laws that shut down all bars and liquor stores on Sundays. Bootleggers are also in favor of such laws, but for entirely different reasons. If Sunday closing laws are in place, both parties get their preferred outcome, and the rules are easy to administer. But if the problem is consumption of alcohol, Sunday closing laws merely shift the production and distribution of alcohol from one group — bars and liquor stores — to bootleggers, while giving a false impression that the public interest is being served. No pun intended.

Yandle described this regulatory approach as making complete sense, when viewed from the regulator’s perspective. A regulator, Yandle reasoned, is most focused on minimizing its costs, rather than the overall costs of the regulation. One example is the regulator’s cost of enforcement. A regulator may be inclined to favor rules that minimize the number of circumstances in which a mistake can be made; for instance, unless a lawmaker confuses the day of the week, it is clear under a Sunday closing law whether a bar or liquor store is required to be closed. It is less costly for a regulator to adopt simple, across-the-board rules that are easy to monitor and enforce than alternatives that take into account economic efficiency and distributional effects — how costs and benefits are distributed among different groups. One area where we see this result is private securities offerings.

I hadn’t realized that this concept was a formal economic theory!

I want to move beyond the artificial distinction between so-called “accredited” and “non-accredited” investors and challenge the notion that non-accredited investors are “being protected” when the government prohibits them from investing in high-risk securities. Here, I appeal to two well-known concepts from the field of financial economics. The first is the risk-return tradeoff. Because most investors are risk averse, riskier securities must offer investors higher returns. This means that prohibiting non-accredited investors from investing in high-risk securities is the same thing as prohibiting them from investing in high-return securities.

The second economic concept is modern portfolio theory. By holding a diversified portfolio of assets, investors reap the benefits of diversification; that is, the risk of the portfolio as a whole is lower than the risk of any individual asset. I do not have the time today to give a full lecture on the mathematics and statistics of portfolio diversification, so I will just assure you the correlation of returns is key. When adding higher-risk, higher-return securities to an existing portfolio, as long as the returns from the new securities are not perfectly positively correlated with (move in exactly the same direction as) the existing portfolio, investors can reap higher returns with little or no change in overall portfolio risk. In fact, if the correlations are low enough, the overall portfolio risk could actually decrease.

These two concepts show how even a well-intentioned investor protection policy can ultimately harm the very investors the policy is intended to protect. Moreover, restricting the number of accredited investors in the “privileged class” can have additional (or what economists call “second-order”) effects. The accredited investors may enjoy even higher returns because the non-accredited investors are prohibited from buying and bidding up the price of, high-risk, high-return securities. Remarkably, if you think about it, by allowing only high-income and high-net-worth individuals to reap the risk and return benefits from investing in certain securities, the government may actually exacerbate wealth inequality.

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts gaining 23bp, FixedResets off 7bp and DeemedRetractibles down 9bp. Floaters got hammered (and, unusually, featured in the Volume Highlights, suggesting that somebody really wanted out!), but otherwise the Performance Highlights table is much shorter than has been the norm for the past six months! Volume was well below average.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 23.68 to be $1.30 rich, while TRP.PR.G, resetting 2020-11-30 at +296, is $0.59 cheap at its bid price of 24.80.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule). It is clear that the lowest spread issue, MFC.PR.F, is well off the relationship defined by the other issues, but this doesn’t resolve the conundrum – it just makes it more conundrous.

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.75 to be $0.84 rich, while MFC.PR.G, resetting at +290bp on 2016-12-19, is bid at 25.00 to be $0.72 cheap.

Click for Big

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PR.Z, resetting at +296bp on 2017-12-31, bid at 24.50 to be $0.36 cheap. BAM.PF.G, resetting at +284bp 2020-6-30 is bid at 24.97 and appears to be $0.67 rich.

Click for Big

FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.14, looks $0.91 cheap and resets 2020-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 21.62 and is $0.31 rich.

Click for Big

Investment-grade pairs predict an average three-month bill yield over the next five-odd years of about 0.50%, and are very nicely clustered today. On the junk side, three pairs are outside the range of the graph: FFH.PR.E / FFH.PR.F at -0.97%; AIM.PR.A / AIM.PR.B at -1.43%; and BRF.PR.A / BRF.PR.B at -1.38%.

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?

Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer reiterated Fed caution:

When it comes to describing how the Federal Reserve will exit the zero-rate era, “liftoff” is all wrong, says Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer.

The term, dear to investors and headline writers, “is the most misleading word you can imagine,” he said on Monday in Toronto.

“Liftoff says we’re going straight up with the interest rate,” Fischer said during a question-and-answer session after a speech on financial crises. “Well, we’re going up with the interest rate, then along, and then another little jump. That’s not liftoff, that’s crawling.”

His remarks underline a theme hammered home by Fed officials in recent weeks: They won’t follow a predictable path in raising rates, and instead will be guided by the latest economic data.

This is a nice try – a very nice try – but only one shift? Regrettably, it belongs in the “stunt” category:

After Starboard Value took over the board of Darden Restaurants Inc., the hedge fund wanted its newly minted directors to have a feel for the business. So it put them to work.

Every board member worked a night in a restaurant, said Starboard Chief Executive Officer Jeff Smith, who also is Darden’s chairman. Smith said he waited on tables and served food in the kitchen.

“It was not undercover — everyone knew,” Smith said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers” with Stephanie Ruhle and Erik Schatzker. “It was an amazing experience. We felt we could not make the decisions without knowing what was happening in the restaurants.”

Hopefully, the directors are spending a lot of time in the restaurants, talking to staff, even if they’re not trying to prove they’re mennathepeople.

I have more education complaints, this time about attracting foreign students to Canada:

Canadian officials are finding it difficult to keep up with the increasing demand from international students, leading to waiting times for visas that are weeks longer than those in Britain or the United States, and reducing the program’s competitiveness.

The lengthy timelines are contained in a report from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), obtained by The Globe and Mail through freedom of information legislation. While the federal government wants to double the number of students from abroad by 2022, it has not provided sufficient resources to process the increased numbers, the report says. CIC blames this “lack of coordination” between federal departments for an increase of 30 per cent in processing times for study permits and a doubling of the time for temporary resident visas.
…
The report also recommends clarifying what role international students play in Canada’s overall immigration strategy. The goal of doubling student numbers was set by a 2012 panel as a way to fill labour-market shortages and increase global economic links. But those economic needs can’t be met without government co-ordination, said the panel’s chair.

Foreign students are great! They pay high fees (and therefore probably come from reasonably well-off families), they may well immigrate – with Canadian qualifications, which will help get a first job – and if they don’t immigrate, then they’ll at least live their lives not only knowing that we don’t all live in igloos, but (with luck) having a soft spot for us. I cannot understand why this programme is understaffed.

It was another disappointing day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts down 2bp, FixedResets losing 19bp and DeemedRetractibles off 1bp. The lengthy Performance Highlights table is dominated by losing FixedResets. Volume was average.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 23.50 to be $1.10 rich, while TRP.PR.G, resetting 2020-11-30 at +296, is $0.68 cheap at its bid price of 24.76.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule).

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.60 to be $0.64 rich, while MFC.PR.G, resetting at +290bp on 2016-12-19, is bid at 25.01 to be $0.69 cheap.

Click for Big

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PF.B, resetting at +263bp on 2019-3-31, bid at 22.90 to be $0.43 cheap. BAM.PF.G, resetting at +284bp 2020-6-30 is bid at 24.91 and appears to be $0.56 rich.

Click for Big

FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.06, looks $0.92 cheap and resets 2015-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 21.79 and is $0.47 rich.

Click for Big

Investment-grade pairs predict an average three-month bill yield over the next five-odd years of about 0.50%, and are very nicely clustered today. On the junk side, four pairs are outside the range of the graph: FFH.PR.E / FFH.PR.F at -1.02%; AIM.PR.A / AIM.PR.B at -0.91%; BRF.PR.A / BRF.PR.B at -1.83%; and FFH.PR.C / FFH.PR.D at +1.00%.

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?