for the Investment Edge
You are not logged in.
Here are my notes on Seth Klarman's presentation at the CFA Institute's Annual Conference today. It was a discussion with Jason Zweig of the Wall Street Journal.
JZ: How have you followed Graham and Dodd, and how have you deviated?
SK: Graham and Dodd is really a way to think about investing, think about bargains and where they come from. Our search process is definitely based on G&D. We deviate by investing in instruments that didn't exist then, and the business is more competitive than it was then. Also, what is on the books is not as reliable, we don't trust the numbers, we look behind them.
JZ: What lessons did you learn from Mutual Shares working with Mike Price and Max Heine?
SK: From Mike Price, endless desire to get into and seek out value. Mike once found a mining stock he thought was undervalued and drew up a map of interlocking ownership structures and found about 10 securities he could buy that owned part of this company. From Max Heine: While he was a great analyst, he was a better man. He was very kind to everyone, from the receptionist on up, I learned how to treat people well.
JZ: What went wrong in 2008, and how did so many Value Investors get hammered?
SK: Value investing doesn’t work all the time, you need to expect periods of underperformance. In the Pre 08 period, the world was valued on an invisible LBO Model. Stocks were not allowed to get cheap because of an underlying expected LBO bid. But when the model got fragmented, the template no longer made sense. So in order to do well, equity minded investors needed to be more agile in 07/08 and have an opinion on subprime mortgages and the ripple effect. Bank stocks looked cheap unless you thought their capital would be destroyed. Also the modern day pressure to be fully invested and on short term performance didn’t help.
JZ: In Michael Lewis’s book The Big Short, Mike Burry finds himself in the situation in 2007 of defending himself to his investors at the precise moment that he’s doubting himself. How is Baupost organized to avoid this?
SK: Having great clients is the key to investment success. We have emphasized very sophisticated families and Institutions as our clients, who had the ability to see through the financial crisis as opposed to many individuals who felt as if they were staring into the abyss.
JZ: Any advice on how to raise the quality of your clients?
SK: Avoid Fund of Funds since you don’t see the actual client, they are at the mercy of their clients and don’t have staying power. Our ideal client has two characteristics: 1.) If we feel we have had a good year, they agree, regardless of relative performance and 2.) when we call, asking them to consider adding new capital, they a.) appreciate the call and b.) add new capital. It’s not only actual withdrawals that matter but the fear of redemptions as well.
JZ: Baupost is organized for the long term, but can be opportunistic in the short term, such as in 2008 when Mortgage Backed Securities went from 0% to 30% of the fund…
SK: And got as high as 50% in early 2009. I have incredible partners, with common investment approaches. We have a non conventional approach to organizing our analysts. We don’t have Pharma or Oil/Gas analysts, but they’re organized by opportunity: Spinoffs, Bankruptcy, Legal, etc. They don’t waste their time keeping up on latest quarterly earnings from companies we will never invest in, but spend their time looking for irrational sellers.
JZ: In 1932, Benjamin Graham wrote in Forbes, “Those with the enterprise lack the money and those with the money lack the enterprise to buy stocks when they are cheap.” How did you have the courage, was it easy to step up and buy in the fall of 2008?
SK: “Yes, it was easy.” The critical thing to understand is that securities are not pieces of paper that fluctuate in price tick by tick like Cramer says on TV, instead they are in fact claims on earnings or assets of businesses. If you are afraid a security will go lower then you worry about what clients, or partners, will think. If you have conviction in your analysis, you will hold and buy more. So what do we do to give us conviction? 1.) Find compelling bargains, not slight bargains. 2.) Test everything with sensitivity analyses. 3.) Prepare to be wrong. It’s not courage, it’s Arrogance, when you buy something, you’re saying you’re smarter than everyone else. We realize we have lots of smart competition and temper our arrogance with humility to realize that many things could go wrong. Our own confidence matters, and we’re highly disciplined buyers and sellers to avoid round trips and take advantage of short term sell offs.
JZ: So Investors need cash and courage…
SK: Courage is a function of process.
JZ: In Margin of Safety, you were critical of Indexing, is that still the case?
SK: There is no perfect answer. Yes, I still believe indexing is a horrible idea. Stocks trade up when they’re added to the index so the index investor is paying up. I’m more likely to buy the companies kicked out of the index. For the average person, however, they don’t do enough research to own individual stocks. The idea of owning stocks for the long run is a disservice to investors, because many are not there for the long run. Many got out in 2008 when they should have been buying, because the entry point matters most. Transaction costs and Taxes don’t matter if the market goes nowhere. I’m very worried about another 10 years of zero or low returns since the market has run up so fast.
JZ: In the past you have referred to a “Hostess Twinkie Market”, can you explain what you mean?
SK: Hostess Twinkies make childhood happier with totally artificial ingredients. The market has been made happier by government manipulation. 0% interest rates, Mortgage Lending Programs, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Tarp, etc. We don’t know how much it went up because of these, but the Government wanted people to buy equities to enact the wealth effect. I’m worried to this day if all the manipulation wasn’t happening what would happen. We can’t know, no one can. And it’s continuing with the European bailouts. It’s as if the Government is in business to give bad financial advice and force unsophisticated (and sophisticated) investors to speculate. In the short term performance game, everyone needs to keep up.
JZ: How worried are you that we’re in a giant world wide carry trade that will end badly?
SK: I’m more worried about the world then at any point in my career.
JZ: Why?
SK: The new element is will the US Dollars we make be worth anything? There’s not enough money in the world for all the bailouts unless it is debased. It’s easier to debase than take hard problems, easier to kick it down the road. I want to see someone that is willing to lose a re-election in Washington to tackle the hard problems.
JZ: What is the chance of that? How much above zero?
SK: I’m an optimist. Scott Brown has appeal. More politicians will come along who see tackling the hard problems as a way to get elected. Lots of people in the country realize there is no free lunch. Every adjusted economic number is in the government’s favor. I’m troubled that the country didn’t get value out of the crisis like we did in the 30s. Depressions aren’t good but the depression mentality is good. We developed a “bad couple of weeks” mentality.
JZ: Are you concerned about government debt?
SK: I’m not an expert and don’t have much to add. Think of it from a Gladwell Tipping Point perspective. I’m not sure how much debt is too much. Sovereign debt is “money of the mind” (James Grant Reference) and the tipping point is invisible, all is fine until it is not fine. It will be fine until bidders don’t show up at the Auction. The Treasury Secretary has been lulled into thinking the US will always be AAA Rated. That type of thinking ensures we won’t always be AAA Rated. A Sovereign debt crisis will be “gradual until sudden.”
JZ: In Margin of Safety, you said commodities were not investments since they do not produce cash flows, one possible exception being gold. Do you still feel this way?
SK: I haven’t changed my mind, but that statement was in reference to rare stamps, or fine art, etc. Valuing collectibles based on a future sale to a greater fool is speculating. There is no way to analyze what it will be worth in the future. Land is complicated because it will be valuable to future buyers and it can have cash flows. Gold has been thought of as a store of value but it is just a commodity and therefore it is a speculation. I own gold because I want exposure to a devaluation of all paper monies.
JZ: Graham stated that an investment is anything you analyze, has safety of principle and an adequate return, and all else is speculation. But he speculated…
JZ: Graham wasn’t thinking about currency devaluation. If you want to short the dollar, you need to short it against something, what is that something? No other currency makes sense. Gold is an expensive hedge to protect against severe erosion in purchasing power, but it’s something we feel is worth it. We are looking to protect tail risks that could be catastrophic, one of which is hyperinflation. We don’t like TIPS since the government keeps the inflation data. It’s more likely the Bond Market would call the government on inflation before it shows up in government data. So what we did is buy way out of the money puts on bonds. We lose 100% if rates go to 5% or 6%. However, if rates get to double digits, we’ll make 10, 15, 20 times our money. If they get to 20-30%, we’ll make 50-100x. And there’s way less than a 50/50 chance this would happen in 5 years or less. But we view it as very cheap insurance and it’s worth risking our capital to buy that insurance.
Questions from the audience, as filtered by Jason Zweig:
JZ: Do you give money back when the market is overvalued?
SK: The number one thing on my mind at most times. I’ve said for years size is negative for performance. I said that at $200m in AUM and now at $22B I still think so. However, in Feb 2008 we went to our wait list for the first time in 8 years to raise more capital as we thought opportunities would be plentiful, large, lumpy, and unpredictable. I thought being larger was better at that time. And it was. We got a lot of calls from distressed sellers and couldn’t have acted on them without the additional capital. I am prepared to return capital but am worried about a double dip. We’re at 30% cash now and I would not raise more cash without returning some to investors.
JZ: Sounds like the size of your firm is market dependent?
SK: Our firm’s only goal is Excellence. I have no plans to sell out, or to go public, as that would hurt the firm. I feel great knowing I made a fraction of what I could. The key is doing right by clients, not making more money for myself or partners.
JZ: Any comment on what appears to be a change in morals among execs?
SK: Regarding the Goldman Sachs hearings, I know the world is wild, that Wall St. exists to make money, not to benefit Baupost. I know that Wall St. will always try to take our money, I go in with open eyes, you need to think “Caveat Emptor” when dealing with Wall St. I don’t know how to police it, they don’t owe us a fiduciary responsibility when we trade, they’re either a counterparty or a market maker. We should celebrate GS that they didn’t go bankrupt and were hedging, we shouldn’t wish they’d gone bankrupt sooner.
JZ: What reforms would you welcome?
SK: We’d welcome more registration if it helps the country, it would not affect us on a disclosure level. As a competitor, I’d like Prop Trading to go away, and I do think there is a conflict there. A single regulator won’t work, regulating risk won’t work (people like risk in an up market, but don’t like it in a down market). I think required bank capital ratios should be raised. The Bank Bailout fund is ridiculous as it penalizes those firms that didn’t need bailouts (why is Jamie Dimon/JPM paying for BAC/C bailouts?). Bill Ackman was the first I heard to suggest that in a bailout all equity should be made worthless and subordinate debt should be automatically converted to new equity, which makes sense to me, as we’d avoid the unnecessary bailouts such as all the AIG holders/creditors.
JZ: How do you avoid group think?
SK: We recently had an investment team retreat with leading thinkers. They all said there was a terrible problem with paper money, we should consider gold, the EU would break up. Our partner’s immediate thought was that gold was a group thought and we should be cautious holding it. So we focus on intellectual honesty and try to learn from mistakes, accept them, and move on. We spend a lot of time on this in our hiring process. When there’s a mistake, there is no yelling, it’s never the analyst’s fault (unless it’s a dumb formula error, etc), everything is reviewed by senior people and we’re wrong together. We’re aware of our biases and the risk of being biased. As an investor you need to decide if you’d rather make more money in up years and have a few bad years, or protect your downside, and we’ve obviously chosen the latter. We’d rather underperform a huge bull market then get clobbered in a bear.
JZ: Everyone says it’s never the analyst’s fault, but often they don’t stick to this when something goes wrong. How do you screen for Intellectual Honesty in your hiring process?
SK: We ask about their biggest mistake, which doesn’t have to be investing related. But if you say your biggest mistake is wearing mis-matched socks one day, then that’s likely not being intellectually honest. We ask ethical questions, ask them how they’d respond in morally ambiguous situations, we want to see that they realize conflicts can exist. We want people who fit in. One key thing is idea fluency, if I present a thesis I want people to immediately come up with 10 places to look to exploit it, I don’t want them sitting at their desk thinking, “hmm, where should I look?”
JZ: Is Short Selling market manipulation?
SK: I’m surprised by that question. We don’t short unless it’s a stub we’re trying to isolate. But I believe that Short Sellers do better analysis than buyers. The world is biased against them, they’re the market policemen, it’s not in the country’s best interest for short sellers to go away. Short Sellers are more patriotic than the CNBC Perma Bulls. There is one exception, and that’s yelling “fire” when companies need access to capital to roll their debt. If they buy Credit Default Swaps and want a default to happen, that’s troublesome. But some of this fault lies on CFO’s who assumed that markets would always be accessible. GE was irresponsible heading into the crisis, they should have extended maturities. Short Sellers need to be right more than buyers. If a computer wants to sell stocks short at $0.01, let them do it.
JZ: What about the individual investors whose sell orders went off at $0.01?
SK: Never use market orders. You’re not a seller at the market, the market changes too fast.
JZ: What are the top asset classes for the next decade?
SK: Ask Jeremy Grantham! We’re opportunistic, we’ll buy what’s out of favor, what’s in financial distress, in litigation, in trouble, whatever.
JZ: Tell us how you make money?
SK: <silence, laugh> we make money when we buy, not when something goes up in value. We’re trying to buy commercial real estate right now, but there is a problem. There are 2 markets in Commercial Real Estate. The private market, for not Class A stuff, is propped up by the government with TARP and PPIP. The FDIC told banks with a wink to not be in a hurry to sell, so no one is selling. The public market through REITs trade as low as a 5% yield which is much, much less attractive and not worth owning.
JZ: Can you define a Value Stock and what is your average holding period?
SK: As for a Holding Period, we buy expecting to hold a bond to maturity and a stock forever. Now we may turn over quicker if there’s rapid appreciation and the return from the current price doesn’t seem to compensate for the risks anymore. There’s no such thing as a Value Company. Price is all that matters. At some price, an asset is a buy, at another it’s a hold, and at another it’s a sell.
JZ: With regard to your OTM puts, how do you think about counterparty risk?
SK: We worry about it in everything we do. We diversity amongst many counter parties, try to go with the best run / most solvent companies. We force them to post collateral. But sometimes we realize that a 50% haircut to what we are owed, instead of colleting 100%, can still be a good investment. We choose “good enough” over “not do”.
JZ: What metrics did you look at that told you the time was right to deploy capital?
SK: With most stocks down 40%, it wasn’t economically too different form a depression. We assumed a depression was going to happen, and looked for what would still work out. One example was captive auto finance companies whose bonds were trading at $0.40. We specifically liked Ford Motor Credit since they seemed to be the best run. And we said, ok, you have 5% of loans defaulting. What happens if this doubles, or quadruples, or goes up 8x? We decided that at a 20% default rate the bonds would be worth par, and at 40% default, they’d be worth $0.60. So we thought we were pretty save buying since we didn’t think defaults would go anywhere near that high. In 07/08 there wasn’t an erosion in auto loans, people just expected there to be one. Autos didn’t have over building and multiple investment cars like homes had. So we looked for depression protection.
JZ: What about today?
SK: It’s an indiscriminate rally that’s over blown, at least on credit, specifically Junk Bonds. There are now PIK and Dividend Recapture bonds. The market is not prepared for another potential serious collapse.
JZ: How do you protect your clients against inflation/falling US Dollar?
SK: I mentioned the OTM puts on bonds, I don’t feel comfortable mentioning anything else and having 1600 people call up their brokers and over pay for protection. But you need to think about and consider gold going down, the US Dollar not being the reserve currency (or continuing to be the reserve currency). It’s more art than science, and what we’re doing could very well have a negative NPV, but we think it’s a good idea to try to protect client purchasing power if the world gets really bad.
JZ: When will we see a re-issue of Margin of Safety?
SK: I have no immediate plans, but I do want to bring it back with either a companion manual or fresh introduction. I have no time to write it, however, so it’s not coming anytime soon. It’s not intentionally out of print, it happened accidentally. I’d like to raise money for charity somehow when I do bring it back.
JZ: Any Book Recommendations (besides Margin of Safety and Security Analysis, of course)?
SK: Read as much as you can about the markets, economy, and financial history. Never stop reading. Specific book recommendations include The Intelligent Investor, Greenblatt’s You Can Be A Stock Market Genius, Whitman’s Aggressive Conservative Investor, Anything from Jim Grant (he’s a great thinker, even if his predictions may not turn out right), Roger Lowenstein has not written a bad book, anything from him. Also Michael Lewis, who also hasn’t written a bad book either, but specifically MoneyBall which will go down as a definitive book on investing. Also Andrew Ross Sorkin's Too Big to Fail is good.
JZ: I’ll add How to Lie with Statistics.
Offline
Spreading virus in a new way, very interesting.
http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_work … ticle/4557
Offline
Why is Russia doing this, just make things more complicated in North Korea incident.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Russia … story.html
Offline
It's ok to drill oil in Canadian Arctic, but it's ok to drill off shore British Columbia.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Ca … story.html
Offline
These are nice cheap cars, but the problem is that they don't have a lot of space at the back for luggages.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/ar … mily-autos
Offline
Interesting article about electric vehicle air pollution.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/208199- … urce=email
Good comments too.
Offline
Alan, do you think Etrade will bankcrupt? Thanks.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorial … /0611.html
Offline
Mutual fund settlements, you may be entitled to some money?
http://www.mutualfundsettlements.com/
Offline
Frankly, I am afraid one of these days hell will break loose.
http://www.financialsense.com/contribut … is-of-2010
Offline
I hope planet alignment will not kill us all.
http://www.safehaven.com/article/17678/ … ophe-alert
Offline
I don't think this is a good bus idea, this is a disaster.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/669166
Offline
If someone offers you $350,000 for your house that is only worth $14,000, then I suggest you take it, it's money from God. This guy didn't take it, and probably wanted more, and at the end he may get less.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1008 … ne_holdout
Offline
Although I'm sure that Stephen Chu is a brilliant man, I was astounded when asked by an interviewer after taking office what his petroleum policy would be? He stated that it was not his responsibility. The indication to me was a time honored flaw that just because someone was brilliant in a particular set does not mean that they are a universally perceptive and a broad thinker. If the Secretary of Energy is not responsible for Petroleum policy who the hell is?
I saw this article today that may... just may be a glimmer of hope. I disagree with the authors conclusion: “But looking over this list, it seems obvious that Secretary Chu is gearing up for a new political battle and realized that he needed a little more Beltway muscle.” Some of the folks he has pulled together are far from politicos and certainly not policy lightweights.
I have been the victim and/or direct recipient of policies formulated by three of these people and have seen closeup the process they use. Augustine, Perry, and Deutch are all brilliant and not just resume accomplished. They also are way more than just a beltway herd and they are way more than just academics If there is hope of a strategic energy policy these guys IMO just might be the ones to think it through. Additionally Yergin's - The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power is Daniel Yergin's 800-page history of the global oil industry from the 1850s through 1990 certainly provides a foundation for understanding the consequences for the future.
I am not overly excited or grasping for straws here --- just hopeful... I need hope these days.
Art
_____________
DOE Chief Chu Adds Political Muscle with New Advisory Board
AUG 10 2010, 2:26 PM ET |
Steve Chu has a new set of advisors, the Department of Energy announced today. The twelve-member board is surprisingly old-guard for a DOE chief from outside the Beltway.
These are insiders who know how to fight in Washington's trenches. They are not Silicon Valley. They are not really innovators, aside from Art Rosenfeld and Nick Donofrio. Energy may be an avocation for many on the list, but few have dedicated their lives to the field.
A couple of examples to make the point: John Deutch advised Jimmy Carter on energy, then went on to helm the CIA under Bill Clinton. William Perry served as Secretary of Defense in the 1990s and is affiliated with the Hoover Institution. Norm Augustine was the CEO of Lockheed Martin, an under secretary for the Army, and chaired a controversial panel on NASA's future last year. If Augustine were a Pulp Fiction character, he would be The Wolf (Harvey Keitel), the mob fixer brought in to clean up messes.
Here is the full Secretary of Energy Advisory Board:
Norman Augustine, Former Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin
Ralph Cicerone, President of National Academy of Sciences
John Deutch, MIT Chemist, Former Under Secretary of Energy
Nicholas Donofrio, Former EVP of Innovation and Technology, IBM
Alexis Herman, Former Secretary of Labor
Chad Holliday, Jr., Former CEO of Dupont
Michael McQuade, Senior VP, United Technologies Corporation
William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, Stanford University Professor
Arthur Rosenfeld, Former Commissioner, California Energy Commission
Susan Tierney, Managing Principle, Analysis Group
Steven Westly, Managing Partner, Westly Group
Daniel Yergin, President, Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Nominally, the group will "provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the Department's basic and applied research, economic and national security policy, educational issues, [and] operational issues."
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch … ard/61251/
But looking over this list, it seems obvious that Secretary Chu is gearing up for a new political battle and realized that he needed a little more Beltway muscle.
Offline
As I understand the Chu policy interest, it is primarily speeding the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, by making fossil fuels less competitive.
Those who think this is a misplaced priority would not like to see a more effective push to gets the enabling laws adopted.
Offline
Cannacord reports:
the smiley in the formula's below should be a left parenthesis, like this (
Reuters reports U.S. students
are being taught to memorize
math formulas, instead of understanding them,
which has led to confusion about what the
equal sign means, a new study says.
Researchers at Texas A&M University say
about 70% of students in Grade 6 in the U.S.
“exhibit misconceptions” about the equal sign,
while “nearly none of the international students
in Korea and China” have this problem.
Co-author of the study, Robert Capraro, gave
an example math equation:
4+3+2
)+2.
“Students who have learned to memorize
symbols and who have a limited understanding
of the equal sign will tend to solve problems
such as 4+3+2
)+2 by adding the numbers on
the left, and placing it in the parentheses, then
add those terms and create another equal sign
with the new answer,” he explained. “So the
work would wrongly be: 4+3+2
9)+2=11.
“Chinese textbooks provided the best examples
for students while U.S. textbooks were lacking
examples about the equal sign,” Capraro noted.
Offline
?
What is 4+3+2()+2
supposed to mean? How can it be an equation with no equals sign? An equation is supposed to be a statement that two things are equal.
Offline
For some reason the system on this website isn't great for math formula.
You are supposed to solve the equation to find out what is supposed to be between the (), as far as I can tell. There is an equals sign in the original. I'll try it again
4+3+2 equals ( )+2
I suppose they don't use "x" as the standard unknown variable any more...probably not politically correct to discriminate against X all the time :lol
it is 4+3+2= x+2, I presume, so x=7
Maybe the kids just don't understand the () either.
Offline
Amazing photos on Russia forest fire.
http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010 … more-16771
Offline
What thiefs are thinking.
http://shine.yahoo.com/event/financiall … u-2299277/
Offline
(Note: There was a topic ETF stuff in the archive but I was not sure if I could or should but an article in a thread that is in the archive so I put it here.)
The Clear and Present Regulatory Danger Facing ETFs
by: Martin Fluck September 06, 2010 | about: DBC / EWZ / PZE / RIO
We may not have long to wait for the collapse in the exchange-traded fund bubble. The ETF industry ran out of control long ago, but regulators can no longer ignore the retail money faddishly pouring into these funds, and how it is distorting market prices. Stuffed with exotic derivatives and super-concentrated bets on very risky markets, regulators are closing in. The steps they are taking will lead to a cascade of falling dominoes, as the more speculative ETFs are unwound.
ETFs’ big selling point has been that they are cheaper than traditional mutual funds, and they’re giving retail investors easy access to emerging markets and commodities for the first time. The assets they manage have doubled to $1.1 trillion since 2005, and the market is expected to grow another 20-30% this year. Mutual funds still dwarf ETFs, with $19.5 trillion in assets, but ETFs are taking a disproportionate amount of the money being invested in emerging market funds. Half of the $30 billion U.S. investors bet on emerging-markets in 2009 was in ETFs – which had $277 billion invested in commodity ETFs and other securities linked to raw materials by the end of 2009.
But many of the markets that ETFs are indexed to are too small to absorb this kind of money, and so indiscriminate buying has forced up the value of bad companies as well as good. For some time, there have been suspicions that ETFs are pumping up emerging markets and commodities – which are, of course, interrelated.
U.S. regulations are supposed to limit ETFs from huge concentrations in a given emerging market stock, but with few liquid companies to invest in, dangerous concentrations are inevitable. A fund like the iShares MSCI Brazil Index ETF (EWZ), which nearly tripled in size in 2009 to $10.9 billion in assets – though it’s fallen back to $9.3 billion – has 33% of the fund invested in only two firms: oil giant Petrobras (PZE) and mining company Vale do Rio Doce (RIO). So a play on the Brazilian stock market is essentially a play on the oil price. “If you invest in an ETF with most of its assets in a few stocks and think you have made a diversified bet, the real bubble is the one between your own ears,” is how the Wall St Journal puts it.
As money pours into these ETFs, and they are mechanically forced to match their holdings to those in the emerging-market indexes, that forced buying drives up share prices, attracting still more new money into the ETFs, as shares spiral even higher. In this way, ETFs are exacerbating swings in markets with already pronounced boom bust cycles.
But with more than 4 out of 10 trades on U.S. stock exchanges involving ETFs on some days, and hundreds of billions of dollars of ETF funds invested in contracts that were once dominated by producers and consumers who sought to hedge against oil-market volatility, the regulators are closing in.
In a reversal of findings published under the Bush administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – under its new chairman, Gary Gensler, appointed by Obama – has concluded speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices that caused the oil price to spike to $145 in 2008. The “flash crash” of U.S. equities on 6 May, when more than 70% of the trades cancelled due to excessive declines involved ETFs, will only have reinforced its views on the impact of the massive influx of capital into commodities.
That is why the financial reform bill President Barack Obama signed on 21 July included provisions that will allow for new rules to limit the amount of investments in commodities by big institutions betting on their direction purely for financial gain, and enhance the CFTC’s ability to prosecute trading abuses. With the CFTC set to impose caps on energy trading within a year, and limit the size of funds, the regulatory threat to the ETF industry is clear and present.
The CFTC’s explicit responsibility is to guard against commodity market distortions, and it appears to be dead serious about addressing the mess ETFs have created in commodities, and shutting down aggressive commodity products. Its main concern is a bubble in certain energy and agricultural products that has become so obvious that they cannot delay taking action any more. Congress still needs to appropriate funds and write guidelines for implementation and enforcement, but they are now at the beginning of a rule-writing process. They could seek additional authority to crack down on abuses like pre-rolling, where futures traders make money at retail investors’ expense by exploiting the ETFs big monthly programmed roll-over of positions, by buying or selling the next months contracts in advance, to manipulate prices.
The biggest ETF fund managers believe the furore over commodity ETFs is more about the structure of the underlying commodity futures market than about ETF products themselves (though they would say that wouldn’t they). Yet in the last couple of weeks, various gas and oil ETFs have begun to suspend the issue of new shares in anticipation of the strict position limits the CFTC will impose.
With Bloomberg BusinessWeek calling commodity ETF’s “America’s worst investment” and printing “Do Not Buy Commodity ETFs” three times on the cover of its 29 July issue, investors can’t say they haven’t been warned! Jack Bogle, the creator of the first index mutual fund in 1975, and founder of Vanguard Group Inc thinks, “It’s insanity… a classic case of Wall Street trying to capitalize on the worst instincts of investors.”
Meanwhile, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that polices broker-dealers has several investigations under way to see if investors are being sold ETFs they may not understand, or that may be too risky for their needs. The “retailization” of leverage, derivatives, and other hedge fund-style investing techniques, is also alarming the SEC. It is deferring approval of new ETFs that use derivatives while it reviews the leverage and complexity of products aimed at retail investors.
The Bank of England has also highlighted ETF market risks. The benefits of ETFs may be outweighed by “complexity, opacity and contingent risks” - and it is worried about the transparency of the risks arising from securities lending (many funds lend out the securities bought with retail investors money) and counterparty risks from derivative exposures. It thinks the auditing processes that should ensure the shares in ETFs are backed by an equivalent value of the underlying commodity or index, may not be up to the task.
The structure of the ETF market makes fraud easy. “Often, for tax and stamp duty reasons, as well as cost and finding the right legal framework, many ETFs are listed in one country, the management resides in a second, and the commodity or securities are held in a third,” Bedlam Asset Management warned in October last year. It has unearthed ‘beverage’ ETFs where the manager, trustee, custodian and listing are in the Indian sub-continent, the Gulf, Africa and Europe; which convinces them there are ETF frauds out there just waiting to be discovered. Because the verification is being done by junior people in small firms with a limited track record, they are becoming “twitchy.”
Whatever triggers a mad rush to exit the ETF market – fraud, the regulatory crack down, or simply general market panic – global equity prices are likely to be hit by a chain reaction. “Wall Street has created a dangerous new kind of global weapon of mass destruction – a bomb primed to detonate like the 2000 dot-coms, the 2008 sub-primes – and detonation is dead ahead,” Paul Farrell recently wrote in Dow Jones’ Market Watch.
If ETF funds become forced sellers to meet redemptions, it could create a downward spiral as a wave of physical gold and other commodities are sold into thin markets, in turn triggering falls in the share prices of companies that produce these commodities. As investors sell shares in the more concentrated ETFs, the very act of selling the underlying investments is likely to put pressure on the share price of those companies, hurting the ETF’s net asset value and precipitating additional sales.
The losses could be even more precipitous for investors in leveraged and inverse ETFs, which the SEC and Finra have warned could deviate widely from their underlying indexes. And the failure of a firm providing ETFs could leave investors holding something other than the intended index exposure; and facing liquidity constraints on exiting their investment. Such risks, says the Bank of England, “should not be under emphasized.”
How typical it is that the great and the good of the financial world are in Jackson Hole debating the role of regulations in the preventing and deflating the next asset bubble, just as new regulations are set to burst yet another gigantic bubble that has occurred under their noses? The financial regulators’ early warning systems have failed, and we are all about to become victims of the ETFs' success; paying the price, once again, for financial products with three letter acronyms.
Offline
By Thy Rivers (of $$$$) gently flowing, Illinois, Illinois .........
******************************************************
www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/edi … 7856.story
chicagotribune.com
Culture of greed
September 7, 2010
Park commissioners in Highland Park deliberately inflated the compensation package of their retiring executive director to bump his pension by tens of thousands of dollars per year. Bellwood officials were surprised — surprised! — to learn their village administrator, whose base salary was $128,940, collected nearly half a million dollars the year before he retired.
Welcome to Illinois, where shameless opportunism meets hapless fiscal stewardship, and the taxpayers lose again. If you think the culture of greed and entitlement is more or less contained in Springfield, the capital of pay-to-play, or Chicago (unofficial motto: "Where's mine?"), then you're not paying attention. Wake up.
Not long ago, we learned that the executive director of Metra had been padding his compensation for nearly two decades — granting himself ever-larger blocks of vacation and cashing them out in advance, for example, or authorizing extra deposits to his own 401(k) account — while nobody on the commuter rail's governing board so much as raised an eyebrow.
Last year we learned that officials at the state's flagship university were running a separate admissions system to help political power brokers clout their friends into college. The university's trustees were complicit or clueless.
In June, the Tribune reported that Roy McCampbell, village administrator for blue-collar Bellwood, made $472,255 in 2009 — more than any suburban municipal executive in Illinois. That includes $128,940 in base salary; $115,101 for work performed as budget director, public safety CEO, human resources director, finance director, mayoral assistant and other posts; $66,000 for serving as corporation counsel; $126,214 for unused sick and vacation days and $36,000 he couldn't explain, but then neither could the Village Board, which signed off on all of this.
Those bumps increased his pension from roughly $180,000 a year to more than $250,000, the highest in the state's municipal employee retirement fund.
And now there's Highland Park, where park commissioners awarded their soon-to-retire executives generous raises and bonuses to "provide them with a good pension for what they had accomplished for the community," according to Board President Lorenz Werhane Jr.
Executive Director Ralph Volpe, whose 2008 salary was $164,204, was paid $435,203 that year. That bumped his pension by more than $50,000, to $166,332 a year. Finance director Kenneth Swan got a five-year deal that includes a $75,000 bonus each year.
Facilities director David Harris, who was being groomed to take over the district, resigned with eight months left on his contract, but there were no hard feelings: The district paid him for those eight months anyway — and let him keep the taxpayers' SUV.
Residents weren't happy to learn that the district was passing out their money so freely. They packed two public meetings, demanding answers and calling for the resignations of the three commissioners who were on the board when the deals were approved. They didn't get many answers — commissioners said those would be posted later on the Internet — but by Wednesday, two of the three commissioners had resigned.
Two suburban lawmakers, meanwhile, want to hold hearings to consider limits on late-career pension bumps.
It's a familiar script, isn't it? From Springfield to the Urbana- Champaign campus, from a commuter rail agency to a suburban park district. This is Illinois. Watch your wallet.
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
Offline