Streetwise Professor

July 18, 2014

Sanctions: Pinprick or Sledgehammer Blow, With Little In Between

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 11:27 pm

Before the massacre over Donetsk, the big Russia-related story was the new sanctions imposed on Wednesday. Although those sanctions were overshadowed by yesterday’s atrocity, the wanton destruction of MH17 raises the possibility that more intense sanctions will be forthcoming. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine what the US did Wednesday to see what would be necessary to impose truly crippling costs on Russian companies and the Russian economy generally. (Forget what the Euros did. That is so embarrassing that it should be passed over in silence.)

The sanctions imposed Wednesday are very weak beer. (Here is an FAQ from the Treasury outlining them.) They were different than previous sanctions in that these were directed at companies, rather than individuals. Moreover, some of the targeted companies are on the commanding heights of the Russian economy: Rosneft, VTB, Gazprombank, and Novatek. (Notable absences: Gazprom and Sberbank.)

Under the sanctions, “US Persons” (which can include US subsidiaries in foreign countries) are prohibited from buying new debt from or new making loans to these companies with maturities of 90 days. (Existing loans/bonds are not affected.)  US persons are also precluded from buying “new” equity from the financial firms: they can buy new equity from Rosneft and Novatek.

Since US banks are major lenders to foreign companies, this might seem to be a major impediment to the affected companies, and indeed  Rosneft’s and Novatek’s stock prices were both down more than 5 percent on the news. But in my opinion, this reaction is more related to how the announcement raised the likelihood of more severe sanctions in the future, rather than the direct effects of these new sanctions.

That’s because although the sanctions will constrain the capital pool that Rosneft and the others can borrow from, other lenders in Europe and Asia can step into the breach. The sanctions do make it more difficult for the sanctioned companies to borrow dollars even from foreign banks, because although the sanctions do not bar foreign banks and investors from accessing the US dollar clearing system for most transactions, they could be interpreted to make it illegal to process the banned debt and equity deals:

U.S. financial institutions may continue to maintain correspondent accounts and process U.S. dollar-clearing transactions for the persons identified in the directives, so long as those activities do not involve transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in prohibited transaction types identified by these directives.

Some have argued that this is a serious constraint that will effectively preclude the sanctioned companies from borrowing dollars other than on a very short-term basis. This is allegedly a big problem for Rosneft, because its export revenues are in dollars, and borrowing in other currencies would expose the company to substantial exchange rate risk.

I disagree, because there are ways around this. A company could borrow in Euros, for instance, and  sell the Euros for dollars. It could then deposit, invest, or spend the dollars just like the proceeds from dollar loans because it would have access to the dollar clearing system. Alternatively, the companies could borrow in Euros and immediately swap the Euros into dollars. This is because derivatives transactions are not included in the sanctions, and the payments on those could also be cleared. This would add some expense and complexity, but not too much.

The sanctions even permit  financial engineering that would allow US banks  effectively to provide credit for the sanctioned firms because derivatives on debt and equity of the sanctioned firms are explicitly exempted from the sanctions. For instance, a US bank could sell credit protection on Rosneft to a European bank that would increase the capacity of the European bank to extend credit to Rosneft. Syndication is one way that US banks can get credit exposure to Rosneft and reduce the amount of credit exposure that foreign banks have to incur, and even though the sanctions preclude US banks from participating in syndicates, the same allocation of credit risk could be implemented through the CDS market. This would permit foreign banks to increase their lending to the sanctioned firms to offset the decline of US direct lending. (This would still involve the need to convert foreign currency into dollars if the sanctioned borrower wanted dollars.)

Unlike real super majors (who can borrow unsecured, or secured by physical assets), Rosneft is unusually dependent on prepaid oil sales for funding, and these agreements are almost exclusively in dollars. This has led to some debate over whether the sanctions will seriously cramp Rosneft’s ability to use prepays.

There are a couple of reasons to doubt this. First, after the initial round of sanctions raised the specter of the imposition of sanctions on Rosneft, many prepay deals were re-worked to include sanctions clauses. For instance, they permit the payment currency to be switched to Euros, or to another currency in the off chance that the Europeans grow a pair and shut Rosneft out of the Euro payment system. Again, as long as access to the dollar system is not blocked altogether, those non-dollar currencies could be converted into dollars.

Second, there is some ambiguity as to whether prepays would even be covered. The sanctions specify the kinds of transactions that are covered:

The term debt includes bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper.

It is not obvious that prepays as usually structured would fall into any of these categories, and prepays are not specifically mentioned. A standard prepay structure is for a syndicate of banks to extend a non-recourse loan to a commodity trading firm like Glencore, Vitol, Trafigura, or BP. The trading firm uses the loan proceeds to make a prepayment for oil to Rosneft. In return, the trading firm gets an off take agreement that obligates Rosneft to deliver oil at a discounted price: the discount is effectively an interest payment.

The banks lend to the trading companies, not Rosneft. But (except for a small participation of 5-10 percent by the traders) the banks have the credit exposure. So this does not fall under any of the listed categories, except for perhaps “extension of credit.” Insofar as the trading firm is the borrower who faces the banks, it’s not clear the banks fall afoul of the sanctions even though that banks bear Rosneft’s credit risk. What about the trading firm? It’s not a US person, and a prepayment is not explicitly listed as a type of debt under the sanctions: again, this would turn on the “extensions of credit” provision. Under prepays, payment is usually with an irrevocable letter of credit, but these generally have maturities of less than 90 days, so that’s free of any sanctions problem.

So, there’s a colorable argument that prepays aren’t subject to the sanctions. But there is a colorable argument that they are. Economically they are clearly loans to Rosneft, though done via a trading firm acting as a conduit. But whether they are “debt” legally under the sanctions definition is not clear.

But especially in this regulatory environment, bank (and trading firm) tolerance for ambiguity is  pretty low. So the FUD factor kicks in: even though they could make a plausible legal argument that prepays fall outside the definition of debt under the Treasury rules, the risk of having that argument fail may be sufficient to dissuade them from doing dollar prepays. This is especially true in the post BNP Paribas world. So it is likely that future prepays may be in currencies other than the dollar, and as long as dollar clearing is open to it, Rosneft will just have to convert or swap the Euros or Sterling or Swiss Francs or whatever  into dollars if it really wants to borrow dollars. Again, an inconvenience and an added expense, but not a major hurdle.

All this means that the most recent round of sanctions are  sound and fury, signifying not very much. Indeed, by deliberately avoiding the truly devastating sanction, this round signifies a continued reluctance to hit Putin and Russia where it really hurts. Someone like Putin likely interprets this as a sign of weakness.

What would the devastating sanction that was deliberately avoided be? Cutting off altogether access to the dollar clearing system. Recall that the just-imposed sanctions say “U.S. financial institutions may continue to maintain correspondent accounts and process U.S. dollar-clearing transactions for the persons identified in the directives.” Change that to “U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from maintaining correspondent accounts and processing U.S. dollar-clearing transactions for the persons identified in the directives” and it would be a whole new ballgame. This would mean that the sanctioned companies could not receive, spend, deposit, or invest a dollar. (Well, they could if they could find a bank insane enough to be the next BNP Paribas. Good luck with that.)

I discussed how this would work in a post in March, and the Banker’s Umbrella provided a very readable and definitive discussion about that time. Basically, every dollar transaction, even one handled by a foreign bank, involves a correspondent account at a US bank. Cut off access to those accounts, and the sanctioned company can’t touch a dollar.

This would close off the various workarounds I discussed above. The sanctioned companies would have to restructure their operations and financing pretty dramatically. This would be particularly challenging for Rosneft, given that the currency of choice in oil transactions is the USD. This would be like the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran and on Sudan.

This would represent the only truly powerful sanction. And that’s one of the issues. Anything short of cutting off all access to the dollar market is at most an irritant to the sanctioned companies. Cutting off all access imposes a major cost. There’s not much in between. It’s a choice between a pinprick and a sledgehammer blow, with little in-between.

But if a Rubicon hasn’t been crossed now, with the murder of 298 people and continued battles in places like Luhansk waged by Russian-armed rebels, it’s hard to imagine it will ever be. If Putin and Russia are going to pay a real price for their wanton conduct, the sledgehammer is the only choice.

 

Print Friendly

July 15, 2014

Oil Futures Trading In Troubled Waters

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Exchanges,HFT,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:16 pm

A recent working paper by Pradeep Yadav, Michel Robe and Vikas Raman tackles a very interesting issue: do electronic market makers (EMMs, typically HFT firms) supply liquidity differently than locals on the floor during its heyday? The paper has attracted a good deal of attention, including this article in Bloomberg.

The most important finding is that EMMs in crude oil futures do tend to reduce liquidity supply during high volatility/stressed periods, whereas crude futures floor locals did not. They explain this by invoking an argument I did 20 years ago in my research comparing the liquidity of floor-based LIFFE to the electronic DTB: the anonymity of electronic markets makes market makers there more vulnerable to adverse selection. From this, the authors conclude that an obligation to supply liquidity may be desirable.

These empirical conclusions seem supported by the data, although as I describe below the scant description of the methodology and some reservations based on my knowledge of the data make me somewhat circumspect in my evaluation.

But my biggest problem with the paper is that it seems to miss the forest for the trees. The really interesting question is whether electronic markets are more liquid than floor markets, and whether the relative liquidity in electronic and floor markets varies between stressed and non-stressed markets. The paper provides some intriguing results that speak to that question, but then the authors ignore it altogether.

Specifically, Table 1 has data on spreads in from the electronic NYMEX crude oil market in 2011, and from the floor NYMEX crude oil market in 2006. The mean and median spreads in the electronic market: .01 percent. Given a roughly $100 price, this corresponds to one tick ($.01) in the crude oil market. The mean and median spreads in the floor market: .35 percent and .25 percent, respectively.

Think about that for a minute. Conservatively, spreads were 25 times higher in the floor market. Even adjusting for the fact that prices in 2011 were almost double than in 2006, we’re talking a 12-fold difference in absolute (rather than percentage) spreads. That is just huge.

So even if EMMs are more likely to run away during stressed market conditions, the electronic market wins hands down in the liquidity race on average. Hell, it’s not even a race. Indeed, the difference is so large I have a hard time believing it, which raises questions about the data and methodologies.

This raises another issue with the paper. The paper compares at the liquidity supply mechanism in electronic and floor markets. Specifically, it examines the behavior of market makers in the two different types of markets. What we are really interested is the outcome of these mechanisms. Therefore, given the rich data set, the authors should compare measures of liquidity in stressed and non-stressed periods, and make comparisons between the electronic and floor markets. What’s more, they should examine a variety of different liquidity measures. There are multiple measures of spreads, some of which specifically measure adverse selection costs. It would be very illuminating to see those measures across trading mechanisms and market environments. Moreover, depth and price impact are also relevant. Let’s see those comparisons too.

It is quite possible that the ratio of liquidity measures in good and bad times is worse in electronic trading than on the floor, but in any given environment, the electronic market is more liquid. That’s what we really want to know about, but the paper is utterly silent on this. I find that puzzling and rather aggravating, actually.

Insofar as the policy recommendation is concerned, as I’ve been writing since at least 2010, the fact that market makers withdraw supply during periods of market stress does not necessarily imply that imposing obligations to make markets even during stressed periods is efficiency enhancing. Such obligations force market makers to incur losses when the constraints bind. Since entry into market making is relatively free, and the market is likely to be competitive (the paper states that there are 52 active EMMS in the sample), raising costs in some state of the world, and reducing returns to market making in these states, will lead to the exit of market making capacity. This will reduce liquidity during unstressed periods, and could even lead to less liquidity supply in stressed periods: fewer firms offering more liquidity than they would otherwise choose due to an obligation may supply less liquidity in aggregate than a larger number of firms that can each reduce liquidity supply during stressed periods (because they are not obligated to supply a minimum amount of liquidity).

In other words, there is no free lunch. Even assuming that EMMs are more likely to reduce supply during stressed periods than locals, it does not follow that a market making obligation is desirable in electronic environments. The putatively higher cost of supplying liquidity in an electronic environment is a feature of that environment. Requiring EMMs to bear that cost means that they have to recoup it at other times. Higher cost is higher cost, and the piper must be paid. The finding of the paper may be necessary to justify a market maker obligation, but it is clearly not sufficient.

There are some other issues that the authors really need to address. The descriptions of the methodologies in the paper are far too scanty. I don’t believe that I could replicate their analysis based on the description in the paper. As an example, they say “Bid-Ask Spreads are calculated as in the prior literature.” Well, there are many papers, and many ways of calculating spreads. Hell, there are multiple measures of spreads. A more detailed statement of the actual calculation is required in order to know exactly what was done, and to replicate it or to explore alternatives.

Comparisons between electronic and open outcry markets are challenging because the nature of the data are very different. We can observe the order book at every instant of time in an electronic market. We can also sequence everything-quotes, cancellations and trades-with exactitude. (In futures markets, anyways. Due to the lack of clock synchronization across trading venues, this is a problem in a fragmented market like US equities.) These factors mean that it is possible to see whether EMMs take liquidity or supply it: since we can observe the quote, we know that if an EMM sells (buys) at the offer (bid) it is supplying liquidity, but if it buys (sells) at the offer (bid) it is consuming liquidity.

Things are not nearly so neat in floor trading data. I have worked quite a bit with exchange Street Books. They convey much less information than the order book and the record of executed trades in electronic markets like Globex. Street Books do not report the prevailing bids and offers, so I don’t see how it is possible to determine definitively whether a local is supplying or consuming liquidity in a particular trade. The mere fact that a local (CTI1) is trading with a customer (CTI4) does not mean the local is supplying liquidity: he could be hitting the bid/lifting the offer of a customer limit order, but since we can’t see order type, we don’t know. Moreover, even to the extent that there are some bids and offers in the time and sales record, they tend to be incomplete (especially during fast markets) and time sequencing is highly problematic. I just don’t see how it is possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison of liquidity supply (and particularly the passivity/aggressiveness of market makers) between floor and electronic markets just due to the differences in data. Nonetheless, the paper purports to do that. Another reason to see more detailed descriptions of methodology and data.

One red flag that indicates that the floor data may have some problems. The reported maximum bid-ask spread in the floor sample is 26.48 percent!!! 26.48 percent? Really? The 75th percentile spread is .47 percent. Given a $60 price, that’s almost 30 ticks. Color me skeptical. Another reason why a much more detailed description of methodologies is essential.

Another technical issue is endogeneity. Liquidity affects volatility, but the paper uses volatility as one of its measures of stressed markets in its study of how stress affects liquidity. This creates an endogeneity (circularity, if you will) problem. It would be preferable to use some instrument for stressed market conditions. Instruments are always hard to come up with, and I don’t have one off the top of my head, but Yanev et al should give some serious thought to identifying/creating such an instrument.

Moreover, the main claim of the paper is that EMMs’ liquidity supply is more sensitive to the toxicity of order flow than locals’ liquidity supply. The authors use order imbalance (CTI4 buys minus CTI4 sells, or the absolute value thereof more precisely), which is one measure of toxicity, but there are others. I would prefer a measure of customer (CTI4) alpha. Toxic (i.e., informed) order flow predicts future price movements, and hence when customer orders realize high alphas, it is likely that customers are more informed than usual and earn positive alphas. It would therefore be interesting to see the sensitivities of liquidity supply in the different trading environments to order flow toxicity as measured by CTI4 alphas.

I will note yet again that market maker actions to cut liquidity supply when adverse selection problems are severe is not necessarily a bad thing. Informed trading can be a form of rent seeking, and if EMMs are better able to detect informed trading and withdraw liquidity when informed trading is rampant, this form of rent seeking may be mitigated. Thus, greater sensitivity to toxicity could be a feature, not a bug.

All that said, I consider this paper a laudable effort that asks serious questions, and attempts to answer them in a rigorous way. The results are interesting and plausible, but the sketchy descriptions of the methodologies gives me reservations about these results. But by far the biggest issue is that of the forest and trees. What is really interesting is whether electronic markets are more or less liquid in different market environments than floor markets. Even if liquidity supply is flightier in electronic markets, they can still outperform floor based markets in both unstressed and stressed environments. The huge disparity in spreads reported in the paper suggests a vast difference in liquidity on average, which suggests a vast difference in liquidity in all different market environments, stressed and unstressed. What we really care about is liquidity outcomes, as measured by spreads, depth, price impact, etc. This is the really interesting issue, but one that the paper does not explore.

But that’s the beauty of academic research, right? Milking the same data for multiple papers. So I suggest that Pradeep, Michel and Vikas keep sitting on that milking stool and keep squeezing that . . . data ;-) Or provide the data to the rest of us out their and let us give it a tug.

Print Friendly

July 11, 2014

25 Years Ago Today Ferruzzi Created the Streetwise Professor

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,HFT,History,Regulation — The Professor @ 9:03 am

Today is the 25th anniversary of the most important event in my professional life. On 11 July, 1989, the Chicago Board of Trade issued an Emergency Order requiring all firms with positions in July 1989 soybean futures in excess of the speculative limit to reduce those positions to the limit over five business days in a pro rata fashion (i.e., 20 percent per day, or faster). Only one firm was impacted by the order, Italian conglomerate Ferruzzi, SA.

Ferruzzi was in the midst of an attempt to corner the market, as it had done in May, 1989. The EO resulted in a sharp drop in soybean futures prices and a jump in the basis: for instance, by the time the contract went off the board on 20 July, the basis at NOLA had gone from zero to about 50 cents, by far the largest jump in that relationship in the historical record.

The EO set off a flurry of legal action. Ferruzzi tried to obtain an injunction against the CBT. Subsequently, farmers (some of whom had dumped truckloads of beans at the door of the CBT) sued the exchange. Moreover, a class action against Ferruzzi was also filed. These cases took years to wend their ways through the legal system. The farmer litigation (in the form of Sanner v. CBT) wasn’t decided (in favor of the CBT) until the fall of 2002. The case against Ferruzzi lasted somewhat less time, but still didn’t settle until 2006.

I was involved as an expert in both cases. Why?

Well, pretty much everything in my professional career post-1990 is connected to the Ferruzzi corner and CBT EO, in a knee-bone-connected-to-the-thigh-bone kind of way.

The CBT took a lot of heat for the EO. My senior colleague, the late Roger Kormendi, convinced the exchange to fund an independent analysis of its grain and oilseed markets to attempt to identify changes that could prevent a recurrence of the episode. Roger came into my office at Michigan, and told me about the funding. Knowing that I had worked in the futures markets before, asked me to participate in the study. I said that I had only worked in financial futures, but I could learn about commodities, so I signed on: it sounded interesting, my current research was at something of a standstill, and I am always up for learning something new. I ended up doing about 90 percent of the work and getting 20 percent of the money :-P but it was well worth it, because of the dividends it paid in the subsequent quarter century. (Putting it that way makes me feel old. But this all happened when I was a small child. Really!)

The report I (mainly) wrote for the CBT turned into a book, Grain Futures Contracts: An Economic Appraisal. (Available on Amazon! Cheap! Buy two! I see exactly $0.00 of your generous purchases.) Moreover, I saw the connection between manipulation and industrial organization economics (which was my specialization in grad school): market power is a key concept in both. So I wrote several papers on market power manipulation, which turned into a book . (Also available on Amazon! And on Kindle: for some strange reason, it was one of the first books published on Kindle.)

The issue of manipulation led me to try to understand how it could best be prevented or deterred. This led me to research self-regulation, because self-regulation was often advanced as the best way to tackle manipulation. This research (and the anthropological field work I did working on the CBT study) made me aware that exchange governance played a crucial role, and that exchange  governance was intimately related to the fact that exchanges are non-profit firms. So of course I had to understand why exchanges were non-profits (which seemed weird given that those who trade on them are about as profit-driven as you can get), and why they were governed in the byzantine, committee-dominated way they were. Moreover, many advocates of self-regulation argued that competition forced exchanges to adopt efficient rules. Observing that exchanges in fact tended to be monopolies, I decided I needed to understand the economics of competition between execution venues in exchange markets. This caused me to write my papers on market macrostructure, which is still an active area of investigation: I am writing a book on that subject. This in turn produced many of the conclusions that I have drawn about HFT, RegNMS, etc.

Moreover, given that I concluded that self-regulation was in fact a poor way to address manipulation (because I found exchanges had poor incentives to do so), I examined whether government regulation or private legal action could do better. This resulted in my work on the efficiency of ex post deterrence of manipulation. My conclusions about the efficiency of ex post deterrence rested on my findings that manipulated prices could be distinguished reliably from competitive prices. This required me to understand the determinants of competitive prices, which led to my research on the dynamics of storable commodity prices that culminated in my 2011 book. (Now available in paperback on Amazon! Kindle too.)

In other words, pretty much everything in my CV traces back to Ferruzzi. Even the clearing-related research, which also has roots in the 1987 Crash, is due to Ferruzzi: I wouldn’t have been researching any derivatives-related topics otherwise.

My consulting work, and in particular my expert witness work, stems from Ferruzzi. The lead counsel in the class action against Ferruzzi came across Grain Futures Contracts in the CBT bookstore (yes, they had such a thing back in the day), and thought that I could help him as an expert. After some hesitation (attorneys being very risk averse, and hence reluctant to hire someone without testimonial experience) he hired me. The testimony went well, and that was the launching pad for my expert work.

I also did work helping to redesign the corn and soybean contracts at the CBT, and the canola contract in Winnipeg: these redesigned contracts (based on shipping receipts) are the ones traded today. Again, this work traces its lineage to Ferruzzi.

Hell, this was even my introduction to the conspiratorial craziness that often swirls around commodity markets. Check out this wild piece, which links Ferruzzi (“the Pope’s soybean company”) to Marc Rich, the Bushes, Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster, and several federal judges. You cannot make up this stuff. Well, you can, I guess, as a quick read will soon convince you.

I have other, even stranger connections to Hillary and Vince Foster which in a more indirect way also traces its way back to Ferruzzi. But that’s a story for another day.

There’s even a Russian connection. One of Ferruzzi’s BS cover stories for amassing a huge position was that it needed the beans to supply big export sales to the USSR. These sales were in fact fictitious.

Ferruzzi was a rather outlandish company that eventually collapsed in 1994. Like many Italian companies, it was leveraged out the wazoo. Moreover, it had become enmeshed in the Italian corruption/mob investigations of the early 1990s, and its chairman Raul Gardini, committed suicide in the midst of the scandal.

The traders who carried out the corners were located in stylish Paris, but they were real commodity cowboys of the old school. Learning about that was educational too.

To put things in a nutshell. Some crazy Italians, and English and American traders who worked for them, get the credit-or the blame-for creating the Streetwise Professor. Without them, God only knows what the hell I would have done for the last 25 years. But because of them, I raced down the rabbit hole of commodity markets. And man, have I seen some strange and interesting things on that trip. Hopefully I will see some more, and if I do, I’ll share them with you right here.

Print Friendly

July 1, 2014

What Gary Gensler, the Igor of Frankendodd, Hath Wrought

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Europe lately, and this gives a rather interesting perspective on US derivatives regulatory policy. (I’m in London now for Camp Alphaville.)

Specifically, on the efforts of Frankdodd’s Igor, Gary Gensler, to make US regulation extraterritorial (read: imperialist).

Things came to a head when the head of the CFTC’s Clearing and Risk  division, Ananda K. Radhakrishnan, said that ICE and LCH, both of which clear US-traded futures contracts out of the UK, could avoid cross-border issues arising from inconsistencies between EU and US regulation (relating mainly to collateral segregation rules) by moving to the US:

Striking a marked contrast with European regulators calling for a collaborative cross-border approach to regulation, a senior CFTC official said he was “tired” of providing exemptions, referring in particular to discrepancies between the US Dodd-Frank framework and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation on clearing futures and the protection of related client collateral.

“To me, the first response cannot be: ‘CFTC, you’ve got to provide an exemption’,” said Ananda Radhakrishnan, the director of the clearing and risk division at the CFTC.

Radhakrishnan singled out LCH.Clearnet and the InterContinental Exchange as two firms affected by the inconsistent regulatory frameworks on listed derivatives as a result of clearing US business through European-based derivatives clearing organisations (DCOs).

“ICE and LCH have a choice. They both have clearing organisations in the United States. If they move the clearing of these futures contracts… back to a US only DCO I believe this conflict doesn’t exist,” said Radhakrishnan.

“These two entities can engage in some self-help. If they do that, neither [regulator] will have to provide an exemption.”

It was not just what he said, but how he said it. The “I’m tired” rhetoric, and his general mien, was quite grating to Europeans.

The issue is whether the US will accept EU clearing rules as equivalent, and whether the EU will reciprocate. Things are pressing, because there is a December deadline for the EU to recognize US CCPs as equivalent. If this doesn’t happen, European banks that use a US CCP (e.g., Barclays holding a Eurodollar futures position cleared through the CME) will face a substantially increased capital charge on the cleared positions.

Right now there is a huge game of chicken going on between the EU and the US. In response to what Europe views as US obduracy, the Europeans approved five Asian/Australasian CCPs as operating under rules equivalent to Europe’s, allowing European banks to clear though them without incurring the punitive capital charges. To emphasize the point, the EU’s head of financial services, Michael Barnier, said the US could get the same treatment if it deferred to EU rules (something which Radhakrishnan basically said he was tired of talking about):

“If the CFTC also gives effective equivalence to third country CCPs, deferring to strong and rigorous rules in jurisdictions such as the EU, we will be able to adopt equivalence decisions very soon,” Barnier said.

Read this as a giant one finger salute from the EU to the CFTC.

So we have a Mexican standoff, and the clock is ticking. If the EU and the US don’t resolve matters, the world derivatives markets will become even more fragmented. This will make them less competitive, which is cruelly ironic given that one of Gensler’s claims was that his regulatory agenda would make the markets more competitive. This was predictably wrong-and some predicted this unintended perverse outcome.

Another part of Gensler’s agenda was to extend US regulatory reach to entities operating overseas whose failure could threaten US financial institutions. One of his major criteria for identifying such entities was whether they are guaranteed by a US institution. Those who are so guaranteed are considered “US persons,” and hence subject to the entire panoply of Frankendodd requirements, including notably the SEF mandate. The SEF mandate is loathed by European corporates, so this would further fragment the swaps market. (And as I have said often before, since end users are the alleged beneficiaries of the SEF mandate-Gary oft’ told us so!-it is passing strange that they are hell-bent on escaping it.)

European US bank affiliates with guarantees from US parents have responded by terminating the guarantees. Problem solved, right? The dreaded guarantees that could spread contagion from Europe to the US are gone, after all.

But US regulators and legislators view this as a means of evading Frankendodd. Which illustrates the insanity of it all. The SEF mandate has nothing to do with systemic risk or contagion. Since the ostensible purpose of the DFA was to reduce systemic risk, it was totally unnecessary to include the SEF mandate. But in its wisdom, the US Congress did, and Igor pursued this mandate with relish.

The attempts to dictate the mode of trade execution even by entities that cannot directly spread contagion to the US via guarantees epitomizes the overreach of the US. Any coherent systemic risk rationale is totally absent. The mode of execution is of no systemic importance. The elimination of guarantees eliminates the ability of failing foreign affiliates to impact directly US financial institutions. If anything, the US should be happy, because some of the dread interconnections that Igor Gensler inveighed against have been severed.

But the only logic that matters her is that of control. And the US and the Europeans are fighting over control. The ultimate outcome will be a more fragmented, less competitive, and likely less robust financial system.

This is just one of the things that Gensler hath wrought. I could go on. And in the future I will.

Print Friendly

June 26, 2014

There’s Gold in Them Thar Vaults, Boys! Um, Maybe Not

Filed under: China,Commodities,Economics,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:48 pm

If the vaults are in China, that is. Over the weekend I posted on the fraudulent commodity-based lending (collateralized by aluminum) in Qingdao. Now a Chinese government auditor claims that the gold used as collateral in $15 billion of loans does not exist.

To put this into context, Goldman (ha!) estimates that there are about $80 billion in loans in China collateralized by gold. Thus, the auditor’s report means that at least 20 percent of those loans are fraudulent. Given that it is likely easier to verify the existence of gold pledged as collateral than is the case for copper or soybeans, this suggests that even higher percentages of these other commodity-based loans (totaling another $80 billion) are backed by warehouse receipts that aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

This situation creates the conditions for a horrific information contagion, which is the worst sort of systemic risk. Many analyses of systemic risk focus on counterparty credit risk, where the failure of one institution topples a set of interconnected dominoes. But historically, the domino problem has been less of a source of financial crises than information contagion. For instance, information contagion was arguably a far more important cause of the 2008 crisis than counterparty contagion.

Information contagion is a panic that results when the quality of assets in one part of the financial system leads people to question the value of other assets, usually similar but not always. For instance, in 2008,  the problems at Bear and Lehman were the result of bad mortgage investments by these firms. This raised questions about the solvency of other financial institutions that held, or were believed to hold, similar assets. Suddenly all banks became suspect, and had problems funding their assets. They started dumping assets to raise cash, which cratered prices and thereby created problems in institutions that had to mark their assets to a (now depressed) market. Banks that had extended liquidity support to SIVs had to bring them back on their balance sheets, threatening to make them undercapitalized.

Information contagion is most likely to occur, and is most severe when it does, when (a) asset values and balance sheets are opaque, and (b) financial institutions engage in a lot of maturity transformation (i.e., borrowing short to lend long). When asset values and balance sheets are opaque, market participants are more likely to draw inferences from revelations about the values of other firms/assets, because they can’t evaluate the firms/assets directly. In these circumstances, bad news about one firm or one type of asset can lead to a massive loss in confidence in other firms and assets. When these assets are funded with short term borrowings, firms can’t roll over their loans under these conditions, and are more likely to go bankrupt. Moreover, they are more likely to dump assets in fire sales that impose externalities on other firms holding similar assets.

China’s financial system is nothing if opaque. This is particularly true of the shadow banking system, but the banking system is also incredibly murky. For instance, the actual quality of loans on bank books is very difficult to assess. A lot of loans reported as performing are actually quite dodgy.

Information contagion is especially likely because the nature of the revelations about commodity loans raises serious questions about the monitoring of loans and the evaluation of the creditworthiness of borrowers and the quality (and existence!) of their collateral by financial institutions. If banks do a bad job at evaluating commodity loans and borrowers, and commodity collateral, it is reasonable to infer that they do a bad job at monitoring other loans and evaluating other borrowers. It is these sorts of inferences that lead to information contagion.

Moreover, maturity transformation is ubiquitous in China. This is especially true in the shadow banking system.

What this means is that although a few tens of billions of loans backed by non-existent collateral may not seem like a big deal in a financial system with about $17 trillion in credit outstanding (about 35 percent of which is in the shadow sector), the ramifications are far more serious than the value of these commodity loans suggest. There is a serious risk that doubts about the quality of the commodity loans will lead to growing doubts about the quality of other assets, especially in the shadow banking sector.  This creates the potential for panics and runs in that sector, and given the connections between shadow financial institutions and mainstream banks (connections which are themselves opaque) this could spillover into the conventional sector.

In other words, the potential for information contagion in a highly leveraged (with credit at about 250 percent of GDP), highly maturity transformed, and exceedingly opaque financial system is what makes the fraudulent commodity loans a big deal. Potentially a very big deal.

Print Friendly

June 21, 2014

Channeling Tino de Angelis in Qingdao

Filed under: China,Commodities,Economics,Regulation — The Professor @ 3:22 pm

Back in the early-60s, a guy named Tino de Angelis*, owner of the Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corporation, carried out a huge scam based on commodity finance. He bought soybean oil, against with American Express issued warehouse receipts. De Angelis took the warehouse receipts to banks, who took them as collateral against loans issued to Allied. And not just banks. Companies like Bunge and Proctor and Gamble also lent against the warehouse receipts.

So far, this is routine: commodity traders and processors routinely use their inventories as collateral against loans they use to finance them. The scam came in the fact that Allied obtained loans on non-existent bean oil. De Angelis had a variety of schemes to fool Amex into believing he owned more bean oil than he really did. Some of the tanks at Allied’s facilities did have oil in them, and those would be shown to Amex inspectors. The inspectors would then be led through the firm’s labyrinthine facility, allegedly to another tank to inspect. Except they’d been led back to the tank they had already inspected, but the number on the tank had been changed. Another con was to fill the tanks with water, with some oil sitting on top of the water. Allied also linked the tanks with pipes, and would shuttle the oil between tanks to keep ahead of the inspectors.

Through these means, de Angelis amassed warehouse receipts for quantities of oil that exceeded the entire amount in the US, and borrowed about $200 million against the phantom inventories (well over $1 billion in current dollars). Eventually, inspectors figured out the scheme, and the fraud was uncovered. The revelation caused Amex’s stock price to plummet (Warren Buffet scooped up some and made good money off the deal). Moreover, soybean oil futures also crashed.

De Angelis went to jail. Went released, he tried to run a Ponzi scheme.

This all happened more than 50 years ago: the scam was revealed a few days before JFK was assassinated. But a replay appears to be occurring in China, in the port of Qingdao specifically (though there are concerns that other ports may have similar problems). One trading firm has found to have borrowed large sums collateralized by non-existent aluminum allegedly stored in the port.

This is a major concern because commodity-based lending is a big deal in China, and if the practice is indeed widespread it could result in large losses. Commodity-based lending has been used in carry trades involving using letters of credit to borrow dollars buy commodities (initially mainly copper, but now other metals, iron ore, and ag products) that are imported into China and put in warehouses. The warehouse receipts are then used to collateralize loans in China, the proceeds of which are invested in high yielding, speculative endeavors.

This entire structure was already very fragile (because carry trades are inherently fragile), but if it turns out that even of a modest proportion of the collateral doesn’t exist it could collapse altogether. This could impose substantial losses on many banks. CITIC and Standard Charter are facing losses on the loans to the Qingdao trader. If there are many others, many more banks (and perhaps some western trading firms) could be hit hard.

One note of caution: some (notably Zero Hedge) are saying that collateral has been “rehypothecated.” This is not correct. Rehypothecation involves the lender pledging the collateral received from the original buyer as collateral to a loan. This process may occur several times. This results in the issuance of gross debt that is a multiple of the value of the collateral (the multiple could be as large as the inverse of the “haircut” on the collateral). But the net debt is approximately equal to the value of the collateral, and fraudulent receipts are not created. These collateral chains are potentially fragile, but the fragility does not result from the creation of fraudulent receipts.

In contrast, as described, the Qingdao scheme is like de Angelis’s, in that receipts are issued on non-existent goods. In this scheme, fraudulent receipts are created, and the net debt exceeds the value of the actual collateral. Of course, if the fraudulent receipts are rehypothecated, things will get uglier still.

Dealing with this mess would be hard enough in a jurisdiction with a solid and transparent legal system, reliable judges, and the rule of law. One can just imagine how this will play out in China, which has none of the above.

Then there are potentially broader implications. The commodity loans are one part of China’s vast shadow banking system. Concerns about the fragility of this system abound. If (a) the commodity loan problems are more pervasive, and (b) these problems are symptomatic of shoddy and fraudulent practices in the shadow banking system more generally, there is an appreciable risk of a financial crisis in China.

* Interestingly, de Angelis made money primarily on government programs, namely the National School Lunch Act and Food for Peace.

Print Friendly

June 18, 2014

SWP Itoldyasopalooza

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 8:22 pm

While I’m doing the SWP Itoldyasopalooza, three more items.

First, the CFTC has reopened comments on the position limits proposed rule. The CFTC has taken intense incoming fire on the issue of hedge exemptions in particular, and with good reason. There are many problems, but the most egregious is the restriction on “cross hedges” (e.g., using gas futures as a hedge against electricity price risk).

I discussed this issue in my comment letter to the CFTC. Here’s the gist of the problem. The CFTC calculates the hedging effectiveness (measured by the R2 in a regression) of nearby NG futures for spot electricity prices. It finds the effectiveness is low (i.e., the R2 in the relevant regression is small). Looking past the issue of how some risk reduction is better than nothing, this analysis betrays a complete misunderstanding of electricity pricing and how NG futures are used as hedges.

Spot electricity prices are driven by fuel prices, but the main drivers are short term factors such as load shocks (which are driven by weather) and outages. However, these spot-price drivers mean revert rapidly. A weather or outage shock damps out very quickly.

This means that forward power prices are primarily driven by forward fuel prices, because fuel price shocks are persistent while weather and outage shocks are not. So it makes perfect sense to hedge forward power price exposure with gas futures/forwards. The CFTC analysis totally misses the point. Firms don’t use gas forwards/futures to hedge spot power prices. They are using the more liquid gas futures to hedge forward power prices. This is a classic example of hedgers choosing their hedging instrument to balance liquidity and hedging effectiveness. Gas forwards provide a pretty good hedge of power forward prices, and are are more liquid than power forwards. Yes, power forwards may provide a more effective hedge, but that’s little comfort if they turn out to be roach motels that a hedger can check into, but can’t leave if/when it doesn’t need the hedge any more.

The CFTC  ignores liquidity, by the way. How is that possible?

Market participants have strong incentives to make the liquidity-hedging effectiveness trade off efficiently. They do it all the time. Hedgers live with basis risk (e.g., hedging heavy crude with WTI futures) because of the liquidity benefits of more heavily traded contracts. The CFTC position limit rule substitutes the agency’s judgment for that of market participants who actually bear/internalize the costs and benefits of the trade-off. This is a recipe for inefficiency, made all the more severe by the CFTC’s utter failure to understand the economics of the hedge it uses to justify its rule.

As proposed, the rule suggests that the CFTC is so paranoid about market participants using the hedge exemption to circumvent the limit that it has chosen to sharply limit permissible hedges. This is beyond perverse, because it strikes at the most important function of the derivatives markets: risk transfer.

(This issue is discussed in detail in chapter 8 of my 2011 book. I show that the “load delta” for short term power prices is high, but it is low for forward prices. Conversely, the “fuel price delta” is high for power forward prices, precisely because load/weather/outage shocks damp out quickly. The immediate implication of this is that fuel forwards can provide an effective hedge of forward power prices.)

Second, Simon Johnson opines that “Clearing houses could be the next source of chaos.” Who knew? It would have been nice had Simon stepped out on this 5 years ago.

Third, the one arguably beneficial aspect of Frankendodd and Emir-the creation of swaps data repositories-has been totally-and I mean totally-f*cked up in its implementation. Not content with the creation of a single Tower of Babel, American and European regulators have presided over the creation of several! Well played!

Reportedly, less than 30 percent of OTC deals can be matched by the repositories.

This too was predictable-and predicted (modesty prevents me from mentioning by whom). Repositories are natural monopolies and should be set up as utilities. A single repository minimizes fixed costs, and facilitates coordination and the creation of a standard. I went through this in detail in 2003 when I advocated the creation of an Energy Data Hub. But our betters decided to encourage the creation of multiple repositories (suppositories?) with a hodge-podge of reporting obligations and inconsistent reporting formats.

This brings to mind three quotes. One by Ronald Reagan: “‘I’m from the government and here to help you’ are the 8 scariest words in the English language.” The other two by Casey  Stengel. “Can’t anybody play this game?” and “He has third base so screwed up, nobody can play it right.”

Print Friendly

The Klearing Kool Aid Hangover

Back in Houston after a long trip to Turkey, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands speaking about various commodity and clearing related issues, plus some R&R. Last stop on the tour was Chicago, where the Chicago Fed put on a great event on Law and Finance. Clearing was at the center of the discussion. Trying to be objective as possible, I think I can say that my critiques of clearing have had an influence on how scholars and practitioners (both groups being well-represented in Chicago) view clearing, and clearing mandates in particular. There is a deep  skepticism, and a growing awareness that CCPs are not the systemic risk safeguard that most had believed in the period surrounding the adoption of Frankendodd. Ruben Lee’s lunch talk summarized the skeptical view well, and recognized my role in making the skeptic’s case. His remarks were echoed by others at the workshop. If only this had penetrated the skulls of legislators and regulators when it could have made a major difference.

And the hits keep on coming. Since about April 2010 in particular, the focus of my criticism of clearing mandates has been on the destabilizing effects of rigid marking-to-market and variation margin by CCPs. I emphasized this in several SWP posts, and also my forthcoming article (in the Journal of Financial Market Infrastructure, a Risk publication) titled “A Bill of Goods.” So it was gratifying to read today that two scholars at the LSE, Ron Anderson and Karin Joeveer, used my analysis as the springboard for a more formal analysis of the issue.

The Anderson-Joeveer paper investigates collateral generally. It concludes that the liquidity implications of increased need for initial margin resulting from clearing mandates are not as concerning as the liquidity implications of greater variation margin flows that will result from a dramatic expansion of clearing.

Some of their conclusions are worth quoting in detail:

In addition, our analysis shows that moving toward central clearing with product specialized CCPs can greatly increase the numbers of margin movements which will place greater demands on a participant’s operational capacity and liquidity. This can be interpreted as tipping the balance of benefits and costs in favor of retaining bilateral OTC markets for a wider range of products and participants. Alternatively, assuming a full commitment to centralized clearing, it points out the importance of achieving consolidation and effective integration across infrastructures for a wider range of financial products. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore:

A system relying principally on centralized clearing to mitigate counter-party risks creates increased demand for liquidity to service frequent margin calls. This can be met by opening up larger liquidity facilities, but indirectly this requires more collateral. To economize on the use of collateral, agents will try to limit liquidity usage, but this implies increased frequency of margin calls. This increases operational risks faced by CCPs which, given the concentration of risk in CCPs, raises the possibility that an idiosyncratic event could spill over into a system-wide event.

We have emphasized that collateral is only one of the tools used to control and manage credit risk. The notion that greater reliance on collateral will eliminate credit risk is illusory. Changing patterns in the use of collateral may not eliminate risk, but it will have implications for who will bear risks and on the costs of shifting risks. [Emphasis added.]

The G-20 stampede to impose clearing focused obsessively on counterparty credit risk, and ignored liquidity issues altogether. The effects of clearing on counterparty risk are vastly overstated (because the risk is mainly shifted, rather than reduced) and the liquidity effects have first-order systemic implications. Moving to a system which could increase margin flows by a factor of 10 (as estimated by Anderson-Joeveer), and which does so by increasing the tightness of the coupling of the system, is extremely worrisome. There will be large increases in the demand for liquidity in stressed market conditions that cause liquidity to dry up. Failures to get this liquidity in a timely fashion can cause the entire tightly-coupled system to break down.

As Ruben pointed out in his talk, the clearing stampede was based on superficial analysis and intended to achieve a political objective, namely, the desire to be seen as doing something. Pretty much everyone in DC and Brussels drank the Klearing Kool Aid, and now we are suffering the consequences.

Samuel Johnson said “Marry in haste, repent at leisure.” The same thing can be said of legislation and regulation.

Print Friendly

June 6, 2014

Putinomics: The Gazprom-China Deal

Filed under: China,Commodities,Economics,Energy,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 6:16 am

Before the financial crisis, Gazprom CEO Alexi Miller boasted that his firm would be the first $1t market cap firm. Six years on, he’s only off by an order of magnitude: the company’s market cap is around $100 billion. Moreover, it sells for a comical 3x earnings (a little less, actually). The company’s capex is notoriously inefficient, and it is frequently cash flow negative. Other than that, it’s a financial marvel.

But that big China deal must surely have provided a boost for the company, right?

Apparently not. The other day Putin mooted the possibility that the company would have to be recapitalized by the state, i.e., receive an additional injection of capital from one of the state investment funds.

If the China deal were indeed favorable to Gazprom, it would have no problem financing the necessary investment in pipelines and greenfield production through the banks and/or the capital markets, rather than through the state. Putin’s suggestion of state funding strongly suggests that the economics and the risks of the deal are not favorable, and the necessary investments could not be funded externally: direct state funding would also suggest that Russian state banks are either unwilling or unable to fund it (or both), which speaks ill for the economics of the deal, and perhaps the financial strength of the banks. A further implication of this is that politics rather than economics was the main driver of the deal (if it exists, in fact), and that as a project intended to achieve state objectives, the state must fund it.

Reinforcing this perceived need for state rather than external funding  is the fact that obtaining outside funding would require Gazprom to divulge many more details of the deal than it has so far. This would be highly embarrassing to Putin and the government and Gazprom if these details show that Russia got the short end of the stick. So keeping the details out of public view by avoiding outside funding also suggests that there is something to hide, namely, that the Chinese exploited Putin’s needs.

If the government indeed recapitalizes Gazprom, it will be just the latest of a long line of economic policy failures. Another example of where politics or corruption/rent seeking has prevented Russia from putting its natural resource firms on a commercially sensible footing, and another example of where state funds that were generated by resource rents in the first place were ploughed back into inefficient state-controlled resource producers, rather than to help diversify the Russian economy.

This, my friends, is Putinomics. This is why Russia will remain on the hamster wheel from hell.

Print Friendly

May 19, 2014

Russia-China Gas Deals: As Clear as Mud in the Dark

Filed under: Commodities,Economics,Energy,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 12:18 pm

Putin travels to China this week, and the big item on the agenda is the supposed signing of a long-awaited gas deal.

I’ve seen this show many times before, going back to 2004. Much fanfare ahead of the meeting! A deal is signed! But the price is TBD. Meaning there is no real deal. And then the charade occurs again a couple of years later.

So I’ll believe it when I see it.

The Russians, per usual, are doing all the talking about the impending deal. Apparently understanding that those who have seen the earlier episodes will be skeptical about any deal that doesn’t nail down pricing, they are at pains to claim that the pricing is all but set. Deputy Energy Minister Anatoly Yanovsky said the deal is “98 percent completed.” What does that mean anyways? By word count? Meaningless, if the missing 2 percent relates to price. Gazprom’s Alexi Miller says the deal is “one digit” away from completion. Well, which digit kinda matters. Is it in the hundreds column? The tens? The ones? (Or does the single digit refer to an upraised middle finger?)

If a deal does get done, pay close attention to the price. The Chinese have the bargaining power here. As they always have. But now it is greater because this is now part of Russia’s game with Europe and Ukraine. It very much wants to put pressure on the Europeans. So Putin/Gazprom might be willing to take a lower price to further that strategy.

Just as important, look at the formula. The reports I’ve seen are saying that the Russians will sell at a fixed price, in the range of $350-$380/MCM. If the deal is truly at a fixed price, this would be a major concession, as Gazprom is an ardent defender of oil-linked pricing. If it gives up the oil-link, that would be a major concession, and would put oil-linked deals in Europe under greater pressure than is already the case.

This figure is based on leaks from Gazprom, which is kind of appropriate given the massive leakage that occurs from its pipes. Perhaps the leaker is converting an oil-based formula number to a flat price. Moreover, regardless of how arrived at, is this a number for deliveries over the entire 30 year life of the contract, or just for the near term deliveries? I can’t imagine locking into a price over 30 years. There has to be some kind of indexing, but to what? That matters a lot. Moreover, I would not be surprised if  the Chinese agree to near-term prices that are comparable to European prices in order to give Russia a propaganda victory to use in its battle with the Euros, but get more than compensated at the back end through some convoluted pricing formula that is not publicly disclosed.

It is quite possible that it will be very difficult for outsiders to know exactly what terms the parties have agreed to, and to back out a price, or a price structure over the life of the contract. Recall the Rosneft/Transneft-Chinese oil deal that was signed in 2009. The Chinese made an upfront payment to pay for a pipeline, and presumably received a discount on the price. But the pricing terms were not transparent and who got the better of the deal was hard to figure. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same thing happen here.

Also remember that Russian-Chinese deals are not ended with “and they lived happily ever after.” The Rosneft/Transneft-China ESPO deal has been marked by chronic pricing disputes between the parties. Don’t be surprised if that happens here too. The Chinese are also notorious for re-opening pricing terms after deals are signed. And their performance on contracts generally leaves something to be desired. They are notorious for defaulting on fixed price contracts when spot prices fall below the contract price: for this reason, most iron ore and coal sales to China are on spot terms only. Iran recently canceled a $2.5 billion deal with China to develop an oil field because the Iranians claim the Chinese are not living up to the terms of the deal (though this isn’t related to pricing per se). (H/T Neil C. Levine.) In other words, any deal is just setting the stage for ex post opportunism, by either party or both.

So even if Putin walks away from Beijing beaming a beatific botoxed grin, don’t draw too many conclusions. When two of the least transparent regimes in the world enter into a contract you cannot expect disclosure of the real terms, and the public announcements relating the deal will be intended primarily for propaganda purposes rather than to enlighten the world. When the inscrutable deal with the riddle/mystery/enigma folks, you can’t ever know what is really going on.

Further thoughts (added 5/19/14 at 1730 CDT). If and when a deal is announced, look to see whether there is a take-or-pay clause. The Russians usually insist on these, and they can be a source of major friction between the contracting parties if the price terms in the contract get out of alignment with spot market conditions, as is almost inevitable in a contract that extends over 30 years. I would be surprised if the agreement has take or pay terms and the Chinese also fund the construction of a pipeline upfront. Take-or-pay is usually a mechanism for protecting the party making the investment in the specific asset (like a pipeline or gas field): if the Chinese are funding the project, Gazprom doesn’t need take-or-pay to protect it. If anything, the Chinese would need protection against Gazprom’s opportunism.  If the Chinese indeed provide a substantial sum up front, as has been rumored (with sums of around $20 billion) the pricing terms of the contract become even more important: discounts later on in the life of the contract are necessary to pay the Chinese the principal and interest on the funding. There is no way that Gazprom will get European prices for sales to China if China also finances the investment. If Gazprom boasts that it indeed received European prices for sales to China, and the Chinese fronted the investment, you know there is something being hidden. (This happened with the Rosneft/Transneft deal.)  With respect to pricing, I can’t see any way that the deal would be at a fixed price for 30 years. There must be some sort of indexing. Again, if the boasting is about some price level that is anywhere near what the Russians get currently from Europe, be very suspicious. This is likely part of some sort of Three Card Monte game, with Russia tantalizingly flashing, then palming, the Black Queen to gull the suckers. If the deal is really for thirty years, there must be some sort of indexing mechanism, with a set of discounts, and the details here would be very devilish. Lastly (for now, anyways), I’ll be interested to see if the deal includes some sort of hostage exchange to protect each party against the predations of the other.

Print Friendly

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress