Streetwise Professor

February 2, 2016

Russian “Privatization”? Only If Putin Is Desperate Indeed

Filed under: Commodities,Economics,Energy,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 10:11 pm

Putin held a meeting with the CEOs of seven state-owned enterprises to discuss the sale of minority stakes in their companies (a move sometimes mischaracterized as “privatization”). Putin frankly admitted that the impetus for this discussion is Russia’s dire budgetary situation. Putin caused some confusion by saying the “new owners of privatized assets must have Russian jurisdiction,” leading some to conclude that he was ruling out foreign investment. Peskov clarified the next day, saying that Russia welcomed foreign investors, but “If the question is about a foreign investor, that’s one thing. If it’s about a Russian investor, it must not be another offshore scheme.”

I consider it likely that this initiative will be stillborn, at least insofar as sales of stakes to foreigners are concerned. Putin said that the sales must not take place at “knockdown prices.” Well, in the current environment, the prices (especially for Rosneft and VTB) are likely to be very low indeed.

This is especially so since foreign investors will demand a substantial discount to compensate for expropriation risk. Savvy investors with long memories will recall that Putin justified expropriating Shell’s Sakhalin II project by saying that the terms of the Sakhalin PSA were unfair to Russia, and that Shell had exploited Russia’s economic desperation when it signed the deal at a previous time of low energy prices. Putin (or whoever succeeds him) could easily resurrect such rhetoric in the future when oil prices rebound. Further, minority shareholders in Russian enterprises–especially state enterprises–have few protections against schemes that divert assets, or which dilute their holdings.

Given that prices are likely to be very low, if there are sales to foreigners, it will indicate (1) that Russia is desperate indeed, and (2) Putin et al consider it unlikely that sanctions will be relaxed anytime soon.

If there are sales, it is likely to be to Russian oligarchs, and in particular those with extensive holdings outside Russia. Just as Putin dragooned them into paying for Sochi and other prestige projects, he could well pressure them into overpaying for stakes in the state enterprises. This would allow him to kill two birds with one stone. It would help stanch the budgetary bleeding. It would also advance Putin’s longstanding goal of onshoring Russian capital. That would fit with the “owners must have Russian jurisdiction” remark.  And Putin has substantial leverage to get oligarchs to do his bidding–literally.

Even if partial sales take place, it will be merely a stopgap budgetary measure: it will not indicate a fundamental reconsideration of Russian economic policy.  Putin is still obviously a firm believer in the state control/state champion model, despite its manifest inefficiency. Putin prefers the control over resources that state control provides to having an efficient economy. Which is why he finds himself in his current straits.

Print Friendly

January 23, 2016

Russian Oil Hedging: A Little Late for Herpicide

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Russia — The Professor @ 5:29 pm

My grandfather had a wealth of colorful expressions, most of which were the product of his Appalachian upbringing. One, however, was a little different. Whenever it was too late to do something about a particular problem, he’d say: “Well, it’s a little late for herpicide.” In context, I understood what he meant, but the exact meaning escaped me. I asked him one time, and it turns out that Herpicide was a (quack) hair loss cure in the ’30s or ’40s. The company’s add campaign pictured a cue ball-bald man with the caption: “A Little Late for Herpicide.” I guess now it would be “A Little Late for Rogaine.”

This expression came to mind when I read in the FT that “Russia considers hedging part of its oil revenues.” It would have been a good idea when the price was $100, or $90, or even $50. At $30 (or below, as happened on Wednesday and Thursday), well, it’s a little late for hedgicide. Yes, oil could indeed go lower, but hedging today would lock in prices that are low by historical levels.

Hedging would make sense for Russia, just as it does for a highly-leveraged corporate. It clearly incurs financial distress costs when prices are very low. Hedging would reduce the expected costs of financial distress.

Presumably Russia would implement a program like Mexico’s, buying large quantities of out-of-the-money puts. This would allow it to capture the upside but obtain protection on the downside. It would also avoid a problem that it might face if it sold swaps/forwards: finding a counterparty. Selling a put to Russia doesn’t involve counterparty risk. Buying swaps from them would. Although this would be a right-way risk, one could readily see Russia balking on performance if oil prices were to spike, putting a short swap position well out of the money. It would have the cash to pay: the willingness to pay, not so much. Further, although Russia’s ability to pay is closely related to oil prices, it is exposed to other risks that could impair that ability, and these risks would create credit risks for anyone buying swaps from Russia.

Buying puts does create an issue, though: this would require Russia paying a rather hefty premium upfront, at a time when it is cash-strapped. As an illustration of its financial straits, note that it is attempting to avoid having to come up with cash to stabilize troubled megabank VEB. Borrowing to pay the premium is also problematic, given its dicey creditworthiness. Russia’s CDS spread is around 370bp (which, although it has turned up as oil prices took their latest plunge, is still below post-Crimea levels, and even below the levels seen in August). Current sanctions and the prospect of the crystallization of future political risks may also make lenders reluctant to front Russia the premium money.

One interesting thing to consider is how hedging would affect Russia’s output decisions going forward. Hedging, whether by buying puts or selling swaps, would reduce its incentive to cut output in low price environments. As I’ve written before, Russia doesn’t have a strong incentive to cut output anyways because  market share, market demand elasticity, and the cost of shutting down production in Siberia make it a losing prospect (as its refusal to cut output in 2009 and in the past 18 months clearly indicate). However, whatever weak incentives Russia has to cut (in cooperation with the Saudis for instance) would be even weaker if it was hedged. If cooperation on output between OPEC and Russia has proved hard up to now, it would be harder still if Russia was hedged.

A Russian hedging program, if big enough, could affect market pricing, but not the price of oil (at least not directly*): hedging is a transfer of risk, and a big Russian hedge would affect the price of oil risks. Its hedging pressure would tend to increase market risk premia (i.e., reduce forward prices relative to expected spot prices). If done using puts, it would also tend to steepen the put-wing volatility skew and increase volatility risk premium. Adding its hedging pressure to the market would also necessitate the entry of additional speculative capital into the market in order to mitigate these effects. Sechin has criticized speculators in the past: hedging Russian oil price risk would be prohibitively expensive without them.

Although Russia has mooted the possibility, I doubt it will follow through. I would imagine that the combination of the cash cost of options and criticism within the ruling clique of locking in low prices will cause them to pass. If and when oil prices rise substantially, I predict they will forego hedging because they will convince themselves that prices won’t fall again, just as they did post-2009.

In sum, this sounds like an idea that the technocrats have advanced that will die at the hands of the siloviki, like various privatization initiatives.

* The spot price of oil depends on output and demand. Hedging affects spot prices to the extent that it affects output. One way that could happen is that if it reduced Russia’s incentive to cut output. Another way it could happen is that hedging increases Russia’s capacity to finance investments in oil production by reducing capital costs. In this case, investment would be higher and output would be higher.

In each of these scenarios hedging reduces spot oil prices in some states of the world, not because of the direct effects of forward selling, but because the hedging provides incentives to increase output. This is a good thing.

Print Friendly

January 20, 2016

Rube Krugman Argues From a Price Change, With Predictably Absurd Results

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy — The Professor @ 1:50 pm

The oil collapse continues apace, after a one day breather on Monday. As I write, WTI and Brent are off almost 8 percent. Equity indices around the world are going in the same direction.

This recent co-movement between crude (and other commodities, especially non-precious metals) has unleashed torrents of twaddle. One of the most egregious pieces thereof was a recent Krugman column:

When oil prices began their big plunge, it was widely assumed that the economic effects would be positive. Some of us were a bit skeptical. But maybe not skeptical enough: taking a global view, there’s a pretty good case that the oil plunge is having a distinctly negative impact. Why?

Well, think about why we used to believe that oil price declines were expansionary. Part of the answer was that they reduced inflation, freeing central banks to loosen monetary policy — not a relevant issue at a time when inflation is below target almost everywhere.

Beyond that, however, the usual view was that falling oil prices tended to redistribute income away from agents with low marginal propensities to spend toward agents with high marginal propensities to spend. Oil-rich Middle Eastern nations and Texas billionaires, so the story went, were sitting on huge piles of wealth, were therefore unlikely to face liquidity constraints, and could and would smooth out fluctuations in their income. Meanwhile, the benefits of lower oil prices would be spread widely, including to many consumers living paycheck to paycheck who would probably spend the windfall.

Now, part of the reason this logic doesn’t work the way it used to is that the rise of fracking means that there is a lot of investment spending closely tied to oil prices — investment spending that has relatively short lead times and will therefore fall quickly.

Where to begin? I guess the place to start is to note that Krugman commits a cardinal economic error (you’re shocked, I’m sure): he argues from a price change. What is frightening is that if you believe his characterization of the received wisdom in macroeconomics, this is the standard way of thinking about these things in macro.

Prices do not move exogenously. Prices can go down because of supply shocks. They can go down because of demand shocks. The price movement is the same direction, but the implications are very different. In particular, the implications for co-movements between oil prices and asset prices are very different. You cannot analyze based on the fact of the price change alone: your analysis must be predicated on what is driving that change.

A price decline because of a favorable supply shock is generally positive for the broader world economy. Yes it is bad for oil producers, but especially for advanced and most emerging economies who are oil/commodity shorts, a supply-driven price decline is beneficial and should be associated with higher stock prices, economic growth, etc. The production possibility frontier shifts out, leading to higher incomes overall although in a world with incomplete risk sharing there are distributive effects. But the adverse consequences for producers are almost always swamped by consumer gains.  In this scenario, growth and asset prices on the one hand, and commodity prices on the other, move in opposite directions.

Things are very different for demand shocks-driven price changes. A price decline because of an adverse demand shock is generally negative for the broader world economy, because it is a weakening world economy that is the major source of the demand decline. This is a matter of correlation, not causation. Causation runs from a weakening economy to lower demand for oil (and other commodities) to lower commodity prices and lower asset prices.  Oil price (and asset price) changes are an effect not a cause.

The current situation is much closer to the latter case than the former. Yes, there have been oil production increases in the last couple of years, but if world economic growth had continued on its pre-mid-2014 pace, demand would have grown sufficiently to absorb this increase. In fact, the decline in oil and other commodity prices starting around June 2014 occurred right about the time that world growth forecasts declined appreciably. Subsequent months have seen a litany of bad growth news from the main sources of commodity demand growth in the boom years, most notably, of course, China. And the news from China keeps getting worse. This is reflected in cratering stock prices there, and other indicia of economic activity. (Notably all of these indicia are pretty much non-official. Official Chinese statistics should be nominated for the next Nobel Prize in Fiction.)

But rather than go back to basics, Krugman assembles a Rube Goldberg contraption to explain what is going on. And of course, austerity and the liquidity trap play a starring role:

But there is, I believe, something else going on: there’s an important nonlinearity in the effects of oil fluctuations. A 10 or 20 percent decline in the price might work in the conventional way. But a 70 percent decline has really drastic effects on producers; they become more, not less, likely to be liquidity-constrained than consumers. Saudi Arabia is forced into drastic austerity policies; highly indebted fracking companies find themselves facing balance-sheet crises.

Or to put it differently: small oil price declines may be expansionary through usual channels, but really big declines set in motion a process of forced deleveraging among producers that can be a significant drag on the world economy, especially with the whole advanced world still in or near a liquidity trap.

Since because of his cardinal error Krugman does not identify what caused the price decline that begins his chain of “reasoning,” it’s hard to understand fully what he means. The most charitable interpretation is that there was a favorable supply shock that was so big that it caused such a large price decline in oil that this caused world “aggregate demand” to decline because of the severe adverse consequences on indebted and liquidity constrained producing countries and companies.

Inane. For one thing, these economies and sectors are very small in comparison to the world economy. Commodity producing countries have historically suffered major financial crises with little, if any, effect on growth world-wide, or on asset prices world-wide. The US oil and gas sector has also undergone some severe crises (e.g., 1986-1987) with limited fallout on US and world growth: the impacts tended to be concentrated regionally in the producing states, such as Texas. Not much fun there, but the rest of the country and the world didn’t much notice. In fact, they benefited from the favorable oil supply shock.

For another, even if there is some asymmetry between the “liquidity constraints” of producers and consumers, Krugman has been arguing strenuously that US and European consumers are liquidity constrained, hence his constant attacks on austerity. In Krugman’s argue-from-a-price-change story, that liquidity constraint has eased, and therefore one would expect to see improvement in consumption growth in places like the US, but the reverse is in fact true. The US economy is slowing rather noticeably.

No. The back-to-basics-trace-the-cause-of-the-price-change story is much more plausible. And here’s the irony. The epicenter of the commodity demand and world growth shock is China, which has binged on credit stimulus since 2009 in a way that Krugman should approve. But that cannot go on forever, and indeed, the main source of problems in China is the recognition that it can’t go on forever. China faces colossal balance-sheet issues that make deleveraging inevitable. When that happens, the commodity crisis will enter a new phase. How bad it is depends on how well the Chinese handle it. Given their mania for central control, I do not believe they will handle it well.

Macro panjandrums, like Oliver Blanchard, are puzzled, because official data do not yet reflect any large decline in growth. But that’s because official data are backward looking, and markets look forward relentlessly. They are signaling current and future problems, which official data will eventually validate. (And that’s when the data aren’t made up, as is notoriously the case in China.)

Commodity prices are particularly important, because commodities are consumed in the here and now. When demand declines, consumption declines, and prices decline contemporaneously. For all the talk about financialization, that can’t overcome the decisions of billions of commodity consumers around the world. Thus, at present, the high positive correlation between commodity prices and asset prices, like in 2008-2009, is a symptom and harbinger of broader economic problems. You don’t need Rube Krugman contraptions to explain that.

Print Friendly

January 10, 2016

Protectionism in the Oil Patch: When Someone Says “Fair Markets”, Check Your Wallet

Filed under: Commodities,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 9:28 pm

The decline in oil prices is producing a predictable political outcome: attempts to prop up the domestic US industry. Some initiatives would make sense regardless of the financial distress of the US upstream sector: the Clinton and Obama administrations in particular have imposed a variety of inefficient regulations and restrictions on US hydrocarbon production, and it would be desirable to roll these back, as is being proposed:

Among the proposals under discussion: Expediting the process for exporting liquefied natural gas, and upgrading infrastructure to move energy to market more quickly and cheaply.

Another top priority for the two Republicans is loosening environmental and other regulations.

But then there’s just the plain stupid:

Some lawmakers are floating the possibility of taking retaliatory trade measures against Saudi Arabia, which has flooded the market with cheap oil in what some analysts see as a bid to drive America’s growing shale oil industry out of business.

. . . .

North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) said lawmakers could begin to mull retaliatory tariffs against Saudi Arabia in the future but emphasized he is not advocating for that yet.

“I’m very hesitant to go down that path at this time but clearly that would be a possible option should the Saudis not play fair. Because as much as I advocate for free and open markets, I also advocate for fair markets,” he said.

Saudi Arabia, taking advantage of its low extraction costs, has refused to curb oil production in a bid to expand market share and undercut competitors. This has raised the prospect of the U.S. government taking action to level the playing field for domestic companies.

“I’m not prone to a lot of government intervention in terms of propping industry up, per se. What would be the most helpful is to roll back regulations that get in the way of further development and profitability,” said Cramer, who cited the Endangered Species Act as one burdensome regulation.

“Obviously they have access to our market and I suppose to some degree there is a role that can be played there. I’m not at the point where I’m ready to advocate tariffs or restricting their access necessarily,” he added.

Any tariff on Saudi imports would be special interest protectionism pure and simple, tarted up in the usual rhetoric (and whining) used to justify protectionist measures. “Fair markets” is a sure tell. Anyone who says “I’m for free markets but they should be fair markets” is a liar, and should drop the pretense. Any such person is all about protecting a favored industry or firm. When someone, regardless of party, says “fair markets”, I strongly advise you to check your wallet, because they are trying to rob you.

And why should Saudi Arabia “refuse to curb oil production”? Indeed, “curbing oil production” is the exercise of market power, for which the US (rightly) criticized OPEC and the Saudis in the past. What’s more, low cost producers are the ones who should sustain output in the face of a demand decline: high cost producers are the ones who should cut back.

Furthermore, although North Dakota is an oil long, the US as whole is an oil short, still producing only about 1/2 of its consumption, despite the spurt in oil production in the past 5-6 years. So low oil prices are still in the interests of the US.

It should also be noted that the “flooding the market with cheap oil” meme is vastly overstated. Saudi output in June, 2014, right before the price collapse began, was about 10mm bpd. It is now about 10.5 mm bpd. That difference represents a whopping .5 percent of world output. Even given an elasticity of 10 (which is probably too high) that could cause at most at 5 percent decline in prices. As I write, Brent just went below $33/bbl, and hence is down almost exactly 70 percent off its pre-collapse levels. So this collapse is not the result of the Saudis flooding the market.

Nor are the Saudis engaged in some predatory pricing strategy. At least I doubt that they are, because such a strategy would be irrational.

The price decline is the result of increased output in a variety of places (including the US), but mainly due to a steep decline in demand growth, especially from China.

Yes, the upstream sector in the US is suffering severe financial distress. So be it. That’s the nature of the business, and the nature of a market system generally. Resources should exit sectors that suffer demand declines. They should not be propped up through trade restrictions, especially trade restrictions that will impose far greater costs on the US economy as a whole than they will benefit one sector in that economy.

It is also perversely ironic that the very same Republicans (I am speaking of the individual legislators, like Murkowski and Cramer, not the party as a whole) who pushed for ending the idiotic export ban are now mooting an equally idiotic restriction in imports. This makes it plain that it’s not about principle, in the least. It’s all special interest politics. That’s not surprising, but it’s not admirable. And it’s not any better when Republicans push it than when Democrats and Obama do.

So yes, eliminate or cut back inefficient restrictions that a relentlessly anti-hydrocarbon administration has imposed, in order to eliminate unnecessary burdens on US oil and gas production that hurt both US producers and consumers in the US and around the world. But don’t impose large costs on American consumers of oil in order to prop up the US upstream sector. The sector should shrink if the demand for its product declines due to increased production elsewhere, or reduced demand. So be it.

Print Friendly

December 22, 2015

Embarrassing Silliness on Commodity Market Financialization in the FT

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy — The Professor @ 8:04 pm

Satyajit Das writes some smart things. He also writes some silly things. This article in the FT is definitely in the silly category. Embarrassing is more like it.

Das claims that “increased financialisation” has “exacerbated” the downturn in commodities. What does he mean exactly?

Let’s start with the what Das means by financialization. (I’m ‘Merican and I’ll spell it like a ‘Merican, dammit!) This has become a term of art to mean traditional financial investors (pension funds, hedge funds, retail investors etc.) taking on direct exposure to commodity price risks, usually via derivatives (including ETFs). But Das treats anything touching finance as financialization. His use of the word is so broad as to be meaningless.

Cash flows from future sales were monetised to raise large amounts of debt to finance expansion. The collateral value of commodities secured expansion in borrowing and trading.

Uhm, when has this not been true in commodities? Commodity production tends to be highly capital intensive, which requires, you know, capital, which requires tapping the capital markets to, you know, fund. Since the dawn of capital markets, lenders and equity investors have mobilized savings to supply capital to miners, drillers, etc., to fund the digging of mines and the drilling of wells, based on the expectation of being paid back from cash flows from future sales. That’s exactly what finance is. If that is “financialization,” pretty much everything is “financialized” and the term is so general as to lack all meaning and analytical bite.  Modern markets have always been financialized in this way.

Natural resource firms have long been major users of the capital markets. Indeed, many of the earliest stock and bond markets developed to finance commodity investments, and mining and E&P firms have long been leading names in major stock and bond markets. In that respect, commodities have been financialized a lot more for a lot longer than most sectors of the economy.

In fact, it is the very capital intensity of extractive industries (which made natural resource firms reliant on capital markets from the first) that  explains the boom-bust cycle. Most of the costs of natural resource extraction industries are sunk costs. Literally sunk: very expensive, very long-lived holes in the ground that can’t be undug and used for something else. If demand turns down after these investments are made, it usually makes economic sense to continue operating , because the variable costs of operation tend to be relatively low and can be covered even when prices are low. Since the capacity is long-lived, exit does not occur, meaning that low prices can persist for long periods. But that’s economically efficient when investment is largely irreversible.

Which brings me to Das’s next groaner:

The need to maintain cash flow to service debt requires production levels to be maintained, even if it is below cost. This delays the withdrawal of supply and correction of prices. It also destroys the value of equity, making it difficult for firms to raise new capital to reduce debt.

Producing “below cost” (by which I assume he means continuing to produce when prices are below cost) destroys cash flow, rather than maintains it, if cost is measured properly. It is optimal to operate as long as prices cover avoidable costs (e.g., variable costs, and fixed costs that must be incurred as long as output is positive), even if prices are below some measure of accounting cost which typically embeds sunk costs: you can’t judge economic operation by looking at income statements, which have sunk costs baked in.

This kind of continued operation doesn’t “destroy the value of equity.” To the contrary, it is shutting down when price more than covers avoidable cost that destroys the value of equity. The fact that avoidable costs in natural resource extraction tend to be low relative to total costs means that not exiting even when prices are low is economically efficient.  (Another implication of the cost structure of natural resource production is that it is typically efficient to produce either at capacity or shut down altogether.)

Debt costs reflect the sunk costs of investment. Sometimes–like now–cash flows are insufficient to cover the costs of servicing this debt for many firms. That’s what bankruptcy laws are for. If they work well, the continued operation (or not) of insolvent firms will depend on current and expected future margins between price and avoidable costs, not the Ghost of Sunk Costs Past.

Then there’s this:

For industries like shale gas and oil which were cash flow negative even at high oil prices because of the need to invest in new wells to maintain production, reduction in the supply of capital affects the ability of firms to operate.

Again, Das is apparently utterly confused about the proper cash flow concept to apply. If “maintain production at all costs” was truly the mantra of the E&P industry, the problem would not be financialization, but management retardation. Finance would be implicated only to the extent that financiers are similarly retarded and gladly shovel good money to them to permit continued value destruction. If anything, it is the need to access the capital markets that prevents retarded managements from wreaking havoc: few things are more destructive of value than CEOs with bountiful free cash flows that relieve them of capital market discipline. Cutting off capital from negative NPV projects is a boon, not a burden.

Finally we get to derivatives!:

Hedging ameliorated the effect of declining prices. Derivative gains contributed in excess of 30 per cent of revenues in the US shale industry in 2015

And this is a problem why? This is exactly the way “financialization” is supposed to work. It transfers price risks to those (namely, well-diversified financial investors) who can bear them at a lower cost. Yes, investment probably would have been lower, and prices higher, had this risk transfer mechanism not existed. But this doesn’t mean that the level of investment with an efficient risk transfer mechanism is too high: it means that the level of investment without one is too low.

More bad derivatives stuff:

Margin calls further complicate matters. An airline that has hedged future oil purchases at high prices may face margin calls that make unexpected claims on its cash flow.

Yes, cash flow mismatches on hedges can be a problem. Which is exactly why corporate end users strongly preferred (and prefer) OTC hedges which embedded credit to mitigate these problems.

More financialization evils, according to Das:

Financialisation altered fundamental industrial structures. Traditionally high barriers to entry, such as technology, expertise and access to capital, led to domination by large producers who planned and controlled production.

Now specialised resources service firms provide access to technology and the willingness of capital markets and non-traditional lenders to provide finance allows easier entry resulting in a more fragmented industry.

These are features, not bugs! These are benefits of financialization! Breaking down oligopolistic and monopolistic market structures is good, not bad!

At the same time, trading in financial claims on future commodity cash flows has encouraged institutional investment in the sector as part of diversification into new asset classes. Hedge funds and trading firms now act as quasi banks financing and facilitating risk management by commodity market participants.

So facilitating the flow of capital from savers to investors is a bad thing? Facilitating risk management is bad too? Who knew?

This is just bizarre:

This activity is marked-to-market daily or secured by the value of the commodity. Any change in value can trigger calls for additional collateral complicating cash flow management or force liquidation of holdings. Capital market investors may lack the ability to ride out prolonged corrections. It complicates dealing with financial distress and the necessary restructuring.

Tapping into a deeper pool of capital, which financialization (as defined by Das) allows, spreads the risks and makes it easier to ride out prolonged correction (which, again, are an inherent consequence of the cost structures/operational leverage of natural resource extraction), not harder. And the statement about complicating dealing with financial distress and restructuring is completely conclusory, with no supporting argument or evidence.

Yes, in a world with poorly developed financial markets, large scale investments in industries characterized by irreversibility and large scale (like natural resource extraction) are expensive to fund. “Financialization”–which in Das’s expansive usage, apparently just means lower cost access to bigger pools of investment and risk capital–indeed leads to a bigger natural resources sector. Yes, by its very nature this sector will inevitably go through protracted periods of low prices, which will impose losses on investors. But that’s a risk that they willingly choose to bear, in exchange for an expected return that they consider compensatory.

Das appears to be afflicted with Bastiat Disease, i.e., the inability to distinguish between the seen and the unseen. Das sees the financial carnage that the current natural resources depression has created, but hasn’t considered what would happen if the world was less financialized. What are the unseen consequences of that?

I can tell you: a poorer world.

There are some forms of finance that are wealth-destroying rent seeking. The financing and risk management of the production of minerals and energy are not among them.

Print Friendly

December 21, 2015

Adam Smith Goes to Syria: How Bad Government Policies Turned Drought Into Famine

Filed under: Climate Change,Commodities,Economics,Energy,History,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:39 pm

The myth that global warming caused a drought which caused the civil war in Syria has been flogged repeatedly by the left, especially in the lead-up to the Paris farce: another example of the “elites” letting no good crisis go to (political) waste. As I discussed in March, there was indeed a drought in Syria, but no credible scientific evidence links the drought to climate change.

Droughts happen. What turned the drought into catastrophe in Syria was the depletion of groundwater by previous government-driven efforts to spur production:

Syria was such a successful producer that it became a net exporter of wheat for the better part of two decades — almost unheard-of in a region where most governments imported cheap wheat from abroad. According to ICARDA Director General Mahmoud Solh, the increased productivity netted the Syrian government more than $350 million a year . The country also kept a strategic reserve of wheat — usually about 3 million metric tons, enough to get it through a lean year or a price spike. In this most stable of dictatorships, nobody dreamed of a war.

But all that productivity came at a price. To produce these remarkable gains, Syria’s agricultural sector “mined” groundwater to irrigate farms. Experts predicted that this would lead to severe water Shortages. When a four-year drought struck in 2006, devastating 60 percent of Syria’s agricultural lands, the country’s groundwater was already depleted.

(This sounds a lot like Soviet agricultural malpractice.)

This brings to mind Adam Smith’s argument that bad government policy turns “dearths” caused by nature into famines:

The seasons most unfavourable to the crop are those of excessive drought or excessive rain. But as corn grows equally upon high and low lands, upon grounds that are disposed to be too wet, and upon those that are disposed to be too dry, either the drought or the rain which is hurtful to one part of the country is favourable to another; and though both in the wet and in the dry season the crop is a good deal less than in one more properly tempered, yet in both what is lost in one part of the country is in some measure compensated by what is gained in the other. In rice countries, where the crop not only requires a very moist soil, but where in a certain period of its growing it must be laid under water, the effects of a drought are much more dismal. Even in such countries, however, the drought is, perhaps, scarce ever so universal as necessarily to occasion a famine, if the government would allow a free trade.

It as not just the  Syrian government that contributed to spiraling food prices which created popular unrest in the Middle East that culminated in 2010-2011 (which the Muslim Brotherhood exploited in Egypt and Syria in particularly): US government policy contributed to the problem. In particular, US biofuels mandates that stimulated the production of ethanol drove up the price of corn by an estimated 30 percent, and as Brian Wright has shown, drove up all other grain prices as well (because corn is a substitute for other grains in both consumption and production). (I strongly recommend reading at least the introduction of the Wright paper: I’d quote in detail, but the online versions embed some devious feature that makes it impossible to copy-and-paste.)

It is sickly ironic that policies intended to reduce global warming pushed by the same crowd that falsely blame the Syrian drought and subsequent civil war on global warming (a) do nothing to reduce global warming, and (b) have done far more to exacerbate poverty and create social unrest  in the Middle East than global warming ever has or ever will.  Ethanol is an unmitigated disaster environmentally, economically, and socially. Yet the people Thomas Sowell trenchantly calls “the anointed” colluded with agricultural lobbies in the United States (encompassing both growers and processors) to inflict this monstrosity on the world.

How dare they–how fucking dare they–presume to lecture anyone on their obligations to “save the planet” and help the poor? Through biofuels policies alone they have inflicted huge misery and privation, and yet they have the audacity to try to exploit one of the consequences of these policies in order to ram more of their brilliant ideas down our throats.

Haven’t they done enough? Can they please now just go away?

Alas, we won’t be so lucky. These are our elites, after all, and we are stuck with them, like a case of malaria. And they are actually proud of stupid policies like biofuel mandates. There is no stupid that can equal the stupid of not just not learning from mistakes, but reveling in them.

Do you still wonder why the Trump phenomenon exists? The global reaction against the elites, of which Trump is just the most prominent example, is yet another baleful consequence of the failure of these so called elites. The reaction may be as bad as the disease, but let the blame fall where it should: squarely on the shoulders of those condescending fools whose allegedly good intentions have paved a superhighway to hell.

Print Friendly

December 20, 2015

The Crude Export Ban Is Gone, But Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

Filed under: Commodities,Energy,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 2:50 pm

Well, ding dong the wicked export ban is dead. The repeal was included in the wretched omnibus deal passed in the dead of the night last week.

As a matter of economic principle, banning the ban is a good thing. Trade restrictions are almost always inefficient, and the oil export ban was no exception to that rule. In the near term, however, the practical impact of the sunsetting of the ban will be limited. At present, Louisiana Light Sweet is trading about par with Brent on a spot basis, and at only a few cents discount on a forward basis. Even given the quality premium for LLS, the differential is too narrow to make it economical to transport oil to Europe. This situation differs dramatically from the conditions that sparked the move to eliminate the ban, namely, a double digit discount of US oil prices from Brent.

The narrowing of the spread was due to many factors, but probably the most important of these was the fact that although oil exports were banned, exports of refined products were not. The low domestic oil prices made refining, including refining for export, to be very profitable. This encouraged investment in refining capacity that increased the demand for US crude, which narrowed the spread.

The repeal of the ban essentially creates an option, and this option is valuable. Although exporting crude is not economic now, it will be in response to some economic shocks. For instance, a disruption of European supplies, a spike in US production, or a big refinery outage in the US would all tend to depress the US price relative to the price in Europe, and if the shock is big enough, this could open the arb.

As for those who think that the lifting of the ban will help US producers in their hour of need, get ready for disappointment. The price difference between the export and no-export worlds is capped by the no-export-world spread: if absent the ban the price difference is greater than transportation costs, lifting the ban raises the domestic price and lowers the foreign price until the spread equals the cost of transport. When the arb channel is closed (as is currently the case), lifting the ban has no effect. Any price effect from lifting in the ban will occur in the future, and will be contingent on future supply and demand conditions. My guess is that the elimination of the ban will periodically give a couple of bucks boost to the US oil price. Not a huge deal.

The lifting of the ban will help traders, to the extent that arbs periodically come into play. It will also periodically benefit infrastructure owners (e.g., pipelines, terminals, and ports) that hand exports. Refiners  will lose when the arbitrage opens: this is why the compromise included a modest tax break for refiners, to secure their support.

Perhaps the biggest losers are those who bet on the continuation of the ban by building condensate splitters: minimally processed crude and condensate could be exported, so the splitters were a way to circumvent the ban. They are now white elephants, as the crude can be exported directly.

All in all, the lifting of the ban is not a big deal. Perhaps the main effect of this development, at least in the short term, is to show that 239 years after the publication of the Wealth of Nations, bad arguments about trade survive and even thrive. But even this didactic effect is overshadowed by circumstances, because the continued success of Trump shows the same thing, and much more forcefully.

In sum, I’m glad to see the ban go, but am underwhelmed by the near-term effects of its demise.

Print Friendly

November 4, 2015

I’m Not Spoofing You About Judicial Overkill

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Exchanges,Regulation — The Professor @ 11:02 pm

Yesterday in a federal court in Chicago, Michael Coscia of Panther Energy Trading was convicted of six counts each of commodity manipulation and fraud for “spoofing.” Coscia faces decades in prison.

I haven’t seen the evidence, so I cannot judge whether Coscia did manipulate. For the purposes of this post I will stipulate that he did. But even given that stipulation, this entire exercise was judicial overkill and a travesty that can do serious damage to the markets.

What is spoofing? A trader puts in a large order (an offer, say) several ticks away from the best price in the market. He also places a small limit order on the other side of the market (a bid, in this example). If the market moves towards the large order, the spoofer cancels and replaces the order several ticks away from the new inside market. It is this cancellation that attracts all the attention. Much of the coverage says that the spoofer submits orders with the intent of canceling them.

That’s not the whole story though. The point of spoofing is to increase the odds that the small order is executed. After all, what would be the point of submitting orders that are never executed?

In the example, the large sell order is intended to convince others that the current price is too high. This may induce some bidders to cancel their bids, and others to cross the market and hit the bid. Both of these actions increase the odds that the spoofer’s small order will be executed.

So how does he make money? It can’t be by driving down the price persistently. The spoofer has bought: to profit, prices must rise subsequently. So, often the spoofer will reverse direction, putting in a big bid away from the market, and a small offer.

If spoofing works, the spoofer will repeatedly buy at the bid and sell at the offer, making the dealer’s turn. This will not cause the price to diverge persistently from where it would be, absent this conduct.

That’s apparently what happened with Coscia. He made a whopping $1K on the six episodes for which he was charged and convicted. He was just making a tick here and a tick there. And crucially, unlike the kinds of manipulation that cause real damage-corners, in particularly-he is not causing the price to be persistently inflated or depressed.

So who is hurt? Some people may be induced to trade when they wouldn’t have absent the spoofing. Their losses are approximately equal to the spoofers gains, on the order of a tick. And since some might have hit the spoofer’s bid even absent the spoofing, only a fraction of those with whom the spoofer trades are damaged.

Others who might be damaged are those who are fooled into canceling orders, and see the spoofer execute a trade they would have liked to if they hadn’t been fooled. The spoofer takes some of the profit they would have earned.

I find it hard to believe that these damages are are all that large. (They would also be hard to estimate because it is virtually impossible to identify who traded because of the spoofing, and who pulled a quote because of the spoofing, and gave up the opportunity to trade.) And regardless, this is exactly the kind of conduct that can be deterred using monetary fines.

This brings me to another bizarre aspect of these spoofing cases. Many of those who scream loudest about spoofing, like Eric Hunsader of Nanex, say: “SPOOFING IS SO OBVIOUS!!!! JUST LOOK AT THE DATA!”

As another case in point, I saw a Tweet embedding a .gif of someone’s TT trading screen, in which the quoted depth a couple of ticks above the inside market would rise and fall by 800 contracts or so. The Tweeter (I can’t find the Tweet) said something to the effect “look at this obvious spoofing.”

Well, I agree with the obviousness of it, but the implication of that is exactly the opposite of what Hunsader, the Tweeter, and presumably the DOJ and CFTC believe: If it so obvious, nobody is fooled. If nobody is fooled, it can’t affect trading behavior or prices. If it doesn’t affect trading behavior or prices, there is no economic harm. If there is no economic harm, it shouldn’t be prosecuted.

There is a law and economics take on this too. Classic Gary Becker analysis shows that draconian penalties-like 25 years per fraud charge and 10 years per manipulation charge-are justifiable if the probability of detection of a harm/crime is small. This is necessary to make the expected cost paid by the offender equal to the cost of the harm. But if the conduct is obvious, even only ex post, the probability of detection should be high, so penalties far greater than any harm are excessive. In this case, grotesquely excessive. (Furthermore, again pace Gary Becker, incarceration of a defendant who can pay the monetary value of the harm caused is a social waste, in the form of the cost of imprisonment, and the lost output of the convict.)

But it gets worse. The Coscia prosecution-and the popular condemnation of spoofing-focuses obsessively on the large rate of order cancellation. But perfectly legitimate market making strategies involve large rates of order cancellation, especially in volatile markets. They also involve buying frequently at the bid and selling at the offer. Given the Javert-like zeal of prosecutors, their dim understanding of trading, and the difficulty of explaining market making to a jury create the very real risk that a market maker could be charged, and convicted, and be punished severely, because he cancelled a lot of orders, and made the dealer’s turn all day long. This huge and very real risk will no doubt lead to less aggressive quoting (a market maker is less willing to quote aggressively if he is reluctant to cancel too often for fear of being accused of spoofing).

And who pays for that? Market users, including both institutional and retail traders, who take the liquidity market makers supply. Thus, you and me are harmed by overzealous prosecution of spoofing that threatens to demoralize legitimate, efficiency-enhancing trading.

This raises the very real possibility that the prosecution of actions that produce little economic harm will inflict a far larger harm. That is perverse.

What is particularly infuriating is that enforcement authorities are apparently incapable of prosecuting much truly damaging market conduct. Federal prosecutors are crowing over getting Coscia’s scalp, and the Chairman of the CFTC is using the verdict to intimidate would-be spoofers, but 6 years ago Federal prosecutors in Houston utterly botched the BP propane corner case (US v. Radley). That was a real manipulation that caused real damage. But the prosecutors totally flubbed the case, and the perps walked. Then there are those obvious manipulations that the Feds haven’t even bothered to prosecute (perhaps to spare themselves the embarrassment of flubbing another one.)

It reminds me of the old joke about the lawyer who said: “I lost the cases I should have won, and won the cases I should have lost. Therefore, on average, justice was done.”

No, actually, Mr. Lawyer: justice is never done if the guilty walk free and the innocent are punished. And sad to say, US manipulation law is perilously close to embodying that cynical joke.



Print Friendly

October 3, 2015

People. Get. A. Grip: Glencore Is Not the Next Lehman

Filed under: Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Financial crisis,History,Regulation — The Professor @ 6:53 pm

There is a lot of hysterical chatter out there about Glencore being the next Lehman, and its failure being the next Lehman Moment that plunges the financial system into chaos. Please. Get. A. Grip.

Comparing the firms shows there’s no comparison.

Let’s first talk size, since this is often framed as an issue of “too big to fail.” In November, 2007, Lehman’s total assets were $691 billion. As of August, Glencore’s were $148 billion. Lehman was about 4.5 times bigger. Moreover, Glencore’s assets include a lot of short term assets (inventories and the like) that are relatively liquid. Looking at Glencore as a $100 billion firm is more realistic. Lehman was much bigger.

Then let’s talk leverage. Lehman had 3 percent equity, 97 percent debt. Glencore about one third-two thirds. Stripping out the short term debt and short term assets, it’s about 50-50.

Then let’s talk off-balance sheet. Lehman was a derivatives dealer with huge OTC derivatives exposures both long and short. Glencore’s derivatives book is much smaller, more directional, and much in listed derivatives.

Lehman had derivatives liabilities of about $30 billion after netting and collateral were taken into account, and $66 billion if not (which matters if netting is not honored in bankruptcy). Glencore has $2 billion and $20 billion, respectively.

Lets talk about funding. Lehman was funding long term assets with short term debt (e.g., overnight repos, corporate paper). It had a fragile capital structure. Glencore’s short term debt is funding short term assets, and its longer term assets are funded by longer term debt. A much less fragile capital structure.  Lower leverage and less fragile capital means that Glencore is much less susceptible to a run that can ruin a company that is actually solvent. That also means less likelihood that creditors are going to take a big loss due to a run (as was the case with Lehman).

As a major dealer, Lehman was also more interconnected with every major systemically important financial institution. That made contagion more likely.

But I don’t think these firm-specific characteristics are the most important factors. Market conditions today are significantly different, and that makes a huge difference.

It wasn’t the case that Lehman failed out of a clear blue sky and this brought down the entire financial system through a counterparty or informational channel. Lehman was one of a series of casualties of a financial crisis that had been underway for more than a year. The crisis began in earnest in August, 2007. Every market indicator was flashing red for the next 12 months. The OIS-Libor spread blew out. The TED spread blew out. Financial institution CDS spreads widened dramatically. Asset backed security prices were plummeting. Auction rate securities were failing. SPVs holding structured products were having difficulty issuing corporate paper to fund them. Bear Sterns failed. Fannie and Freddie were put into receivership. Everyone knew AIG was coughing up blood.

Lehman’s failure was the culmination of this process: it was more a symptom of the failure of the financial system, than a major cause. It is still an open question why its failure catalyzed an intensified panic and near collapse of the world system. One explanation is that people inferred that the failure of the Fed to bail it out meant that it wouldn’t be bailing out anyone else, and this set off the panic as people ran on firms that they had thought were working with a net, the existence of which they now doubted. Another explanation is that there was information contagion: people inferred that other institutions with similar portfolios to Lehman’s might be in worse shape than previously believed and hence ran on them (e.g., Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citi) when Lehman went down. The counterparty contagion channel has not received widespread support.

In contrast, Glencore’s problems are occurring at a time of relative quiescence in the financial markets. Yes commodity markets are down hard, and equities have had spasms of volatility lately, but the warning signs of liquidity problems or massive credit problems in the banking sector are notably absent. TED and OIS-Libor spreads have ticked up mildly in recent months, but are still at low levels. A lot of energy debt is distressed, but that does not appear to have impaired financial institutions’ balance sheets the same way that the distress in the mortgage market did in 2007-2008.

Furthermore, there is not even a remote possibility of an implicit bailout put for Glencore, whereas it was plausible for Lehman (and hence the failure of the put to materialize plausibly caused such havoc). There are few signs of information contagion. Other mining firms stocks have fallen, but that reflects fundamentals: Glencore has fallen more because it is more leveraged.

Put differently, the financial system was more fragile then, and Lehman was clearly more systemically important, because of its interconnections and the information it conveyed about the health of other financial institutions and government/central bank policy towards them. The system is more able to handle a big failure now, and a smaller Glencore is not nearly as salient as Lehman was.

In sum, Glencore vs. Lehman: Smaller. Less leveraged. Less fragile balance sheet. Less interconnected. And crucially, running into difficulties largely by itself, due to its own idiosyncratic issues, in a time of relative health in the financial system, as opposed to being representative of an entire financial system that was acutely distressed.

With so many profound differences, it’s hard to imagine Glencore’s failure would lead to the same consequences as Lehman. It wouldn’t be fun for its creditors, but they would survive, and the damage would largely be contained to them.

So if you need something to keep you up at night, unless you are a Glencore creditor or shareholder, you’ll need to find something else. It ain’t gonna be Lehman, Part Deux. But I guess financial journos need something to write about.

Print Friendly

September 28, 2015

Regulation Confronts Reality In the Commodity Markets. Reality Is Losing.

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Financial crisis,Regulation — The Professor @ 6:36 pm

Following the commodities markets today was like drinking from a fire hose. Many big stories, with “up” and “down” being the operative words. Alcoa split up. Shell announcing that it was giving up on its Arctic plans after its controversial test well failed to find commercially viable reserves. Oil price down around 3 percent, etc.

But the biggest news items were Glencore’s continuing downward spiral, and ESMA’s release of its technical recommendations for application of MiFID to non-financial firms, including commodity firms.

Glencore’s stock was down hard at the open, and at one point was down 31 percent. It’s CDS are now trading up-front (always a bad sign), and the spread widened from an already big 550 bp to 757 bp. At conventional recovery rates, this gives a (risk neutralized) probability of default of better than 50 percent. The Biggest Loser was Glencore’s CEO, Ivan Glasenberg, AKA, Ex-Glencore Billionaire.

The CDS are now trading wider than when Glencore had it s last near-death experience at the height of the financial crisis. Arguably the firm’s situation is worse now. It cannot attribute its woes to stressed financial market conditions generally, in which pretty much everyone saw spreads blow out to one degree or another. This is unique to it and the mining sector. It is a verdict on the firm/sector.

Moreover, in 2008 the firm was private, and Glasenberg and the other owners were able to stanch the bleeding by injecting additional capital into the firm. The ominous thing for Ivan et al now is that they tried that again a couple of weeks ago (along with announcing other measures to reduce debt and conserve cash) and it only bought a temporary respite before the blood started gushing again.

Moreover-and this is crucial-Glencore 2015 is a very different creature than Glencore 2008. It was more of a pure trader then: it is a mining firm with a big trading arm now. This means that its exposure to flat prices (of coal and copper in particular) is much bigger now. In fact, most commodity firms saw little drop off in profits in 2008-2009, and several saw profits increase. The fundamentals facing trading firms in 2008-2009 were not nearly as bad as the fundamentals facing mining firms today. That’s because their flat price exposures weren’t large, and margins and volumes (which drive trading profits) are not as sensitive to macro conditions as flat prices. Given the lack of any prospects for a rebound in flat prices, Glencore’s prospects for a recovery are muted.

Some tout Glasenberg et al’s trading acumen. But it is one thing to be able to sniff out arbs/relative mispricings and structure clever trades to exploit them. (Or to hold one’s nose while doing deals with dodgy regimes around the world.) It is something altogether different to predict where prices are going to go. Glencore made a bet on China, and now that bet is not looking good. At all.

In a nutshell, this is pretty much out of Glencore’s hands. It is along for the ride.

The irony here is that Glasenberg sold the Xstrata merger and the new business model as a way of using the less cyclical profitability of the trading venture as a way of dampening the cyclicality of the mining operation. As it is developing, an extremely adverse cyclical downturn in the mining operation is impairing the viability of the trading operation. How the trading operation can flourish within a financially distressed corporation is an open question. Maybe the company will have to pull an Alcoa, and separate the trading from the mining operations, to keep the latter from dragging down the former.

A key takeaway here relates to the other story I mentioned: ESMA’s release of its recommendations regarding the application of MiFID to non-financials. The objective is to mitigate systemic risk. I was always skeptical that commodity traders posed any such risk (and have been making that argument for 3+ years), and so far the Glencore meltdown is supporting that skepticism. There has been no evidence of spillovers/contagion from Glencore to financial institutions, or to the broader market, a la Lehman.

But ESMA has proposed Technical Standards that would impose the full panoply of CRD-IV capital requirements on commodity traders (and other non-financial firms) that cannot avail themselves of an exemption (on which I will say more momentarily).

  1. If firms cannot make use of an exemption under MiFID II, capital requirements under the new banking regulatory framework will apply to them. This new framework consists of Regulation EU No 575/2013 (CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV), repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC. While CRD IV is addressed to CAs and includes, inter alia, qualitative provisions on the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), the new CRR imposes quantitative requirements and disclosure obligations pursuant to Basel III recommendations on credit institutions and investment firms, including own funds definition, minimum own funds requirements and liquidity requirements. However, under Article 498(1) of CRR, some commodity dealers falling within the scope of MiFID are transitionally exempt from the CRR’s provisions on own funds requirements until 31 December 2017 at the latest, if their main business consists exclusively of providing investment services or activities relating to commodity derivatives.
  2. Moreover, firms falling within the scope of MiFID II will be considered to be financial counterparties rather than non-financial counterparties under Article 2(8) of EMIR. Therefore, they will not be able to benefit from the clearing thresholds or the hedging exemption available to the latter under Article 10 of EMIR. An additional consequence of being classified as a financial counterparty will be that the trading obligation (i.e. the obligation to trade derivatives which are subject to the clearing obligation and sufficiently liquid on trading venues only, cf. Article 28 of MiFIR) would apply in full without being subject to a threshold.

So, even if you aren’t a bank, you will be treated like a bank, unless you can get the exemption. Apropos what I said the other day about impoverished carpenters, hammers, nails, etc.

To get an exemption, a firm’s non-hedging derivatives business must fall below a particular threshold amount, e.g., 3 percent of the oil market, 4 percent of the metals market. ESMA recommends that hedges be determined using EMIR criteria. The big problem with this is that only months ago ESMA itself recognized that the EMIR framework is unworkable:

  1. It appears that the complex mechanism introduced by EMIR for the NFC+ [Non-Financial Company Plus] classification has so far led to significant difficulties in the identification, monitoring and, as a consequence, possible supervision of these entities by their competent authorities.
  2. As a result, in the context of the revision of EMIR, ESMA would see some merit in the simplification of the current framework for the determination of NFC+.
  3. One route that the Commission may wish to explore is to move from the current two-step process (Hedging/Non Hedging and clearing threshold) to a one-step process, where counterparties would qualify as NFC+ when their outstanding positions exceeds certain thresholds per asset class, irrespective of the qualification of the trades as hedging or non-hedging. This idea is further developed in Section 4.2 which addresses the way in which NFCs qualify their transactions as hedging and non-hedging.

In other words, ESMA judged that it is impossible for regulators to distinguish firms’ hedging derivatives from its speculative ones. Given these difficulties, just a few months ago ESMA recommended jettisoning the entire mechanism that it now proposes to use to determine whether commodity firms are exempt from MiFID, and the associated capital and clearing requirements.

Makes perfect sense. In some universe.*

At the very least the ESMA plan will impose a huge compliance burden on firms who will have to justify their categorizations of derivatives positions as hedges or no. Given the complexities of risk management (e.g., managing risk on a portfolio basis means that saying what trade is a hedge is difficult, if not impossible, the rapid and frequent adjustments of positions inherent in most trading operations, etc.) this will be a nightmare.

So the good news is: You can get an exemption from capital and clearing requirments! Yay!

The bad news is: The entity proposing the exemption says that the process for getting the exemption is unworkable, and you’ll have not just a compliance headache, but a compliance migraine.

So at the very same time that the financial travails of a big commodity firm cast serious doubt on the systemic riskiness of these firms, European regulators advance regulations intended to fix this (non-existent) problem, and are doing so in a way that they themselves have cast serious doubt on.

Put differently: regulation is confronting reality in the commodity markets at this very moment, and reality is coming off second best.

* It also hardly inspires confidence that ESMA fails basic arithmetic. Note that the threshold in oil is 3 percent, then consider this from its Briefing on Non-Financial Topics: “If a firm’s speculative trading activity is less than 50% of its total trading, it may be MiFID II exempt providing its market share is less than 20% of each threshold in the market share test e.g. 0.8% for metals, 0.3% for oil etc.” Um, last time I checked .2 x 3%=0.6%, not 0.3%.


Print Friendly

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress