Streetwise Professor

The Assad regime and the Russians are on the verge of victory in northern Syria. In particular, the rebel stronghold of Aleppo is on the verge of falling.

This is not all that surprising. It demonstrates the decisive effect of airpower if–and this is crucial–it is operated in support of an even minimally competent ground force, especially one with armor. This is particularly true if the airpower is utilized ruthlessly, with little squeamishness about civilian casualties.

The few victories against ISIS–Kobane, Sinjar, and Ramadi–demonstrate the same point, as does the ineffectualness of the “allied” air attacks against ISIS in Syria and Iraq generally, because these attacks are not mounted in support of a coherent ground attack undertaken by an even moderately effective infantry and armor force.

The Syrian-Russian success also provides an interesting contrast to the Saudi fiasco in Yemen. The Saudis have bombed ruthlessly, with little military effect, because the bombing is not coupled with a credible ground campaign against the Houthis. This no doubt reflects the Saudi’s knowledge of the severe limitations of their ground forces.

These limitations made me laugh at the Saudi offer to deploy troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Even overlooking the logistical impracticality of this, the Saudis would be setting themselves up for an embarrassing failure.

The Russians and Syrians actually intensified their offensive in the lead-up to the farcical “peace” talks in Geneva. No surprises here. They are in this to win decisively, not to negotiate a compromise. And there is no better way to send that message than by victory on the battlefield on the cusp of talks.

This has left the US and Europeans and Gulf Arabs sputtering in ineffectual rage. John Kerry was particularly embarrassing (nothing new here!):

“Hospitals have been hit, civilian quarters have been hit, and in some cases, after the bombing has taken place, when the workers have gone in to try to pull out the wounded, the bombers come back and they kill the people who are pulling out the wounded,” Kerry told reporters in Washington. “This has to stop. Nobody has any question about that. But it’s not going to stop just by whining about it.”

But what else is he (or anyone else) doing about it other than whine? Nothing. It would have been better for Kerry to remain silent, rather than advertise his (and The US’s) impotence.

It is also interesting to note that Kerry is damning the Russians and Syrians for bombing civilians, yet is utterly silent on the equally bad (if not worse) Saudi air campaign in Yemen.

In response to the Aleppo debacle, Turkey has closed its border with Syria. Erdogan is no doubt attempting to create (exacerbate, really) a humanitarian crisis in order to goad the US and Europe into intervening. It will never happen. The Europeans lack both the will and the means. The US has the military capability, but not the will: whatever will existed at one time (which was minimal) disappeared when intervention meant a confrontation with the Russians.

So Putin will likely get a battlefield victory. But so what? He and his Syrian creature will conquer a depopulated and devastated country. This will have little impact on the strategic balance in the region, and virtually no impact on US interests. Yes, Erdogan’s imperial and sectarian ambitions will be thwarted. Saudi and Qatari sectarian supremism will be defeated. To the extent that the US is impacted, these are actually favorable developments.

Those in the West who fulminate over Putin’s success in Syria are ironically engaged in the vacuous zero-sum thinking that drives Putin. A Putin victory is not necessarily an American defeat.

But the zero-sum thinker Putin is probably gleeful at the shrieks of distress from Kerry, the head of the UN, the Europeans, and various anti-Russian elements in the Western media. It’s all music to his ears, and also quite useful to him domestically. Another irony, that: the more that Putin’s enemies in the West screech about what is happening in Syria, the more it helps him.

Putin’s victory may be hollow, though, and his glee short-lived. He initially attempted to utilize his intervention in Syria as a way of presenting Russia as an ally of the West in the war against ISIS in order to undermine the sanctions regime, and to bring Russia in from the diplomatic cold. However, his unabashedly pro-Assad campaign, his intensifying the offensive in the run-up to the Geneva talks, the resultant humanitarian and refugee crisis, and the minimal Russian targeting of ISIS will make it impossible for the Europeans to do anything that will appear to be rewarding him. Putin’s intervention, with its demonstration of the cynicism and pointlessness of American policy, and thereby make Obama look bad, will cause our petulant president to retaliate in his passive-aggressive way, but maintaining sanctions, and pressuring the Europeans to do the same.

Putin is overplaying his hand elsewhere in Europe as well. The Russian media and government histrionics over the “Lisa” fake rape case in Germany has deeply angered Merkel who is already under siege over the migrant crisis (and especially the sexual assault crisis that has followed in its wake). Further, Putin met with Bavarian governor Horst Seehofer, Merkel’s most strident critic on immigration.  This will also anger Angela.

Putin, of all people, should realize that if you strike at the king (or queen) you better strike to kill. If Merkel survives-which is likely-she will be ill-disposed to ease sanctions, especially since Putin is ratcheting up the conflict in Donbas as well. Long surviving politicians tend to have long memories as well.

In sum. Air power can be dominant when teamed with infantry and armor. Putin will likely win a tactical victory in Syria. But the victory will be strategically barren, and possibly counterproductive, because (a) the “winner” will inherit a blasted and dysfunctional battleground, and (b) this “victory” will set back Putin’s efforts to roll back sanctions.

If anyone “wins” out of this, it is Iran. The Iranians will maintain their pipeline to Hezbollah, and deal the Saudis a stinging defeat. So Putin will succeed as the mullahs’ muscle, and in the process he will gain the satisfaction of humiliating the US (which stupidly set itself up to be humiliated), but at the cost of perpetuating Russia’s economic isolation, which is exacting a terrible toll on a country already reeling from the collapse in oil prices. That is about as Pyrrhic a victory as one could imagine.

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.

Hillary’s email excuses get more lame by the day. For months her story–and she has stuck to it–is that none of the emails were marked as classified. Yesterday, when (miracle of miracles!) George Stephenopolous called her on this, her excuse became even lamer. And if I were Cheryl  Mills, Huma Abedin, or Jake Sullivan, I would be afraid, very afraid, after hearing it.

Specifically Stephenopolous asked about a non-disclosure agreement Clinton signed before becoming Secretary of State, which states: “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications.” That is, marking is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for establishing whether something is classified. The mention of “oral communications” points out the obvious issue: if marking was necessary, verbal information could never be an official secret, which is obviously absurd.

Hillary’s response? Here’s to you, Cheryl, Huma, and Jake!:

Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

Someone down the chain is apparently responsible for establishing whether something sent up the chain should be classified.

There’s only one little problem with this. Per an Obama Executive Order on classified information (which parallels EOs of previous presidents), Hillary was an”original classify[ing] authority.”

Sec. 1.3.  Classification Authority.  (a)  The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1)  the President and the Vice President;

(2)  agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

(3)  United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b)  Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c)  Delegation of original classification authority.

(1)  Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order.  Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

The “classification authority”, as the title suggests, has the authority and responsibility to classify:

Section 1.1.  Classification Standards.  (a)  Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1)  an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2)  the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3)  the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4)  the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

In brief, Hillary was the ultimate classification authority in the State Department, and everyone else in the Department was exercising that authority because it had been delegated by her to them. Further, Hillary had the authority to determine whether “disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security.” The power to make these determinations was explicitly vested in her.

In other words: the classification buck should have stopped with Hillary. She cannot escape the authority and duties assigned her by statute and implementing executive orders.

But of course, the only bucks that stop with Hillary are those donated to the Clinton Foundation for “speaking fees” from Goldman, etc., or extracted from tuition paying college students by political sycophant university administrators.

Hillary is clearly preparing  to throw her closest aides to the wolves. “I was failed by my subordinates who failed to mark properly this information that should have been classified.”  It’s the Clinton way.

It’s also a legal travesty. The woman who believes that it is her right to be a successor of Harry Truman definitely does not live by his motto: “The Buck Stops Here.” It stops with the patsies who have to take the fall in order to protect Her Highness’s political viability.

The frantic sewing of parachutes in a plane that is 30,000 feet in the air continues apace. Last week the Office of Financial Research (a Son of Frankendodd) released its 2015 Annual Report. This tome received attention mainly because it raised alarm about potential systemic risks arising from central clearing mandates. An improvement, I guess, but like most official evaluations of the systemic risks of CCPs, it misses the real problems.

It gets off on the wrong foot by misstating the real benefits of CCPs. According to OFR, the top two benefits of clearing are related to the ability of CCPs, and via them regulators, to get more complete, accurate, and timely information on derivatives positions and trading prices. But these can be achieved by transaction reporting alone, without going the full monty to clearing, which also entails collateralization (including both initial and variation margining) and mutualization of default risk. (Trade reporting has turned into a nightmare, which I will write about further soon. But the point is that you don’t need clearing to get the benefits OFR touts.)

But the main problem, yet again, is that OFR focuses on the “single point of failure”/interconnectedness/default loss contagion channel for CCP systemic risk. This is not immaterial, but it is not the main thing. The main thing is that CCPs create potentially massive contingent demands for liquidity, where the liquidity contingency is likely to occur precisely at the worst time–when the system is undergoing a financial crisis.

Further, OFR gets it wrong when it states that CCPs “reduce the risk of counterparty default.” CCPs redistribute the risk of the insolvency or illiquidity of a large financial institution away from its derivatives counterparties towards its other creditors. It protects one group of creditors at the expense of others.

It is very much open to question whether this reallocation is systemically stabilizing, or is instead a means whereby one relatively concentrated group of market participants can advantage themselves at the expense of others.

Reading Izabella Kaminska’s excellent FT Alphaville post on Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) mechanisms makes plain that this phenomenon of substituting liquidity risk for credit risk, and redistributing credit risk away from core banks, is not limited to derivatives clearing. RTGS replaced deferred net settlement (DNS) because of banks’ and central banks’ concern that in the latter, interbank credit balances could accumulate, resulting in a default loss to settlement banks in the event that an net payer bank failed before the next netting cycle. RTGS eliminates interbank credit exposure.

But, of course, this doesn’t make credit exposure go away. It redistributes it to settlement banks’ other creditors. To a first approximation, the total losses from the inability of a bank to meet its obligations are the same under RTGS and DNS. The difference is who gets a chair when the music stops. Settlement banks–and crucially, the central banks–like RTGS because they almost always are going to get a chair.

Furthermore, as even its proponents acknowledge, RTGS is much more liquidity intensive. To be able to make every payment in real time, a settlement bank either has to have the cash on hand, or the ability to borrow it on demand intraday from the central bank. Liquidity needs scale with gross payments, which are substantially larger than net payments. Thus, like CCPs, RTGS substitutes liquidity risk for default risk.

This risk is exacerbated by the fact that a prisoner’s dilemma problem exists in RTGS. Participants concerned about the creditworthiness of other banks have an incentive to delay payments and hoard liquidity, since once a payment goes into the system, it is final and the payer is at risk to loss of the entire gross amount if a bank that owes it fails before it pays. This can lead to a seizing up of the liquidity supply mechanism, as the prisoner’s dilemma logic kicks in and everyone starts to hoard.

Since holding cash in sufficient amounts to meet all payment obligations is extremely expensive, RTGS has evolved to permit central banks to lend intraday on a collateralized basis. But as was seen in the 2008 crisis, collateralization poses its own risks, including ballooning haircuts that can set off price spirals due to collateral fire sales. Further, due to the potential for the breakdown of long and large collateral chains, this creates an interconnection risk, and represents a further coupling of the system. And it is coupling, remember, that is at the root of most catastrophic accidents. Secured lending can create a false sense of security.

Izabella’s post also points out another problem with RTGS, which is common to central clearing. It creates a much more tightly coupled system that is very vulnerable to operational risk. This risk crystalized in October, 2014, when a seemingly innocuous change to the system (deleting a member bank) caused the failure of the UK’s CHAPS  settlement system for a day. Ironically, this was the result of an interaction between one part of the system, and another part (the Liquidity Savings Mechanism) that was intended to economize on the liquidity demands of RTGS, and essentially created an RTGS-DNS hybrid. As in most “normal accidents”, unexpected interactions between seemingly unrelated parts of a complex system led to its failure.

There is another way to see all of this. Both central clearing and RTGS are intended to create “no credit” systems. That is true only in a very limited sense–a profoundly unsystemic sense. Yes, CCPs and RTGS are designed so that participants in those arrangements don’t have credit exposure to one another. But those participants aren’t the entire system, just a part of it: the exposure is pushed away from them to others. Further, the method for reducing credit exposure among the participants is to require extensive reliance on liquidity mechanisms that are prone to breakdown in stressed market conditions. Further, these liquidity mechanisms are based on credit: banks (or the CCP) borrow from other banks, or from central banks in order to obtain liquidity. Further, the credit moves into shadowier places.

Not to sound like a broken record, but things like CCPs and RTGS redistribute and transform risks, rather than eliminate them altogether. Unfortunately, these transformations do not necessarily reduce the risk of a systemic crisis, and arguably increase it in some cases. The failure of officialdom, and large swathes of the banking sector, to recognize or address this reflects in large part a failure to take a systemic perspective. Perhaps cynically, this can be explained by the fact that the central banks and banks that drive these reform efforts mistake their own interests for the interest of the system as a whole: le système, c’est nous. As a result, “Devil take the hindmost” could well be applied as the motto of RTGS and central clearing.

This illustrates a broader problem in public policy. Government is too often invoked as a deus ex machina that internalizes externalities. But the fact that most regulatory change efforts are driven by, or ultimately controlled by, a small subset of interested parties who have the most concentrated stake in an issue. Given the diffuseness of other impacted parties this is inevitable. But it means that in practical terms internalizing externalities via regulation of something as complex as the financial system is a chimerical goal. The externality hot potato gets tossed from one segment of the financial sector to another. Government regulation, as opposed to self-regulatory initiatives, mainly affect the makeup of the subset of participants who are involved in influencing the process, and the distribution of the bargaining power. This works through the entire process, from the crafting of legislation, to the writing of regulations, to their implementation. This is why we get things like RTGS or CCP mandates, which make a certain set of participants better off, but which it is heroic indeed to believe are truly welfare increasing.

The WSJ reports that the CME Group’s new Euro-Denominated cocoa futures contract is floundering, due to a pronounced lack of liquidity. (h/t @libertylynx) The incumbent ICE Futures Europe Sterling-denominated and ICE Futures US USD-denominated contracts dwarf the CME contract’s volume, even though European hedgers face some currency risks in using these contracts.

This is not a surprise, not by a long shot. It is always very difficult for upstart contract to make inroads, let alone dominate, in competition with an established incumbent. Liquidity is king, and the established contracts have a liquidity advantage that new entrants almost never overcome, even if the new contract is superior on some dimensions.

The only real example of the displacement of an incumbent is Eurex’s wresting of the Bund contract from LIFFE in 1997-1998. That story, which I analyze in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, is the exception that proves the rule.

First, because it was supported by German banks who direct a lot of order flow to it, Eurex (and its predecessor, Deutsche Terminborse) had a base of liquidity on which to build.

Second, because it was electronic, it was possible for Eurex to offer faster and easier access to US users once the CFTC approved Eurex’s application to install terminals in the US.

Third, and most important, Eurex exploited LIFFE’s smug complacency. Eurex aggressively cut fees, and LIFFE did not match: it was convinced that its superior liquidity, and the inherent superiority of floor trading, would prevent its customers from defecting to Eurex to save a few DM per contract in fees.

Wrong! As I document in the JACF paper, the liquidity cost difference between the markets wasn’t that great by 1997 (due to the German bank support and the influx of US customers), and taking into account the lower trading fees it was actually cheaper to trade on Eurex. Volume started to leak to Eurex, and the leak turned into a flood. LIFFE belatedly cut fees, but by then it was too late. The market had tipped completely to Eurex, and LIFFE had a near-death experience.

I can speak first hand of LIFFE’s overconfidence. In 1992, I produced a study for DTB that showed that its electronic market’s liquidity was comparable to that of the floor-based LIFFE. The study was not intended for release: it was commissioned to determine whether it was advisable for DTB to add a new membership type analogous to locals in order to improve liquidity. But the results were so surprisingly favorable for DTB that they released the study, much to the derision of LIFFE and the futures trading community generally, which was truly in the grip of the Cult of the Floor.

The CEO of LIFFE was quoted in the FT and Risk Magazine to the effect that I was an ivory tower academic who had no idea the way the real world works, because everybody knows the floor is more liquid and always will be. Real bulletin board material. Literally, in my case.

He who laughs last. When Eurex launched its assault on LIFFE in 1997, it distributed my 1992 study broadly. I doubt that had much of an impact on the final outcome, but it couldn’t have hurt.

The LIFFE CEO ended up resigning after LIFFE capitulated, and voted to close the floor and go electronic. I was a good boy. I resisted the very strong temptation to send him clippings of the FT and Risk articles.

Every other exchange learned a lesson at LIFFE’s expense, and responded to a fee cutting entrant by cutting fees immediately. For instance, the CBT saw off Eurex’s attempt to compete in the Treasury market in short order by cutting fees to zero, raising them after Eurex capitulated.

So CME shouldn’t feel bad. It has plenty of company in launching a contract that fails to make headway against an established incumbent. Indeed, the experience should be comforting, because it is the dominant incumbent in USD STIRs, govvies, equity indexes, FX, grain, precious metal, livestock, and energy futures. It benefits massively from the liquidity entry barrier. Compared to that, the failure to penetrate ICE’s cocoa monopoly doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

The Bank of England has received a lot of attention for its just-released study on the liquidity impact of swap execution facilities (SEFs). It finds that:

as a result of SEF trading, activity increases and liquidity improves across the swap market, with the improvement being largest for USD mandated contracts which are most affected by the mandate. The associated reduction in execution costs is economically significant. For example, execution costs in USD mandated contracts, where SEF penetration is highest, drop, for market end-users alone, by $3 million–$4 million daily relative to EUR mandated contracts and in total by about $7 million–$13 million daily.

The basic methodology is to use a difference-in-difference approach to compare measures of liquidity pre-and-post SEF mandate, and which exploits the fact that non-US banks can avoid the mandate by avoiding trading with US banks: this avoidance issue will is important, and I will discuss it later.

The study is carefully done, but I am not persuaded. For one thing, the measures of liquidity employed are driven by data availability (transactions prices), and are not the ideal measures of liquidity. The primary liquidity measures employed are really measures of price dispersion, rather than preferred measures of liquidity such as bid-ask spreads, depth, or price impact (although greater (lower) price dispersion could be associated with lower (greater) price impact).

There is also the issue that transaction characteristics are endogenous. For instance, it may be the case that it is cheaper to do large deals off-SEF than on-SEF. These deals will tend to be done at prices that are further away from the mean price (or the end-of-day midpoint price), and in the volume-weighted measures employed in the paper, these deals get a bigger weight in the liquidity measures. Thus, price dispersion may be greater pre-mandate, and in Europe, where the mandate can be avoided not because SEFs improve liquidity, but because it is prohibitively costly to transact large deals on SEFs. That is, the results could be symptomatic of a loss of liquidity on some dimensions, rather than proof that the mandate improves liquidity.

The paper documents that there is less dealer intermediation where the mandate is binding. This could also reflect changes in transactions characteristics. Dealers are more likely to be needed to intermediate big deals, or deals that are exceptional on some other dimension.

The paper doesn’t break down transaction characteristics by mandate-impacted and non-mandate-impacted subsamples, and in particular doesn’t include a measure of the dispersion of transactions sizes. As a result, it’s not possible to determine whether the mandate has altered the mix of transaction characteristics.

This relates to another finding of the study: namely, that the mandate has led to the fragmentation of the interest rate swap markets along geographic/currency lines, with SEFs gaining far lower penetration in Euro-denominated swaps that are dominated by European banks who can avoid the mandate by trading with one another, and by trading with European end-users. There is confirmation of this result from Tabb Group, which finds that “European derivatives market continues to resist electronic trading.”

Well, this raises the dog food question: If the dog food is as great as the ads say, why don’t the dogs eat it? if SEFs are so much more liquid, why don’t traders flock to them?

When given a choice between a statistical finding, and revealed preference, I go with the latter. Those who actually internalize the cost of trading largely avoid SEFs. This suggests that they are actually costlier to use, at least for some users, such as those who want to trade in large size, or have other idiosyncratic needs. The choices of those who have the choice strongly suggests that the statistical evidence purportedly showing lower execution costs on SEFs is flawed and misleading.

With this in mind, it was gratifying indeed to see CFTC Chairman Massad stating that he favors allowing market participants to decide whether they transact swaps electronically or using traditional voice execution. There was never a compelling case-or even a weak one-for forcing diverse market users with diverse transactional needs to use a one-size-fits-all execution method. Massad’s free-to-choose approach is therefore a vast and welcome improvement over his predecessor Gary Gensler’s monomaniacal determination to bash everybody over the head with a CLOB.

Update. Here’s a more detailed description of the Tabb Group study I linked to above. One important takeaway: European end users really hate electronic execution, and really love voice execution:

Despite the cost benefits of e-trading, institutional investors still prefer to interact with their dealers via phone. Nearly 80 [!] per cent of the more than 200 European investors interviewed as part of the Greenwich Associates 2015 European Fixed-Income Study confirmed their trading protocol of choice was the phone.

“These trades often require white-glove treatment, and clients work with dealers that are best at limiting market impact and providing the support needed to get the trade done,” says Greenwich Associates Managing Director Andrew Awad (pictured). “As a result, clients still place a high value on the support provided by swaps salespeople in executing complex and large trades.”

This strongly suggests that there are likely to be considerable differences between deals done on SEFs and those done the old fashioned way. Not particularly the point about “limiting market impact.” Those who want to do trades that are “complex and large” go to dealers to trade bilaterally to avoid price impact. If they are not able to do that, because of an electronic execution mandate, they will almost certainly trade differently. Fewer big, complex trades. If that is correct, then the Bank of England study is comparing grapes to grapefruit. If so, the difference in price dispersion documented in the study does not demonstrate greater liquidity on SEFs: it demonstrates worse liquidity, at least for some kinds of trades.

Mind you: end users were the supposed beneficiaries of the SEF mandate. According to GiGi et al, they were being shamelessly exploited by dealers, and SEFs would set them free. Apparently they like their chains just fine, thank you very much.

Again: revealed preference rules. Believe it over a stat every time.

Policies can be misguided, but coherent: that characterizes the Bush II Middle East policy for the most part. Then there are policies that are so bizarre and contradictory so as to be utterly incoherent. That’s the Obama Middle East policy.

On the one hand, for the past several years the administration has bent over backwards to make deals with Iran. In the months since the deal was sealed, it has made concession after concession to the mullahs, including obsequiously thanking the Iranians for releasing sailors whom they illegally seized and mistreated, and arguably paying $1.7 billion in ransom to secure the release of Americans held by Iran. The obsequious attitude to Iran is driving the Saudis into paroxysms of paranoia, which stokes proxy wars throughout the region, most notably in Yemen, Iraq . . . and Syria.

But in Syria, the US is on the side of the Saudis fighting Iran’s allies. Indeed, in Syria the Saudis pay for US covert support of anti-Assad forces fighting Iran’s puppet, the Assad regime. Just today John Kerry–who always has one more cheek to turn to the next Iranian insult–said: “The position of the United States is and hasn’t changed; that we are still supporting the [Syrian] opposition politically, financially and militarily.” You know, the opposition that is fighting Iranian forces on the ground in Syria.

But the US being on the side of the opposition may be old news. Now the rumors are rife that the US has backed away from its previous stance that Assad must step aside during the transition to a new government. This is setting off yet even more paroxysms of paranoia among the Gulf Sunni oil tick states. He said this, by the way, in the context of trying to arrange peace talks between the warring sides. How can you be a peace broker when you are “supporting the opposition politically, financially, and militarily”? That’s incoherence!

So maybe in its dying days the administration is groping for coherence, by going the full Monty on Iran. But I’m betting on continued incoherence.

More incoherence. Obama has been adamant about “no boots on the ground” (a phrases that triggers severe teeth-gnashing by yours truly) in the anti-ISIS campaign. Yet in the past few weeks Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has been going around saying yes, there will be American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. Which is it? (Annoyingly, as of yet I have not heard anyone demand an explanation from Obama for this glaring contradiction. Is Carter off the reservation? Or is Obama merely dodging responsibility, and the press is eagerly enabling? Don’t bother answering. Rhetorical question.)

Then there’s US policy towards the Kurds, where Biden simultaneously supports the Turks in their war against the PKK and supports the PKK’s Syrian offshoot, the YPG, which the Turks hate as much as the PKK.

Yet more incoherence. We frantically support peace efforts in the region (most of them futile) but attempt to appease Saudi and Qatari anger at our concessions to Iran by showering them with weapons . . . which the Saudis turn around and use to bomb the crap out of Iranian proxies in Yemen, which angers the Iranians. And around and around it goes.

In the region, this playing both sides is viewed with deep suspicion. Paranoia is part of the Middle Eastern DNA, and the slightest inconsistency is perceived as double dealing and backstabbing. As a result, we undo our attempts to mollify one element (e.g., the Iranians) by doing something to mollify their enemies (e.g., the Saudis) who are angry at our attempts to mollify the first element.

It’s a policy feedback loop from hell.

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.

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.

Somewhat to my surprise, the Iranians released the 10 American sailors whose boats they had seized yesterday. This immediately set of a coordinated spasm of self-congratulation in the administration, and among its media enablers. The party line was laid down by Kerry, who gushed with gratitude for Iran’s gesture and generosity, and with self-praise, stating that the quick end to the situation was proof positive of the benefits of the Iran deal which he and Obama had so brilliantly brought to fruition. Without the deal, it wouldn’t have ended so quickly or smoothly, according to Kerry.

Excuse me, but if the Iran deal was so great, this incident would not have happened in the first place. If the Iran deal was so great, it would not have happened the way it did, with the US personnel being held at gunpoint, and photographed kneeling with their hands behind their heads while the IRGC went pawing through their equipment. If the Iran deal had been so great, they would not have been taken prisoner by the Iranians, and at one time held blindfolded (and again photographed): even if they were in Iranian waters, they would have been warned away and left to proceed. If the Iran deal was so great, the photographs of the humiliation of the American crews would not have been plastered all over the Internet and Iranian television.

But Kerry did not utter one peep of protest about the seizure of the vessels. He did not question whether the seizure was justified, or necessary. He did not slam the releasing of photographs and videos of American servicemen in submissive positions, a direct contravention of international law (of which Kerry claims to be so fond).

If anything Joe Biden (yeah, the guy Obama has tasked to cure cancer–wrap your head around that one) was even worse, saying that it is “standard nautical practice” to help boats in distress at sea.

I can tell you this: it is not standard nautical practice to assist distressed vessels by forcing their crews to kneel like drug runners on a cigarette boat chased down by the USCG.

And about that distress thing. I called BS on it yesterday, and today the Pentagon sidled away from that: they kinda had to, given that both boats motored away under their own power.

The entire episode remains cloaked in mystery, but I find the Pentagon’s claims of ignorance to be incredible. They continue to say they lost contact, and don’t know how that could have happened. I am pretty sure that the crews would have radioed the situation in as it was unfolding the only way I can conceive that their messages weren’t heard is if the Iranians jammed their communications, which would put a whole different  spin on things, wouldn’t it?

The Iranians have also claimed that US ships (including the USS Harry S. Truman) and helicopters made “unprofessional moves” for 40 minutes after the boats were captured. This suggests that the US was aware of the capture and made attempts to interfere. That would blow the entire Gilligan’s Island and “lost contact” narrative.

The US should have had more than enough situational awareness to realize something was up immediately. If they didn’t, some people have some explaining to do. If they did, they have some other kinds of explaining to do.

But it is clear that there will be a concerted effort to draw a curtain over the initiation of the incident in order to celebrate its end, so that little, if any ‘splaining will be going on.

Not. Good. Enough. There are serious issues here, and a full and public accounting of the episode is necessary.

It is particularly serious precisely because it raises grave issues about the Iran deal that Obama and his long-faced Sancho Panza are desperate to defend in spite of–or is it because of?–repeated Iranian provocations.

It is also serious because it raises issues about whether the military is being compromised in order to protect the deal at all costs.

Obviously a tick-tock detailing the exact sequence of events is imperative. But there are other questions (which a supine press has apparently not thought of, or has refused to ask).

For instance, what were the Rules of Engagement? Were the crews given the option of fight or flee, or were they expected to capitulate if confronted by the Iranians?

Did US units in the area find out about the seizure? How? How did they respond? Were they ordered to stand down?

I have to believe there is fury throughout the Navy at this episode. The sight of American sailors kneeling as prisoners on their own combatant vessel must rankle deeply.

Those feelings must be even worse because one of the sailors was shown on Iranian TV apologizing to, and thanking, his captors:

“It was a mistake that was our fault and we apologize for our mistake,” said the U.S sailor, who was identified by Iran’s Press TV as the commander. “It was a misunderstanding. We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water. The Iranian behavior was fantastic while we were here. We thank you very much for your hospitality and your assistance.”

Not acceptable. At all.

I had the Code of Conduct of the United States Armed Forces drilled into my skull plebe year at Navy, and it has remained embedded ever since. And I can tell you that this behavior is clearly contrary to the Code.

One part of the Code is that you will not do anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy in exchange for better treatment. It is clear that this statement benefited the Iranians: they are using this entire episode for propaganda value, but more importantly, to demonstrate their mastery over Obama: don’t believe for a moment that this isn’t having major repercussions throughout the region. Further, the only reasonable inference is that making such a statement was a precondition for release.

The sailor should not have made this statement. His only possible excuse is that he had been ordered to in order to seal the deal for the release, a possibility which I cannot discount. If anything, that possibility would be even worse, for it would mean that command authority would be ordering the violation of the Code, which was adopted to solve very serious problems with collaboration by POWs during the Korean War that (a) sapped morale, and (b) was used to wage a propaganda war against the US around the world.

This entire episode is disgraceful. A full and searching inquiry is necessary. But that is unlikely to happen: this event is destined for consignment to the memory hole. And that may be the biggest disgrace of all, not least because it will require the complicity of the military. In the past months have noted with dismay repeated examples of military dissembling and outright lying in order to protect Obama. This is contagious, and corrosive. It is also inimical to the effectiveness of the armed forces. This could be one of Obama’s most malign legacies, and that is saying something.