Streetwise Professor

A group of senators from western states, led by Diane Feinstein, have sent Gary Gensler a missive accusing the CFTC of violating the letter and spirit of Frankendodd by failing to register major energy companies (e.g., BP, Shell) as swap dealers.  Each paragraph of the letter is more risible than the one before.

They set the scene by recounting the western electricity crisis of 2000-2001.  This is utterly irrelevant to the swap dealer designation, because swaps had nothing to do with what happened then and there.  Indeed, at its core the crisis was driven by a combination of fundamentals and flawed market design, and even the suspect trading strategies involved physical market transactions rather than swaps.  For instance, none of the Enron strategies like “Fat Boy” or “Ricochet” involved swaps or OTC derivatives generally in any way, shape, or form.  (It’s also rather ironic that one of the things that wreaked havoc with California utilities was that they were precluded by law from engaging in forward transactions to hedge the short position forced upon them by the retail price caps in the restructuring legislation.)

Parts of the letter made me laugh.  Most notably, the senators attack the $8 billion de minimus exemption from the registration requirement.  Their “logic” is that since commodity swaps represent a small fraction (less than one percent) of total OTC derivatives activities, the de minimus level for energy swaps activity should be lower than for financial swaps. Not just lower: “vastly lower.”

They say this “stands to reason.”  Whenever anyone says something “stands to reason” s/he really means: “I can’t give you an actual reason, so I’ll just assert that my conclusion is obvious.”

This gets to the issue of just what the swap dealing designation is intended to achieve.  That’s always been somewhat hazy, but the most charitable interpretation is that swaps dealers are deemed potential sources of systemic risk that require extraordinary regulatory scrutiny.  The risk a particular firm poses to the financial system as a whole depends on its size relative to the entire financial system, rather than to any particular market, so even accepted the premises of Frankendodd the swap dealing designation should not vary by market.  (Indeed, from a systemic perspective, even $8 billion/year on a flow basis is ridiculously small.)

The senators also fret over the possibility that allowing the Shells and BPs of the world to escape the designation will limit the CFTC’s ability to deter manipulation and fraud.  Hardly.  Those things are still illegal, and swap dealing designation will have no impact whatsoever on the CFTC’s ability to detect and deter.  (Which may not be saying much, because all too often the CFTC wouldn’t know a manipulation if it hit the CFTC in the face with a waffle iron.)  (I consider it ironic that these Solons refer to the BP propane manipulation, which was discovered, prosecuted, and punished when the swap dealer designation was not even a twinkle in Barney Frank’s eye.  Bad mental image, I know.)

Relatedly, the senators worry about “transparency”, but all swaps trades will still be reported to central repositories.  The only way the dealer designation matters in this regard is it affects/determines who has to report.  (I shall pass over in silence the fact that the CFTC is at present utterly incapable of utilizing the data reported to the repositories, as Commissioner Scott O’Malia has repeatedly pointed out.)

But most importantly, the senators miss the elephant in the room.  No major energy firm has registered as a swaps dealer because energy firms have shifted trading from swaps to futures.  Another premise (flawed, but there  it is) behind Frankendodd is that swaps are somehow more dangerous to the system than futures.  The legislation and the rules under it imposed more onerous requirements on swaps than futures, in large part to encourage the movement of trading to futures markets.

So if these senators actually applied reason, rather than just hiding behind a stand-in for it, they should be overjoyed that no major energy firm has applied to be a swap dealer.  This should be a feature, not a bug.  It means that market activity has shifted to the venue that these very same senators and others who voted for Frankendodd considered to be the preferred model for trading derivatives: open, transparent, and subject to a rigorous regulatory regime.  Most notably, from a systemic risk perspective, futures are cleared, and one of the major requirements imposed on swap dealers is a clearing requirement.  So the specter of the swap dealing designation, with its associated burdens, has actually led firms to transfer trading activity from the satanic swaps markets to the sainted futures exchanges.  Yay!

But arriving at this understanding would require actual, you know, reasoning.  Not much, but some.

And that is a bridge too far when it comes to the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.  Which may be a correct description: if so, God save the world.

Last week it looked like the Obama administration had decided to be sensible on at least one energy issue-the export of LNG.  It approved a new license (for Freeport LNG) for export to countries with which the US has no free trade agreement.  But the WSJ reports that new Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is thinking of putting on the brakes again.  Because we need more studies.  No.  Seriously:

Mr. Moniz showed caution about the existing studies. Speaking to reporters after a speech to an energy-efficiency conference here, he said he was “committed to doing a review of what’s out there in terms of impact analyses” before approving more applications to export U.S. natural gas. Critics have said last year’s study didn’t rely on the best data available.

“Right now we have no plans of commissioning new studies, but everything is on the table until I have done my analysis,” Mr. Moniz told reporters after his first public remarks as energy secretary

Sorry.  We don’t need no steenkin’ studies.  The whole idea smacks of central planning.  The presumption should be that if firms are willing to risk their private capital, the benefits exceed the costs.  Any analysis should be restricted to potential externalities.  Real externalities.  Not pecuniary ones.

But these “impact studies” are all about pecuniary externalities.  Namely, they focus on the effects of exports on prices of natural gas, and the effects of natural gas prices on consuming industries (like petrochemicals).  But these price effects are not true externalities that lead to inefficient allocation of resources.   Indeed, restricting exports because of these effects would cause a misallocation of resources.

Pecuniary effects do have distributive effects.  In the case of LNG exports, they affect the distribution of rents between gas producers in the US and foreign consumers on the one hand, and domestic gas consumers on the other.

And that’s what the need to get an export permit does: it permits the government to affect the distribution of rents.  That, in turn, gives rise to rent seeking.  And corruption.

In this context John Cochrane mentions the Indian “permit raj”: there you need to get a permit for everything.  This gives those with the authority to grant permits incredible power.  Power they use to enrich themselves and secure political support.

That is exactly what can go on here.  Those hoping to get a permit have an incentive to exert influence, through lobbying, campaign contributions, and supporting public campaigns on issues favored by the administration.  They also realize that they face substantial risks if they oppose the administration on other issues: “Nice little LNG terminal proposal you have here.  Would be a tragedy if something happened to it.”

The government has no business being in this business, beyond perhaps-perhaps-addressing real externality issues.  But even there, other mechanisms (e.g., liability for pollution) may be preferable to a permitting process.  (Look at how Russia used environmental regulations to drive Shell out of Sakhalin II: any power to permit can be used to expropriate of hold up the party seeking the permit.)

In the US, energy, and particularly the international trade of energy, is particularly raj-like: Keystone II is another example.  This destroys value in myriad ways.  Beneficial investments are delayed, or not made at all, either because the government stops them directly, or the risks and costs of getting approval undermine the economics.  Real resources are used to influence policy.  Since energy investments involve big dollars, the losses can be big too.

People often lament the lack of an American energy policy.  I disagree.  We do have an energy policy, and the Energy Raj is a big part of that policy.  A better policy, by far, would be no policy at all.  Would that the DOE adopt the motto: “Don’t just do something! Stand there!”

I’m not holding my breath, though.  The benefits of the raj to the rajahs are far too great.

This story is very bizarre, and I can’t figure out what is going on, exactly.  Or put differently, what has put a bee in the CFTC’s bonnet about CME Clearport’s Exchange of Futures for Swaps (EFS) facility after all these years.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued a “special call” asking Wall Street banks and other traders to provide documents that would prove recent derivatives transactions known as “exchanges of futures for swaps” were legal. Lawyers at the CFTC enforcement division are also scrutinising the trades for possible violations.

. . . .

The new inquiry centres on whether large traders and market-makers used unregulated over-the-counter swaps markets to trade what were in fact futures, strictly regulated contracts that are economically identical to swaps.

Trading futures off an exchange is illegal, and regulators are concerned that traders may have used these deals, known as EFSs, to agree prices that did not reflect the market.

“They’ve made information requests to everybody that’s ever traded an EFS. They’re saying, ‘prove to us that the swap was legitimate’,” said a recipient of a CFTC document request

The only thing that makes sense is that the CFTC believes that market participants engaged in EFS transactions without having a legally binding swap agreement in place first, meaning that the parties would have engaged in futures trades off-exchange.  Or something.

Note that even if the parties had entered a swap, it may have been in effect a very short period of time-just as long as it took to execute the deal and submit it to Clearport for clearing.

I also find it curious that the article mentions that the CFTC is looking only at deals done post-Frankendodd, even though deals have been done this way since the 2002 time frame, if memory serves.  One explanation is that CFTC believes the alleged conduct was permissible under CFMA, but not under DFA.  Another guess on my part.

If there is a violation here, it seems to be a highly technical one.  The end result is pretty much the same if they did or they didn’t execute a binding swap first: each party has futures positions obtained at a privately negotiated price.

CFTC has a lot on its plate already: is this really a priority? Really?

Moreover, the party that usually screams the loudest about off-exchange trading of futures is the futures exchange.  But Clearport is a CME system, and EFS is a CME procedure, and it seems that CME is totally fine with this.  Actually, if the following quote relates to the EFS issue (and it’s not clear that that’s the case from the article), CME is actually hacked at this:

Terry Duffy, CME executive chairman, said in a letter to CFTC last week: “In our view, nothing is served by piling on duplicative reporting mandates.”

For certain, though, CME was perfectly satisfied with the way market participants were doing EFS deals.

So who is the victim here?

It’s actually ironic that EFS was the CME’s way of implementing clearing for energy and metals.  And the CFTC is rah-rah about clearing.  But it is looking askance at the CME’s way of implementing clearing.  I guess it’s a case of that was then, this is now.

CFTC also effectively killed EFS as a mechanism for facilitating OTC clearing by determining that a swap, no longer how short its existence before conversion into futures, counted towards a firm’s annual $8 billion (to be reduced to $3 billion) de minimus swap volume for the purpose of determining whether it is a swap dealer.  As a result, market participants are moving to block futures trades rather than EFS to clear energy transactions: block futures trades that are negotiated away from the central market, just as the allegedly phantom swaps were. So this is last year’s war.  If traders weren’t doing papering officially a swap deal, they were effectively engaging in block futures trades, which is what they are doing now.  If it’s OK now, other than the technical violation, was it so horrible then that it requires a full blown investigation?

So what’s up?  A burdensome, intrusive “Special Call” to investigate a possible technical violation that the exchange that would be hurt by a violation doesn’t seem to care about, and which is of little relevance going forward.

Wow.  That seems like a totally reasonable use of scare resources-resources Gensler claims he doesn’t have nearly enough of.

Javier Blas of the FT just posted an article about a report “written by a leading academic on commodity markets” on whether commodity trading firms (like Cargill or Vitol) are sources of systemic risk.

What, haven’t heard about that report?  Well, that’s the main point of the story.  The report was spiked by the GFMA, a banking trade association, which commissioned it.  According to Javier:

However, the report was never completed and remained in a “draft” status, after its conclusions went against the interest of the lobby group, three people familiar with the matter said.

So yes, perhaps you’ve guessed by now that the academic in question is me (though you have to read 2/3s of the way through the story to get to my name).  And yes, that’s pretty much what I understood to have happened, though I was never told that in so many words.  It’s nice to have it confirmed by “three people familiar with the matter”, even though it was blindingly obvious to me at the time. *

I call them like I see them.  GFMA didn’t like that.  I wouldn’t change the call, so they sat on the report.  So it goes.

I think GFMA handled this badly even from the perspective of its own interests, though I guess I am not really surprised: this is the way organizations like this tend to behave.  I am sure this has given the report more visibility than it ever would have achieved otherwise, and makes GFMA look bad in the bargain, at least in my (probably biased) opinion.  The regulatory body they were trying to influence-the FSB-was briefed on the findings, and had a draft of the report, so deep-sixing the report only signaled to the FSB that GFMA didn’t like the results, which it probably knew anyways.  Spiking the report also serves to validate the independence of the findings-and of the finder of the findings.  That’s definitely an upside for me.

Working on the report helped me learn a good deal more about the global commodity trading firms, so that’s also a good thing.  I look forward to learning and writing more in the future.

*For the record, the copy of the report “seen by the Financial Times” didn’t come from me.

There are reports that the CFTC will vote on the SEF rule next week.  The rule had been in limbo for months due to Gensler’s insistence that the rule require those requesting a quote solicit them from five potential counterparties.  Gensler has apparently relented because he could not get the new Democratic commissioner, Mark Wetjen, to join with Chilton and Gensler to vote out the 5 RFQ rule.

The compromise will require users to solicit two quotes for the next two years, and then three thereafter.

Whatever.

On the 1 year anniversary of the DFA, I named the SEF mandate as The Worst of Frankendodd. I haven’t changed my mind on that, though the competition is fierce.  And the RFQ requirement is the Worst of the Worst.  It is defended as a way of  improving competition.

This is at best paternalistic.  It presumes that those who want to enter into swaps don’t know their own interests.  Perhaps Gensler thinks that the buy side suffers from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome after years of captivity to the dealer banks.

In reality, buy side firms-most of whom are extremely experienced and sophisticated-are making trade-offs between competition and information leakage.  They are trying to minimize cost of execution, and have the information and incentive to do that.  Note too that they are required to do this for every trade, regardless of instrument, size, and other factors that may influence the trade-off.  But nope, one size fits all. They should be allowed to make that trade-off themselves, without any guidance from Gary.

RFQ5?  How about RFQ0?

Here’s an analogy.  How would you like it if the government told you how many stores you had to visit before making a purchase?  You know, to make sure that you get the best price.  Call it the CS5 rule.  You have to comparison shop at five stores before making a purchase.  On everything.   Of course, when deciding on whether to shop at one store or five, you trade-off the potential savings (which will depend on the value of the purchase, the good you are shopping for, and other factors) from shopping around more, against the cost (which will vary with the value of your time, how hurried you are, your income, the price of gas, where you live, etc.)  But none of that matters under the CS5 rule.  Want to buy a quart of milk?  Shop at five stores.  For your own good.

Yeah.  It’s that bad.  CS2 would be bad, but not that bad.

Once the SEF rule goes into effect it will be interesting to see how the structure of the industry involves.  There will be a land rush of new SEFs.  I predict there will be a shakeout, and there may well be only a single dominant SEF for each major instrument.  The SEF rule does not, as I understand it, require a SEF to send an order to another SEF offering a better quote.  Which means that the network effects of liquidity will tend to cause trading activity to “tip” to a single SEF for products big enough to support order book trading.

But the whole SEF landscape will also be shaped by the margin rules, the Bloomberg suit over those rules, block trading rules, and on and on.  The rule is not the beginning of the end, it is barely the end of the beginning.

The FSB is contemplating designating commodity trading firms like Cargill and Glencore as systemically important.  No, not that FSB: The Financial Stability Board, a group of global regulators established in the wake of the financial crisis.

The reason for this is, apparently, that these firms are engaged in shadow banking.  The linked Reuters story mentions two types of activity.

First, commodity trading firms extend trade credit and working capital to their customers.  Second,  some use securitization to raise funding.

The FSB is rightly concerned about shadow banking, but the kinds of activities that commodity trading firms engage in is quite different from some of the activities implicated in the crisis.

Some forms of securitization contributed significantly to the crisis.  Most of the most dangerous forms involved significant maturity transformation, and direct ties to big banks.  SIVs that funded portfolios of mortgage securities with short-maturity corporate paper, that were backed by liquidity puts provided by sponsoring banks are the prime example of this.  When investors began to doubt the value of the underlying assets, there were runs on the SIVs: they could not rollover their paper, and sponsoring banks ended up taking the now toxic assets back onto their balance sheets.  This was a big problem because the banks were highly leveraged; their main business is to provide credit; and they are essential components of the payment system.

The securitizations that commodity trading firms have engaged in, like the Trafigura program mentioned in the Reuters piece, are (a) far more limited, and (b) very different.   In particular, these structures do not involve the kind of maturity mismatch that was the Achilles heel of the SIVs.  Indeed, if anything, to the extent there is maturity transformation it is the opposite of the type that proved problematic in the crisis.  The underlying assets are very short dated (such as receivables) and/or very liquid (like inventories of aluminum in LME warehouses).  The assets typically have shorter maturities than the liabilities issued to fund them.  Indeed, one of the challenges of these structures is to replenish the assets as they mature.  Traditional SIVs had to rollover their liabilities: commodity trade securitizations have to replenish their assets.  The former is far more problematic than the latter because the run risk is far greater.

Moreover, historically the default rates on the trade receivables that are securitized are very, very small.  The extent data are for all trade receivables, not just commodity trade receivables, but the credit losses are trivial.

I also find little reason to be unduly concerned over the  the granting of trade credit and extension of working capital funding through prepayments and other arrangements.  Consider prepays, where a trading firm may provide funding to a refiner, say.  The commodity trader may fund the input (crude oil), and in exchange receive refined products.   The refined product is essentially collateral for the financing provided to buy the input.  Moreover, the value of this collateral can be hedged in most cases, limiting the credit exposure of the commodity firm extending the credit.   This is often quite different than extending credit to fund illiquid, hard to value, long maturity assets that cannot be hedged.

The commodity trading firm has a comparative advantage in marketing the output.  Moreover, due to its knowledge of the industry and the particular firms involved, it likely has information that makes it the most efficient creditor.  It knows more about the market and the particular borrowers than most banks.

The foregoing suggests that the credit risk and maturity transformation risk involved in commodity trading firm shadow banking activities is far less than that involved in the kinds of shadow banking that proved highly problematic during the crisis.  But credit losses are conceivable.  What would happen if commodity trading firms suffered big credit losses?

It’s hard to see how this could seriously threaten the stability of the financial system or the global economy.  Commodity trading firms aren’t that big: if Glencore is too big to fail, so is Kraft, or a similarly sized company.  Their assets are dwarfed by those of the big SIFI banks: they are about as big as many middling banks you’ve probably never heard of.  Moreover, the commodity trading firms are far less leveraged than big banks.  Furthermore, their capital structures are far less fragile, because they involve little maturity transformation: their short term liabilities are largely matched against short term assets, such as hedged commodity inventories.  The firms provide financial intermediation, but unlike banks, that’s not their primary function, so they are not as vital to the credit supply process as banks.  They are not essential elements in the payments infrastructure.

Commodity firms provide valuable logistical services, but the assets, human and physical, that they utilize are readily redeployed.  If one company goes bust, its assets can be redeployed so that the trade in commodities can continue.

Some of the shadow banking activities that commodity firms engage in actually take risk out of the banking system.   A major reason for the development of securitization in commodity markets was that big banks-especially French banks facing difficulties in securing dollar funding-cut their funding to commodity firms.  So the firms turned to securitization and thereby transferred the risk to the capital markets.  And unlike the case with SIVs sponsored by banks, there isn’t a backdoor by which this risk can make its way back to bank balance sheets.

I would also note that commodity trading firms do not benefit from deposit insurance, and so don’t pose the same moral hazard concerns as banks that do.

So I find few parallels between the kinds of shadow banking that proved so dangerous during the crisis, and the kinds of shadow banking that commodity firms engage in.

Commodity firms are first and foremost logistics specialists that engage in financing transactions to facilitate that business. A couple of other historical experiences suggest that such logistical intermediaries are not systemically important.

In 2002, the entire merchant energy sector in the US imploded.  These firms-companies like Enron, Dynegy, Mirant, and Williams-were primarily logistical intermediaries that provided financing and risk management services to their clients, just as global commodity trading firms do.  Not just one of these firms imploded.  The whole industry did: the stock prices of the firms in this business fell by about 90 percent between April and July of 2002.  But gas and power continued to flow. The impact on the US economy was barely measurable.

Furthermore, the experience of the Fukishima earthquake and tsunami suggests that even if the failure of one or more major commodity firms did disrupt commodity logistics for a time, the implications of this for the global economy would likely be small.  The earthquake and tsunami created huge disruptions in supply chains, especially in automobiles and electronics.  Trade was severely disrupted.  But the impact on the global economy was almost immeasurably small.  Studies undertaken by several governments found that the Japanese disaster shaved a tenth of a point or two off global GDP growth.  The financial aftershocks were minimal, even in Japan.  If the world economy can survive such a literal seismic shock that seriously disrupted supply chains in high valued manufacturing, it can almost certainly survive the failure of a big commodity trader.  Or two. Or three.  Especially since the Fukishima disaster destroyed or disrupted physical assets in a way that the financial distress of a commodity firm with redeployable assets would not.

I’d be more persuaded by the FSB’s concerns if it would provide a description of the mechanism by which commodity trading firms can be the source of financial contagion, or the channel through which contagion can be communicated from the financial sector to the real economy.  As those who have read my writings on clearing can attest, I can have a pretty vivid imagination about how contagion can propagate, and despite giving this considerable thought, I haven’t found a plausible mechanism.

In some sense, it seems that the FSB is like Mark Twain’s cat that wouldn’t sit on a hot stove after it had been burned, but it wouldn’t sit on a cold one either.  Once burned by shadow banking of one kind (the kind tightly tied into the banking system), it seems afraid of any kind of shadow banking.

And I have a pretty good idea who is stoking those fears.  I know, as the result of personal experience, that major banks involved in commodity markets are chafing under the restrictions imposed on them, and resent the fact that commodity firms that are their competitors in certain activities are not subject to the same restrictions.  I know they have been importuning the FSB to identify commodity trading firms as systemically important, and to impose bank-like disclosure and capital requirements on them.  All the better to hamstring the competition.

How I know this, I can’t say.  But I’m just sayin’.  You can take it to the bank, as it were.

Too big to fail is a self-fulfilling phenomenon, in large part.  It would be far less of a problem if governments could credibly commit not to bail out certain firms.  It becomes much harder to make such credible commitments when those firms are identified as systemically important.  Therefore, regulators should be very reluctant to confer the “systemically important” label.  Very reluctant.   Objectively, there are few reasons to consider big commodity trading firms-even the biggest ones-systemically important. All the more reason to eschew conferring that designation on them.

In other words, sitting on a cold stove isn’t dangerous.  The FSB should be smarter than the cat in Puddin’ Head Wilson.

The most recent controversy over HFT stems from this WSJ story about the CME.  In a nutshell, computerized traders receive confirmations of their trades before information about those trades is disseminated to the market at large.  As in a few milliseconds before.  But in an electronic world, a few milliseconds can be decisive.

One example of a particularly informative trade is when an away-from-the-market limit order is executed.  This means that a market order of sufficient size to blow through the quote size at the inside market was submitted.  Given that orders and communicate information, and that the bigger the order, the more informative it is, knowing before anybody else that such an order has been executed can provide valuable information.

The implications of this depend on how the information is used.  A trader (or, more accurately, a bot) that gets this information can use it to take liquidity aggressively.  For instance, it can use information gleaned from a big, price-moving crude oil buy to submit an aggressive order in heating oil or RBOB, thereby picking off resting limit orders that cannot adjust to the new information.  Or, as the WSJ article suggests, the bot can use the information derived from the NYMEX CL trade to take liquidity from ICE Brent or NYMEX lookalike futures.

This kind of trading exacerbates information asymmetries, and all else equal, increases spreads, reduces depth, and increases trading costs for the uninformed.

But the “all else equal” part of the statement doesn’t necessarily hold.  This presumes that the amount of capital devoted to HFT is constant.  But that’s not true in the long run.  If these sorts of advantages generate profits, that will attract more capital into HFT.  Moreover, note that the strategy just outlined involves placing limit orders, and then reacting when those limit orders are executed.  Competition to get the information advantage will lead to more aggressive quotes, and quotes in bigger size.  In the long run equilibrium, this competition will dissipate the rents from the information advantage.

Therefore, if there is any reason to reduce this speed advantage (either by slowing down some traders or speeding up the dissemination of trade execution information to the market at large), it is to prevent the investment of excessive capital into HFT.  The effect on spreads and depth in equilibrium is ambiguous.

Moreover, there are other possible uses of the information advantage that are clearly socially beneficial.  An HFT market maker-who is likely making markets in a variety of contracts-can utilize the information to revise limit orders either in the market in which the execution occurred, or in other markets, especially those that are closely related (again, consider the CL/HO or CL/RB example).  Using the speed/information advantage in this way reduces the HFT market maker’s vulnerability to getting picked off, and makes it willing to supply liquidity more aggressively.  This tends to reduce trading costs, and does not lead to the rent seeking that in the long run equilibrium tends to result in an inefficiently large HFT presence.

We also need some perspective here.  I consider it beyond hilarious that the WSJ has a video embedded in the online version of the story that has many images from the floor.  (And these days, one of the floor’s main functions is to provide visuals for stories on trading-especially the trader’s-head-in-his-hands shot on days when the market falls a lot.  Pictures of servers aren’t nearly so dramatic.)

Why hilarious?  Well, the floor was the epitome of time and space advantages to a select few.  A select few who paid for the privilege.  I remember distinctly a trader telling me: “Why do I spend $500,000 on a seat? Because I get to see the price before anybody else.”

Exactly.  The floor was the meat version of colocation.  Or the carbon based life form version, if you like.  Those on the floor could see the execution prices, and bids and offers, and order flows, that those off the floor could not.  They profited accordingly.  Which is why the marginal guy on the floor-the least efficient trader-was willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases to get on the floor.

In 2002 or so I wrote a paper titled “Upstairs, Downstairs” (still a working paper) which showed that floor traders earned a rent as a result of their time and space advantage: upstairs traders could not supply liquidity as effectively as floor traders due to their information disadvantage, and this meant that floor traders faced limited competition in supplying liquidity.  Moreover, exchange limits on membership meant that entry could not dissipate these rents.  But by reducing the time disparities between liquidity suppliers advantage, electronic trading increased liquidity supply: upstairs traders were no longer operating under a time and space handicap.  Trading costs and rents decline. And that decline in rents is precisely why floor traders fought electronic trading so fiercely for years.

So yes, in today’s electronic markets some traders have a speed advantage.  But this disparity is nothing when compared to that which existed in the floor days.

Which is why I can’t really get all that spun up over the WSJ story, or most of the other stories about how unfair markets are.  Everything is relative.  No, the playing field isn’t perfectly level today, and along the lines of yesterday’s post, it may be in the interest of the CME to take measures to make it more level.  They say that they are.  But arguably the field is more  level than it has ever been.  It’s certainly far more level than in the heyday of the trading floors.  Don’t get nostalgic for the days when market makers were meat, not machines.  The table was tilted in their favor, bigtime.  Much more than today.

Gazprom claims that the Ukrainian proposal to import gas from Europe “smack[s] of corrupt schemes”:

Plans by Ukraine to import natural gas from the European Union “smack of fraudulent schemes,” said the chief executive of Gazprom, Russia’s largest gas producer.

“Now as regards the reverse supplies of gas from the territory of the European Union to Ukraine – we know about these plans very well, but we have suspicion that it isn’t about any reverse supplies. De facto, there would physically be no gas involved – the plan is to use Gazprom gas in a kind of virtual reverse direction,” Alexei Miller said in the “News on Saturday with Sergei Brilyov” television program.

“In other words, Gazprom gas moves into Europe and immediately turns back and goes to Ukraine,” Miller said. “It doesn’t just get pumped across,” he said, claiming that Ukraine would transmit gas provided by Gazprom to the border, where a measuring station would show that a certain amount of gas had gone to Europe, but then the gas would return to Ukraine.

“These schemes smack of fraudulent schemes of some kind,” Miller said.

On matters of fraudulent gas schemes, I defer to Gazprom.  Indeed, since Ukraine is as Sovok as Gazprom, on matters of fraud, it’s hard to choose between either on a priori grounds.

In other news, the Russian government is hardly trusting of Russian energy firms, and natural resource firms generally.  Case in point.  The Finance Ministry is opposing replacement of extraction taxes and export taxes on energy with a profits (income) tax:

Industry experts say profits-based taxation would allow companies to cut their tax base by artificially reducing their profits.

The tax authorities calculate MET based on Reuters pricing, and export duties from the Argus agency’s average price for Russian Urals blend.

“The Finance Ministry does not trust oil companies; it would not believe them should the tax be based on their profits. Mineral extraction tax based on a certain oil price, which is impossible to change,” said one industry expert.

Quantities and revenues are harder to manipulate than profits.  This is a testament to the limitations of the Russian tax system, especially  when the energy/oil industry is involved.

This story also speaks to the fiscal stresses on Russia, especially in light of the many promises that he made to get reelected:

The Finance Ministry cited guidelines set by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who before his return to the Kremlin last year promised to increase state salaries and other social spending.

“Our task is to increase the tax burden on the commodity sector,” Trunin said.

Brent and Urals Blend are currently hovering at the levels at which the Russian budget balances.  Putin cannot afford any slippage in tax collection on oil sales.

Finally, if you need further convincing that the prospects for making Russia a major financial center are delusional, consider how Rosneft is totally hosing the minority shareholders in TNK-BP.  Why? Because they can:

Prosperity Capital Management is looking to team up with fellow investors in the TNK’s traded unit, OAO TNK-BP Holding (TNBP), and seek redress after Rosneft’s plan to borrow money from the company rather than paying dividends sent the shares to a record low this week. Rosneft said its move was standard practice.

The biggest takeover in Russian history strengthens the state’s hold over oil and gas production, the source of half its budget revenue. The government is trying to turn Moscow into a global financial hub to attract investors and shift the economy away from resource dependence.

“The whole country’s reputation will suffer if a big company like Rosneft can behave like this,” Prosperity CEO Mattias Westman, who helps oversee about $4 billion in Russian assets, said by phone from Texas. “We will be talking to other investors and communicating directly with Rosneft on this.”

TNK-BP Holding fell the most since trading began on the Micex, retreating 26 percent to a record low on March 26. The biggest previous one-day decline came in October when Igor Sechin, Rosneft’s chief executive officer, warned that the company may end TNK-BP’s dividend policy and had no plans to buy them out.

This is classic short-termism.  Although legally permissible, the refusal to buy out the minority interests in TNK-BP, and the draining of its cash makes it abundantly clear to foreign investors that they can expect the worst.  Hardly calculated to make Russia a serious contender as an international financial center, even if its climate were indistinguishable from Cyprus’s or the BVI.

This also illustrates Rosneft’s limitations.  It is the biggest publicly traded oil company in the world by production, but is straining every nerve to finance its acquisition of TNK-BP.  A real supermajor would not face such difficulties, or find it necessary to engage in prepay transactions with oil trading firms or China to raise the funds for the acquisition.  Which is why the long-term consequences of hammering minority shareholders are rather irrelevant to Rosneft, and to Russia.  The financial pressures of the present are all important.  The future will just have to take care of itself.  Whether it will is highly uncertain, and outside of Russia’s control.  It depends on many contingencies, which likely accounts for the obvious nervousness at Gazprom, Rosneft, and the MiFi.

One Cyprus scenario that has received considerable hype is that Gazprom will bail out the country in exchange for rights to develop its offshore gas resources.  IMO, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Gazprom’s interests.  If anything, Gazprom has an incentive to pay to ensure that Cyprus’s gas reserves are not developed.

That is, Gazprom has every reason to want the gas to remain under the sea.  Eastern Med gas would compete with Gazprom’s Russian production: if Gazprom controlled Cyprus’s gas, sales from these fields would cannibalize sales of Russian gas.  Meaning that Gazprom has no real interest in developing Cypriot gas-to the contrary.

Obtaining exclusive development rights would give Gazprom the right to not develop, and to prevent anyone else from doing so.  This would suit it quite well, and it might be willing to pay something for that right.  But as desperate as Cyprus is, it has to realize that giving Gazprom control over its gas destiny would deprive it of the future revenue its resources could generate.  It is highly doubtful that Cyprus could negotiate a deal that would effectively compel Gazprom to develop the country’s gas.  Therefore, by dealing with Gazprom it would essentially be writing off any prospect of enjoying the benefits of future gas production.

This means that Gazprom’s interests and Cyprus’s are not aligned: the latter wants to maximize the commercial development of its gas fields, the former has no such interest.  Cyprus’s horizon might be very short, given its pressing financial needs, but it would have to discount the future extremely heavily to make a deal with Gazprom remotely rational.  I consequently deem it very unlikely that Cyprus and Gazprom could reach a mutually beneficial deal.

Development rights to Cyprus’s gas might be valuable collateral for loans that ease the country’s current financial straits.  But Cyprus should look energy firms whose interest is to maximize the commercial prospects of its gas resources, rather than Gazprom, which would like nothing better than to sabotage their development.

Sorry about the silence, folks.  I was in Geneva doing my annual teaching in the University of Geneva’s Masters program in International Trading, Commodity Finance, and Shipping.  It is a very unique program, and a joy to teach in.  I also spoke at the annual Trading Forum sponsored by the Geneva Trading and Shipping Association (which also sponsors the Masters program).  I spoke about Frankendodd, which is somewhat ironic given that Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein on the shores of Lac Leman a few miles from Geneva.

Some quick catch up.

First, Bloomberg is threatening to sue the CFTC for discriminating in favor of futures and against swaps.  Bloomberg plans to launch a SEF, and (rightly) believes that the discrimination regarding the margin requirements will seriously impair the prospects for its success.

At the annual FIA gathering in Boca, Gary Gensler doubled down in his support for the discrimination (a Risk Magazine link, so a subscription is required):

“Under clearing rules finalised in 2011, swaps executed on a designated contract market or a Sef have the same margin requirement – one day for energy, metals and agriculture, which is where we as a market have been for years. Interest rate swaps have been cleared for nearly 10 years on LCH.Clearnet. They have used a practice for many years around five-day minimum margining,” Gensler told Risk, after his prepared remarks yesterday at the Futures Industry Association annual conference in Florida.

How’s that for an answer lacking any intellectual content or analysis?  LCH’s done it that way in interest rates for many years, so everybody should do that for everything going forward.

Got it.  Why think when you can merely defer to precedent, regardless of how relevant that precedent is?

Someone is thinking, and echoes my analysis of the inanity of treating economically equivalent instruments differently just because one is called a “future” (good!) and the other a “swap” (bad! bad! bad!):

“If there are two products that are equally standardised, that take the same time to liquidate, that have the same risk, volatility and liquidity characteristics, then both of them should be subject to the same margin requirement. Collateral should be determined on the characteristics of the product in question, not the wrapper,” said Sunil Hirani, chief executive of fledgling interest rate swap and futures exchange TrueEx, speaking on the sidelines of the conference.

“If a contract takes five days to liquidate then it should be subject to five-day value-at-risk, and a one-day liquidation product should be subject to one-day VAR. If a futures contract has worse risk, liquidity and time-to-liquidation characteristics than a swap, but then receives a more favourable margin treatment because it’s in a futures wrapper, that is an injustice,” he added.

My only quibble is that it’s not an injustice, it’s a recipe for regulatory arbitrage and potentially for systemic risk.

Speaking of SEFs, Scott O’Malia told Risk that progress on writing the SEF rules-which had been expected any day-is slow.  Tiresomely, this also bears the fingerprints of Gensler’s meddling hand:

Nonetheless, at a panel discussion on Sefs held earlier in the day, O’Malia recited the Dodd-Frank definition of a Sef and observed pointedly that “the word five does not appear anywhere in there” – an allusion to the controversial proposal that any request for quote (RFQ) via a Sef must go to a minimum of five dealers.

“[CFTC chairman] Gary Gensler’s original position was that he did not want Sefs to include RFQ capability at all,” says one chief executive of a trading platform that plans to register as a Sef. “His initial hope was to restrict all these new venues to a central limit order book model, but when it became clear that an order book would only work for the most liquid swap contracts, he conceded the need to permit RFQ as an execution method, but included the stipulation that quotes must be sought from a minimum of five market-makers.”

And some dealers claim this is now the major impasse, with Gensler said to be refusing to drop the so-called RFQ5 provision from the final language or bring it into line with corresponding Securities and Exchange Commission rules for securities-based Sefs, which state that an RFQ can be sent to a single dealer.

So again, Gensler wants to dictate market structure: every SEF has to have a CLOB foot.  One size fits all.  No appreciation whatsoever for the fact that there is a diversity of market participants and interests that may well be served by a diversity of execution mechanisms.  No appreciation for the fact that the supposed beneficiaries of Gensler’s would-be fiat might actually know their own interests better than he does.  No appreciation for the fact that the discovery process of competition can result in the creation of a set of SEFs that best matches the diverse needs of market users, and that this competition may spur innovation that would result in the creation of an as yet undreamed of trading mechanism that meets market users’ needs far better than a CLOB.

Keeping this Gary Knows Best attitude in mind, be afraid, be very afraid when you read this story of about the next potential target of CFTC inquiries: price setting mechanisms. Taking inspiration from the Li(e)bor issue, the Commission is now (informally) discussing the possibility of investigating other benchmarks, notably the London gold and silver fixes:

“The idea that pervasive manipulation, or attempted manipulation [of interest rates], is so widespread should make us all query the veracity of the other key marks,” said CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton at a Feb. 26 roundtable in Washington on financial benchmarks. “What about energy, swaps, the gold and silver fixes in London and the whole litany of ‘bors’?” he said, referring to Libor, Euribor and other benchmarks.

What’s rather disturbing is the linking of the gold and silver fixes and “bors”.  These things are very different.  The main problem with Li(e)bor, etc., is that they are not set on the basis of transactions: on this I agree with Gensler, having been making this point in an interest rate and commodity context for going onto 20 years.  (In my 1992 book Grain Futures Markets: An Economic Appraisal, I criticized proposals for cash settled grain contracts due to the lack of cash transactions on which to base an index.)

In contrast, the LBMA fixes are centralized auction mechanisms (Note to Gar: nearly a CLOB!)  Indeed, they are textbook examples of a Walrasian auction.  An initial price is mooted, and the participants indicate the amount they want to purchase or sell at that price: the quantity announced by each participating bank includes customer bids and offers, so buying and selling interest reflects more than just the proprietary trades of the fixing banks.  If at the initial price there are more buys (sells) than sells (buys), the price is increased (decreased), and each fixing participant again indicates its trading interest at the new price.  The process continues until buys equal sells, i.e., until the market clears.

Crucially, participants in the auction who are buyers (sellers) at the clearing price take (make) delivery of metal in an amount equal to their bid (offer) quantity at that price.  That is, the clearing price results in actual trades.  This is miles different than Li(e)bor.

This is not to say that a Walrasian auction cannot be manipulated: for instance, a company with a large long derivatives position that has a payoff tied to the fixing price might want to put in large buy orders in the fix to drive up the clearing price in order to impact favorably the payoff of the derivative.  Here the relevant issue would be the impact of orders on the clearing price.  That’s a totally different issue than in Li(e)bor, but I’m quite concerned that CFTC views all benchmarks as indistinguishable pieces in a mass.

And Gensler’s analysis-free treatment of futurization and SEFs only fuels those concerns. Good policy needs to be predicated on good analysis, not the prejudices and suspicion of the policymaker.  Gary Says So ain’t good enough, even for government work.  But too often that’s what we are getting.  We’ve seen it with futurization and SEFs, which raises legitimate concerns that the same will occur with benchmarks.  The confabulation of LBMA fixes with ‘bors only heightens those concerns.

A side note (added later): The suggestion that the CFTC can examine the London fixes betrays incredible hubris.  How could the US CFTC possibly have any jurisdiction over a UK entity-the LBMA-or the conduct of banks, only one of which (HSBC USA) is a US entity?  Especially given that as far as I am aware there is no CFTC regulated derivatives contract tied to the London gold or silver fixes.  But Gensler is all about extraterritoriality, so don’t put it past him to try.  I hope he tries, actually.  The Brits will go totally ballistic if he does.  Perhaps that’s exactly what’s needed to constrain GiGi’s imperial ambitions.

One other thing.  I didn’t mention anything about clearing, but Gensler’s analysis-free approach has been particularly prominent there.  To say that his “analysis” of clearing over the past 4 years has epitomized a comic book approach to the issue is an insult to the intellectual rigor of comic books.