Streetwise Professor

This week marks the beginning of a whirlwind couple of months in which I give talks or participate in conferences on either clearing or Frank-n-Dodd (there of course being a big overlap there).  Tuesday I moderated a panel at the ISDA Annual New York Conference, and yesterday I participated in a panel on Frank-n-Dodd at a Futures Industry Association event in New York.

First, the FIA event.  What came through loud and clear was the widespread belief that the SEF mandate in Frank-n-Dodd is wholly wrongheaded.  The consensus is that it is an attempt to jam a one-size-fits-all model on an inherently heterogeneous and non-standardized business–the business of executing OTC derivatives transactions.  That heterogeneity reflects the inherent heterogeneity of particular transactions, and the firms that want to execute them.  The market has evolved to accommodate heterogeneity, and the SEF mandate will impose uniformity.  Everybody better fit a 42-regular sportcoat, because that is what Frank-n-Dodd is going to force everybody to wear.

Of course there are dissidents from the consensus: most prominently those who do, or want to, operate SEFs.  Big surprise.  The NYT recently ran an article describing the efforts of these firms to influence policy.  The point you should take away from that article is that the idea of SEFS is not new, that SEFs have tried to gain traction in the market for some time (they are not “Johnny-come-latelys” in the words of one exec quoted in the article), but they have not made a big dent in the marketplace.

The failure to this point of SEFs to transform execution in the swap market, the way electronic trading did for listed derivatives, is a crucial fact.  It is not dispositive proof that the SEF mandate is misguided, but it does raise serious questions about it.  Before remaking the world, it is a pretty good idea to understand why the world is the way it is and why it isn’t the way you want to remake it.  Competition is never perfect, but competitive forces usually work inexorably towards the adoption of more efficient practices.  The rebuttable presumption should be that competition has pretty much gotten it right, and that policy prescriptions that are wildly at odds with existing practice are likely based on ignorance.  Those advocating a wholesale re-engineering of the results of market processes should be required to advance a coherent justification, based on rigorous logic and empirical evidence.

This the SEFocrats have not done.  Not even close.  And no, invoking the magic word “transparency” or advancing theories that presume that half the market is suffering from something akin to battered spouse syndrome don’t cut it.

The SEF rules are a particularly prominent example of the deficiency in cost-benefit analysis in CFTC rulemaking.  I have it on good authority that some analysis will soon be forthcoming that demonstrates that the cost of these rules will be immense.  As for benefits, the six members of the FIA panel couldn’t name one–even when pressed to do so.  We, collectively, couldn’t even come up with a “well you don’t sweat too much for a fat girl” compliment.  (If you don’t like that remark, direct your complaints to Ty Cobb:  I stole it from him.)  So, insofar as cost-benefit analysis is concerned–you should be able to do the math pretty easily.

The title for the post, by the way, is a joint product.  Tom LaSalla of CME Group coined “SEFdom” to describe what Frank-n-Dodd will soon bring on us.  I added the Hayekian allusion.  (Go figure.) I think the comparison is apt.

Insofar as the ISDA panel on clearing is concerned, I walked away from it thinking what I do after hearing any informed discussions of this subject: that it is the most devilishly complex issue you can possibly imagine.  It is one of the world’s biggest onions, and neither I nor anyone who has spent considerable time and effort thinking about it or actually doing it has gotten through even a small fraction of its layers.  The number of serious issues, their complexity, and their interconnectedness, is hard to exaggerate.

Which further demonstrates the frivolity of legislators and regulators around the world,who seized upon it as a panacea and imposed it without due consideration of these complexities.  The idea was hatched out of superficial understanding by panicked people who then proceeded to let others deal with the brain-twisting realities.

One hopes (though I do not expect) that regulators will be sufficiently patient and flexible to permit people who actually know something accommodate these complexities, and make the hard trade-offs that are necessarily involved.  New ideas on ways to perform the same functions as CCPs are still being developed: ISDA chief Conrad Volstad mooted a promising approach that would achieve the purposes of the clearing mandate, but at far lower cost.  These approaches deserve analysis and development before another one-size-fits-all approach is locked in.

I don’t like clearing mandates, but think that clearing has its virtues if it is done right, and in a way that reflects its comparative benefits and costs.  In this way it differs from the SEF mandate, which is why I gave the latter my Worst of Frank-n-Dodd Anniversary Award.  But rigid and superficial conceptions about how the mandate should work (and you know whom I am talking about) raise the very serious possibility that the potential benefits of clearing will be swamped by the unintended costs of imposing it where it is inappropriate, or in a way that is not adapted to its strengths and weaknesses.

In this week’s edition of Energy Metro Desk, John Sodergreen wrote: “Normally, Pirrong is a ‘take no prisoners’
sort of economist.”  He was referring to my apparently serene response to the Singleton paper on energy speculation.

Rest assured, all, that I am not mellowing in my old age.  My response to Singleton qua Singleton was serene primarily because the results are capable of many interpretations, many of which are quite compatible to my views.  Further rest assured that I am my scathing self when it comes to the efforts to misinterpret and overinterpret Singleton’s results.  It is being waved about as the smoking gun proving that speculation distorts prices.  This is completely wrong, and reflects either the ignorance or agenda–or more likely, both–of anyone making the claim.

Remember what Puddin’ Head Wilson said: “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it — and stop there.”  People are getting far too much “wisdom” out of Singleton than there is in it. Singleton’s results are perfectly consistent with a favorable or benign effect of speculation.

But there is nothing more likely to get me to break out the black flag than an epistle from Bart Chilton, and yesterday he did not disappoint.  The NY Times’ Dealbook had this gem from our ol’ buddy Bart:

It’s a familiar cry from Wall Street executives and Congressional Republicans: New regulations will dampen profits and crimp an already-feeble job market.

But some federal regulators, now charged with writing dozens of new rules for Wall Street, beg to differ. Bart Chilton, a Democratic member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, argues that a regulatory shake-up would actually spawn a wave of hiring on Wall Street and in Washington.

“The possibilities for economic growth and competition here are mind-boggling,” Mr. Chilton said on Friday during a speech at the University of Maryland.

The debate centers on the controversial Dodd-Frank Act, which overhauled financial regulations after Wall Street nearly collapsed during the financial crisis. The law, among other things, transformed the $600 trillion derivatives markets, a lightly regulated industry at the center of the mess.

. . . .

“I have no doubt that these new regulations, instituting new types of clearing, trading and reporting platforms, will foster a landslide of hiring in the financial sector,” Mr. Chilton said.

In particular, Mr. Chilton forecast growing demand for technology experts. “All of this new trading activity, with new regulatory oversight requirements, will mean the development of new technologies, both in the private and public sectors,” he said.

The mind boggles.  Chilton, like all too many regulators and legislators, confuses costs and benefits.  This is the broken window fallacy on crack.  Said regulators and legislators should be required to have Bastiat’s discussion of the seen and the unseen flashed before their eyes repeatedly, Clockwork Orange-like, until the idea sinks in.  Short of that, I am at a loss at how to educate them on this profound–yet simple–concept.

Yes, we can see all the accountants and lawyers beavering away on Sarbanes-Oxley-related work.  But what about all the other–and actually productive–things those people could be doing if Congress in its infinite wisdom and overweening arrogance hadn’t seen fit to create an artificial demand for their services, that distracted them from doing something that is actually socially productive?  What about the companies that are smaller, and the companies that don’t exist, because of the burdens of this and other counterproductive regulation?

Frank-n-Dodd is Sarbanes-Oxley raised to a power far greater than one.  Yes, there will be lawyers and compliance people working in their tens of thousands to ensure adherence to its mind-numbing dictates.  Yes, the idiotic SEF requirement will result in a splurge in spending on technology, and there will be much rejoicing among programmers and IT people.  To the bean counting regulator or legislator this is good.  To the more perceptive, it is a crime.

Riddle me this, Bart: If this technology were actually valuable, why do you and your ilk have to force its creation?  You, in particular have been critical of the dizzying pace of technological development in the trading space.  So you know this is obviously a technologically dynamic industry where there is intense competition to create new products and services and methods of delivering them, not some tradition-bound backwater.  If the kind of technology Frank-n-Dodd is going to bring into existence were actually delivering value to market participants, you can be damned sure that somebody would have figured that out.  Many somebodies, in fact, who would be competing like hell to bring it to market faster and better than anyone else.

And further: please tell me what actually beneficial inventions will not be created, or will be delayed, because their would-be inventors are instead (rationally) responding to some inane government mandate?  You can’t, and I can’t.  But they exist.  Just because you can’t see them, doesn’t mean they aren’t there

And please: tell me how you distinguish a cost from a benefit.

Sadly, the inability to tell cost from benefit is rife in the 202 area code.  The disease is probably most acute at EPA, which blessed us with this gem of economic analysis:

In fact, the EPA has even suggested that new regulations can have a positive impact on job growth. “In periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment,” the agency wrote in February.

This is the kind of moronism we are dealing with, people.  And the rot is spreading.  Including to the CFTC, apparently.

When you read or hear this or that macroeconomic theory about why the recovery–such as it is–has been so weak, and why the economy totters on the brink of another recession, put it in its proper perspective.  Yes, macro factors are important.  But so too is the massive regulatory millstone hanging around our collective necks.  People who think costs are benefits are running amok.  And sad to say, they are just getting warmed up.

We need to fight these people.

* The Degüello was a bugle call dating from the Moorish Wars of the Reconquista in Spain. Literally, it means “throat slashing” and was played to signal “no quarter–take no prisoners.” Santa Ana’s army played it before the final charge at the Alamo.

This article by George Priest about the incoherence of the USDOJ Antitrust Division’s attack on the ATT-TMobile merger is worth a read.

The key fact that Priest focuses on is the response of Sprint’s stock price to the announcement of the Division’s attempt to block the merger.  If the merger really would reduce competition, Sprint’s stock price should have fallen.  The fact that Sprint’s price in fact rose is strong evidence that the merger would have increased competition in the wireless market.

The key analytical point in the article is this:

Much of the Justice Department’s failing on this issue derives from its failure to understand that network industries must be evaluated differently from more traditional, manufacturing industries. The market share guidelines upon which the Justice Department relies to oppose this acquisition may make sense in the context of manufacturing industries. But they make no sense in the context of networks in which there are great benefits from large networks with large market shares.

This was the mistake the Justice Department made in the Microsoft case almost a decade ago. It wanted to break up Microsoft, supposedly to create greater competition among Web browsers. The courts prevented the effort, and to good effect.

The rise of Google, Facebook and the competition from smartphones that resemble computers have shown that the focus then on browser competition misunderstood the rapidly changing nature of network competition. The Obama administration is making the same mistake with its opposition to AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile.

This is exactly right.  And it helps explain the intellectual confusion at DOJ and in the European Commission on all matters relating to financial exchanges and financial markets.  Financial trading is a network industry, and the same failure to understand the implications of network economics for market structure that has muddled antitrust enforcement in telecomms and software is leading to a similar muddle in antitrust analysis of financial markets.

Back in June, at a nice lunch with several LCH.Clearnet executives in The City, I was asked my opinion on the company’s future.  Recent news, notably the offers for the company by Markit and LSE, have brought that conversation to mind.

My answer was that I thought that the trend towards vertical integration by exchanges was inexorable, and that there were good economic reasons for this (which I have discussed for years here on SWP).  As a result, I didn’t/don’t consider the model of an independent firm clearing for multiple execution venues/exchanges to be viable.  Especially with Frank-n-Dodd and Emir, but likely even without that impetus, there definitely will be increasing opportunities for clearing OTC derivatives.  (Although I cautioned that if the ambitions of regulators and legislators to make OTC trading exchange-like were successful, the same kind of dynamic now playing out in listed derivatives could occur in swaps.)  So SwapClear is clearly a viable business (similarly, RepoClear).  But major dealer firms would demand considerable influence over, and perhaps control over, the clearing entity.  Any such entity would either be, or closely resemble, a member cooperative.

My prediction was that (a) the exchange clearing business of LCH.Clearnet would either go away, or be absorbed into an exchange or exchanges, and (b) the swap clearing business would be largely in the orbit of the big dealer banks, although how that would be achieved organizationally remains to be seen.

The LSE offer is clearly intended to obtain the in-house clearing capability that LSE has lacked for decades (in part due to its own missteps in the 1970s and 1980s).  But LSE has no comparative advantage in operating the OTC clearing business, and the dealer banks have no interest in having LSE control it.

In contrast, the OTC derivatives business is a much closer fit with Markit, given the overlap between the membership of OTCDerivNet (which governs SwapClear) and the ownership of Markit, and the synergy between Markit’s OTC valuation, processing, and data business and OTC clearing.  But Markit really has no need for LCH.Clearnet’s listed clearing business.

So the sensible outcome would be to split the baby, with LSE taking over its own clearing by acquiring part of LCH.Clearnet, and Markit taking the OTC-related business.  That end state seems much more sensible than either LSE or Markit swallowing all of the big London-Paris clearer.  How that end state is reached–how the baby actually gets split–will be quite interesting to watch.  I am sure there will be much drama in the coming months.

There are news reports providing some glimpses into draft regulations regarding the regulation of derivatives and securities markets in Europe.  It looks like it is taking some of the worst of Frank-n-Dodd, and adding some dumb flourishes of its own.

Insofar as the worst of Frank-n-Dodd is concerned, despite initial indications to the contrary, it looks like the proposal is going to incorporate something like a SEF requirement.  You might recall that on The Monster’s first birthday, I named the SEF requirement as its worst feature.  Well, the Euros (don’t they have bigger problems right now? Just asking.) don’t look to be avoiding the US’s mistake:

Widely traded derivatives would have to be transacted on an electronic platform to improve transparency and safety, draft European Union rules showed on Monday.

The bloc is overhauling its markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) to catch up with technological advances, apply lessons from the financial crisis and deal with problems such as price fragmentation raised by the original rules.

“The main aim of the proposal is to ensure that all organised trading is conducted on regulated venues and is fully transparent,” the draft, seen by Reuters, said.

More specifically, world leaders agreed in 2009 that derivatives, largely traded bilaterally between banks in an opaque $600 trillion sector, should be traded electronically.

This will give supervisors the full picture of who is affected when a counterparty gets into trouble, which they lacked when Lehman Brothers bank collapsed three years ago.

“The proposed revision will shift trading of the suitably developed derivatives to such platforms,” a draft of the MiFID reform, now circulating widely in Brussels, said.

“This obligation will be imposed on both financial and non financial counterparties,” the draft added.

Another unfortunate imitation is the adoption of restrictions on commodity speculation, including position limits:

The European Securities and Markets Authority should have the power to impose position limits on traders in crisis situations when “the stability of the whole or part of the financial system” is threatened or “delivery arrangements for physical commodities” could break down, the document says.

The Euro flourishes are clearing-related, although here I have to say that the reporting is not too clear.  As I’ve written in the past, European regulators are obsessed with the vertical integration of execution and clearing–the silo issue.  Various reports (including the two linked above) and this one suggest that the regulators will force CCPs to be open access.  The reporting also states that integrated exchanges will have to share data streams, including calculations of indexes that are the basis for traded products.

Insofar as open access is concerned, the FT article quotes language stating that CCPs will be required to accept trades for clearing “on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, regardless of the trading venue on which the transaction is executed.”

The idea here is to facilitate competition between CCPs, apparently.  But it is fraught with difficulties.

For one, there is the question of why a dominant CCP, including one that is integrated with an execution venue, would turn away business.  Even if it is a monopoly, it could sell clearing services at the monopoly price.  If, as the anti-silo crowd commonly argues, the execution of transactions is potentially highly competitive, absent some cost, the monopoly CCP would maximize profits by selling its services at the monopoly price.  It wouldn’t be necessary to mandate open access.  The CCP would gladly offer access–for a price.

It is therefore necessary to understand why an integrated CCP wouldn’t sell clearing services to others on an open access basis.

One possible reason is that the dominant CCP believes that open access rules will eventually result in the regulation of the prices it can charge for its services.

I think a more important reason relates to a fundamental misunderstanding  among the Europeans of the way competition is likely to work.  There are two possibilities.

One possibility is that there remains a single clearer–given the cost conditions in clearing, that’s not unlikely, although it seems that the Europeans think that they are constructing rules that will reduce the likelihood of this outcome.  Note that particularly now, financial trading is highly technological.  There will thus be the necessity of coordinating technologies and changes in systems between the execution venues and the clearer.  This can be very difficult to achieve across firm boundaries; this is one of the factors that I identified as justifying integration well over 5 years ago.  It should also be noted that this is precisely the reason given for many recent exchange decisions to integrate into clearing; the LSE is the most recent and prominent example of this.

The other possibility is that there are multiple CCPs offering to clear a particular instrument.  There are myriad challenges to this, but I’ll focus on just one.  In particular, assume a transaction in a particular instrument is cleared at CCP A and CCP B.  A trade is executed on venue X.  If the parties to the trade can choose independently where to clear, the buyer may submit the trade to A and the seller to B.  In this case, A and B must be interoperable.  Interoperability is extremely challenging.  It is likely to increase collateral costs (as A and B are going to require collateral from each other).  Moreover, A and B may find it difficult to negotiate an interoperability arrangement because of (a) competitive pressures (the model the Europeans seem to have in mind involves a unique balance of competition and cooperation), and (b) distrust of each other’s risk management, arising from the difficulties of monitoring.  Moreover, the technology/system coordination issues are now multiplied, as X has to coordinate with both A and B.  And if there are multiple execution venues (Y and Z, say) as the Euros presumably hope and expect, these difficulties are multiplied accordingly.

Having an exclusive arrangement with an execution venue avoids this problem.  Those trading on X could be required to clear on A, for instance.  But that just raises the same kinds of problems as if there is only a single clearer.

In brief, it is hard to see how robust competition between CCPs is possible.  Once that is admitted, the whole basis of the regulation collapses.

The whole evolution of the exchange space–most notably in Europe–in the past 5 years is exactly contrary to the thrust of the proposed regulation.  And maybe that’s the point: the Euroregulators are clearly bugged by this trend.  But maybe they should try to understand it first; it’s pretty evident that they don’t now.

Case in point: LCH.Clearnet’s difficulties–its loss of exchange clearing business (EuronextLIFFE, ICE, and almost certainly LSE)–suggests that integration is not primarily driven by anticompetitive impulses.  Instead, in my view it reflects the difficulties of coordinating complementary activities across firm boundaries in a highly technologically dynamic industry.*  At the very least, the Euros should consider that possibility, and take it seriously, before attempting to micromanage the structure of a dynamic industry with strong network characteristics.

Instead, it seems that the regulations are based on an intellectual framework that would be suspect in any industry (as I’ve written about before), and which does not seem to take into account that unique characteristics of financial trading: network effects, scale  and scope economies, technological dynamism, and information asymmetries with respect to performance risk.

So, if the European endeavor is truly the son of Frank-n-Dodd, it may well be the ugly bastard child.  It has the defects of F-n-D, and adds some more–as if more were needed.

Perhaps this is Brussels’ negotiating position.  There is considerable opposition (particularly in Germany–go figure) to some of these initiatives, and maybe the EU is proposing a more radical change in the knowledge that it will have to be watered down.   One can only hope that it drowns.

* I spoke at an FIA panel that touched on this issue in March, 2007.  I made the coordination point.  Charlie Carey, then head of the CBT (which had already agreed to sell out to the CME–this was the day before ICE made its surprise offer) was sitting next to me.  After I made this point, he handed me a note that said that was an extremely important, but insufficiently appreciated, fact.

One of the leading crude oil futures contracts–CME Group’s WTI–has been the subject of a drumbeat of criticism for months due to the divergence of WTI prices in Cushing from prices at the Gulf, and from the price of the other main oil benchmark–Brent.  But whereas WTI’s problem is one of logistics that is in the process of being addressed, Brent’s issues are more fundamental ones related to adequate supply, and less amenable to correction.

Indeed, WTI’s “problem” is actually the kind an exchange would like to have.  The divergence between WTI prices in the Midcontinent and waterborne crude prices reflects a surge of production in Canada and North Dakota.  Pipelines are currently lacking to ship this crude to the Gulf of Mexico, and Midcon refineries are running close to full capacity, meaning that the additional supply is backing up in Cushing and depressing prices.

But the yawning gap between the Cushing price at prices at the Gulf is sending a signal that more transportation capacity is needed, and the market is responding with alacrity.  If only the regulators were similarly speedy.

Three companies are at various stages of planning new capacity to ship oil from the Midcontinent to the Gulf.  A fourth is looking to redirect flows from Cushing to Houston.  The addition to capacity would total 1.4 mm bbl/day if all were completed.  Since that’s more capacity than is needed, not all the projects will go to completion.  But regardless, over the medium term it is likely that new pipelines will break the bottleneck and crush the differentials between WTI and LLS, MARS, and Brent.

The main obstacles that the WTI contracts face are enviros and Coasean challenges.  Environmentalists have been trying to put every regulatory roadblock possible in the way of one of the pipeline projects–TransCanada’s Keystone XL. This would bring oil produced from oilsands from Alberta through Oklahoma and on to Texas.  The project cleared one roadblock last week, when the State Department (which has to approve due to the international nature of the pipeline) released an eight volume (!) study finding that the pipeline poses no significant environmental impacts.  The pipeline’s opponents are vowing to redouble their efforts, and the issue is now wrapped up in presidential election year politics.

The Coasean challenge is that reversal of the Seaway pipeline currently flowing from the Gulf to the Midcontinent would cost one of the owners–ConocoPhillips–money by raising input costs for its Midcontinent refineries.  Even though there are more than enough gains on the table to compensate CP for any losses arising from a rise in the price of Midcon crude, so far no one has been able to craft a deal whereby the winners (primarily Canadian and US producers) can make it worth CP’s while to agree to the reversal.

But these problems are all surmountable.  WTI’s problems arise from the consequences of too much supply at the delivery point, which is a good problem for a contract to have.  The price signals are leading to the kind of response that will eliminate the supply overhang, leaving the WTI contract with prices that are highly interconnected with those of seaborne crude, and with enough deliverable supply to mitigate the potential for squeezes and other technical disruptions.

Brent’s problems are more fundamental, because they arise from declining supply.  Even as paper volumes continue to rise, physical volumes available for delivery are falling inexorably.  The Brent complex had faced this problem before, and confronted it by adding Forties, Oseberg, and Ekofisk to the eligible stream.  But BFOE production has declined from 1.6 mm bbl/d in 2006 to barely more than half that today.  And the decline continues apace.  This makes the contract vulnerable to squeezes of a kind that were chronic in the 1990s and early 2000s, and which spurred Platts to add the three other grades to the benchmark.

There are, moreover, few additional North Sea oil stream that can be added to the benchmark this time.  So over the medium term Platts is considering adding other low sulphur crudes produced outside the North Sea to the contract.

The Brent problem is analogous to that faced by the Chicago Board of Trade grain and soybean contracts in the early-1990s.  Volumes of corn, wheat, and soybeans shipped into Chicago and Toledo–the delivery points–were falling, though not due to declining production, but due to changing trade patterns.  Deliverable supplies in Chicago and Toledo were not reliably sufficient to ensure the pricing integrity of the contract.  The Ferruzzi soybean squeeze in July, 1989 brought matters to a head and forced a reluctant CBT to act.

The CBT’s initial response was to tinker with the contract, adding St. Louis as a delivery point at a modest premium to Chicago.  Within a few short years, however, all delivery warehouses in Chicago proper had closed, and the exchange had to adopt a substantially different delivery mechanism (which I helped design–more on this below).

One approach available to Platts would be to create what I called an “economic par” contract in a report (subsequently a book–such a deal!) on the CBT contracts that I wrote in the aftermath of the Ferruzzi episode.  In an economic par contract, differentials for delivery of different grades (or at different locations) are set approximately equal to the cash market differentials.  For instance, if Brent was made the par grade, and another type of crude that typically sells for a $2 discount to Brent were made eligible for delivery against the contract, the deliverer would receive $2 less for delivering that grade than delivering Brent.

The advantages of this type of system are (a) it allows a dramatic expansion of deliverable supply, thereby easing technical/squeeze pressures on the contract, and (b) it can improve hedging effectiveness/reduce basis risk.  In essence (as pointed out in the book), options pricing theory implies that with economic par terms the futures price becomes like a weighted average of the prices of the deliverable grades.  This reduces the idiosyncratic component of futures price fluctuations, making the contract a better hedge for a variety of users.  (Cash settlement based on a variety of crude streams would produce a similar outcome.)  In the present instance, an economic par contract would be a poorer hedge for Brent cargoes, but a better hedge for other kinds of oil (e.g., Urals).

Since cash market differentials can vary over time, it is advisable to adjust the contract premia and discounts periodically.  (The failure to do so with Treasury Bond futures in the 1990s caused some problems with the contract that were eventually fixed by the change from an 8 percent par coupon to a 6 percent.)  Such changes can actually make the contract a better hedge by keeping the weights in the average more stable over time, thereby reducing the likelihood that the idiosyncratic risk of a particular deliverable grade exerts disproportionate influence on contract pricing.

Accomplishing such a substantial remake of a contract is, however, a difficult thing.  Contract changes have different effects on different players, and each will try to lobby for changes that suit its interests.  The case of Chicago grains is illustrative.  As the decline in Chicago and Toledo continued apace, and the tinkering that followed the Ferruzzi squeeze proved inadequate, the CBT formed a committee to come up with a new contract design.  The committee had representatives from virtually every affected party.  Since the interests of these parties were so divergent, the process became rancorous and political, and the committee could not come to agreement on the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to fix the problem.  Eventually, in late-1996 the CFTC said enough, and ordered the exchange to change the contract stat.

Realizing that the traditional committee method that gave everybody a voice would not meet the demands of an impatient CFTC, the exchange created a small task force (0f which I was an outside member) of more independent participants, and which pointedly excluded the big incumbent players (mainly Cargill, Continental, ADM, and The Andersons).  This Grain Delivery Task Force came up with a radical new design (based on delivery via shipping receipts into barges on the Illinois River) in less than 6 months.  The new design was approved by the membership and the CFTC over the following months.

Suffice it to say that the kind of consultative process that Platts envisions in revising the Brent contract will almost certainly bog down in the kind of rent seeking self-interested behavior that stymied fundamental changes in the CBT grain contracts.  (In one of the early go ’rounds on this, in 199o–which spawned my report/book–one of the members of the committee set up to revise the contract was so outraged by my recommendations for bigger changes that we almost came to blows.  The representatives from ADM and Cargill took him outside to cool down.  I had similar experience, though more civil, during discussions of revising the canola contract in Winnipeg a few years later.  Considering that the Brent market is so much bigger and the dollars at play in 2011 are so much bigger than two decades ago, the potential for pyrotechnics is all the greater now. )

Which means that those who are crowing about Brent today, and heaping scorn on WTI, will be begging for WTI’s problems in a few years.  For by then, WTI’s issues will be fixed, and it will be sitting astride a robust flow of oil tightly interconnected with the nexus of world oil trading.  But the Brent contract will be an inverted paper pyramid, resting on a thinner and thinner point of crude production.  There will be gains from trade–large ones–from redesigning the contract, but the difficulties of negotiating an agreement among numerous big players will prove nigh on to impossible to surmount.  Moreover, there will be no single regulator in a single jurisdiction that can bang heads together (for yes, that is needed sometimes) and cajole the parties toward agreement.

So Brent boosters, enjoy your laugh while it lasts.  It won’t last long, and remember, he who laughs last laughs best.

Today’s WSJ has an article that lists the positions of several market participants in the oil futures market on 30 June, 2008, shortly before prices hit their all-time high  This information was leaked by somebody in the CFTC.  A CFTC spokesman “said the agency couldn’t comment because the list contains confidential information.”

You don’t say.  [I cleaned that up.]  Apparently somebody in CFTC didn’t get the memo.

This is egregious.  Truly egregious.  This is highly confidential information.  Its disclosure was clearly intended to advance some political agenda.

Let me hazard a guess what is driving that agenda: next month the CFTC is likely to move on its energy position limits proposal.  The disclosures about the positions held by financial players will no doubt help shape the battlefield for that fight.

I cannot emphasize enough what an abuse this is.

And it will hinder the CFTC going forward.  The agency often relies on voluntary cooperation by market participants to supply data that helps it understand what is going on in the market, or to help develop policies.  Is there any doubt that companies receiving such requests will now think twice about cooperating?

And don’t you feel so much better that under Frank-n-Dodd that the CFTC will have access to far more data from far more markets?

I just shake my head.   And speaking of heads, somebody’s should roll over this.  Maybe several somebody’s heads.

I don’t know enough about the technology to comment sensibly about the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobile.  But I’m guessing that there’s a strong transactions cost economics story to be told here.  I’m looking forward to reading the analysis a TCE type that does know the technology.

One thing that strikes me as interesting is the similarity between some of the issues in this merger and the ongoing silo debate in the securities and derivatives markets.  Apple: the integrated producer.  Android/Google, pre-merger: horizontal platform seeking to encourage competition in the production of complementary products (handsets that run the software).  Apple is analogous to the Deutsche Boerse or CME vertical model; pre-merger Google is in some ways analogous to the LCH.Clearnet horizontal model.  Just as the horizontal model is under pressure in the financial markets (note LCH.Clearnet’s recent travails, and the recent news that Markit is in negotiations to buy it), it is apparently under pressure in the mobile phone/device market too.

Again, I don’t know enough about the mobile phone and software markets to judge whether the comparison is more than superficial.  But I’m guessing that although the technological details differ, the underlying economic forces are quite similar.

High frequency trading firms came under heavy fire in the aftermath of the May 2010 Flash Crash because they largely withdrew from the market shortly before the Crash.  Indeed, the lack of liquidity (which is nowadays largely provided by HFT firms) was likely a necessary condition for the Crash to occur.

In light of that, and of last week’s market craziness, it is therefore quite interesting to read this:

The stock market’s fastest electronic firms boosted trading threefold during the rout that erased $2.2 trillion from U.S. equity values, stepping up strategies that profit from volatility, according to one of their biggest brokers.

The increase from Aug. 1 to Aug. 10 over their 2011 average surpassed the 80 percent rise in U.S. equity volume, showing that high-frequency traders made up more of the market during the plunge, Gary Wedbush, executive vice president and head of capital markets at Wedbush Securities, said in a telephone interview. Wedbush is the largest broker supplying bids and offers on the Nasdaq Stock Market, according to exchange data.

“We’re seeing a tremendous amount of high-frequency trading,” said Wedbush, whose company is one of the biggest execution and clearing brokers catering to high-speed firms. “Their business is a trading business, and volatility creates far more opportunities. Some of their algorithms and automated systems are trading two, three or five times as many shares as they would have in a more normalized volatility environment.”

It is therefore incorrect to say that HFT firms are Sunshine Liquidity Suppliers who head for the hills when things get volatile.  Sometimes HFT reduce the amount of liquidity they supply.  Sometimes they increase it.  And volatility alone is not enough to spook HFT firms.  Indeed–and this shouldn’t be surprising, really–volatility can be a huge profit opportunity for them.  Note, moreover, that their profit-spurred entry almost certainly reduces volatility below what it would be otherwise and improves efficiency.

One should hope, therefore, that regulators and others who blame HFT for every market outcome they don’t like will take this more recent experience into account in order to develop a more mature understanding of HFT, and use that understanding to develop sensible policies that encourage beneficial HFT.  Policies that don’t throw the baby out with the bath.

A study of what caused the differences between the first two weeks of August and the Flash Crash could be quite illuminating.  Market making, whether old school on the floor of an exchange or new school on computer at high speed, is vulnerable to toxic order flow–that is, order flow driven by private information.  Any market maker who wants to survive has to have the ability to determine when order flow is toxic and when it is not.  Old school traders could intuit the likelihood that the guy who wanted to buy from or sell to them was trying to pick them off because he had better information.  HFT uses algorithms to try to sniff out such opportunistic order flow.

It is pretty clear that on May 6, 2010 HFT algos were flashing warning signs that the order flow had turned toxic,  and they cut back as a result.  It is also clear that despite all the volatility in these days of Downgrade and Debt Crises, the algos are not picking up evidence of an increased intensity of privately-informed trading.  As a result, the HFT firms are sufficiently confident that the risk of being picked off is low that they can profitably supply liquidity.

One interpretation of this is that HFT firms are primarily responding to market conditions, rather than creating them.  One implication of this is that regulators should try to develop tools that would allow them to pick up the same warning signals that HFT algos do in order to anticipate potential market disruptions a la 6 May 2010.  This would permit the implementation of precautionary policies that could reduce the likelihood and intensity of Flash Crashes.  This would be a far better policy than micromanaging HFT trading through things like order time limits or commitments to make markets even when that is unprofitable.  Micromanagement is likely to be counterproductive as it raises the costs of supplying liquidity, and inducing exit of market making capital–which would make prices more volatile during conditions like those that have prevailed this month.

Exchanges are in the business of facilitating the discovery of prices.  The whole rationale for exchanges is that discovering more accurate prices encourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.  That’s the value that they produce for society.

Which is why it peculiar, to say the least, that exchanges consistently don’t use prices to allocate a scarce resource at the heart of their businesses: communications capacity.  The recent volume surge caused by the intense volatility over the past week has taxed this capacity heavily, as this FT article shows.  Four major exchanges faced technical problems due to an avalanche of message traffic, most notably Borsa Milano.

To the extent that exchanges react to message traffic surges, they do so through non-price allocation methods, such as “throttling.”

As I have been discussing since the very first SWP post, exchange bandwidth is a scarce resource.  There can be intense spikes in bandwidth usage.  Some market participants exploit the fact that this capacity is not priced to engage in trading strategies that may be parasitical, predatory, and destablizing.  Even non-opportunistic use of exchange bandwidth can cause serious technical problems, including problems so severe that exchanges must shut down.   There is every indication that there are periodic tragedies of the commons on exchanges.

Pricing capacity, including peak-load pricing, is the obvious way to eliminate tragedies of the commons and abusive uses of system capacity.  You’d think that idea would come naturally to those in the business of pricing everything from stocks to bonds to soybeans.  But despite recurrent, and arguably increasingly serious, problems, exchanges uniformly shrink from this solution.

It was a puzzle to me five plus years ago.  It puzzles me still.