Streetwise Professor

Pre-Crisis, there was very little academic writing on clearing.  Post-Crisis, with questions about the role of derivatives in creating systemic risk, and the mandating of clearing of derivatives as a means of mitigating this problem, this is changing.  This is a good thing, but unfortunately, this burgeoning academic literature is at risk of irrelevance, and worse, of being misleading, because the theoretical models of clearing are nothing like clearing as it actually is.  These models tend to focus on the mutualization of risk within CCPs.  That’s important, but as I’ll discuss in more detail below, mutualization is not the most important feature of CCPs.  Collateralization is.

I’ll just talk about a couple of papers in detail, Adam Zawadowski’s Entangled Financial Systems in the most recent RFS, and Clearing, Counterparty Risk, and Aggregate Risk by Biais, Heider, and Hoerova.

These papers have some important insights, and I don’t want to seem overly critical.  I just want to persuade scholars that the focus of these papers, and many others, is misdirected, and to suggest where they should direct their attention.

“Entangled Financial Systems” presents a model of the periodic collapse of the financial system through the channel of inter-bank derivatives exposures.  The paper is rough sledding, in part because it tackles a complicated issue, and in part because the exposition and especially the proofs are hardly paragons of clarity: I have my doubts about some of the proofs.  That said, the story is a plausible one.  Banks use fragile capital structures (short maturity debt to fund long-lived assets) to solve an agency problem.  They use derivatives to manage risk in order to protect non-pledgeable income.  Banks are at risk of blowing up due to an idiosyncratic, exogenous shock: perhaps an operational risk, like a rogue trader.  If a bank blows up, its counterparties don’t get paid in full on their derivatives.  If these counterparties don’t insure against this risk, they may fail, and so on, with the result being a daisy chain of failures.  Thus, one idiosyncratic failure can lead to the collapse of the entire system.

In the model, the original risk of a blowup is idiosyncratic and insurable.  But in equilibrium, banks don’t buy insurance against a counterparty failing because they don’t internalize the impact of their failure on their other counterparties.  Thus, there is a “market failure”: the system blows up periodically because it is privately efficient but socially inefficient not to buy counterparty insurance.

One crucial issue with the paper is that most things are, laudably, endogenized, but one crucial thing is not: each bank can trade with only two counterparties located adjacently on a circle.  The choice of counterparties is exogenously specified. This concentration of counterparty exposure is crucial in making the system vulnerable to collapse.

Zawadowski recognizes that greater diversification of exposures across counterparties reduces the fragility of the system.  Although the externality may induce insufficient diversification across counterparties (because the systemic benefits of this aren’t internalized), market participants in reality have a variety of reasons to spread their trades across many counterparties.  Meaning that real financial systems may be less fragile than in the model, with its exogenously imposed concentration of exposures.

I’m also skeptical that an idiosyncratic risk at a single institution can bring down the entire financial system.  Look at some of the rogue trader losses-Kerviel at SocGen, Adoboli at UBS.  These guys cost their banks billions-but even such huge losses didn’t lead to a financial system meltdown via any channel, including a derivatives channel.  Instead, the 2007-2008 Crisis was related to a systemic shock-a decline in US real estate prices-that hit multiple financial institutions and investors.  It’s hard to identify an actual episode where the channel analyzed in the model-an idiosyncratic shock at a single financial institution-led to a financial meltdown.  The idiosyncratic nature of the risk is important: that’s what makes the risk insurable.  The paper therefore has little to say about non-insurable risks.

Where does clearing come in?  In the paper, clearing is a form of counterparty insurance.  Mandating clearing internalizes the externality.

There are several problems here.  The first is that in the model, counterparty insurance is supplied by a continuum of investors who can diversify away the risk.  A CCP in theory can also diversify the idiosyncratic risk by mutualizing it.  But note that CCPs are voluntary cooperative arrangements among financial institutions.  If there is a gain from collective action-internalizing the externality through cooperation-why don’t financial institutions voluntarily cooperate to form CCPs?   (Though in the context of the model, sharing the risk among financial institutions is more costly than passing the risk to investors.  Still, there is a collective benefit from cooperation among the financial institutions.)  Such cooperation increases joint wealth: why don’t market participants cooperate to internalize the externality?  What stands in the way of consummating such mutually beneficial bargains?   Moreover, why does it happen in some markets, not in others?

But the mutualization issue generally is the bigger problem, and the root of my qualms about the developing literature on CCPs.  Most of the models, including the Biais et al paper, formalize CCPs as a mutual risk sharing/insurance mechanism.  (Hell, I’ve done that myself.)

But mutualization is only one of the functions of CCPs As We Know Them.  Indeed, I am increasingly leaning to the view that it is the most problematic of their functions.

CCPs operate on the “defaulter pays” principle.  That is, real world CCPs attempt to choose margins (collateral) and default fund contributions so that they almost always cover a defaulter’s losses, and that non-defaulters’ default fund contributions are seldom used to make good a defaulter’s losses.  That is, default funds are tapped-and risk mutualized-only in rare, and arguably extreme, situations.

Put differently, only tail risk is mutualized in real world CCPs, and the primary function of CCPs is to set margins so that default losses are NOT mutualized, except in extreme circumstances.  CCPs are like monoline insurance of supersenior positions well down on the default waterfall.

In the context of the _ paper, this is particularly problematic, as he shows that collateralization is an inefficient way to address the externality problem.  It ties up valuable resources that could be used to fund positive NPV projects.   This is just one problem with collateral: the “initial margin problem”, if you will.  There’s also the variation margin problem that I’ve written about over the years.

I consider the tail-risk mutualization aspect of CCPs highly problematic because of the wrong way risk problem.  Like super-senior tranches of a CDO, losses hit the default fund during systemic episodes when those exposed to the default fund (the members of the CCP) are under stress.

This all means that the academic literature, which is modeling CCPs as mutual insurers, has two big problems.

The first problem is one of positive economics.  Existing models are not able to predict (a) why clearinghouses form, and (b) why they are primarily mechanisms to net and collateralize exposures, and only mutualize extreme risks.  They do not predict why market participants sometimes cooperate to implement a “defaulter pays” model, and sometimes don’t-and why they have never implemented a fully mutualized insurance scheme.

We need models that help us understand why market participants sometimes cooperate to implement a defaulter pays mechanism, supplemented by mutualization of the extreme risks; why they sometimes don’t; and why they never fully mutualize.  That is, we need to understand why so few risks are mutualized, even when market participants choose to form CCPs.

With all due modesty, I think the answers will will be found in my original analysis from the 90s: that the usual bugbears of insurance-adverse selection and moral hazard-make it uneconomically costly to mutualize risk, and that these problems also make centralized/delegated setting of collateral levels more costly than bilateral arrangements for doing so, depending on the characteristics of the traded instruments and those trading them.

The second problem is one of normative economics and policy prescriptions derived from models.  Policy recommendations based on models of CCPs that are flatly contrary to the way CCPs really operate are highly misleading, and dangerous.  Eliding from a model that says “mutualization of risk is socially efficient but privately unprofitable” to prescribing a policy of mandating CCPs is deeply flawed, when in practice CCPs won’t mutualize risk as in the models, but will instead implement a defaulter pays model.  (NB: of late regulators are telling CCPs that their main source of concern is that CCPs will set margins too low.  That is, regulators want to make sure that CCPs really make defaulters pay.  So in practice, mandated CCPs will mutualize only extreme risks, and collateralize the rest.  Nothing like what’s in the models.)   It’s a sort of bait-and-switch.

Prudent normative policy recommendations need to be based on a model with good positive content. We need to understand much better why market participants eschew implementing the defaulter pay model before mandating it.  For that’s what clearing mandates do: they impose the implementation of defaulter pays, NOT the implementation of the kinds of mutualization in many formal models of clearing.   Given the costliness of collateral (IM-not to mention the destabilizing effects of VM), it is particularly misleading to advocate policy measures that will lead to increased collateralization based on models in which collateral plays no role whatsoever.  Again-a bait-and-switch.

In sum, I’m pleased that many talented scholars are turning their attention to clearing. Especially when they cite me 😛 But it will be a shame if these scholars go on a wild goose chase, and construct models of CCPs that are completely disjoint from real world CCPs.  This goes double when they make policy prescriptions based on their models.

We need to understand the costs and benefits of defaulter pays, with the mutualization of only extreme risks.  For that’s what CCPs are really about.  We need models that are based on an understanding of collective action issues-because non-mandated CCPs are institutions that arise from collective action.  Only when we understand these issues should we have much confidence about making policy recommendations.

I was invited to participate in a panel on clearing at ISDA’s Annual General Meeting in Singapore, but unfortunately I had to decline on account of my teaching obligations.  I therefore have to nod (vigorously0 in agreement from afar, because much of the discussion there has focused on the unintended consequences of the clearing and collateral mandates.  Consequences that I have been warning about for over four years.

One of the things that infuriated me about the advocacy for clearing (and yeah, I’m looking at you GiGi) was the claim that clearing would reduce the interconnectedness of the financial system.  I said this was patently false.  Clearing mandates would reconfigure the topology of the network of connections among financial institutions, but they would remain interconnected.  I noted that: CCPs would be vital interconnecting nodes in this new network: failure of these nodes would be catastrophic: and perhaps most importantly, CCPs could be vectors of contagion precisely during periods of financial stress.  I pointed out very early on that CCPs were repositories of wrong way risk because losses would hit default funds precisely during periods of extreme financial stress, and via that channel would bring that stress right back to the balance sheets of the banks with exposure to the default funds.  You know, when they were least able to stand the shock.  The CCP circuit connecting banks would be closed precisely when they were least able to stand the shock.

In retrospect, I seem like a Pollyanna.  Compared to people like HSBC’s Gary Dunn, anyways (Risk link-requires a subscription).  Gary went all Jeremiah at the AGM, warning of an apocalypse emanating from the clearing system.  Actually, his word was “Armageddon”:

Mandatory clearing of over-the-counter derivatives could jeopardise policy-makers’ hopes of a no-bailout financial system, according to Gary Dunn, senior manager for regulatory and risk analytics at HSBC.

Speaking at the annual general meeting of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in Singapore today, Dunn sketched out an “Armageddon scenario” resulting from the fact that the same group of international banks are all members of the majority of central counterparties (CCPs) – so, a big bank default would simultaneously hit all CCPs of which it is a member.

“What happens when one bank defaults across six CCPs? The remaining members will have to pick up the bill. Given that they are almost certainly members of the other CCPs, this will result in a default contribution bill so large it could potentially lead to their failure also,” he said.

Given the key role CCPs will play in the future financial system, Dunn argued this would ultimately result in a taxpayer bailout amounting to trillions of dollars. In his Armageddon scenario, that bailout would be preceded by the complete liquidation of CCP initial margin stocks – much of which would likely be held in the form of government debt.

“The wrong-way risk in the current CCP system is so large it could potentially lead to a sovereign default,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Interconnections between SIFIs via clearinghouses, with the fragility of these connections perhaps exacerbated by the fragmentation of CCPs (due to fragmentation along jurisdictional lines, perhaps).  Where have you seen that before?  Hint: Not in a Gensler speech.

The clearing panel also fretted abou the possibility that in its attempt to eliminate TBTF, the G-20 has just created new TBTF institutions.  Too big, and too interconnected:

Central counterparty clearers stand to be the next “too-big-to-fail” institutions and could pose an acute threat to the financial system if regulators stall on plans to manage the potential failure of a clearing entity.

At the annual general meeting of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in Singapore today, a group of panelists highlighted the lack of clarity over resolution for failed CCPs as a significant concern for the G20 objectives of eliminating systemic risk.

“There are still no resolution plans for CCPs and it is murkier now that clearing houses have moved away from the utility model,” said Athanassios Diplas, senior adviser to the ISDA board, speaking at the event earlier today.

The G20 objectives agreed in 2009 deem that no financial institution should be considered too big to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution for any institution that does fail

While regulators have been busy penning rules to deal with the problem of too-big-to-fail banks, concerns are shifting to clearing houses, and the increased concentration of risk held in them as the Dodd-Frank Act in the US and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation push an increasing number of standardised over-the-counter swaps through central counterparties.

“We’re getting very close to solving too big to fail globally for banks, but I worry that this risk could move to CCPs. I’m not convinced that we have made CCPs deeply resolvable yet – we have to do that to address systemic risk issue in a thorough way,” Wilson Ervin, vice-chairman of the group executive office at Credit Suisse told IFR.

All of which was perfectly foreseeable in 2009 when the G-20 blessed clearing as the silver bullet solution.  Foreseeable-and foreseen by some.

And the late start on addressing this issue before CCP mandates went into effect has left the world financial system in highly exposed:

While the Financial Stability Board addressed basic principals for clearing house resolution in June 2012, the issue remains on the back burner with many regulators as they continue to get to grips with a workable bank resolution regime

CCPs are the solution.  So in their wisdom governments decided to load risk onto them.  But dealing with the failure of these government-mandated SIFIs “remains on the back burner.”

Great.  That will turn out well.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  Governments have rushed into prescribing the Clearinghouse Cure, but have relegated addressing the very dangerous potential side-effect of that cure “to the back burner.”

But we’re not done!  The panel also fretted about the potentially destabilizing effects of increasing collateral and margins-both initial and variation margin (can’t find a link to this Mary Childs story: I think it is only available on Bloomberg terminals):

The numbers are large enough to be very worrisome,” Athanassios Diplas, principal at Diplas Advisors LLC and a senior adviser to the ISDA board, said on the panel. “I don’t

think anyone has trillions lying around the couch cushions.” Regulators should be careful in setting the collateral requirements given that margin calls contributed to the escalation of the financial crisis in 2008, according to Kim Taylor, president of CME Group Inc.’s clearinghouse.

Spiraling Losses

“Margin calls triggered liquidation of assets for positions, which triggered mark to market losses for other parties. It contributed to the spiral, and I think there’s the  potential for threshold-based margin” to help avoid a repeat, she said on the panel.

Margin calls exacerbating a crisis.  Whoever heard of such a thing?  Only anyone who has studied past financial panics and market crashes.  But Gensler and Timmy! and so many others assured us that collateral is only good: the more collateral the better.  Just another item on the bill of goods they sold the world-and for which we may have to pay dearly later.

Scary addendum.  At a recent Chicago Fed conference, I told someone from a major central bank that although the initial margin issue was important, it worried me that central banks and regulators seemed to be ignoring how variation margin could destabilize the system, especially with an expansion of clearing, which creates a very tightly coupled system of margin payments that must operate on a very tight and rigid time schedule.  He told me that there wasn’t as much concern about variation margin because it netted out to zero.

Seriously.  I kid you not.   It’s as stupid as the Krugman “we owe national debt to ourselves” mantra.  The payers have to find the liquidity to make the payment to the receivers.  In stress situations, they have to find a lot of liquidity precisely when liquidity dries up.  In response, they do things that impose additional stress on the system, and can break it.  Money is not transferred instantaneously and frictionlessly between those who owe and those who receive.  Those frictions-and just the timing required to recycle the payments-can cause the system to freeze up during periods of stress.

The “what, me worry?” approach to variation margin is very worrisome indeed.

But don’t worry!  Regulators will ensure that CCPs don’t engage in a race to the bottom when setting margins:

Britain’s new regulator for market operators warned clearers of tougher policing of fees to stamp out cut-throat competition that risks undermining financial stability.

. . . .

“We are not in the business of preventing competition but what’s important is the terms of that competition,” Britain’s new clearing supervisor, Edwin Schooling Latter, told Reuters in an interview.

The Bank of England became the regulator for clearing houses this month and Schooling Latter said in his first media interview he will not tolerate “a race to the bottom” such as clearers allowing banks to post too low margins against trades.

Margins refer to traders of derivatives posting government bonds or other high quality collateral to help cover any losses and the level of margins is determined by the clearing house.

“We want a world where the clearing houses compete on the quality of their risk management and not on how low their margins are,” Schooling Latter said.

Because regulators, of course, are so skilled at pricing risks.  They did such a bang-up job of it when setting capital requirements under Basel.  And by “bang-up” I mean like a train wreck.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice metaphor seems more apt by the day.  Regulators and legislators have cast the spell to bring massive CCPs to life, but cannot control the consequences-which can be dangerous indeed.  They intended to solve one problem, but they have created others, and are scrambling to deal with them.

John Kemp pixeled a rather lame response to my criticism of his earlier piece on “Broken Brent.”  I say lame because he did not even attempt to address any of the analysis I laid out.  Specifically, Kemp originally pointed to the dramatic drop in correlations between spot and forward prices and the different behavior of the curve in 2008 vs. 2012-2013 as evidence that fundamentals were somehow no longer driving oil prices.  I pointed out that that a fundamentals-based model would predict exactly such a pattern due to the pronounced backwardation in Brent and the substantial decline in macro volatility; I further pointed out that I had presented theoretical models that made this prediction and empirical evidence supporting it going back to the early-to-mid-1990s.  That’s what we call science.

Kemp’s response?  <Crickets.>

The most plausible explanation for his failure to rebut my analysis is that he can’t.  So instead he doubles down on “the hedge funds done it.”  Although he does it in a much more circumspect, passive way the second time around:

In a recent column, I suggested most of the short-term movements in Brent (and WTI) prices since mid-2010 could be traced to changes in money managers’ positions rather than fundamentals.

Read his original piece, and you’ll see that he did more than “suggest.” Accuse is more like it.

Kemp’s evidence consists of a few graphs depicting managed money futures positions and prices.  Point 1: eyeballs are not reliable evidence. Point 2: reliable evidence would involve some rigorous statistical analysis, which Kemp does not provide.  Point 3: said statistical analysis should attempt to control for other relevant factors, notably fundamentals.

But Kemp breezily dismisses the possibility that fundamentals could explain price movements in recent months.  After all, his original post is titled “static fundamentals”, and in that article and his response to me he asserts-and merely asserts-that fundamentals cannot explain price movements.  Since he does not even attempt to control for any fundamentals-related variable, Kemp’s analysis is plagued by omitted variables bias.  And that’s being charitable, because that phrase is usually employed to criticize statistical/econometric analyses, rather than gazes at graphs.

Sorry, John, but that doesn’t cut it.  In a commodity characterized by extremely inelastic supply and demand, such as oil, small fluctuations in supply and demand fundamentals can cause appreciable price movements.  Indeed, in a low macro volatility environment, fundamentals-based models imply that price movements are driven by highly technical, transient supply and demand shocks, and that moreover, these shocks cause substantial volatility in the shape of the forward curve.  That is, they cause low correlations between spot and futures prices.

In such an environment, seemingly minor factors such as the shut down of a refinery or regulatory perversities (such as the impact of RIN credits) drive movements in prices and the slope of the curve.  People who understand the fine structure of energy markets-people like Phil Verleger-realize this. Phil’s 18 February “Notes at the Margin” (which he kindly sent to me) provides a very detailed analysis of how low gasoline stocks and the closure of a Hess refinery are combining to increase gasoline cracks, which in turn are causing European refineries to buy and process Brent crude for sale to the US gasoline markets, which is in turn supporting Brent prices and backs.  As Phil characterizes it, the tight US East Coast gasoline market tail is wagging the Brent crude dog.  Fundamentals 101.

Phil analyzes these things carefully.  John couldn’t be bothered.  Instead, he squints at a few charts of COT data and prices, and declares fundamentals don’t matter.  If he could show that after correcting for the kinds of factors Phil Verleger analyzes carefully week after week that managed money position movements were associated with price changes, he would have established that a necessary condition for speculative price impact would hold: merely a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, because it could well be the case that the fundamentals were driving the managed money trades.  (To his credit, Kemp recognizes this possibility in his original article, though he dismisses it too readily.)

In brief, John Kemp’s attempt to show that hedge fund trading is causing movements in Brent crude prices and that fundamentals do not is plagued by numerous flaws.  Methodologically, graph gazing is the start of an analysis, not the culmination.  Furthermore, fundamentals-based models explain many of the phenomena Kemp finds anomalous.  What’s more, a micro-level analysis of supply and demand factors in the oil and product markets can account for many of the price movements that mystify Kemp.  When he confronts these issues head on, I’ll take him more seriously.

Climateer Investing weighs in on Kemp-Pirrong, and wonders why I felt obliged to go into smack down mode.  The answer is simple.  There are too many regulators and legislators and rabble-rousers (e.g., Oxfam)  who are more than willing to seize upon any claim that evil speculators are distorting markets in order to justify interference, in the form of position limits or transaction taxes or just general harassment of those engaged in legitimate and beneficial activities: yes, speculation is a legitimate and beneficial activity.  I have written and lectured extensively on the subject, and understand that speculation can, in exceptional circumstances, distort markets, but that such distortions leave distinctive tracks in quantities (e.g., inventories).  If you believe speculation has distorted markets, provide evidence that those tracks indeed exist.  Superficial examinations not grounded in well-established theoretical and empirical work don’t cut it, but feed prejudices that in turn too often lead to wrongheaded and destructive interventions into markets that cause real distortions (e.g., the rather cowardly decision of some European banks to exit the ag markets because of the propaganda campaigns waged by Oxfam and others).  When people writing for reputable sources like Reuters lazily encourage these prejudices, I will respond.  And being a Chicago guy, from a school where econ seminars are the academic equivalent of the MMA or UFC, my responses tend to be rather blunt and uncompromising.  If you can’t take it, don’t get in the ring.

And as to Climateer’s claim that the fall in oil prices from the $140s in July 08 to the $30s in early ’09 is some sort of “gotcha!” QED of the impact of speculation.  Please.  If you want me to take you seriously, you have to do a lot better than that.  A major adverse macro shock that causes the most severe, protracted economic contraction in decades following a period of robust demand (and again I commend Phil Verleger’s analysis of the summer of 2008 as the go-to source to understand what drove prices in that period) will cause a precipitous drop in the price of an inelastically supplied commodity.  Every time.  It would be anomalous if they didn’t.

There has been considerable hue-and-cry over reports that the CFTC’s SEF rule will require market participants to solicit only two quotes instead of five when using a Request for Quote (RFQ) in a swaps trade.  This is being portrayed as a concession to the dealer banks that will permit them to perpetuate their alleged oligopoly.

I have always been harshly critical of the SEF mandate, and of regulations dictating how market participants execute transactions.  Indeed, I named the SEF mandate the Worst of Frankendodd.  And believe me, the competition is so intense, so hell to the victor.

There are diverse market participants trading diverse instruments, and there is no one-size-fits-all best execution mechanism: diverse execution mechanisms have evolved to accommodate diversity in products and transactors.

This is true of RFQ mandates too.  Indeed, it is passing strange that anyone believes that requiring end users to get more quotes is in their benefit.  If the goal of the execution mandates is to help end users by breaking the dealers’ alleged stranglehold on the market, why should you impose constraints/requirements on the end users?  Why can’t they determine what the right number of quotes to solicit is?  Don’t they know their own interests?  Can’t they trade off the alleged benefits of soliciting more quotes-namely, greater competition to take the other side of the trade-against potential costs-such as information leakage?  The regulation seems to be extremely paternalistic.  Like end users are children who need to be made to eat their Brussels Sprouts, because they don’t know what’s good for them.

But, in fact, end users-including extremely sophisticated buy side firms like Blackrock and Pimco and FMC-know quite well what works for them.  Indeed, ISDA and SIFMA just released the results of a poll showing that buy side firms-non-dealers, in other words-heartily oppose the 5 quote rule.  Actually, “heartily oppose” is a putting it mildly.  They hate it.  By wide margins they think it will reduce liquidity and raise their execution costs.  More than 80 percent of poll respondents expressed concerns about information leakage.

Ironically, 68 percent of the respondents said that they would try to trade instruments not subject to the SEF requirement.  In other words, a regulation intended to ensure that swaps were traded on open, transparent, exchange-like platforms will instead cause traders to attempt to avoid them.

Another example of “we’re from the government and here to help you” in action.

The histrionics over the “weakening” of execution mandates also betrays the intellectual incoherence of Frankendodd and it’s advocates.  The putative purpose of the law is to reduce systemic risk.  Its focus on derivatives is predicated on the belief that these instruments are inherently systemically risky, and that derivatives markets are too big and need to be cut down to size.

If that’s what you believe, then you should favor of the exercise of market power by dealers.  You should love-love!-a dealer oligopoly that raises the price of execution, because that reduces the size of derivative markets.  You believe that derivatives markets are too big, and should be taxed: and practically speaking, a dealer oligopoly that inflates execution costs serves as a tax.  It is equivalent in many ways to a transaction tax.  What’s more, the rents created by such supercompetitive prices are like a boost to the capital of dealer banks which reduces the likelihood that they will need a bailout.  That is, a dealer oligopoly reduces systemic risk, and increasing competition increases systemic risk.

In other words, if you believe derivatives markets are too big, you should *NOT* want to make execution more efficient.  You should love love love dealer market power, and strive to do anything to enhance it, rather than reduce it.  This is the theory of the second best in action.

But, sadly, intellectual coherence has never been the strong point of Frankendodd advocates. Which goes a long way to explaining what a mess it is, and what havoc it will wreak.

John Kemp of Reuters-accompanied by cheerleading by Izabella Kaminska at FT Alphaville–is going on about the “disconnect” between nearby and deferred Brent.  He blames-wait for it-hedge funds.  Natch.

The Brent market is currently in a steep backwardation.  I demonstrated empirically almost 20 years ago that backwardation is associated with low correlations between spot and futures prices for oil and a variety of other commodities.  Indeed, my 1994 criticism of the Metallgesellschaft 1992-1993 “hedging” strategy-which led to several confrontations with Merton Miller-was based on the fact that MG’s “hedge” of long the nearby against distant deferred short positions was in fact risk increasing due to the fact that MG implemented this strategy during a backwardation, and this reduced substantially correlations thereby making the MG position very risky.  My 2011 book provides a robust model that predicts exactly this result.

The intuition is quite straightforward-as I’ve been teaching for about 20 years too.  Inventory is what connects spot and futures prices.  When inventories are large, the market is in contango, and spot and futures prices move together: cash-and-carry arbitrage connects these prices.  In contrast, when inventories are low, the market is in backwardation, cash-and-carry arbitrage doesn’t link the spot and the futures, and the correlation between these prices can go very low.  Hence the association between contango and high correlations.

Note: hedge funds, speculation, yadda yadda yadda have nothing to do with this.

Kemp does note that there is physical tightness that does explain the backwardation:

Overlaying all these broader factors are continuing problems with production of the four North Sea crude streams (Brent, Forties, Oseberg and Ekofisk) that physically underpin the Brent futures prices. BFOE crudes remain in short supply, keeping the market in a steep backwardation, with futures prices tending to rise sharply in the run up to contract expiry.

But then he discards this fundamental fact, and mounts his favorite hobby horse of bashing hedge funds and speculation.

Note even in this paragraph there is a telling piece of information that contradicts his view: “with futures prices tending to rise sharply in the run up to contract expiry.”  Uhm, that’s exactly when hedgies and other speculators are liquidating-selling-their nearby contracts and rolling them into the deferred months.  This should put downward pressure on nearby prices, if the speculators were really  in command. Completely inconsistent with his assertion that hedge funds are driving the disconnect between spot and futures.

Kemp also makes a comparison to spot price and curve movements in 2008 to more recent movements.  But as I also show in my book, to explain commodity price dynamics you need multiple shocks of differing persistence.  Curve shape is driven mainly by transitory shocks: that’s what inventory is used to smooth out.  The level of the curve is largely driven by persistent, business-cycle type shocks.  This means that conditioning on price levels alone is insufficient to make an apples-to-apples comparison.  The 2007-2008 boom was driven more by long run, secular factors-namely the Asian/Chinese growth boom.  This resulted in a rise in the price level and only a modest increase in backwardation.  That is completely different from current conditions-hence the different behavior.

Similarly, the differences between high correlations pre-2010 and low correlations now are readily explicable.  The market was much more abundantly supplied in 2009-2010 due to the severe economic contraction following the financial crisis, and as a result, the market was in contango most of that time-at times in a “supercontango”.  Again, one would expect this to be associated with high spot-futures correlations.

Moreover, there is a big difference in the composition of shocks, and the magnitude of these shocks that also explains the observed declines in correlations.  The 2009-2011 period was dominated by macro uncertainty driven by the financial crisis and then the Eurozone crisis.  These shocks tend to be persistent, affecting both current and expected future economic conditions in the same way, thereby contributing to high correlations between points on the curve; moreover, they tend to affect all commodities and asset classes similarly, leading to high correlations across commodities and asset classes.

At that time, macro volatility-as measured by the VIX-was high.   In early ’09, VIX was in the 30-50 percent range, and remained above 20 percent for most of 2010-2011, with spikes up to 35-40 percent.  Now VIX is tame, with levels in the low-teens, just like during the period of the “Great Moderation.”  High macro volatility tends to lead to high correlations along the curve and across commodities and between commodities and equities: common shocks dominate, especially when they are big.  The decline in macro volatility means that commodity-specific, relatively transient shocks tend to dominate: this tends to depress correlations along curves and across commodities, and between commodities and equities.  These are exactly the patterns observed in the past months.

That said, there are reasons to suspect the backwardation and the decline in correlations might be overdone, but not because of the malign influence of hedge funds.  Specifically, given the declining Brent supply base, it is reasonable to ask whether the backwardation is excessive.  At present, Forties is cheapest-t0-deliver, and this represents only about 350kbd of production.  Overall BFOE production is only about 1mmbpd.  Given the immense open interest in Brent futures and OTC derivatives, it is more that possible that large players are exercising market power by taking delivery of too much physical oil, thereby exacerbating the backwardation (i.e., creating an artificial scarcity).

If you want to identify who might be doing that, look at who is taking the physical cargoes.  Those parties would be the squeezers.  If hedge funds are the culprits, they should be taking a lot of physical supply.  Kemp certainly doesn’t provide any evidence of this, and his piece suggests these players are just playing with paper barrels, not wet ones: that’s my understanding too.  Historically, the Brent market has been the scene of many squeezes, but the squeezers have tended to be trading companies (e.g., Arcadia) or perhaps supermajors.

Brent was a squeezers paradise in the 1990s due to declining physical volumes and growing paper volumes.  Platts’s addition of Forties, Ekofisk and Oseberg to the delivery slate increased supply sufficiently to mitigate the manipulation problems.  But the decline in production has continued inexorably, and Brent is increasingly vulnerable to squeezes.  Which is why Platts and Shell have competing plans to tweak the pricing mechanism, namely by providing premiums for OE (Platts) or BOE (Shell), thereby reducing the delivery pressure on the cheapest-to-deliver Forties.

Squeeze-driven backwardation also tends to reduce spot-forward correlations.  The spot price is driven by squeeze-related technicals, the forward price by longer run fundamentals.  Squeezes also distort the inventory holding decision, and cause a breakdown in the cash-and-carry arb mechanism.  As I show in another book (and many articles).

So Brent may indeed be broken, but hedge funds haven’t broken it.  It is a classic problem in derivatives markets: a burgeoning derivatives market balancing on top of a declining deliverable supply.  I often analogize this to an inverted pyramid: and in Brent, the base of the pyramid (the paper market) is growing while its point (the physical market) is getting sharper.

Fixing Brent requires enhancing deliverable supply.  Not an easy thing to do.

Again contrast Brent and WTI.  Brent boosters have constantly bashed the WTI disconnect.  But this can be fixed by investments in infrastructure, which are being made, though not as fast as expected or as needed.  But building infrastructure is a helluva lot easier than building  a new Buzzard. Trust me on this.

So in the medium term, I expect Brent will get broker, and WTI will get better, leading to a shift of much futures and index trading activity (including hedge fund trades) back to WTI, which will no doubt lead John Kemp to saddle up his hobby horse and ride west into the Oklahoma sunset.

Frankendodd runs hundreds of pages.  The regulations written to bring it to life run to thousands more.  Every word on every page has the potential to wreak havoc: hell, apropos the position limit case, even the commas matter.

Case in point, the CFTC’s proposed rule on protection of customer funds, most particularly Section 1.22.  Some of the relevant language:

The Commission proposes to amend § 1.22 by clarifying that the prohibition on the FCM’s use of one futures customer’s funds to margin or secure the positions of another futures customer, or to extend credit to another person, applies at all times.

. . . .

Further, the Commission is proposing language providing a clear mechanism to ensure compliance with this prohibition, which is to require an FCM to maintain residual interest in segregated accounts in an amount which exceeds the sum of all margin deficits for futures customers.

This is very inside baseball, but has seismic implications.

The basic thing is that some customers are late in meeting margin calls.  This gives rise to margin deficits.  Under the traditional omnibus model used in futures markets for donkey years, futures commission merchants (brokers-“FCMs”) can cover customers’ margin deficits with the margins of other customers.  Effectively, customers lend one another money to address the timing issues that the rigorous mark-to-market and variation margin processes inevitably create.  Moreover, the FCM is ultimately on the hook to cover the losses of a defaulted customer.  The FCM’s customers can lose only if there is a default by a customer that the FCM can’t cover (resulting in an FCM default).

That is, customers effectively lend to one another, and thus there is “fellow customer risk”-a solvent customer can lose as a result of the default of another customer. The CFTC rule is intended to eliminate this risk.

Problem: the risk can’t really be eliminated, merely shifted around.  Related problem: the likely reaction to this attempt to shift risk.

The CFTC seems to want to shift the risk to the FCMs: the “residual interest” language means that the FCM has to have enough of its own money on hand to cover any margin deficits.  This will require the FCM to hold substantial precautionary balances, because (a) the magnitude of margin deficits is likely to be quite variable, and particularly will be large in the aftermath of a big price move (that can’t be predicted in advance), and (b) there are serious penalties to being undersegregated.  Alternatively, FCMs are likely to require customers to post margins far in excess of exchange margin levels, thereby reducing the likelihood that any customer’s account will have a margin deficit, and the amount of residual interest the FCM must hold to cover any such deficits.

Either way, there will be a substantial increase in the amount of cash tied up, and the needs for customers and FCMs to have access to contingent liquidity.  The omnibus model was an effective way for customers to supply liquidity to, and obtain liquidity from, other customers.  Yes, there are risks, but there are corresponding benefits: the near universality of the omnibus model in futures markets, and its survival for decades, provides compelling evidence that the benefits far exceed the costs.

But apparently that’s not good enough for GiGi and the Gang.

The clearing and collateral mandates-combined with Basel III and other regulatory measures-are already requiring substantial increases in the amount of collateral-liquid assets-that will be tied up to support derivatives trades.  This will just add to that.  And insofar as being a customer protection mechanism: uhm, customers will pay for it.  Don’t act as if your are doing them a big favor. (Raising the question if its so valued by customers, why hasn’t some FCM adopted voluntarily what the CFTC wants to impose by fiat?  If it’s so great, customers would flock to firms offering that model.)

It also comes at a terrible time for the FCM industry.  The economics of the business are terrible.  ZIRP has blown a hole in a major source of revenue, volume is down sharply, and competition is intense.  A recent Celent study details the carnage:

“The leading FCMs in the US are struggling with falling revenues and profits,” saysAnshuman Jaswal, PhD, Senior Analyst with Celent’s Securities & Investments Group and author of the report. “This puts them in an unenviable position, especially when we consider the overall impact and related costs of various regulatory implementations taking place in the next couple of years.”

Another data point: SocGen just wrote down its investment in big FCM Newedge.  This is not a thriving industry, and ladling more costs onto it won’t help it one bit.

The ostensible purpose of this new regulation is to prevent another MF Global or Peregrine situation.

Seriously?

MF Global broke every rule in the book about segregation and the treatment of customer money.  Peregrine’s owner ran a huge fraud for 20 years. So creating more rules for troubled or criminal FCMs to break will help?  If the CFTC or SROs couldn’t enforce the old rules and thereby prevent losses of customer funds, why should we expect they’ll do any better with the new ones?

It’s also hard to see how these rules, if they had been in place, would have prevented either the Peregrine or MFG situations.  Furthermore, there are other ways of attacking the exceptional-and MFG and Peregrine were exceptional-without imposing crushing burdens on the ordinary day-to-day operation of the markets, FCMs and their customers.  For instance, the Peregrine fraud could not have continued if Peregrines regulator (the NFA) had direct electronic access to the firm’s accounts, thereby preventing Wasendorf from altering the paper statements he sent on to regulators to cover up his fraud.  Hell, in the MFG case, having more excess margin in customer accounts would have just increased the money that Corzine could have tapped to cover the company’s losses and own margin calls: it is just that excess margin that disappeared somewhere, somehow.  I would further note that since an FCM is most likely to be tempted to get at customer funds when it is in financial jeopardy (which is what happened with MF), adding to its financial burdens could create more problems than it solves.

The cost-benefit analysis the CFTC advanced in support of the rule is just the kind of joke I’ve come to expect.  This is actually a problem that is amenable to calculation.  Collect data on the distribution of customer margin deficits under current rules.  Figure out the 99.9th percentile of this distribution.  (Importantly, condition this distribution on market conditions-find out what that percentile is during very volatile periods.)    Given the rigor of the rule, it is plausible to assume that additional funds equal to this 99.9th percentile will have to be held by customers, FCMs, or both will be held to ensure compliance.  Calculate the return on this sum lost because customers and FCMs are required to hold low-yielding assets in order to comply with the rule.  That’s one component of the cost.

Another cost is the additional operational cost required to ensure compliance.  This will not be trivial: indeed, one reason FCMs might require substantial increases in customer margins is to reduce the operational burdens required to maintain compliance.

One cost that is important is hard to quantify.  As I’ve written repeatedly, spikes in liquidity needs during periods of market stress can be systemically destabilizing.  This rule will: (a) restrict one vital source of liquidity, namely, intracustomer loans; (b) result in far more liquid assets being tied up in brokerage accounts; (c) lead to increases in liquidity demand during periods of high volatility, as FCMs will either have to hold more liquid assets, or will force customers to hold more excess margin, during high volatility periods in order to maintain compliance (i.e., the 99.9 percentile is much bigger during high volatility periods, requiring more margin to meet this threshold-the distribution of liquidity demand spikes caused by this could be calculated); and (d) result in position unwinds by those unwilling to incur the cost of the elevated margins.  All of these effects are pro-cyclical, and tend to exacerbate market instability/volatility.  Liquidity problems are what create or exacerbate crises.  Derivatives market “reforms” have already imposed substantial liquidity burdens: this will only add another.  That is systemically risky.

Benefits?  Uhm, hard to ascertain.  As noted above, the rule is ill-suited to address either a Peregrine or MFG problem, even though those are the examples the CFTC repeatedly invokes in their support.  Moreover, it must be noted that reducing the amount of loss arising from the default of fellow customers is not necessarily a benefit.  This is primarily a transfer of wealth from one party to another.  The relevant issue is whether one risk sharing rule is better than another.

This is another example of the pernicious effects of attempts to “fix” high profile problems such as MF Global and Peregrine.  In response to truly extraordinary episodes, we get “fixes” that (a) don’t really do anything to address the problems they are supposed to be fixing, and (b) impose substantial burdens on the ordinary operations of the markets, operations that have gone on swimmingly for decades under the old way of doing business, thank you very much.

As a rule of thumb, I think it wise to be very suspicious of rules designed to prevent recurrence of an extreme event or events.  That is especially true in this case.   Another example of all pain, no gain.

Is that the CFTC’s motto now?

While I’m on the subject of commodity spreads and transformations, I’ll turn my attention to another spread story in the commodity news: cash premiums in aluminum.  This is a matter of great interest to people in the aluminum business, but even though I highly doubt such people make up a big fraction of my readers, it’s worth some analysis here because the broader and politically charged topic of the “financialization” of commodities has come to the fore in this debate.

In brief, there is a big differential between the price of aluminum “in store” in LME warehouses, and the price of newly produced aluminum at the factory gate.  Metal outside LME warehouses trades at a big premium to ingots inside them: the premium is about $300 on a price of around $2000.  The premium has become so wide and volatile that banks are offering swaps to hedge this risk.

So we have a spread.  Spreads price transformations.  What is the transformation at issue here?  Turning metal inside warehouses into metal outside of warehouses.  So if the spread is wide, that tells us that there must be a bottleneck in getting Al out of warehouses.  And indeed there is.  It can take more than a year (!) to get some metal out of LME warehouses.  Warehouse operators (including Goldman, JP Morgan, and Glencore) are the subject of bitter criticism from aluminum consumers (e.g,. Coca Cola) for what consumers claim are unnecessarily glacial load-out rates.  File this under There is Nothing New Under the Sun.  Warehousemen and consumers have fought over load-out rates forever in every commodity.  (Look at a history of the warehouse wars in Chicago stretching back to the mid-19th century.)

As a result of the load-out bottleneck, large quantities of aluminum inventory that built up during the financial crisis and period of extended economic weakness in the US and Europe, are trapped in warehouses.  The storage facilities have become the metallic equivalent of Roach Motels: aluminum checks in, but it can’t check out.  Or maybe the metallic Hotel California: aluminum can check in, but it can never leave.

The fact that large quantities of metal are trapped in warehouses means that there are large quantities of metal that have to be carried-and financed, primarily in cash-and-carry trades hedged by forward sales.  What other alternative is there?  It ain’t going anywhere, so it has to be held and financed by somebody.  Moreover, well-capitalized banks (Morgan, Goldman, etc.) can finance the inventory cheaper than anybody else.  So just surely as day follows night, given the fundamentals in the market, and crucially the load-out bottleneck, the well-capitalized banks end up holding, financing, and hedging a big chunk of the inventory.

Here’s where the financialization meme comes in.  Many people-including some who should know better-see the co-existence of financed inventory and premiums, and conclude that it is the participation of financial institutions that is causing the wide premiums.  See! they exclaim.  Look at how the participation of financial institutions in commodity markets is distorting things! Something must be done!

This is totally back-asswards, and confuses cause and effect.  The underlying problem here is the load-out constraint.  The cash premiums clearly signal that is the problem.  Banks are not holding back metal to create profitable financing deals: time spreads adjust so that financing deals break even.  The problem is that insufficient quantities of metal can get out of warehouses.  That’s what inquiries should focus on.  Is the rate too low?  Why?  Are warehousemen exercising market power by unduly constraining load-out?  If so, why isn’t there sufficient competition between them?  (It would also seem that this would have to be an ex post holdup problem: if those storing metal anticipated the exercise of market power via slow load-out, it would reduce their derived demand for storage, thereby reducing the amount of metal stored and the rate the warehouse could charge.  This would tend to attenuate and perhaps eliminate the ability and incentive to exercise market power.  An opportunistic response to an exceptional circumstance not anticipated when metal was put into store could be what is going on.  That is, this could be a time inconsistency problem combined with an unprecedented shock.)

In other words, large financing deals are a symptom of the load-out bottleneck, and the overhang of metal in store resulting from the financial crisis.  It is not the financing deals that are holding back metal.  It is the load-out bottleneck that is holding back the metal, and driving the need to finance the metal.

One last note.  One of the biggest complainers about the situation and the involvement of banks in the aluminum market is the living proof that Neanderthals still walk the earth: Oleg Deripaska.  Yes, Putin’s favorite pen catcher.  Word to the wise: Deripaska’s whines about the causes of the aluminum cash premiums should be heavily discounted, as should always be the case when a highly financially stressed individual loudly talks his book.  Especially when the book talker has, shall we say, a rather testy relationship with banks.

Hint: collateral crunches are not an ab exercise.  Instead, regulators and legislators around the world are waking up to the reality of what they have wrought: that the regulations that they blithely decided to impose on the derivatives markets are likely to have severe adverse consequences.  Specifically, Europeans have awakened to the fact that clearing and collateral mandates will be extremely burdensome on firms that use derivatives to manage risk, but who pose no real systemic threat.  Thus, a committee of the European Parliament has voted to send clearing regulations back to the European Commission for reconsideration.  There is a realization that a “collateral crunch” is impending as a result of these various regulations:

This has led to talk of a “collateral crunch”, with most central counterparties accepting only government bonds or cash as collateral, assets that may not be readily available. This is more restrictive than at present, with corporate bonds and even equities often accepted as collateral in uncleared bilateral deals, if lodged in sufficient quantity.

The problem may be particularly acute for mutual funds, as an equity or corporate bond fund will simply not possess anything it can use as collateral. Instead it may have to use the securities lending or repo markets to secure suitable assets.

But many pension funds will also be hit. As Mr Haines points out, even the index-linked government bonds that pension funds do tend to hold in abundance are not generally accepted as collateral by central counterparties, even if conventional bonds issued by the same governments are.

Estimates of the cost of using the repo market to access the necessary collateral range from 50 basis points of a pension fund’s assets to several hundred basis points, Mr Haines adds. Alternatively, pension funds may feel pressured to alter their asset allocation so they do have sufficient in-house collateral.

Totally unpredictable, right?  Uhm, not really.

I find it particularly amusing that virtually every article on the effects of Frankendodd and Emir bewail the “unintended consequences.”  A million pardons, but that was a theme here on SWP, and in various presentations I made, before Frankendodd and Emir were actually adopted.  Unintended, but eminently foreseeable-and totally ignored.

The recent angst focuses on initial margin: the amount of capital that has to be tied up to support derivatives positions from the moment they are initiated.  Given that collateral is costly, the large increases in initial margin will require derivatives users to choose between continuing to use them to manage risk, but obtain lower returns, or to eschew derivatives and live with greater risk.

The benefit received in exchange for this very real cost?  Given that many entities so affected pose no systemic risk, it’s quite difficult to identify any gain.

Not that initial margin is unimportant, but the focus on it distracts attention from what I believe to be the true systemic risk inherent in clearing and collateral mandates: the contingent needs for liquidity to make variation margin payments.  Big price moves lead to big variation margin flows.  These will tend to occur when markets are stressed and liquidity becomes scarce.  Thus, the need to make variation margin payments will exacerbate stresses on the market, especially will stress liquidity supply mechanisms.  Given that financial crises are, typically, liquidity crises, this is a major systemic problem.

So by all means pay attention to the drag that the dramatic increase in initial margin requirements will impose.  This is a drag that will be experienced day after weary day.  But do not overlook the truly dangerous unintended consequence of the clearing and collateral mandates in Frankendodd and Emir.  The stress that these mandates will put on liquidity supply mechanisms at the precise instant that these mechanisms are at risk of failure.

What could go wrong?

I say again: regulate/legislate in haste, repent at leisure. The seeds for the next crisis are being sown in the alleged attempts to prevent a recurrence of the last one.  Legislative and regulatory generals fighting the last war.

A tag-team of my favorite blogs-the wonderfully sardonic (and insightful) Rhymes With Cars and Girls and the less sardonic (but equally insightful) Deus ex Macchiato-discuss the fact that model-based risk-weighted capital calculations on the same assets differ substantially between models/banks.

From this, DEM concludes the need to centralize capital calculations:

he answer is clear. Centralize and standardise capital calculation. Throw all those internal models away, and use one common, regulator developed approach. Now that a lot of progress has been made on trade reporting, the data infrastructure exists to do this — or least it wouldn’t be too hard to extend what does exist to do it. Developing the models would be a huge undertaking, but compared to having each large bank do it individually, a central infrastructure would be cheaper and more reliable, and anyway you could pick the best of individual banks’ methodologies. You could even spin out the var teams from four or five leading banks into the new central body — just don’t pick the bank whose IRC is less than 10% of the average answer…

Crimson Reach at Rhymes is more cautious, repeating his theme that All Large Calculations are Wrong.  He concludes:

In other words, it’s a Large Calculation. But as RWCG readers know, all large calculations are wrong. So, I’m skeptical that the answer to this is to ‘centralise’ the calculation – i.e., make it even larger.

I’m on Crimson’s side on this one.  (Sorry, David.)

Centralize capital calculations?  No. No. No. No. No fucking no.

Crimson is right: all Large Calculations Are Wrong.  Including those-and I would suggest, especially those-undertaken by some Centralized Authority, e.g., The Wizard of Financial Oz.

What would you rather have?  Randomly distributed mistakes, or perfectly correlated ones?

The answer, it seems to me, is gob-smackingly obvious.  Randomly distributed.  Perfectly correlated errors are a recipe for systemic risk.  All banks will crowd the risks that the model underprices and avoid the risks that it overprices.  If an adverse shock hits the crowded investment, every bank is screwed simultaneously.  All will need to liquidate their positions in that asset, or in other assets.  Every bank will have fire sales at the same time.

That’s what we want to avoid.  That’s what creates a systemic risk.

We want to diversify model risk, not concentrate it.  Centralized calculation concentrates it.  I actually see an evolutionary benefit in the wide range of model risk weights that DEM bewails.  That represents a diverse ecosystem of entities with divergent views that is less vulnerable to a single shock.  Yeah, that shock will crater some banks, but not all of them. When I think of any-ANY-centralized calculation, I think of the Socialist Calculation Debate.  I also think of monocultures that are dangerously vulnerable-systemically vulnerable-to a single shock.  Think of the devastation that smallpox wreaked on native American populations.  A single shock can crater everybody all at once.

If that happens, who is the buyer in the fire sale?  If there are no buyers in the fire sale, how low can prices go? Pretty damn low.

Crimson is right.  All Large Calculations Are Wrong.  The answer to this problem is exactly the opposite that DEM suggests.  Diversify this risk.  Don’t concentrate it.  Don’t sort on it.

We need less centralized control-freakishness.  Not more.  A lot less.  Mistakes are inevitable.  Create a system that induces them to make uncorrelated mistakes (or at least, mistakes with low correlation).  Don’t induce perfect correlation in errors.  I say again: don’t induce perfect correlation in errors.  Create a diverse ecosystem, not a monoculture.   Imposing uniformity because disagreement is unseemly and reveals the fundamental uncertainty with assessing risk is exactly-exactly-the wrong answer.  It makes errors systematic.  Systematic errors create systematic risk.

Diversified, diverse populations are far more robust than uniform, monocultural ones.  Disagreement is a feature, not a bug.  Enforced agreement is the worst bug of all.  Sort of like smallpox.

This week’s big derivatives story was about a public workshop at the CFTC on the issue of futurization.  I was one of the first people to comment on this issue, last year when ICE announced it was converting all of its energy swaps into energy futures.

That was Futurization 1.0. The conversion merely consisted of renaming “swaps” “futures”.  In all economic dimensions (contract specs, execution, clearing) the contracts remained identical.  But the renaming allowed some energy swap users to escape the dreaded Swap Dealer designation.

Futurization 1.1 was the CME’s conversion.  This illustrates some of the silly impacts of Frankendodd.  The CME has cleared energy swaps for going on 10 years now.  The parties would execute a swap, and submit the swap for clearing through an Exchange of Futures for Swaps (EFS) trade.  So the originally executed swap existed only until it was submitted for clearing, when it was replaced with economically equivalent futures contracts.  But no matter how short the swap’s life, the fact that it was born a swap meant that it counted towards the volume of swaps activity used to determine whether someone was a swap dealer.  So the process has now changed, and market participants use (mainly) block trades of futures to create the positions they want, thereby cutting out the interim swap step.

The transformation of the energy derivatives landscape, and the launch of swap futures by CME and Eris are now raising the question of whether futurization will spread beyond energy.

One motive to eschew swaps in favor of futures is unlikely to exist in interest rates, credit and other financial derivatives: the biggest market participants are likely to trade enough bespoke swaps for which there are no futures equivalents, meaning that they will be treated as swap dealers regardless: this reduces their incentive to substitute futures for swaps.

The main driver of futurization outside of energy will be CFTC regulatory treatment of futures and swaps.  Differential treatment will affect the economics of futures vis a vis swaps, and the prospect of such differential treatment was the center of controversy at the CFTC meeting, and in the larger debate in the industry.

The main sources of differential treatment are execution and margining.  Swaps will have to be executed subject to (allegedly) soon-to-be announced SEF rules, and are subject to immediate reporting.  Most market participants who will substitute futures for swaps will execute these deals via privately negotiated block trades subject to exchange rules.  Crucially, reporting of block futures trades is delayed 15 minutes, a concession to fears that immediate reporting would impair liquidity because block positioners (those supplying liquidity to the block futures market) could find it difficult to lay off their risk if the fact they had just done a big trade was announced immediately.  This would induce them to require larger price concessions for doing block trades.

Which raises the question: why the difference between the futures goose and the swaps gander?  Similar considerations obtain for swaps.

Thus, this rule difference is likely to favor futures executed via block trades as opposed to swaps executed via traditional means (but with immediate post-trade transparency) or via SEFs.  (Economically material differences between the rules governing block trades and SEF trades could also affect the relative costs of trading in these disparate ways, and hence affect the choice between them.)

Margining will be different for swaps and futures.  Futures will be margined assuming a one- or two-day liquidation period (i.e., margins will be based on something analogous to a one- or two-day value at risk).  However, swaps-even cleared swaps-will require a minimum liquidation period of 5 days for calculating initial margin.

This substantially higher margin for swaps results in a substantial economic disadvantage to these contracts compared to futures contracts that generate the exact same cash flows (in the absence of default).   This will likely be another factor pushing the market towards futures-which is a major reason for the fury of swaps dealers.

This differential treatment of economically equivalent contracts just because one is called a “swap” (BAD!) and the other is called a “future” (GOOD!) makes little-or no-economic sense-and reflects the swap-o-phobia that pervades DC, and which was an animating principle behind Frankendodd.

The reason to set margins based on a liquidation period reflects the purchase of IM: it is intended to cover potential losses on a defaulted position before that position can be liquidated by the clearinghouse (i.e., the position can be assumed by another solvent market participant).  The less liquid an instrument,  the longer it takes the CCP to work out of the position, the more it is exposed to potential adverse price moves and hence the more margin cover it needs.

This liquidation period depends on the economic characteristics of the contract, how widely it is traded in the marketplace, the identity, number and capitalization of the firms that trade it, and market conditions at the time of liquidation. All of these conditions should be pretty much the same for two contracts that specify the same contingent cash flows, one of which is called a swap and the other a future.  Consider say a 10 year vanilla IRS and economically equivalent futures contracts that offer the same contingent cash flows.  Abstracting from margining differences, these contracts have identical price risks, and should attract the same kinds of users.  Why should liquidity of one differ from the liquidity of the other in the event of the default of the holder of a big position?

And don’t tell me that futures are traded in light markets and swaps are traded in dark ones.  As already noted, futures traded as substitutes for swaps are and will be typically traded in blocks outside the limit order book.

More importantly: in the event of the default of a big FCM or dealer that should be the reason to be concerned, the CCP is going to try to get rid of the defaulted portfolio in big chunks through some sort of auction process.  The firm winning the auction will then trade out of the position, likely using the central market and block trades.

This isn’t much different than how a swap CCP will handle the default process.  Indeed, LCH obligates its members to assume portions of a defaulted portfolio, and one reason for having stringent CCP membership requirements is to ensure that the members have the capital and trading expertise to manage big pieces of defaulted portfolios.

We actually have a case study of futures and swap default management processes.  When Lehman defaulted, CME auctioned off its interest rate, equity, currency, commodity, and energy positions.  These trades were done at differentials from market prices, to reflect the risk that those taking over the positions would assume and have to work off.  A couple of the positions were under-margined: the firms taking over the positions required the CME to provide more funds than the Lehman margin it had against those positions.  As it turned out, the other positions were over-margined, and across all positions the over-margining exceeded the under-margining, meaning that the CME clearinghouse did not suffer any loss as the result of the default.  But this illustrates the possibility that futures can be under-margined, and that even the putatively more liquid futures contracts can require substantial price concessions to get someone to assume them.

LCH.Clearnet handled the default of the Lehman IRS positions. These totaled $9 trillion in notional-bigger than the Lehman futures positions at CME, and arguably far larger in terms of risk.  ($1 trillion in notional of a 10 year IRS poses substantially more risk than $1 trillion in notional of Eurodollar futures.)  90 percent of the position was hedged within a week.  According to LCH.Clearnet, the costs of trading out of the defaulted position were “well within” the Lehman margins it held.

It’s hard to see much of an economic difference between the CME and LCH experiences.  It doesn’t appear that it was materially more difficult to manage the default of “swaps” than it was “futures.”   The Lehman default does not provide any evidence that swap-o-phobia is anything but a mental illness.

Further, this case study illustrates that there is no reason to believe that absent government regulation, swaps will be under-margined and futures will not.  Indeed, had the Lehman positions been held at 5 separate CCPs, two of them would have been under margined.

Indeed, there are serious reasons to be concerned that government regulations of the margining of economically similar (and in some respects identical) contracts will create systemic risks, rather than mitigate them.

The margin regulations-with larger IM imposed on swaps than futures-are a form of price control, in this case default risk price control.  And we know that price controls work out swell, especially when applied by regulators in a two-sizes-fits-all fashion across all different kinds of instruments posing different risks and cleared by CCPs with potentially disparate financial strength.

Moreover, this price control will tend to induce activity to move towards futures CCPs.  Whereas in the absence of the margin differential clearing activity in, say, interest rate derivatives would be split between futures CCPs and swap CCPs, under the differential regulation, business will tend to tip to the futures CCPs-most notably, CME.  This will tend to lead to greater concentration of credit risk.

Wasn’t the whole point of Frankendodd to reduce concentration? Just asking.

The whole conceit that regulators can set risk prices is quite dangerous, and is likely to be a source of systemic risk because these prices are set on the basis of highly limited information in a politicized process, and because mistakes in setting risk prices (especially price differences between similar products) tend to lead to crowded trades and risk concentration that is highly destabilizing during crisis periods (cf. Basel II).

The case for setting different margins (default risk prices) on very similar-and in some cases identical-derivatives contracts is particularly weak.  It is the characteristics of the products and those who trade them that will drive liquidity and liquidation periods: products called “futures” that share the same economic characteristics as products called “swaps” will pose virtually the same challenges to liquidate in the event of a large default.  Given this, the economics suggest that imposing differential margins based on a name difference-rather than economic differences-can’t make things better, and could well make them worse.

But the Sorcerer’s Apprentices know better. So futures are likely to get an artificial advantage, and swaps an artificial burden. Such distortions are quite dangerous.  My conclusion? Futurize in haste, repent at leisure.