Streetwise Professor

The BIS has been one of the major advocates for mandated clearing.  They have produced an analysis claiming that mandated clearing will increase GDP growth by .1 percent or more per annum.  I criticized this calculation claiming that it was predicated on a fallacy: namely, that multilateral netting and collateralization, result in a reduction in the costs of OTC derivatives borne by banks, and thereby reduce the risk that they will become dangerously leveraged.  In fact, these measures redistribute losses, and will not affect the overall leverage of a financial institution in the event of an adverse shock to its balance sheet.

Stephen Cecchetti, the head of the BIS’s Monetary and Economics Department has responded to this sort of criticism.  Here’s his argument regarding multilateral netting:

Before turning to the costs, I think it is worth responding to criticism of this approach. First, some critics have argued that, by focusing on derivatives exposures, the Group has ignored the impact of multilateral netting on other unsecured creditors. The main claim is that multilateral netting dilutes other unsecured creditors.

This is correct. Multilateral netting does dilute non-derivatives-related claims to some extent. However, this is neither new, nor is it unique to derivatives. In fact, repos, covered bonds and any other secured loans result in dilution and subordination. For repos, that counterparties can close out a position and seize collateral in default has led to comment and worry for some time. Given that this is all well known, I would think that it is already reflected in the pricing of the instruments involved. Presumably no one will be terribly surprised by this when it is applied to derivatives, and so the impact will be muted. It is a stretch to see how this redistribution of a part of the risk associated with OTC derivatives transactions increases systemic risk.

This argument totally fails to meet the criticism.

First, there has been some repricing, but it is incomplete.  Repricing only takes place to the extent that adoption of mandated clearing occurs, or is at least anticipated, and does not occur for derivatives contracts and other liabilities until they mature.  Since many derivatives and other liabilities have maturities extending well beyond the clearing implementation dates, these have yet to be repriced.

Yes, the most run-prone liabilities, such as short term debt, have been repriced, but that’s not all that important.  Even if banks adjust their capital structures to reflect the repricing, they will still have large quantities of such liabilities which are now more junior and which will pay off less in states of the world when a bank is insolvent.  The higher yield received in normal times compensates the creditors for the lower returns that they get in bad states of the world, and most notably in crisis times.  And it is exactly during these crisis times that these liabilities are a problem.  Due to repricing, there may be a lower quantity of such short term debt, but this debt will be more vulnerable to runs as a result of the subordination inherent in multilateral netting.  Excuse me if I don’t consider that a clear win for reduced systemic risk, and fear that it in fact represents an increased systemic risk.  That is no stretch at all.  None.  Cecchetti’s belief that it is a stretch reflects a cramped and incomplete analysis of the implications of subordination.

In terms of the BIS’s claim that will boost economic growth, Cecchetti’s argument does not rebut in any way what I have been saying.  The BIS argument is based on a belief that netting makes the pie bigger.  My argument is that it does not make the pie bigger, but just resizes the pieces, making some smaller and others bigger.  Nothing in what Cecchetti writes demonstrates the opposite, and in fact, his acknowledgement that netting dilutes other creditors is an admission that the effects of netting are redististributive.

Once that is recognized, the entire premise behind the BIS macroeconomic analysis of the OTC derivative reforms collapses, and the conclusions collapse right along with it.

Cicchetti mischaracterizes the critique when he insinuates that it means that netting increases systemic risk.  I’ve said that’s one possible outcome, but mainly have used the redistribution point to refute the claim (made by the BIS and others) that netting reduces systemic risk. The channel by which the BIS claims it will is predicated on the belief that netting reduces default losses rather than reallocates them.  If they only reallocate them-which Cicchetti effectively acknowledges-this channel is closed, and the asserted benefit does not exist.  It’s very simple.

Therefore, Cicchetti may “remain convinced that the Group’s analysis accurately captures the benefits of the  proposed reforms,” but his conviction is based on faith rather than economic reasoning: his attempted defense notwithstanding, the Group’s analysis is contrary to the economics.

Here’s what Cicchetti says about collateral:

A second concern that has been raised is that the regulatory insistence on increased collateralisation will simply redistribute counterparty credit risk, not reduce it. To see the point, take the simple example of an interest rate swap. The primary purpose of the swap is to transfer interest rate risk. But the mechanics of the swap mean that there is always a risk that the parties involved will not pay. This is a credit risk. In the case where the swap is completely uncollateralised, it is clear that the instrument combines these two risks: interest rate (or market) risk, and credit risk.

Now think of what happens if there is collateralisation. At first it appears that the credit risk disappears, especially if there is both initial margin to cover unexpected market movements and variation margin to cover realised ones. But the collateral has to come from somewhere. Getting hold of it by borrowing, for example, will once again create credit risk.

The point is that, by collateralising the transaction, the market and credit risk are unbundled. I would argue fairly strenuously that unbundling is the right thing to do. Unbundling forces both the buyer and the seller to manage both the interest rate and the counterparty credit risks embedded in a swap contract. In the past, some parties seem to have simply ignored the credit component. Unbundling sheds light on the pricing of the two components of the contract. A more transparent market structure with more competitive pricing will almost surely result in better decisions and hence better risk management, risk allocation and ultimately lower systemic risk. The AIG example is a cautionary tale that leads us in this direction.

I agree completely that clearing unbundles price and credit risks.  This is particularly true under a defaulter pays model, in which the CCP members bear very little default risk.   In fact, this is the focus of a chapter I’m writing for my next book.

But Cicchetti’s assertion that unbundling is a good thing begs a huge question: why were risks bundled in the first place?  By way of explanation, sort of, Cicchetti asserts, without a shred of evidence, that market participants often ignored credit risk bundled in derivatives trades.  Even if that’s true, why would they necessarily take it into consideration merely because it’s unbundled?  I think the most that can be said is that ex post it appears that market participants underestimated credit risk prior to the crisis.   And if they did this with derivatives, they did it with unbundled credits too: look at the massive repricing of corporate paper and the virtual disappearance of unsecured interbank lending starting in August 2007.

But more substantively, there can be good reasons for bundling market risk and credit risk.  I explore these reasons in detail in my Rocket Science paper, which has been around for years.  In particular, there can be informational synergies.  These are quite ubiquitous in banking, and explain a variety of phenomena, such as compensating balances which require firms that borrow from a bank to hold some portion of the loan in deposits at the same bank: this is a form of bundling.  Moreover, bundling can be a way of controlling a form of moral hazard, namely asset substitution/diversion.

At the very least, bundling is so ubiquitous in banking (and finance generally, e.g., trade credit) that it is extremely plausible that there are good economic reasons for it.  The reasons for this practice should be understood before implementing massive policy changes that forcibly eliminate it for massive quantities of contracts.  It is rather frightening, actually, that Cicchetti/the BIS are so cavalier about this issue, and are so confident that they know better than market participants.

And again, even if credit risk is priced more accurately in an unbundled world (which Cicchetti asserts rather than demonstrates), bank capital structures in an unbundled world can be fragile and a source of systemic risk.  For instance, collateral transformation trades used to acquire collateral to post as CCP margin are arguably very fragile and systemically risky even if they are priced correctly.

What’s needed is a comparative analysis of the fragility/systemic riskiness of the bundled and unbundled structures, and this BIS/Cicchetti do not provide.

Cicchetti’s speech suggests that BIS has heard the criticisms of clearing mandates, but doesn’t really understand them, or is so invested in clearing mandates that it refuses to take them seriously.  Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear.  The BIS has taken a big swing at a rebuttal, and missed badly.

I am working on a project about the economics of commodity trading firms.  One of the interesting questions is what physical assets commodity trading firms own.  In my research on this question, in an attempt to get some historical context, I turned to the excellent Federal Trade Commission Report on the Grain Trade, a five volume study released in the early-20s.  (There is reputedly a sixth volume on manipulation which I and others-Jerry Markham, for one-have feverishly searched for without luck.)   This is truly an excellent piece of work.  Many of the analyses are off, but as a detailed portrait of the grain trade in the 1900-1920 period, it cannot be beat.  Unfortunately, there is nothing comparable for other time periods.

In perusing Volume I, on country grain marketing, I came across this choice quote from the president of the CBOT in 1887:

The alliance between railroads and elevators has resulted in reaching out after millions of bushels not naturally tributary [to Chicago] and when gathered here preventing it by such tricks of the trade as you are familiar with from ever getting away again as long as storage can be collected on it.

. . . .

The grain bought elsewhere by warehouse proprietors is promptly sold to you here on future delivery, which, however, you can only get on payment of such premiums as the urgency of demand may enable them to exact.

. . . .

While the elevator proprietors are willing to pay 1 cent per bushel more for grain to “go into store” in their own warehouses than the market price of the same grain in store . . . is conclusive that the first storage charge is not legitimate, and also that the subsequent terms of storage are unduly profitable.

Replace “grain” with “aluminum”, and you could run this as a news story in 2013.  Goldman’s operations at Metro are almost identical to the operations of the warehousemen in Chicago that President Wright fulminated about 126 years ago.

The FTC study also notes that shuttling grain between warehouses was a part of the game more than a century ago.  It quotes Taylor’s magesterial history of the CBOT, describing an event from 1896:

The Armour Elevator Co. was charged with having transferred 1,200,000 bushels of wheat from one part of the north side system to another, without inspection, on such dates that the receipts resulting therefrom were just regular on the delivery day, May 1.

And not a bankster in sight.  (It is an interesting coincidence that 1896 was the year Goldman-Sachs was invited to join the NYSE.)

The morals of the story.  First, the ability to play warehouse games is inherent to the business of public warehousing of commodities. Second, banks are not uniquely susceptible to playing those games: when conditions are right, whoever owns the warehouses can play the games.  Third, systems of self-regulation are often incapable of addressing these problems.

On the last point, it is important to remember that the seminal case in the history of regulation in the United States, Munn v. Illinois, grew out of the warehousing battles in Chicago during the Civil War and its immediate aftermath.  The Supreme Court decided that the State of Illinois had the power to regulate grain warehouses, and this decision provided the basis for subsequent exercise of regulatory powers by states and the Federal government.

In other words, what is old is new again.  Journalists and regulators and legislators act as if the kinds of games played today are somehow new and unique.  They aren’t.  The commodities business hasn’t changed that much in a century and a half.  The things that were good, bad, and ugly in 1869 are around today, and will be around in 2069 and 2169.

Legendary Chicago prop shop* DRW has sued the CFTC, asking a Federal judge to enjoin the agency from filing an enforcement action against the firm.  Based on the facts alleged in the DRW complaint, CFTC should pray that the judge grants the injunction, thereby saving the agency of total humiliation at trial.

The details are kind of geeky, but I’ll try to summarize in as close to plain English as I can.  At issue is DRW’s trading-and quoting-of swap futures contracts traded on the Nasdaq Futures Exchange and cleared on the International Derivatives Clearinghouse.  As a cleared contract, the swap futures was subject to daily mark-to-market.  OTC swaps (at the time) were not collateralized or subject to mark-to-market.  As basically anybody who has been around futures markets since the early-90s knows, this differential margining treatment should cause swap prices to differ from futures prices.

Hell, this has been known in the academic literature since 1981, with the publication of a paper by Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross.  The basic idea is that marked-to-market futures have payoffs that are linear in the interest rate, but swaps have payoffs that are a convex function of the interest rate due to discounting: futures cash flows respond immediately to interest rate changes due to daily variation margining, but the effects of interest rate changes on the swap are not realized until the expiration date of the swap.  This leads to a “convexity bias”: the futures are biased relative to the swap, due to the fact that with discounting, the present value of the swap cash flows are a convex function of interest rates.

Basically, there’s an advantage to being short the futures compared to being short the swap.  If interest rates go up, the short futures position profits, and the short can invest the resulting variation margin inflow at the higher interest rate.  If interest rates go down, the short futures position loses, but the short can borrow to cover the margin call at a low interest rate.  The  swap short can’t play this game because the OTC swap is not marked-to-market.  This advantage of being short the future should lead to a difference between the futures yield and the swap yield.

DRW recognized this difference between the swap and the futures.  Hence, it did not enter quotes into the futures market that were equal to swap yields.  It entered quotes at a differential to the swap rate, to reflect the convexity adjustment.  IDC used these bids to determine the settlement price, and hence daily variation margin payments.  Thus, the settlement prices reflected the convexity adjustment.  Not 100 percent, because DRW was trying to make money arbing the market.  But the settlement prices were closer to fair value as a result of DRW’s quotes than they would have been otherwise.

CFTC apparently believes that the swap futures and the swaps are equivalent, and hence DRW should have been entering quotes equal to swap yields.  By entering quotes that differed from swap rates, DRW was distorting the settlement price, in the CFTC’s mind anyways.

Put prosaically, in a way that Gary Gensler (the lover of apple analogies) can understand, CFTC is alleging that apples and oranges are the same, and that if you bid or offer apples at a price different than the market price for oranges, you are manipulating.

Seriously.

The reality, of course, is that apples and oranges are different, and that it would be stupid, and perhaps manipulative, to quote apples at the market price for oranges.

The CFTC is completely confused.  Shocking, I know.  Perhaps-perhaps-trading to affect the settlement price is a necessary condition for a manipulation allegation.  It is not a sufficient condition. The crucial issue is whether the trading/quoting moves the price towards the appropriate competitive price, or away from it.  Prevailing law requires a finding of an artificial price (for a completed manipulation) or the intent to cause an artificial price (for an attempted manipulation).  DRW’s trading-quoting, actually-moved the settlement price closer to the proper value, relative to OTC swaps.  That is, its activities made the settlement price less artificial.  Bidding/offering at the OTC swap yield would have been artificial because such quotes would not have reflected the substantive economic differences between futures and swaps.  Due to convexity and the lack of any adjustment for it in the Nasdaq Futures contract, there should have been differential between the two prices.  Bidding/offering at zero differential would have caused settlement prices to diverge from fair value relative to swaps.

In other words, DRW contributed to convergence of the settlement price to fair value relative to swaps.  Manipulative acts cause a divergence between the settlement price and fair value.

Many futures contracts have been mispriced for a considerable period of time post-introduction,.  Eurodollars were mispriced relative to swaps until people figured out the convexity issue in the early-to-mid-90s: the academic literature diffused into practice much more slowly back in those days.  But even simple cash-and-carry relationships have sometimes been violated in new futures.  Most notably, S&P 500 futures were mispriced for a considerable period too in 82-83, and maybe a little bit afterwards (I’ll have to go dig up the papers that provide the evidence of this).  Were people that bid/offered/traded to take advantage of/arbitrage this mispricing manipulating?  That would be an odd theory, since this trading made prices less “artificial”, i.e., closer to fair value relative to the underlying.

In a sane world-or at least, in a world with a sane CFTC (an alternative universe, I know)-what DRW did would be called “arbitrage” and “contributing to price discovery and price efficiency.”  Voluminous CFTC materials (and testimony by CFTC officials before Congress) identifies these as legitimate, and indeed salutary, futures market activities.

Another shocking aspect of this story is that the two biggest firms on the other side of the contract from DRW-Jefferies and, yes, MF Global-didn’t understand the effect of convexity.  Jefferies claims it relied on IDC’s representations that swap futures and OTC swaps were equivalent, and hence thought it was making an arbitrage profit as a result of trading the futures and swaps at a differential.  In fact, it was the source of arbitrage profits because it was trading at a differential that was too small, relative to what it should have been to reflect fully the convexity effect.

Moreover, IDC should thank its lucky stars that DRW did nudge the settlement price through its quotes.  If it had marked the futures to market at the OTC swap yield instead of the price reflecting the DRW quotes, MF Global’s position would have been substantially under margined, subjecting the clearinghouse to substantial loss (or, at least, substantial delay to recovery) in the aftermath of MF’s default.

I shake my head in amazement at all this.  Especially at the CFTC.  It stands there dumb and mute when major manipulations occur, and then leaps on trading that is manipulative only in its deluded imagination (and complete ignorance of things practitioners have known for 20 plus years).  Its manipulation enforcement is a race between Type I and Type II errors.  It reminds me of the old joke about the lawyer who said “I lost the cases I should have won, but won the cases I should have lost, so on average, justice was done.”

Well, it would be a joke, but this isn’t funny. Especially since the CFTC’s authority now extends far beyond the futures markets, which are important enough as it is, to the far larger OTC markets.  Huge sums are at risk to the ignorant judgments of the CFTC.

The CFTC has apparently adopted the William Clayton Rule: “The word ‘manipulation’ . . . in its use is so broad as to include any operation of the . . .  market that does not suit the gentleman who is speaking at the moment.” This is not a good thing, when the “gentleman speaking at the moment” exercises the power of the Federal government. Hopefully the judge will do DRW, the markets-and the CFTC-a favor by slamming on the brakes on this inane enforcement action.

*Not to be confused with a chop shop! True story. My first year at Chicago a gang ran a chop shop out of the garage next to the student housing building where I lived.  Quite an adventure when the cops raided the place at 6AM one morning.  Shots fired. Reminded me of the old Second City bit where the cop fires several rounds and then shouts “Halt!”

Going through my news clips this morning made me feel like I was in a video game fighting off hordes of zombies. Commodity market critic zombies.

Zombie #1: Gretchen Morgenson, with an article on RINs. It is a farrago of innuendo and idiocy.  Really, it is 9 pages long, and I could write 20 listing all the fundamental flaws.  I don’t have the energy for that (no pun intended), so I’ll limit myself to the greatest hits.  In a nutshell (emphasis on the nut), it is a typical Morgenson piece: if banks are involved it’s bad;  if people are speculating it’s bad; if there are unintended consequences of government policies, it’s not the fault of the stupid government, it’s the fault of those who have to deal with the stupidity, and who figure out ways to make money out of artificial bottlenecks created by the stupidity.

The article is an assemblage of assertions and allegations totally lacking in evidence.  Morgenson alleges JP Morgan has speculated in RINs.  Which it denies.  She insinuates that the market might be manipulated, but provides no evidence.  She mentions a “corner”, but obviously doesn’t understand how a corner works: that would require the accumulation of a long futures/forward position, but she provides no evidence that anyone has accumulated such a position. (CME shows a grand total of a whopping 558 RIN contracts outstanding.)

Morgenson is obviously very suspicious of speculation-kind of funny, since her entire article is completely speculative-and suggests that speculation distorts-i.e., manipulates-prices.

Assume arguendo that Morgan or some other evil bank did figure out that the blend wall would hit and that RINs would become more valuable as a result, and hence accumulated them.  If it is right, it will profit when prices rise.  That doesn’t mean it caused the prices to go up. Prescience isn’t the same as manipulation.

Morgenson should be forced to write on the blackboard, Bart Simpson-like:

Speculation≠Manipulation

Speculation≠Manipulation

Speculation≠Manipulation

Speculation≠Manipulation

Speculation≠Manipulation

. . . .

The real problem here is something that makes only a cameo appearance in Morgenson’s story: the artificial RIN bottleneck created by an idiotic government policy that was adopted based on a forecast of future gasoline consumption (‘cuz yeah, we’re so good about making energy forecasts) and an ignorance of the technological realities of ethanol.  It is inevitable that someone would figure that out, and make money off it.  Inevitable.

Quite honestly, you’ll learn more about the reality of RINs from one of those ubiquitous Hitler videos than the New York Times (h/t @izakaminska):

Speaking of tow-headed troublemakers named Bart . . . that brings us to Zombie #2. Taking a break from edifying us all about the evils of HFT, polymath Bart Chilton went off on the evils of banks in commodities:

Mr. Chilton, in prepared remarks viewed by The Wall Street Journal, said it’s “nearly impossible to figure out exactly what banks own.” He said the CFTC can see what banks are trading in derivatives markets tied to commodities, but doesn’t know what physical assets like oil tankers and aluminum they hold.

“Unless we can see that, we can’t reasonably and responsibly protect against market manipulations,” Mr. Chilton, a Democrat, plans to say in speech to a business association in Michigan Saturday.

The CFTC has been investigating firms that store and deliver aluminum, including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, after complaints from companies that use the metal. Beer and soda companies, can makers and other end users said firms that warehouse aluminum inflate prices by holding onto it for longer than necessary.

Banks that trade commodities have come under fire from government officials, companies and consumer groups who say they exert too much influence over markets for some raw materials.

Mr. Chilton plans to raise that concern in the speech, saying banks that own commodities and trade in derivatives based on the prices of those commodities have a potential conflict of interest.

“The prices of commodities are supposed to be based upon supply and demand,” Mr. Chilton plans to say. “However, what if you control, or have significant influence upon, the supply or the demand?”

Mr. Chilton also is expected to say the public should be able to “easily locate and click on a link to find out” what physical commodities banks own. He will also call on lawmakers to rein in banks’ role in the buying and selling of physical commodities and not leave the decision to the Federal Reserve.

Click on a link to find out physical positions.  Right, Bart.  Uhm, you can’t even do that for futures positions.  And care to share any evidence demonstrating that any banks exert a “significant influence” on supply and demand in any energy commodity?  Their market shares in physical tend to be very small.  Check out the stat on Morgan Stanley in the Morgenson article-Montaigne markets 2.5 percent of gasoline in the US. Big freaking whoop. JP Morgan serves one piddling refinery on the East Coast.  Sheesh.

Conflict of interest: the classic problem raised by people who don’t have a real argument. Speaking of real arguments, how’s this for a doozy:

“Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think the American public wants banks owning grain elevators, electric companies, large warehouses or shipping and distribution interests,” Chilton said in the speech.

Wow.  Let no one ever question Bart’s ability to make a substantive economic argument, backed with empirical evidence.

Zombie #3: Lina Khan, in The New Republic. Again, far too much idiocy to deconstruct in detail.  One illustrative example: the insinuations about “inside trading.”  Trading on private information is quite different than inside trading.  The later involves the violation of fiduciary duty or the theft of corporate information that belongs to shareholders.  Trading on private information is the lifeblood of virtually all markets.  It’s called “price discovery.”

The huffing and puffing about Cargill and Trafigura operating hedge funds is another faux controversy.  These funds are regulated just like funds operated by other entities.  Moreover, there are Chinese walls restricting the flow of information between the company-managed funds, and other trading operations.

Furthermore, Khan makes broad allegations of manipulation.  I assure you that yes, manipulation does occur in commodities markets, and that trading firms sometimes execute these manipulations.  But manipulation is subject to regulation (contrary to the statements that these markets are unregulated).  Moreover, the allegations of manipulation in the article are amazingly vague, and unsupported by any evidence.  The article is a classic illustration of the Clayton Definition of Manipulation: Any Practice That Doesn’t Suit the Person Speaking at the Moment.

For instance:

Experts warn that this degree of involvement across the entire production cycle gives a handful of sizable firms even greater unchecked power over our most basic goods. “Clearly if you control the physical stock and stand to gain from managing the release of that stock, it would be foolish to expect companies not to take advantage of that,” said Sophia Murphy, senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and author of “Cereal Secrets,” a report on the major grain traders.

Part of the trouble is that no public body oversees global physical stocks. Andres Missbach, co-author of Commodities: Switzerland’s Most Dangerous Business, said the vast storage capacity these companies have amassed equips them to create artificial shortages in the short-term if they wish. “We have no idea if they are manipulating,” he said. “We can only say they have the capacity to, and that there is no regulator ensuring that they are not.”’

Unchecked power? Seriously?  What fraction of global physical stocks does any firm own?  The article says that Glencore “controls” 50 percent of the trade in some commodities.  If you read Glencore’s statements, they refer to “freely traded” supplies, which are a fraction-and often a small fraction-of total supplies.  For commodities like oil, the biggest trading firms account for 5 percent or less of total supply.

“We have no idea if they are manipulating.”  LOL.  Remember what Judge Easterbrook wrote: “The undetected manipulation is the unsuccessful manipulation.”

I am quoted in the article, but my quotes are rather innocuous. Khan tried to get me to support her trading-firms-are-evil line, which I obviously declined to do: in fact, I disagreed strongly. Those quotes didn’t make the story, naturally. Yeah. No agenda there.

One last thing. All three are rather strange zombies, because they are apparently afraid of the dark.  Each mutters ominously about dark markets, trading in the dark, blah blah blah.

News flash: the “lit” transparent futures markets are the exception that proves the rule.  Virtually all commodity markets are bilateral search markets with little pre- or post-trade transparency.  This makes good economic sense given the heterogeneity of commodities, the idiosyncrasies of and variability in supply and demand for specific varieties, the desire to customize terms, and the low rate of transaction flow in any particular variety or at any particular location.  Commodity trading firms essentially customize commodities by transporting, refining, blending, storing them, etc.  The one size fits all standardization that is necessary to support continuous, centralized markets (like futures markets) is completely maladapted to the trade of actual physical commodities.  Physical markets and futures markets serve vastly different functions, and accordingly operate on vastly different lines.

Zombies that are afraid of the dark.  Too funny. Get a frickin’ night light, Gretchen, Bart, and Lina.

It never ceases to amaze me how commodities bring out the loons, and cause people to lose all ability to reason.  Like zombies.  Like Gretchen, Bart, and Lina.

Back in Houston after time in Geneva, and a quick day trip to Paris for a conference.  The conference was sponsored by the ECB, Banque de France, and the Bank of England.  It was an examination of the progress in OTC derivatives regulation since the G20 declaration in Pittsburgh in September, 2009.

For the most part, the audience was central bankers, and the theme was “Yay! Look what we’ve accomplished!”  And of course, I had to rain on that parade.  My paper was titled “Bill of Goods: CCPs and Systemic Risk”, and the themes were (a) most of the arguments about how clearing would reduce systemic risk (e.g., the effects of netting) are wrong, and (b) clearing and collateral mandates created new sources of systemic risk.  Meaning that the G20 sold us a bill of goods in Pittsburgh.

So call me Mr. Popular.

A good part of the rest of the program on Wednesday was the Craig show.  The next panel was chaired by someone from the ECB, who gave a rather injured defense of the Pittsburgh agenda: I wasn’t mentioned by name, but it was pretty clear that she was attempting-ineffectually, IMO-to rebut me.  Several of the panelists said “as someone said in the previous panel”-and then referred to something that I had said.

Then a representative from the BIS presented, to much fanfare, the results of the Macroeconomic Assessment that I criticized heavily before I left for Europe.  After presenting the results, he discussed criticisms and caveats, and spent most of the time attempting-even more ineffectually, IMO-to rebut the arguments I raised in my post.

Very flattering.  Thanks.

The next panel was another group of academics.  The authors of two of the three papers, Bruno Biais and Hector Perez-Saiz (from the Bank of Canada), stated that their papers were motivated/inspired by my earlier research (which Biais called “seminal”).

Even more flattering.

My panel generated some interesting discussion and questions.  Many related to Dale Rosenthal’s paper about the potential inefficiencies that can occur when defaulted positions are replaced (or hedged).

As I’ve written for 3-plus years, the one main benefit of CCPs is that a centralized mechanism (e.g., an auction) for replacing/hedging defaulted positions is likely to be more efficient than an uncoordinated scramble in a bilateral OTC market.  The question is whether this function can be unbundled from the other functions performed by CCPs, which may not reduce systemic risk, and may in fact increase it.

Indeed, since there will be massive quantities of non-cleared derivatives, many of them of the more complex variety, the clearing mandates will not eliminate the replacement/hedging problem.  Even if the cleared derivatives are handled in an orderly auction process, these massive quantities of non-cleared derivatives will not.  These positions will have to be dealt with, and there is a serious risk that the process of replacing them will be very chaotic and destabilizing.

I confess to amazement that in all of the post-Pittsburgh regulatory efforts, this issue has escaped attention.  The focus on clearing, margins, SEFs, etc., has apparently taken up all the oxygen.  This is truly unfortunate, because a centralized auction mechanism to replace or hedge defaulted positions is likely to be far more effective and efficient than a non-centralized mechanism.  Put the other way, the decentralized mechanism is likely to be chaotic and destabilizing and excessively volatile.

Again, the clearing mandate does not solve this problem because many derivatives, especially the most exotic and illiquid (and hence problematic) ones will be outside CCPs, and CCP auction processes.

Which got me thinking (during a conversation with Dale Rosenthal during a break) of how this issue could be addressed.  What popped into my head? The swap dealer designation.

For the most part this designation is all pain, no gain.  How could we make lemonade out of this lemon?  Well, the thought that comes to mind is that designated swap dealers could be required to participate in the auction/hedging of a positions defaulted on by another swap dealer (or dealers).

I am somewhat reluctant to advance this proposal, because I am usually skeptical about mandating anything.  But there is arguably a public good (in the technical sense of the term) element to the process of  replacing/hedging defaulted positions: as the Rosenthal paper suggests, there are potentially many coordination and strategic behavior problems when this process is decentralized.  Consequently, it is worth some further thought.  (The clearing and collateral and capital obligations of swap dealer designation do not have as compelling a public good justification.)

The details will be challenging. In particular, since not all swap dealers will trade all of the types of instruments in a defaulted portfolio, it is not immediately obvious how to determine, in advance, each designated dealer’s auction obligations: that is, it’s not obvious how to specify which auctions each dealer must participate in.  For instance, it makes little sense to require BP or Cargill to participate in auctions for interest rate swaptions.  So who has to participate in what auctions?  Given the plethora of categories (interest rates, credit, equity, FX, commodities) and currencies, there is likely to be a plethora of auctions, and thus it will be difficult to say who is obligated to participate in what auctions.

However it is specified, this obligation will arguably make the swap dealer designation more onerous, and firms will attempt to structure their businesses to avoid falling afoul of it.  But the biggest dealers will not be able to avoid it.  What’s more, if I am correct that a centralized mechanism for handling defaulted positions is a public good, the creation of such a mechanism will actually redound to the benefit of all market participants, including the swap dealers.  After all, they are likely to have the biggest positions to hedge and replace in the event of a major default, and would benefit from a reduction in the risk of this process, and an improvement in the efficiency of the pricing mechanism in the aftermath of a major default.

This is something that at least deserves some consideration.  And, of course, regulators appear to have ignored it altogether in their focus on clearing and margins.  Which is another reason why I am not a G20 cheerleader, 4 years after Pittsburgh.

I’m supposed to be in Geneva right now, but United Airlines decided that what I really wanted to do was to sit around Dulles for 5 hours waiting for them to figure out they couldn’t fix a mechanical problem, and then to sit around a hotel for a day waiting for today’s flight.  Luckily I was able to get the last seat on that plane, so I don’t have to do something like Dulles-Newark-Frankfort-Geneva like some of the other folks on the canceled flight.

So that gives me some time to catch up on reading (and blogging).  And it takes some time to read this loooonnnnggggg Bloomberg encomium to Gary Gensler, which describes his valiant St. George-like battles against the big, bad banking dragons.

The basic theme is that anything the banks don’t like must be good, and anything the banks do like must be bad. The profile confirms that’s Gensler’s view of the world, and Silla Brush and Robert Schmidt pretty much adopt that template.

If only the world were that simple.  Yes, regulatory capture by major financial institutions is a major danger, and happens.  Freddie and Fannie illustrate that in spades, for sure.  So one should always approach the lobbying efforts of large incumbent players, especially large financial institutions, with incredible skepticism.

But at the same time, one has to remember that regulators do stupid things, and adopt regulations that are grossly counterproductive and impose costs far in excess of any conceivable benefits.  Banks potentially subject to such regulations reasonably fight against those, which means that bank opposition to a regulation is not a sufficient statistic to determine whether it is a good or bad policy.

The two regulations that Gensler fought for that are covered extensively in the Bloomberg piece are definitely examples of bad regulations.  The article devotes the largest share of pixels to the battle over the request for quote battle.  You may recall that I named Gensler’s RFQ proposal as the Worst of the Worst of Frankendodd.  The SEF mandate itself is seriously misguided, and mandating how many quotes those wanting to buy or sell a swap must obtain is totally cracked: it is predicated on the paternalistic belief that those who are doing the trading don’t have the ability to make the appropriate trade-offs between information leakage and greater competition to get their business.

The article also details the battle over the de minimis level of trading activity that would determine who has to register as a swap dealer, and thereby incur the additional compliance, collateral, and capital burdens.  Gensler wanted the level set at a piddling $100 million, which would catch pretty much everyone of even modest size in the CFTC’s swap dealer web.

If the purpose of the swap dealer designation is to reduce systemic risk, the level of trading activity is a very poor means of determining which entities should be subject to the higher level of regulation and scrutiny.  And seriously, many firms that must register as swap dealers under the $3 billion level eventually settled upon-against Gensler’s furious opposition-are not systemically risky, either.

Relatedly, the article identifies futurization as an end run around regulation.  As I’ve written before, futurization is a predictable response to regulations that treat economically identical instruments differently.  Swaps are treated more punitively, due to more onerous collateral standards, and because swap trades count towards the de minimis swap dealer trading level but identical futures don’t.  So, duh, people will choose futures over swaps that are otherwise economically equivalent.  If this also allows firms that aren’t systemically important to escape the burdens of swap dealer registration, that’s all for the better.

Moreover, it should be noted that futurization has been over-hyped.  Its main effect has been in energy.  There is no way that the real swap dealers who are systemically important-the JP Morgans, Citis, etc.-are going to be able to avoid being designated as swap dealers by switching their business to futures.  (Don’t interpret that to mean that I believe that swap dealer designation will materially reduce systemic risk.)  A lot of their business is in instruments for which futures are not a viable substitute.  In contrast, in energy (and commodities generally) for the bulk of the business futures and swaps are close substitutes.

Indeed, there is an irony here.  Large quantities of energy swaps were “NYMEX lookalikes” virtually equivalent to futures traded on NYMEX (and then the CME after it acquired NYMEX): firms traded the swaps because under the CFMA, they were subject to a lighter regulatory touch than futures.  So the energy swaps business was largely a product of regulation, and when the regulation changed, the business changed.  The business went to where the regulatory burden was lowest.  Go figure.  Given that part of the premise of Frankendodd is that the futures regulatory structure was the right model that made an appropriate trade off between costs and benefits, the migration to futures should be considered an improvement even by Frankendodd supporters.  It brought the business back to where it should have been all along, according to the advocates of Frankendodd.

The article also writes a lot about extraterritoriality, a subject that makes my eyes glaze over.  The most revealing aspect of this battle is Gensler’s regulatory imperialism, and his stubborn resistance to near universal opposition.  In Gensler’s view-and in the article-everybody was out of step but Gary.

One interesting omission (as if you think anything could be omitted in a 20 page article) is anything related to position limits, another Gensler hobby horse.  Perhaps this is because he eventually prevailed in the Commission, and got it to pass a rule to his liking, so it doesn’t fall into the category of where Gensler’s views lost out to intense political opposition.  But it does fall into the category of a regulation that was opposed vigorously by the banks, who prevailed-at least for now-in getting the regulation stopped.  The difference is that they fought and won that battle in court (though appeals are ongoing).

The article does devote some coverage to the systemic risk of clearinghouses.  Ironically, it indicates that Gensler is aware that CCPs concentrate counterparty risk, which can be problematic.  This is quite contrary to many of his public statements on the issue, including in an FT oped mentioned in the Bloomberg piece, in which Gensler suggests that CCPs are a magic box that makes risk disappear.  So was he misinformed before, and has he come to a better understanding of the way things really work?  Or was he deceptive in his earlier advocacy?

It’s good to know that there is some recognition of this issue, but sadly, the diagnosis of how CCPs contribute to systemic risk is cramped and simplistic.  Yes, the failure of a CCP is a major worry, but as I point out in the paper I will present in Paris next week (assuming UA cooperates!) measures to keep CCPs immune from failure can create systemic risks too.  There is too little systematic thinking about systemic risk.

In politics and journalism, good versus evil narratives are easy and comforting.  The problem with that is that when you are talking about something as complicated as derivatives regulation, the world isn’t that simple.  Rent seeking and capture happen, resulting in industry-friendly regulations that may create or perpetuate systemic risks, or fail to mitigate real problems.  But regulatory stupidity happens too.  This is especially likely when you have a regulatory crusader who believes that he is on the side of good fighting evil, and who approaches complicated markets with a very narrow set of simple beliefs, rigidly held: Transparency good! More transparency better! (Ironic, given that SEFs reduce transparency about the identity of counterparties, even if they increase pre- and post-trade price transparency).  Clearing good!  Banks bad and anti-competitive!

As you know, I believe that the intellectual assumptions underlying Frankendodd are fundamentally flawed.  The adverse consequences of those fundamental bugs are only exacerbated when the individual with the primary responsibility for implementing the law believes the bugs are actually features, and approaches his task with a Jesuitical zeal that treats any opposition as the result of malign and self-interested motivations.  Gensler’s rigidity and self-righteousness, and apparent unwillingness to contemplate the possibility that people were opposing him because, he was, you know, actually wrong, have made the process costlier and more contentious, and made the resulting regulations more costly and less beneficial.  Consequently, Gensler’s defeats on these issues-which are minor in the scheme of things, really-are to be welcomed, not lamented.

This article by Chris Whittal in International Financing Review does a good job at summarizing my beef with the BIS’s Macroeconomic Assessment Group on Derivatives.  I appreciate Chris taking the time to speak with me and broadcasting my analysis to a broader audience.

A couple of people have expressed interest in my paper on clearing mandates and systemic risk.  So here it is.

In a nutshell: the arguments that clearing (and non-cleared derivatives) collateral mandates will reduce systemic risk are fundamentally flawed.  Ironically, this is because the analyses do not take a truly systemic approach.

My counterarguments will be familiar to those reading my posts on clearing over the past five years (!) but this piece lays them out in one place.  One stop shopping, as it were.  Or maybe one stop slashing.  (One of my lawyer clients remarked to his partner yesterday that I wrote “slashing” blog posts.  I said “Don’t leave out the burning!”)

A quick reprise on the BIS study purporting to show that Frankendodd and EMIR will increase economic growth by better than .1 percent per year.

A footnote in my earlier post questioned whether multilateral netting via single-category CCPs really reduced exposures substantially, if at all, compared to cross-product bilateral netting.  The BIS study assumes-without any support that I can identify-that multilateral netting via CCPs is four times (!) as effective in reducing exposures as bilateral netting.

Again, I’m aware of no theoretical or empirical support for this number.  The standard Duffie-Zhou theoretical analysis doesn’t reasonably support such a conclusion, and that is a purely theoretical exercise.  Such a remarkable assertion should require some empirical support.

More importantly, this assumption begs a huge question: since derivatives counterparties internalize the benefits of netting (even when it imposes external costs on other claimants), if multilateral netting compresses exposures by so much, why weren’t banks falling over themselves years ago to move trades to CCPs, thereby reducing (shifting, actually) risk and freeing up capital? Why is it necessary to unleash Frankendodd to force dealer banks to pick up this money off the sidewalk?  I thought they were greedy SOBs.

I see only two answers.  First, that the netting economies really aren’t that large.  Second, the dealer banks recognized that that increased netting merely transferred exposures to other creditors, who would adjust the prices of credit accordingly, making the (alleged) reduction in derivatives exposures not worth the cost of setting up and operating a CCP, posting collateral, etc.

Either way, there is no way to reconcile the BIS report’s claims that (a) netting of derivatives exposures is true net benefit, and (b) this net benefit can be achieved only as a result of regulation that forces dealer banks to clear to achieve multilateral netting economies.  Indeed, to the extent that netting redistributes wealth from non-derivatives creditors to derivatives counterparties, dealer banks would have an excessive incentive to adopt clearing/multilateral netting.

In other words, the BIS report implicitly assumes that greedy bankers stupidly overlook oodles of money ready to be stuffed into their pockets.

Why do I get the impression that this was a put-up job intended to give the G20 something to crow about at the upcoming meeting in St. Petersburg?

John Kiff of the IMF tells me via Twitter (where he tweets as @kiffmeister) that the report recognizes some of the problems I identified in my post, namely that there are other sources of systemic risk than the counterparty risk channel that is the basis for the analysis.  Yeah, that’s true, but I have looked through the report carefully, and can find no recognition whatsoever of the fact-and it is a fact-that collateral and netting have redistributive effects.

The BIS has released a report titled “Macroeconomic impact assessment of OTC derivatives regulatory reforms.” It concludes that the benefits of these reforms-including Frankendodd-will greatly exceed the costs, because (a) financial costs of a financial crisis are immense, and (b) the reforms will greatly reduce the probability of a financial crisis.  Specifically:

In its report, the MAGD focuses on the effects of (i) mandatory central clearing of standardised OTC derivatives, (ii) margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared OTC derivatives and (iii) bank capital requirements for derivatives-related exposures. In its preferred scenario, the group found economic benefits worth 0.16% of GDP per year from avoiding financial crises. It also found economic costs of 0.04% of GDP per year from institutions passing on the expense of holding more capital and collateral to the broader economy. This results in net benefits of 0.12% of GDP per year. These are estimates of the long-run consequences of the reforms, which are expected to apply once they have been fully implemented and had their full economic effects.

Don’t believe it for a minute.  The methodology of the analysis is irretrievably flawed.  The net benefits are the free-est of lunches, because the report does not take into account the redistributive aspects of the collateralization and netting that results from clearing, capital, and uncleared derivatives collateral mandates.  That is, it fails to recognize that the reduction in counterparty credit losses on derivatives that result from the “reforms” are accompanied by an increase in losses suffered by somebody else.  It accounts for a transfer as a social gain.

In broad strokes, the BIS analysis goes as follows.  Financial institutions are connected to one another by OTC derivatives trades.  One way of measuring this interconnection is the CVA-the credit value adjustment on derivatives trades.  The CVA is (roughly speaking) loss given default per dollar of exposure times credit exposure times the probability of default.  If a given bank, B say, takes a hit of X to its balance sheet, due to a bad investment, or a rogue trader loss, or whatever, its probability of default goes up.  This raises the CVA.  This is immediately recognized as a mark-to-market loss, dollar for dollar, by its counterparties.  These counterparties tend to be systemically important banks, and the loss makes them more leveraged.  The greater leverage makes them riskier, and more subject to default.  This raises their probability of default, which imposes CVA losses on their counterparties, and on and on.  In this way, a shock to one bank propagates throughout the system, and feedback effects intensify the original effect.  The end result is that major financial institutions become more leveraged, and the more leveraged the system, the more prone it is to a very costly crisis.

But Frankendodd lurches to the rescue!  By collateralizing and increasing netting*, Frankendodd reforms reduce credit exposure in derivatives.  Therefore, the CVA hit from a given rise in the probability of default is smaller.  The leverage in the system doesn’t rise nearly as much when bank B takes the hit of X to its balance sheet.  So a given shock has a substantially smaller impact on systemic leverage, and hence systemic risk.  Yay!

Not so fast, people.  Notice the flaw in the logic?  Remember what started the cascading effect in the pre-Frankendodd world: an increase in the probability of default at B due to some adverse shock to its balance sheet.  Collateral and clearing mandates reduce the exposure of derivatives counterparties to this shock.  But a default doesn’t just affect derivatives counterparties: it hurts all of B’s creditors.  Roughly speaking, the total cost incurred by B’s creditors as a result of an increase in the probability of default due to the loss of X is loss given default times total liabilities times the change in the probability of default.  Given total liabilities, this does not change when derivatives are collateralized or netted more extensively.  This, in turn, means that the decline in derivatives CVA that results from more derivatives collateral and netting is matched by an increase in losses suffered by other creditors.  The “reforms” shift around the losses: they do not reduce them in aggregate.

That is, the “reforms” don’t reduce the losses that result from the balance sheet shock that raises B’s probability of default: they redistribute them.  Note, moreover, that many of the same big financial institutions that benefit from the decline in derivatives CVA are hurt by the loss on B’s other liabilities, because these institutions are exposed to one another through a variety of claims, not just derivatives.  Moreover, some of the others (non-bank creditors) that suffer from the redistribution may be systemically important too: money market funds that invest in the short term debt of financial institutions (including B) are one example.  Repo is another example.  Thus, the overall effect of Frankendodd and EMIR on systemic risk is quite equivocal.  It shifts around losses, and there is no guarantee that the shift in losses improves the stability of the financial system.

But the BIS study does not treat the redistributive effects of the derivatives reforms.   It treats them has a net gain.  This is fundamentally, basically, and irredeemably wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  When evaluating systemic risk, it ignores the systemic redistribution of losses.  As a result, it overestimates the gains of the regulatory changes.

To a first approximation, given the redistributive nature of their effects, the benefits of the reforms is zero.  The BIS recognizes that they involve costs.  Meaning that to a first approximation, Frankendodd and EMIR reduce wealth, rather than increase it.

But that’s just a first approximation.  To understand fully the effects, you’d have to know how losses are redistributed, and the systemic importance of those who suffer bigger losses and of those who realize smaller ones.  You’d also have to understand how financial contracts will change in response to the new set of creditor priorities inherent in the Frankendodd and EMIR rules.   Financial contracts-capital structures, if you will-will change in response to the new rules.  Claims will be repriced.  There is going to be a new, different equilibrium structure of financial contracts.  Maybe this new structure is less fragile.  Maybe it is more so.  I don’t know: the system is so complex that it will respond to this big shock in surprising ways.  All I do know is that this where you need to look to figure out the effects of the so-called reforms on systemic risk, and this ain’t where the BIS looks.  It counts benefits conferred on some subset of claimants, while ignoring the costs imposed on others (that are approximately equal in magnitude).

In other words, the BIS is hawking a free lunch, and as Friedman said, there ain’t no such thing.

The BIS study also has a particular model of systemic risk: the counterparty credit contagion model.  B takes a hit, that spreads to C, D, and E, which then spreads to F, G, and H, and on and on, until most everyone drops dead like Aztecs fell to the smallpox.  This is a common way of formalizing systemic risk, but reminds me of the story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there, not because he lost them there.  If you look at the history of financial crises, they almost never look like the systemic crises in these contagion models.  An idiosyncratic shock at one institution doesn’t bring a house of cards crashing down.  The collapses of individual institutions (Bear, Lehman) are symptoms of a deeper-and systemic-rot.

In sum, the BIS analysis is fundamentally flawed, and hence gives a wildly misleading estimate of the social benefits of the clearing and collateral mandates embedded in Frankendodd and EMIR and regulations adopted by other G20 nations.  It is a sad, sad example of a reputable institution falling prey to free lunch fallacies.

It is particularly sad because it’s not as if this hasn’t been pointed out before.  I raised the problem five years ago.  So you may say-well, who are you anyways?  Well, Harvard’s Mark Roe, one of the most accomplished bankruptcy scholars in the legal academy, has made the same point (and graciously cited my work).  And, truth be told, it is a staple of the bankruptcy literature.  And it’s also sad because I hear such “logic” over and over from regulators (e.g., scholars and policymakers at the Fed).  They presume to identify systemic benefits based on analyses that look at only a portion of the system.

And speaking of sad.  Could the BIS please spring for a typesetting program like LaTeX that prints readable equations?  Please?

* It is by no means clear that moving more trades to clearing will reduce credit exposures in derivatives via netting, especially given the fragmentation of CCPs by product and jurisdiction.  CCPs permit multilateral netting, but (a) bilateral trades can be compressed multilaterally, and (b) cross-product netting of exposures within dealer books can be larger than multilateral netting in single-category CCPs.  But that’s really a secondary issue.  The most important thing to remember is that the primary effect of netting is to redistribute default losses from derivatives counterparties to non-derivatives creditors.