Search This Blog

Showing posts with label HEDGE FUNDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HEDGE FUNDS. Show all posts

Sunday, February 6, 2022

When Repos Blew Up in 2019, Hedge Funds Were $800 Billion Short U.S. Treasury Futures; Then Margins Blew Out

 

When Repos Blew Up in 2019, Hedge Funds Were $800 Billion Short U.S. Treasury Futures; Then Margins Blew Out

Hedge Funds' Short Positions in U.S. Treasury Futures

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 3, 2022 ~

New details have emerged to provide a fuller picture of the turmoil that was taking place in the dark corners of markets when the overnight repo market blew up on September 17, 2019 and the Fed had to run to the rescue with trillions of dollars in cumulative loans that went on for months.

Imagine if you were the Federal Reserve and had been thoroughly disgraced by waging more than a two-year court battle to prevent the press in America from doing its job and publishing the granular details of the Fed’s 2007 to 2010 bailout of Wall Street and its foreign bank derivative counterparties. Then the Fed was further disgraced after losing the court battles when in 2011 the details of the $29 trillion bailout were published. Chances are that the Fed would not be anxious to let the public or Congress hear the latest details of bailing out hedge funds for the one percent that were using leverage of 50 to 1 obtained from the very banks the Fed is supposed to be supervising.

That background might help to explain why there was a complete news blackout by mainstream media, including by reporters assigned to cover the Fed, when the Fed began releasing the names of the trading units of the Wall Street megabanks that were pigs at its emergency repo bailout trough from September 17, 2019 through December 31, 2019.

That background might also help to explain why the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) wrote a research paper attempting to shift hedge fund turmoil in the Treasury futures market to March of 2020 – after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. – but slipped up and included two graphs that move the onset of the turmoil to smack dab in September of 2019.

As we next describe what happened, it’s important to remember that thanks to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, Wall Street has been allowed to structure itself into a daisy chain of systemic contagion. The same trading houses giving 50-to-1 margin loans to hedge funds on their Treasury securities as their so-called “prime brokers,” are the same “primary dealers” used by the New York Fed for its open market operations and contractually bound to be buyers of Treasury securities when the government issues new debt. The primary dealers that are the sugar daddies to hedge funds and get a regular pat on the head from the New York Fed, are, for the most part, owned by the megabanks on Wall Street which also own giant, federally-insured, deposit-taking banks that hold trillions of dollars of mom and pop savings accounts and insured money market accounts.

But in addition to holding trillions of dollars of insured mom and pop savings, these same taxpayer-backstopped megabanks also hold hundreds of trillions of dollars in dodgy derivatives which remain, for the most part, a black hole to regulators despite the promise of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010 to clean up this mess.

We mention this because when any part of this highly interconnected daisy chain teeters, the key players begin to back away from providing more lending to the others because the lack of transparency prevents any player from knowing who has the bulk of the risk and might blow up.

This situation has moved the Fed from its original mandate as lender-of-last-resort to commercial banks that are the backbone of the U.S. economy to lender-of-last-resort to the high rollers on Wall Street.

The OFR report explains how hedge funds were getting 50-to-1 leverage from their prime brokers (who are not named in the report but include JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup Global Markets and others) and engaging in a strategy called the basis trade. The OFR report describes the strategy as follows:

“The basis trade relies on a relationship between the cash Treasury market, where investors purchase Treasuries today; the Treasury futures market, where investors agree on a fixed price to pay for Treasuries they will receive in the future; and the repo market, where investors borrow or lend Treasuries against cash today. Theoretically, borrowing a Treasury today in the repo market, for which the investor pays interest at the repo rate, should cost the same amount as purchasing that Treasury today in the cash market with the agreement to sell that Treasury in the futures market at a later date. Very small variations from that ideal can be profitable if the investment is leveraged using borrowed capital.

“Basis trades are three-legged trades that span crucial financial markets: cash Treasury markets, Treasury futures markets, and repo markets. As we show, basis trades use long cash Treasury positions and short futures positions to construct a payoff that, absent financing risks and other frictions, would be a net position similar to a Treasury bill. (In futures markets, long positions are a bet prices will go up; short positions are a bet prices will go down.) One immediate difference between the return on a basis trade and the return on a bill is the possible variation margin on the futures position. (Futures traders make variation margin payments when the value of cash and collateral in their accounts falls below set margin levels.) More importantly, basis traders generally finance the long cash position in the repo market, which exposes the basis trade to rollover and liquidity risks. The return on basis trade is thus equivalent to a synthetic bill plus a risk premium. This risk premium is positive on average but can vary significantly and can turn negative during times of stress in funding markets.”

The OFR report also offers this on the subject of leverage: “Hedge fund leverage is constrained only by the haircuts on the collateral, and for Treasury securities haircuts are typically around 2 percent. This implies a maximum leverage ratio for hedge funds of 50 to 1.”

As we previously indicated, the OFR is attempting to shift all of this to the blow up in the Treasury market in March of 2020 but it slipped up and included the chart above and the chart below. The chart above shows that in 2019, hedge funds’ short positions in U.S. Treasury futures had skyrocketed to more than $800 billion. The chart below shows that the key players became alarmed and started demanding increased maintenance margin on the trades. (Maintenance margin is the minimum equity an investor must maintain in a margin account after the purchase has been made. The amount required at purchase is called the “initial” margin.)

Maintenance Margin On $200,000 Tw-Year Treasury Futures 2019-2020

Notice how the sharp rise in maintenance margin first occurred in the month of September 2019 and had started to abate as the Fed pumped in tens of billions of dollars a day in repo loans but then surged again in 2020 as pandemic panic took hold.

The chart below shows the names of the six largest borrowers and their borrowing amounts from the data released by the New York Fed. (These are the cumulative total of the loans, adjusted for the terms of the loans.) This is the information that mainstream media refuses to release to the public – possibly out of fear that it contradicts the Fed’s narrative that the repo crisis in 2019 grew out of corporations withdrawing their quarterly tax payments from the banks. But the largest borrower in the last quarter of 2019 from the Fed’s emergency repo operations was Nomura Securities International, part of the large Japanese investment bank. It certainly wasn’t a major holder of corporate tax payments for U.S. corporations.

Fed's Repo Loans to Largest Borrowers, Q4 2019, Adjusted for Term of Loan

Bloomberg News article on March 19, 2020 named Field Street Capital Management as one of the hedge funds that had lost significant sums on the basis trade.

Yesterday, we checked out Field Street’s Form ADV on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Field Street lists as its prime brokers the following: Bank of America Securities; J.P. Morgan Securities; and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. (part of Bank of America). Bank of America Securities and J.P. Morgan Securities are two of the Fed’s primary dealers; they were also heavy borrowers during the Fed’s repo bailout; and they are two of the four largest derivatives holders among all U.S. banks.

Field Street’s Form ADV also indicates that J.P. Morgan Securities is not just one of its prime brokers but is also a “marketer” of the hedge fund. As the chart above shows, J.P. Morgan Securities was the second largest borrower from the Fed’s repo bailout during the last quarter of 2019.

This does not mean that the basis trades blowing up were the sole cause of the repo crisis in the fall of 2019.

As we have previously indicated, Nomura was heavily exposed to derivatives; Deutsche Bank, a major counterparty to the derivatives of Wall Street’s megabanks, was in a death spiral; and $2.7 billion in credit default swaps blew up the very day before the Fed launched its repo bailout.

In other words, the ill-conceived, incompetently regulated, and opaque structure of Wall Street appears to have been coming apart at the seams in September 2019.

It is nothing short of a travesty against the American people that Congress has failed to investigate the matter, that mainstream media refuses to accurately report what happened, and that the Fed thinks Americans are stupid enough to believe its dumb corporate tax payment excuse (something corporations do every quarter).

We’ll be forwarding this article this morning to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, both of which oversee the Fed.


LINK






Tuesday, December 28, 2021

A Tale of Two Markets: S&P 500 Notches Its 69th Record Close as the Bottom Falls Out of the Nasdaq

 


A Tale of Two Markets: S&P 500 Notches Its 69th Record Close as the Bottom Falls Out of the Nasdaq

New York Stock Exchange

New York Stock Exchange

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 28, 2021 ~

On December 3 there were 585 new 52-week lows on the Nasdaq stock market versus 12 new 52-week highs. To look at it another way, 48.75 times more stocks were setting new 52-week lows than were reaching new 52-week highs. That doesn’t sound like the definition of a bull market to us. The Nasdaq had closed down just 1.9 percent that day.

Yesterday, the Nasdaq closed up 1.39 percent. We decided to check out the breadth of the market. Sure enough, even on an up day for the Nasdaq, there was negative breadth. There were 139 new 52-week highs but 203 new 52-week lows.

Against this pattern of a clearly deteriorating stock market picture came a raft of headlines yesterday touting that the S&P 500 Index had notched its 69th record close for the year. But here’s what you need to know about the S&P 500: it’s an index weighted by market cap and you have a handful of tech giants that dominate the market cap of the S&P 500 index. Alphabet’s share price (Google) is up 70 percent year-to-date; Microsoft is up almost 60 percent; and Apple is up 40 percent.

There has also been a deterioration in the share price of two megabanks on Wall Street. You can’t have a healthy stock market if the megabanks that lend to the largest corporations begin to struggle.

On Friday, October 1, Citigroup (ticker C) closed at a share price of $71.18. Yesterday, Citigroup closed at $60.65 – a decline of 15 percent in just under three months. JPMorgan Chase (ticker JPM), which has the dubious distinction of being both the largest bank in the United States as well as the only U.S. bank to admit to five felony counts in the past seven years, is down 5 percent in the same span of time. The S&P 500 Index (ticker SPX) is up 10 percent since October 1. (See chart below.)

S&P 500 Chart versus Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, October 1, 2021 through December 27, 2021.

Then there is the question that remains unanswered by the ongoing investigation of the SEC into the Wall Street megabanks loaning out their balance sheets to family office hedge funds by providing as much as 85 percent margin loans so that these hedge funds can secretly take massively concentrated positions in a handful of stocks.

The chart below shows what has happened to the share prices of ViacomCBS (VIAC), Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME), Vipshop Holdings (VIPS), iQIYI Inc. (IQ), and Baidu (BIDU) since March 1. Those were some of the concentrated stock positions held by the Archegos Capital Management family office hedge fund before it blew itself up on those 85 percent margin loans in late March.

What the SEC has yet to answer is the question, just how many more Archegos are lurking out there?

Collapsed Share Prices of Stocks Held by Archegos Capital Management Since March 1, 2021




https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/12/a-tale-of-two-markets-sp-500-notches-its-69th-record-close-as-the-bottom-falls-out-of-the-nasdaq/

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Robert Reich | This Tax Loophole Costs $180 Billion a Decade. Why Won't Democrats Close It?

 


 

Reader Supported News
14 December 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

INDIFFERENCE CAN BE LETHAL | Over the years we have made a lot of powerful enemies, and withstood their collective wrath. Indifference to the organization’s funding by the community it serves is by every measure a far more dangerous enemy than all the others combined. Indifference, the true enemy. In all things.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
FOCUS: Robert Reich | This Tax Loophole Costs $180 Billion a Decade. Why Won't Democrats Close It?
Robert Reich, Guardian UK
Reich writes: "Anyone remember the 'carried interest' loophole that lets hedge fund executives and private equity managers - among the wealthiest people in America - pay a tax rate no higher than most Americans? It's a pure scam."

The sole reason the ‘carried interest’ loophole survives is fierce lobbying by the private equity industry

Anyone remember the “carried interest” loophole that lets hedge fund executives and private equity managers – among the wealthiest people in America – pay a tax rate no higher than most Americans? It’s a pure scam. They get the tax break even though they invest other peoples’ money rather than risk their own.

Barack Obama promised to get rid of the loophole. He failed. So, remarkably, did Donald Trump. Guess what happened? Nothing.

“I don’t know what happened,” said Larry Kudlow, the conservative economist who crafted Trump’s campaign tax plan. “I don’t know how that thing survived,” he said, adding, “I’m sure the lobbying was intense.”

Now that Democrats are trying to find ways to finance President Biden’s Build Back Better package, you might think that the carried interest loophole would be high on their list. After all, closing it could raise $180bn over 10 years. That’s $180bn that could go toward supporting vulnerable Americans and investing in America’s future.

Think again. The loophole – which treats the earnings of private equity managers and venture capitalists as capital gains, taxed at a top rate of just 20%, instead of income, whose top tax rate is 37% – remains as big as ever. Bigger.

Influential Democrats, such as House ways and means committee chair Richard Neal, argue that closing the loophole would hobble the private equity industry, and, by extension, the US economy. Neal’s ways and means committee wants only to require private equity firms to hold assets for slightly longer than they do now in order for their managers to qualify for the loophole.

The truth is there’s zero economic justification for retaining this loophole. Private equity firms borrow money to buy companies they see as ripe for turnarounds – where they can cut wages, outsource jobs, strip assets – and then resell what’s left, often laden with debt. The firms don’t risk their partners’ own capital. Instead, they charge their investors a management fee of 2% and keep 20% of future profits that their investments generate – which is known as “carried interest”. (Fourteenth-century Italian ship captains were compensated in part with an interest in whatever profits were realized on the cargo they carried.)

The sole reason the loophole survives even during Democratic Congresses, is fierce lobbying by the private equity industry – and the dependence of too many Democrats on campaign funding from the partners of private equity and hedge funds.

“This is a loophole that absolutely should be closed,” said Biden adviser Jared Bernstein. But “when you go up to Capitol Hill and you start negotiating on taxes, there are more lobbyists in this town on taxes than there are members of Congress.”

Last year 4,108 individual lobbyists formally registered to lobby Congress and the executive branch on taxes, according to the Open Secrets lobbying database. It’s likely that hundreds more work to influence federal tax policy on behalf of clients but have not formally registered as lobbyists.

The private equity industry spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to fight any effort to change how it is taxed. It has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to congressional campaigns – $600m over the past decade, according to a New York Times analysis earlier this year.

During the 2020 election, Biden’s presidential campaign received over $3m from people working in private equity and related types of investment funds, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Biden was the top recipient of campaign money from that industry in the last campaign cycle. All told, nearly 60% of campaign donations from those in the private equity industry during the 2020 election went toward Democratic candidates for federal office.

In 2010, House Democrats squeaked through a tax plan that closed the loophole, but Democrats who controlled Senate wouldn’t go along. Senator Charles Schumer was among those who argued against closing it. The United States, he said, “should not do anything” to “make it easier for capital and ideas to flow to London or anywhere else”. As if Wall Street needed billions in annual bribes to stay put.

When I publicly criticized Schumer for this, he explained to me that he didn’t think it fair to close the loophole for private equity and hedge fund partners but to leave it in place for other partnerships, such as housing developers.

Well, one person’s view of fairness may differ from another’s. But I don’t think there’s any question that the carried interest loophole is unfair to everyone except the fabulously rich who benefit from it.

Democrats must close this loophole. Now.


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







"Look Me In The Eye" | Lucas Kunce for Missouri

  Help Lucas Kunce defeat Josh Hawley in November: https://LucasKunce.com/chip-in/ Josh Hawley has been a proud leader in the fight to ...