Showing posts with label hedge funds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hedge funds. Show all posts

Euro Being Shorted In A Big Way - Collusion?

soros

On January 20, the euro fell to a five-month low against the U.S. dollar (USD) to trade at 1.4160, due to concerns about the fiscal crisis in Greece. On February 5, 2010, the Euro fell to US$ 1.3638 on budget concerns in Greece, Spain and Portugal. It had traded as high as US$1.50 in October 2009. Several hedge funds have placed big bearish bets against the euro, with some speculating the single European unit will fall to parity with the dollar. On February 8, 2010, traders and hedge funds bet US$8 billion against the euro, the largest short position in the currency ever, due to concerns over contagion from the Greek budget crisis.

Apparently the large bets against the euro emerged following an exclusive "idea dinner" earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC. During the dinner, hosted by a boutique investment bank at a private townhouse in Manhattan, a small group of all-star hedge fund managers argued that the euro is likely to fall to equal on an exchange basis with the dollar.

I really don't think you need some parties to collude to weaken the euro. If the patient wasn't very sick already, the vultures would not be circling. The elite traders' bearish bets, reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the US financial crisis, had added to the selling pressure on the currency, and to the pressure on the European Union to stem the Greek debt crisis. Yes, it has added to the downward pressure but you cannot blame the traders.

However, the main street readers would like to bash Soros and fellow hedge funds managers for the woes. They remember the US crisis, which shook the foundation of the financial industry and plunged the world's largest economy into its worst recession in decades, hit peak levels in late 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bundled euro banknotes. A group of hedge funds have launched ...

At that time major hedge fund managers, such as Greenlight Capital chief David Einhorn, who also was at this month's euro-dominated dinner, determined that the fortunes of Lehman and other firms were dim and bet heavily against their securities, accelerating their fall.

An SAC manager, Aaron Cowen, who pitched the group on the bearish bet, said he viewed all possible outcomes relating to the Greek debt crisis as negative for the euro. SAC's trading position on the euro is unclear.

George Soros, head of his 27 billion dollar asset fund, warned last weekend that if the EU did not fix its finances, "the euro may fall apart." A spokesman for Soros Fund Management said the legendary investor did not attend the dinner on February 8, but did not deny that his firm was represented. At the dinner, the speculators are said to have argued that the euro is likely to plunge in value to parity with the dollar.

The single currency has been under enormous pressure because of Greece's debt crisis, plus financial worries in Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland. But, it has also struggled because hedge funds have been placing huge bets on the currency's decline, which could make the speculators hundreds of millions of pounds.

Mr Soros, who made more than $1billion by currency speculation when the pound was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992, believes the structure of the euro is 'patently flawed'.

Greece is desperate to restore the confidence of investors in its debt after revealing that the previous government understated its budget deficit by half. Outlining the precarious nature of Greece's finances, Mr Papandreou said: 'There is only one dilemma: Will we let the country go bankrupt or will we react? Will we let the speculators strangle us, or will we take our fate in our own hands?'

The Greek leader also called for more help from the EU with its debt crisis. Until now, the EU has offered political support but no bailout.

I do not see parity but I think it will get very close, maybe 1.15 within 6 months.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Hedge Funds Reexamined



Hedge funds have taken a lot of criticism over the last 2 years for pumping up markets and/or leveraging their capital to make big momentum bets. Naturally when the markets corrected, which took a lot of hedge funds down with it, many of the critics were rubbing their hands with glee - sometimes, we just love to see tall poppies being hacked, or misery happen to the rich and successful ... Hedge funds took the blame for much of last year's financial havoc, but the fact is that they have played a much more benign role than is commonly thought.

Plenty of funds went under with the market plunge: a record 1,471 in 2008 out of a total of 6,845, according to the Chicago tracking firm Hedge Fund Research. But the government didn't bail out a single one. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work: incompetents go out of business, smart guys clean up. How about that, hedge funds NEVER GOT ONE CENT from any government. You fail, you close shop. you lose money, you take it on the chin and walk away to do something else.

The hedge-fund industry has shown remarkable resiliency, turning in a gain of more than 12 percent for the first seven months of 2009. The firms that caused most of the trouble on Wall Street were not hedge funds but big investment banks and insurance companies trying to act like hedge funds. They did a lot of risky proprietary trading with other people's money, and they failed. The key is betting using "other people's money" or your own capital. Funnily, firms that bet using their own capital have generally performed a lot, lot, lot better. This is the one big lesson all regulators, investors and senior management need to know by now.

Wall Street's most successful long-term model has been companies like Brown Brothers Harriman or Goldman Sachs, where firms bet the owners' own capital. Such a structure ensures careful risk assessment. Similarly, many hedge-fund managers have a lot of net worth invested in their own funds. Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has proposed that federally insured banks be barred from proprietary trading. Maybe only hedge funds have earned the right to be the big risk takers of the future.

While many will continue to sneer and hope that more hedge funds will find troubled waters in the future ... much of it is envy and the inability to accept their compensation schemes. Most hedge funds charge an annual 1%-2% fee, plus a 20% cut of any positive returns. Some funds may have a minimum hurdle return rate (e.g. 5%) before the 20% share kicks in. All you need is a couple of good years before one can retire comfortably. Say a team of 3 runs a US$100m hedge fund. They have US$1.5m in fees to cover costs. If their fund gets a return of 18% for the year, technically they will get US$3.6m in performance profit share. You can do the math if one person manages US$100m or more. You can also do the math if you can leverage that capital 100% and double your return to 36%, thus doubling your profit share to US$7.2m. In a good run, not many investors will care about the leverage or risk that you took to get the returns as long as they were spectacular. In a down market, only then will investors and fund of funds start asking hard questions about leverage, reporting frequency, the ability to take money out at regular intervals without penalty, the amount a fund pays in commission, the percentage of portfolio that was turned over in a year, the alpha and beta and the gamma (no, we are not talking about radioactive rays).

My view is that hedge funds are here to stay. I would want to pay somebody a 20% bonus if they make me more money. I am sure the managers' interest is aligned with mine. What an investor has to be careful is that the compensation structure encourages big bets. The structure also encourages to bet aggressively to notch super normal returns as losses are not the end of the world - many dubious players will close the funds when they have one or two years of negative returns (you would then have to make up the deficit before getting the 20% profit share again)... only to reemerge somewhere else again with a new fund and new partners. Thus investing in hedge funds mean you have to know a bit about the people running the funds. You also have to know their strategy and leverage, and if you are rich enough to invest in hedge funds, spread it among a few funds, with differing investing strategies, and a decent track record.

There are many who will be starting afresh hedge funds, calling for subscribers. They are not as dangerous as one might think. They offer a fresh start, always judge them on what they had done before and what they want to achieve. New funds are more agreeable with "anytime withdrawals" and lower fees. Bear in mind that there is a danger when funds get too big. It gets that much harder to perform when its starts getting close to the US1bn mark, unless the hedge funds is based solely on quant models and program trades.


p/s photos: Chrissie Chau

VW, The World's Biggest Company By Capitalisation


The last couple weeks saw a new largest company in the world amidst the turmoil. Share price of Volkswagen went over 1,000 euros a share owing to the immense short covering in the stock. A few months ago, many hedge funds shorted VW when its share price was below 200 euros. Porsche the controlling shareholder correctly let the hedge funds to make huge losses and send VW share prices rocketing more than 500% in a matter of weeks. It was horrendous if you were short the stock. Finally after much blood on the streets, Porsche has stepped in to sell 5% of VW into the open market at a huge profit. Sometimes, running a business poorly can yield the most unlikely benefits. I doubt very much that VW would ever go above 1000 euros ever again.

New York Times - FRANKFURT — Shares in Volkswagen fell by nearly half Wednesday after its main shareholder, Porsche, took steps to ease a quadrupling in the stock price that had pushed some of the world’s biggest hedge funds to the wall.

The move came as the German financial supervisor, Bafin, announced a formal investigation into gyrations of VW stock that briefly made it the most valuable company in the world a day earlier. “We need to take a closer look if there was market manipulation,” a Bafin spokeswoman, Anja Engelland, said.

Porsche said it would dump up to 5 percent of its VW shares — presumably at a great profit — “to avoid further market distortions and the resulting consequences for those involved.” Volkswagen stock, which rose to above 1,000 euros, or to about $1,284, at one point on Tuesday, plummeted on Wednesday to close at 517 euros. That is still well above its close Friday of 210 euros.

Porsche, which has engaged in a creeping takeover of Volkswagen over several years, unleashed a punishing market dynamic this week on investors who believed VW stock would lose value if Porsche took majority control.

These short-sellers, who borrow stock in the hope of buying it back later at a lower price, scrambled to buy shares of VW to cover their bets after Porsche revealed Sunday that it controlled a much larger pool of VW shares than previously disclosed, creating scarcity in the number of shares investors could buy.

Many hedge fund managers were relieved on Wednesday when the share price fell. Funds like Greenlight Capital, Glenview Capital and SAC Capital had bet that Volkswagen’s stock was overvalued back when the price was below 200. The spike in the stock put funds with big positions at risk, and some of those funds could face large margin calls from the banks this week if the stock does not continue to fall.

Porsche, whose own shares jumped Wednesday by 37 percent, flatly denied any wrongdoing. “Porsche has not been active in the market during these share price movements,” it said. “Allegations of price manipulation by Porsche are therefore without foundation whatsoever.”

The episode highlights how Porsche, the sports car manufacturer that keeps investment bankers and hedge fund managers moving at high speeds down the world’s highways, beat both at their own game.

Porsche raised its stake in Volkswagen to 42.6 percent from 35 percent, and said Sunday it had taken options that settle in cash for an additional 31.5 percent. By acquiring options to buy VW shares at a certain price, Porsche was in the position Wednesday to exercise them, and then sell at elevated prices for a colossal profit.

“Presumably they are doing this to earn money, and not to help the hedge funds,” said Jens Schattner, an auto analyst at Sal. Oppenheim in Frankfurt.

With big names and big money at stake, the spectacle has riveted Germany, with some unease but a fair dose as well of schadenfreude among many Germans.

“As opposed to previous speculative bubbles that cost a lot of small investors their money in the stock exchange casino, the chaos around VW shares overwhelmingly hits professional gamblers,” Die Tageszeitung, a left-leaning Berlin newspaper, wrote. “Sympathy does not seem appropriate.”

But with its use of financial derivatives, surprise pronouncements and calculated opacity, Porsche did appear to be acting a bit like one of the hedge funds that a German politician once famously called “locusts” that prey on unsuspecting companies. Indeed, in the 2006-7 fiscal year, Porsche engaged in a similar financial strategy that drew in vastly higher profits than the sales of its cars.

The size of Porsche’s profit on this week’s transactions is likely to remain a mystery until next year, analysts said. Stock option transactions earned Porsche 3.6 billion euros in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2007, or 62 percent of its pretax profit. It has yet to reveal results for the 2007-8 financial year, and the current transactions will not register until its report in late 2009.

German law does not require Porsche to reveal details of the price at which it bought the cash options, or the strike price at which they can be exercised, the two main variables in the profit calculation.

Porsche’s financial strategy of securing control over Volkswagen has been the brainchild of its chief financial officer, Holger P. Härter, who sits on the larger company’s board. The Schaeffler Group, a maker of roller bearings, used a similar approach to seize control of Continental, one of the world’s largest auto parts makers, this summer.

The German Finance Ministry is now examining whether to broaden disclosure rules to include complex financial derivatives that can be used to circumvent normal disclosure rules on shareholdings.

Porsche and Schaeffler are family-controlled companies, a fact that appears to have limited the political fallout from the rough-and-tumble tactics. Porsche is often held up by German critics of American-style capitalism as a company that makes enviable profits while paying its workers a premium wage.

Ulrich Hocker, director of DSW, a German shareholder protection group, said a player like Deutsche, for example, would have run into a thicket of criticism for using such tactics, being widely held and much more American in its outlook.

“If Deutsche had done this, we would have a terrible uproar,” Mr. Hocker said. “But Porsche is a family company that has the reputation of doing well for their people, and they are using that reputation to the fullest.”

A Clever Move by Porsche on VW’s Stock
By FLOYD NORRIS

On Wall Street, a corner is not just an intersection of two streets. It is also a way to extract huge profits from speculators who had the temerity to sell a stock short.

Now the question is whether Porsche has pulled off a brilliant new-fashioned corner in Volkswagen stock, using derivatives in clever ways that no one had thought of before, or whether it was too clever for its own good.

In a corner, a buyer or group of buyers buys a lot of stock. As the price goes up, short-sellers appear. They borrow stock — perhaps from the very same group — and sell it, hoping to make a profit when the price declines.

Then comes the squeeze. The group, which now owns more shares than exist, demands the return of the borrowed stock. The only way the short-sellers can comply with that request is to purchase shares, and the only one who has shares to sell is the corner group. The group can set its own price, and make a fortune.

One reason you don’t see many corners these days is that they are illegal in most countries. But another is that almost everybody involved tends to lose in the end, with the exception of lucky investors who happened to own the stock before the fun started and can sell into the big run-up in prices.

Those who execute corners usually make lots of money from the short-sellers. But they end up owning a company for which they paid too much. The stock is delisted from the stock exchange, since there no longer are enough public shareholders, so there is no ready market for the stock. If the group that executed the corner used borrowed money, they may be in big trouble.

In the 1920s, the most famous corner in the United States was in stock in Piggly Wiggly, a grocery store chain. The corner was successful, but the man who executed it eventually went broke.

But there have been successful corners. Cornelius Vanderbilt once pulled one off, with members of the New York City Council as the victims. They had tried to profit by shorting a railroad company Vanderbilt controlled, and then revoking the company’s principal asset, a license to operate a street railway. Vanderbilt bought shares, and kept the price from falling. Owning more shares than there were outstanding, he offered to let the council members cover their short positions with only small losses, if they reinstated the license. They did.

The big loser in that corner was a legendary speculator, Daniel Drew, who had proposed the idea to the council members. He was forced to purchase shares at very high prices.

It is Drew who is credited with the saying “He who sells what isn’t his’n, must buy it back or go to pris’n.”

For the cornerer, there is also the risk that rules will change when powerful people get in trouble. That was one of the things that broke the Hunt brothers’ attempted corner in silver back in 1980. The authorities made it almost impossible to bet on silver prices rising, and the Hunts went broke.

Now, from Germany we have a new version of the corner, using derivatives in a way that may have removed much of the risk for the people planning the corner.

Briefly, here are the relevant facts: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and has been building up its stake, thereby driving up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short.

Then last weekend, Porsche revealed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock, and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent.

The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about 200 euros to a high of over 1,000 euros. VW became the world’s most valuable company, if you believed that market price.

It appears that Porsche put one over on whoever wrote that option, or options. The options are said to be cash-settled, although we do not know much more about them than that. That means Porsche does not have to buy the shares — which it might have a lot of trouble paying for. Instead, at settlement it merely has to accept the cash difference between the market price and the price it has agreed to pay. The result could be tens of billions of euros in profits, without the headache of owning shares no one else wants to buy.

There has been a lot of speculation about who is on the hook for those options. Of course, those people may have used other derivatives to lay off some of their risk on who-knows-who-else. That is one result of having opaque markets, which Wall Street used to love because it made for higher profit margins. Now it may be one more loss for some already reeling bank or banks.

After all this is done, the VW share price will fall to some more reasonable level. And there are rumors that Porsche has purchased put options, presumably with later exercise dates, to profit from that fall.

By Tuesday night, the establishment was fighting back. Germany’s premier stock index, the DAX, was changed to cut VW’s proportion in it. That allowed index funds to sell stock, adding to the supply of shares, and VW’s shares are back to about 500 euros.

In the United States, there are numerous laws and regulations to stop corners. But Porsche insists it broke no German laws, adding that “allegations of price manipulation by Porsche are therefore without any foundation whatsoever.” It placed the blame on — you guessed it — “speculative short sellers.”

If this works, Porsche will have made billions from a car company at a time when cars are not selling very well. It will not have done that by selling cars, but a profit is a profit.

Of course, rules can be changed, as Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt learned. The brothers angrily protested that it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, but the rules were changed and the brothers went from billionaires to bankrupts.

If it comes to a question of whether regulators step in, Porsche has the advantage of facing off against short-selling hedge funds. There may not be a less popular group of investors, and their losses would provoke little sympathy.

But banks now have friends in high places. If Porsche’s option coup threatens a major bank, the bank might ask for help. Will governments step in to protect their investments? Stay tuned.



p/s photos: Yoon Eun Hye

Singapore Property Outlook


Singapore property market is always very interesting. There is a high degree of speculation and much of excess liquidity would always find their way into properties there.

Thanks to its clear cut policies and very stable currency, Singapore properties attract investors from HK, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia as well. Hence, when it is hot, it is very hot. When it is not it can go south very quickly.

Its a very brutal market place. One that is not so dependent on "employment" as a main factor - i.e. if you have jobs, you still can make the installment payments. In Singapore, the dominant factor in properties has to be speculative element. The investors that buy 2 or 3 lots per launch. For them, the jobs factor is not in calculation but rather more important to predict the flow of capital.
Prices of private homes have fallen for the first time in four-and-a-half years. This marks the end to the property boom that started since 2004.

Consultants say prices are likely to keep falling well into next year. Overall prices of private homes slipped 1.8 per cent, after flattening out in the second quarter. Consultants called it a turning point after almost a year of deadlock between buyers and sellers. Citigroup analyst Wendy Koh predicts that high-end home prices will fall by 25 per cent, the mid-end by 15 per cent and mass market by 5 to 10 per cent.


On the jobs front, Singapore has been the strongest beneficiary of hedge funds setting up shop there. Thanks to proactive measures, many hedge funds have chosen Singapore as their base. The pollution in HK has also seen some relocations from HK to Singapore. The number of expatriates, in particular from India, have also boosted inherent property demand.
The events over the last few weeks would have put a halt to many of the expatriate postings. The more severe effects have been from those linked to hedge funds.

A cursory glance would reveal that more than 50% have closed shop over the last few months, no kidding. More are likely to close due to a huge loss in assets under management, poor performance and redemptions. The fact that Singapore dollar has held up the best among major currencies will only cause many of those affected by the crisis to sell Singapore property first to get cold very hard cash. I mean, who would want to sell their OZ properties now if they were a foreign investor?


The last 4 years have seen the Singapore mid-high end market being beneficiary to the enbloc sale phenomenon. Older condominiums were sold enbloc for premiums (to prevailing market prices) from 50%-100%. This freed up a loy of capital and saw much of the seller buying back into the private high end market with their windfalls. The first 3 years were very profitable for these players as they could buy and sell for a quick 30% gain after just a few months. As usual, greed takes over and you will find the same buyer now having 2-4 such properties for speculation (they'd call it investments). How fast can you scale down to protect your capital? First out best dressed.

The other related problem is the ruling that you can pay 10% deposit and nothing till the property is completed. Well, that sounded like a great idea before. Now a lot of properties will be completed in 2009 and 2010 and even 2011. If you have that, you are like holding a call option until the property is completed. The danger is that many would still be able to make the installments but would you be happy to make the payments if your property by then had sunk by 20% in value? First out best dressed again.

Evidence that more downside is to come: a blogger went to a couple of launches and was given the aggressive sales pitch. As long as you can put down 30% as deposit, they can arrange for a line of credit amounting to your yearly income. Hint, hint! You know where this is going. Its almost like maxing out your credit card on cash advance to put as down payment, something's gotta give. Desperate times call for desperate measures.


Naturally, there will be a lot of those who will come in to defend that property prices won't fall by that much, and that things are different in Singapore. I would like to remind all that we are going through a massive de-leveraging process globally. There is a huge aversion to leverage and credit, and the first asset to get de-leveraged will always be property to individual investors.
But you say that Asian players are not that affected by the US subprime and CDS crisis. Really?? Asian markets have already tried to factor in the massive downswing. Asian markets have actually fallen more than the US markets dollar for dollar, and if you take in the dollar effect, the market cap loss is even higher. As you all know, Asian economies are tied very closely to their stockmarkets. Many have been able to avert the large losses as there was plenty of time to scale down your stock holdings, almost all could see the correction before it actually happened. Safe to say that the huge wipeout in market values over the last 6 months have been on institutional investors and die-hard traders only. Most of the individual investors have largely been unhurt.

Having said that, most of the rich individuals with substantial equity portfolio have seen their value being decimated. Though they may still have cash and not reached pauper status yet. Their net worth may have shrunk by 50%, just ask Lee Shin Cheng or Lim Kok Thay. Try and sell them a few Sails condo, they would wave you off as being stupid,.... unless it was at least 30% cheaper.


It is very hard to write negatively about properties, even for consultants, journalists and analysts, as most have properties of their own, and would be loathed to write anything bad about it. So, beware of those who try to mount a defensive argument.


p/s photos: Ema Fujisawa