Bamalama Gidinggidinggidong ... Obama


It is so easy to really like Obama. One of the most important ingredient in a powerful leader is his oratory skills, his speech making skills and his charisma. You can have the most qualified leader, but if you don't have those traits that I have just mentioned, you can never reach the heights of a great leader. Did Obama join Toastmasters when he was younger?

I listened and listened to his speeches, and was in awed all the time. You can say in your hearts, let me be cynical and question his every word. You would still end up being swayed by him. He is better in speech making than Churchill and JFK put together.
He speaks with a deliberateness, and his words come out with digestible dollops of sharp ideas and emotions. The pace of his speech allows us to take it all in. He knows how to build it up, without the shouting freneticism of a evangelical preacher on hot coals. He does not need to shout. His gift is knowing what is dearest in peoples' minds, and he breaks down the defences and the uncertainty in their hearts one layer by one layer.

A brilliant speech maker does not make a brilliant President. If he was without substance, he would not have risen the ranks in his previous leadership posts. He comes across not as a black man but a man of integrity who happened to be black.


He has huge tasks ahead, he was humble in his acceptance speech, he was sobering, he did not whooped it up as a victory. He immediately put people back onto the real issues ahead. Does he have the ability to tackle the financial mess? Does he have the ability to mend foreign relations, the simmering ties with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia in particular?
Nobody really knows the answer, but I am willing to take a bet that he can do well. He seems to have a good grasp of the issues, he does not let it get to his head that he might know all the answers. I think he will have the intelligence to appoint the right people to help him solve the right issues to tackle. What we do know is that we have someone who has the right values and integrity that we want to see to go and tackle the looming issues - and that's all we can ask for, really. I would really like to see Colin Powell being appointed to shore up the defense / foreign relations side of things. Yes, even Republicans can be appointed by a Democrat President. The nomination of the Treasury secretary is his first real test as well. I expect him to make waves by attending the G-20 meeting on Nov 15.

In terms of symbolic change in power, it is very enthralling. It is very empowering, not just for African Americans, but for all minorities. For those who are struggling against the system and the racial discrimination throughout the world. Never would I thought that a black man would be appointed as President ahead of a woman. Does that say something about feminism in America?
The whole world celebrates alongside with the US in the present days that is so desperate for a shining light. Change, improvement, democracy, liberty and sensibility.


Phew! CDS, Its Just $33.6 Trillion Not $50 Trillion!!!


Dealbook: In the first of a series of weekly reports, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation said late Tuesday afternoon that there were a total of $33.6 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding on corporate, government and asset-backed securities. That is less than some earlier estimates of $50 trillion or more.

The company’s data provides a clearer picture of the money bet on the creditworthiness of the world’s companies and governments. The largest dollar amount of credit default swaps were written for protection against the debts of Turkey, Italy, Brazil, Russia and GMAC as of Oct. 31.

Others at the top of the D.T.C.C. list of 1,000 were Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GE Capital and Countrywide Home Loans. In all those cases, however, the net notional values of the swaps were reduced considerably by hedging.

For example, Turkey was the leader in gross notional credit default swaps, at $188.6 billion, but its net notional exposure after hedging was $7.6 billion.

D.T.C.C.’s figures are available at Deriv/SERV on the D.T.C.C. Web site.

D.T.C.C. said that after this week the data would be shown in two sections. The first section shows the outstanding notional values at a given point in time (the end of each week). Starting next week, the second section will show data relating to the weekly confirmed trade volume, or “turnover,” with respect to the same underlying reference entities and indexes, as well as similar aggregations of such data.

The financial industry is trying to counter lawmakers, regulators and other critics who argue that the lack of transparency in the market for credit default swaps made the financial crisis worse.

“Publishing this data will provide greater transparency in a critical market,” said Tim Ryan, president and chief executive of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, in a statement Tuesday. “This is an important initiative upon which the industry will continue to build.”

The collapse of Lehman Brothers contributed to a sharp drop in financial markets last month because no one knew how many credit default contracts were outstanding on the securities firm. Estimates ranged as high as $400 billion, although the actual amount turned out to be $72 billion, the DTCC said.

Comments: Well, its a very good start. Once you know the figures, its not a guessing game anymore. Then you isolate the top contracts and assess their likelihood of default. As we can see most of the trouble companies have been absorbed by other companies. There is one main danger I see, that is GE Capital, which will work its way back to General Electric. Its still a AAA company but if you were to examine its way of doing business, its a highly leveraged way, and more than 60% of profits are from the 100-200 basis points financing spread that they use to do business with clients, be it funding them or funding the transactions - e.g. consumer loans or even aircrafts (you want to buy an aircraft, let me lend you 90%).

As for country defaults, while its hyped up, only Iceland risk real default and maybe Turkey and Venezuela. The rest have to just tighten their balance sheets, get some billions from IMF and get on with it. Even Russia's demise is not exactly catastrophic, its bad no doubt, but not debilitatingly so.

Just a heads up, I am quite nervous on GE's near term prospects. Its $15 billion capital raising a few weeks back should raise alarm bells. Ratings agencies are again probably too slow to look deeply into how GE's business model is affected by the cascading impact on de-leveraging.

p/s photos: Izumi Mori

OPEC, Oil Price & Destabilised Countries


RGE: As anticipated, OPEC cut production in its October 24 Meeting. OPEC agreed to reduce production from its output ceiling by 1.5 million barrels a day from where it is currently set at 28.8 barrels a day. OPEC has been producing well over this quota for much of the summer and fall - so the reduction could be even larger. However as suggested in the piece below, written Oct 23, the prospect of even weaker demand as the economic climate worsens and the effects of wealth losses sink in, continued to push oil, other commodities and global equities downward.

However now reduced demand and financial panic are pointing in the same direction - a lower oil price. We could see prices in the mid-$50s over the next few weeks, even if oil rebounds as it seems now to be doing.

However, first off, we will see how OPEC members implement the cuts - Saudi Arabia is responsible for about 1/3 of the cuts - 466,000 barrels a day, Iran 199,000 and UAE and Kuwait about 130,000.

The farther the oil price falls the greater the likelihood OPEC members might cheat on their quotas to maximize revenues as occurred in the 80s and 90s. Deeper production cuts might be needed for a real price increase which would be difficult for producers and an oil price much higher than current levels could exacerbate the economic crisis and delay the expansion and thus demand for its commodity.

There are no shortage of uncertainties pervading the market - uncertainties specific to the oil market include - how much demand has been destroyed and how OPEC members would react to persistently lower prices.

The downward trend of oil prices (and those of most commodities) has been pretty unstoppable since investors finally realized that $147/barrel was too expensive in the face of a global recession. The belated recognition that this was a global and not a US centered crisis contributed to the initial turnaround and the escalation of the credit crisis has been marked by major losses in equity and commodity markets - and increased volatility. With credit markets still relatively frozen and the macro costs of the financial crisis still ahead, the outlook is gloomy for oil demand. And as mentioned before, it doesn’t take much of a reduction in demand, to trigger a big correction, especially when uncertainty abounds in global financial markets. With frequent news of foreclosures, flailing hedge funds, its no surprise that few want to take a risk in holding commodities.

The price for a barrel of OPEC crude is sitting at just over $60 a barrel - WTI is not much above $70. Some OPEC members have already suggested that the market may be oversupplied by as much as 2 million barrels a day.

OPEC faces several challenges 1) they don’t want to be blamed for exacerbating economic weakness 2) they want to maximize their revenues 3) they don’t want to overly encourage alternatives to oil or competition from non-OPEC suppliers. However, their biggest concern may be the continued panic in financial markets and mounting demand losses

Given the likely macro effects of the persistent freezing of the credit markets, economic output will continue to slow – and so should demand for hydrocarbons. Even if at a certain price point demand might rebound somewhat, particularly if the current surplus is removed.

The real wild card on the demand side is China. China accounts for the largest demand growth now and in the last five years. Its demand for oil is unlikely to follow the same large increases it experienced in recent years – meaning that its demand growth will fail to offset OECD reductions. The slowing of the Chinese economy and reduction in its imports of several commodities over the third quarter have confirmed the end of the current commodity super boom, if not the whole post 2003 boom. Already aluminum is piling up and inventories of several metals are on the rise. The question is whether this trend is temporary – ie how strong will Chinese demand be after some of the existing inventories are absorbed.

However, China’s torrid pace of commodity absorption is unlikely to return immediately– in part because it is trying to shift its economic sources of growth. However China’s fiscal stimulus will be partly channeled into infrastructure spending including to the railways and the construction sector, which could put a floor in prices – yet the expectations of Chinese demand growth that pervaded last year – and were a major justification for skyrocketing prices – seem overly optimistic in an environment where a figure like Gerald Lyons can suggest that China’s growth could slow to 4% next year. This may be overly bearish, but even at 7-8% growth, China will likely consume fewer commodities. and the combination of forces that led to the 2008 oil price boom seem unlikely to be repeated any time soon.

Many articles have been written over the last weeks about the reliance of OPEC countries (and some non-OPEC oil exporters) on higher oil prices which is likely adding to their concerns. Clearly they have gotten used to higher oil prices and on average budgets balance around 55-60 a barrel. Of course OPEC can’t just wish for higher prices and there is a risk that if prices keep dropping some OPEC members might break ranks and pump more (shades of the 1980s pricing conflicts).

There is a lot of uncertainty about the break-even points of some of these governments but a look at the range gives an indication of their respective “pain thresholds” to quote Russian Finance minister Kudrin. GCC countries prompt the most uncertainty. In fact estimates of Saudi Arabia’s breakeven point range from $30 a barrel to almost $60 a barrel. Its probably somewhere in the $45-50/barrel range. Estimates for the UAE also vary depending on whether one focuses solely on the rather small UAE federal budget or the broader spending that is directly or indirectly financed from oil revenues or the associated inflows. Bahrain and Oman, which have limited or declining oil output, have the highest breakeven prices – at or above $70 a barrel.

Even Libya and Algeria which had been relatively conservative now apparently have break even points at $45 and $54 a barrel respectively. And Nigeria recently scaled back its oil estimate for 2009 to $45 a barrel from the previously planned $62.5.

All of these countries have either saved a significant portion of their windfall – even Nigeria – or have almost eliminated government debt – providing them with some cushion. But lower oil prices may mean that their sovereign funds are called on for their stabilization and not investment objective. These funds are already being called on to invest more at home in the short-term and their savings or at least generated income could be tapped to finance next years consumption.

Iran and Venezuela likely have the highest breakeven points of OPEC members – as high as $90 a barrel for Iran. (Iraq which may need $100 a barrel according to some estimates, is not bound by OPEC quotas). Iran has a presidential election next year. (These 3 countries are most fragile. To me, a last ditch strategy might be to just go to war if you cannot balance the budget. War or creating uncertainty will give rise to a hike in oil prices. Its a simple strategy but one which has been employed more times than you think when economics-politics-oil are mixed in.)

Outside of OPEC, Russia and Kazakhstan may be most vulnerable in part because their accumulated savings are being used to shore up their domestic banking and construction sector. Their banks (and other corporations) borrowed abroad cheaply - net borrowings by Russian corporations start to make the rapidly shrinking savings of Russia's central bank seem small ($515 billion in reserves compared to $460 billion in private borrowing). Russia’s current spending requires about $72 a barrel. (Even Russia is not beyond using their military might to drive oil price higher, beware. Hence the key moving forward could be a huge carrot for the destabilised nations to wage war unnecessarily to boost oil prices. The longer the global slowdown continues and the longer we have weak oil prices, the higher the propensity for these nations to try "things".)

These numbers indicate two things 1) OPEC’s determination to stem the tide of oil price decrease may be great 2) the rate of growth of oil wealth abroad may slow sharply next year as the levels at which these countries run current account surpluses is not so far away from where their fiscal spending balances.

Ultimately, Saudi Arabia still is the key one to watch. As OPEC largest producer by far, it is likely to bear the brunt of most cuts and already has pulled back most of the additional supplies it added this summer. It has been reluctant to sign on to cuts advocated by more ‘hawkish members’ like Iran.

Another country to watch is Russia. Russia has been talking more about cooperating with OPEC, being involved in discussions etc. While it might not join OPEC it will be interesting to watch if Russia matches any OPEC cuts. Already Russian oil output is down this year and new production has been delayed to come online. . Meanwhile earlier this week, Russia joined Qatar and Iran in calling for an “OPEC for gas”– a reversal from its past desires to have a looser grouping but it may be a desire to secure a place at the table for any coordination. But it is certainly something that raises concerns among Russia’s consumers in Europe. Yet so far, natural gas is still not commodified like oil.

So the real test of the cartel is ahead. especially since asset markets have a tendency to overshoot.

However, the combination of lower demand and credit contraction may sow the seeds for higher prices ahead, even if they are not as high some of the trends seen earlier this year.

The lack of financing and uncertainty about the oil price outlook might defer energy exploration for now, though companies with cash may be able to snap up assets at cheap prices. The lack of financing may freeze deals in progress, though it will privilege investors that have cash even if they wish to hold out until it is clear where the bottom is in the oil market. With oil (and other energy commodities like Coal and natural gas) still on a downward trajectory investors may want to avoid locking in too high an implicit price.

At this point there are still many uncertainties in the financial markets for major moves – we may well see delays and deferrals especially of expensive oil sources like unconventional sources which may need a price above $80 a barrel to break even.

In fact the combination of low or negative real interest rates, credit shortage and a cheaper and possibly declining oil price may defer energy investment for some time, possibly pushing the arrival date of new supplies further into the future. Companies may prefer to invest later when they hope to get higher returns on their investments. This could contribute to a rebound in oil prices after growth restarts in a year or two.

But much will happen between now and then and for now, the downward trend could continue. And that may be something that scares OPEC even if falling commodity prices are one of the few positive signs in the global economy – the current account and fiscal positions of several emerging markets like India are improving.

The one saving grace for OPEC members – at least their petro”dollars” are worth more even if they are now getting fewer of them.

p/s photo: Daphne Iking

Cummings, Chin Nam & The Melbourne Cup




Tan Chin Nam is the patriach of IGB, and also controls Wah Seong. His passions besides business are horse racing and chess. Tan is the only Asian to have won the Melbourne Cup, one of the oldest and most prestigious races in the world. Indeed, he is the only horse owner to have won it three times till today. The Melbourne Cup is in the same league as the English Derby, America's Kentucky Derby and the Dubai Cup. But in folklore terms, the Melbourne Cup is the biggest race in the world full stop.

Twice in 1974 and 1975, it was with Think Big, a horse he co-shared with Malaysia's first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1975 for his second win and the third was in 1996 with Saintly. The largest stake money he ever won was the 1996 Melbourne Cup - A$600,000. Tan has horses in Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and elsewhere.

The Cup is so coveted that top stables and trainers have been sending their best horses on the long journey to Flemington year in, year out. So far, very few have succeeded. We still find the huge Godolphin stable and top trainers such as Luca Cumani and Adrian O'Brien trying to steal the Cup in recent times. The prize money is very good but its still not the richest race in the world.

His friendship with the most successful trainer for Melbourne Cups, Bart Cummings, is legendary. Bart has won an astounding 11 Melbourne Cups till today. Most are just happy to win one, two with a good horse, three with a freakish horse like Makybe Diva. But 11 is just out of this world. Bart Cummings wasn't the best Melbourne Cup trainer today, he earned that title years ago. Now at 81 years of age, the 12th win was just further confirmation of his greatness.

You would think that for a trainer who had won it 11 times in the past, and with a horse owner who has already won it 3 times, that their combination would bring in some support in the betting. Well no, Viewed, went out at a staggering 40-1 and won by a nose. Some things are just destined that way, you go out and run 3,200m and wins by a nose.

Does luck play a part, of course, but ability, knowledge, choosing your friends and business associates wisely, treating them as family, valuing relationships, be good at what you do... also pay a huge part. Tan Chin Nam deserves the joy in winning his 4th Melbourne Cup. The Ingham brothers with hundreds of horses have never even won one. You can throw millions into buying horses and never win one. Its just one of those things in life.

Malaysian horse racing is the pits, its corrupt and largely fixed. lts the biggest crock of shit in the world, and nobody is intent to try to fix it. Over the years there have been glimpses from horse racing world from Malaysia and Singapore which do us proud. One owner, one trainer, one horse. Tan Chin Nam is one savvy horse owner for sure. He has won numerous top races with his horses in the highly competitive Australian horse racing landscape. The other shining light has to be trainer Ivan Allan - in my view easily one of the top 5 trainers in the world for the last 50 years. If only he had better horses or was born in England or Japan, he would have accomplished even more. Ivan won all there is in Malaysia and Singapore, nearly died when he was shot by gangsters (I told you horse racing was very corrupt here), then went to the most competitive and professionally run place in HK racing and became champion trainer almost overnight for a few years, competing with the top few trainers in the world and topping them almost immediately. Ivan is now regarded as a huge hero among the betting public there even though he has retired. Now he still owns some racehorses and still bets, though its harder to make it count as he is now very wealthy.

The last shining light I remember was a horse called Jumbo Jet. He was a freak in the 70s, and if he had raced anywhere else, he would have been tops. After winning everything he did go to America to race there but had an injury. Now that was a true racehorse, our own Seabiscuit and Secretariat rolled into one.

Viewed's victory gave Cummings a 12th cup victory and, as he shuffled through the media scrum to greet his charge, the grand old man of the track was already talking of a 13th. Viewed earned A$3.3 million for its owner, Tan Chin Nam, and paid a whopping A$46.50 to those who follow the master rather than form.


Corporate Bonds Spreads & Good Economists


Delete
Blogger Han Qiang said...

he mentioned 2 important points which i think you might have missed out. The spread between corporate bonds and treasuries remain elevated. CDS indices for investment grade remains high despite falling libor-ois and ted spread.

I verified his statement and realise that bonds spread remain high even for AAA-rated corporate bonds. This is significant because this suggest not only the third tier companies will be defaulting.

my 2 cent worth

10:28 PM

Comments: Fair comment. In a normal rational market, when spreads btw Treasuries and corporate bonds start to widen, its a sign that risk of default is higher and a likelihood of an imminent big correction in the stock markets because investors are pulling money out of corporate bonds, or demanding higher rates to hold them. To see them now, after all the injections of liquidity and after such a huge correction, seems to me its not rational investing. Investors are still demanding higher yields on corporate papers, not so much that they might default (still a risk) but rather to the ability of these companies being able to refinance the bonds when they are due, and also the volatile market situation which makes everyone fly towards Treasuries. The spreads is more a reflection of risk aversion rather than a telling sign on future defaults. The spreads have widened even more on junk bonds, and rightly so as they will be the first to default, and first to find it much harder to get new funding. Hence, your conclusions would be more correct in a normal functioning, pre-correction market... maybe not so much now.

Delete
Blogger Kris said...

The most important of all for Dr.Doom is that did he made serious money shorting the market when he predicted the October 2008 fall?

Talking is one thing..doing is another..lol :P

11:34 PM

Delete
Comments: That is not a fair comment. We all have a role to play. Some are good analysts, some are good economists, some are good portfolio managers. We cannot and should not judge by how much they make before terming them as good experts or poor ones. Some good economists may be poor traders and poor stock selectors. Roubini did very well in his predictions, let's just say that. No need to see whether he made his money or not. Same for some portfolio managers and traders who made money but are piss poor when it comes to analysis. If money is your be all and end all, so be it. Then we will end up worshiping bank robbers who got away, or unscrupulous corporate executives who bilked companies out of millions and still not prosecuted, are these guys your heroes?
The Standard HK: Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Are you depressed about all the money you've lost during the market downturn?

Well cheer up, because even an expert like Stanford University economics professor and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow didn't know enough to pull his money out before the market crash.

Arrow, who in 1972 became the youngest person ever to win the Nobel Prize in economics, was in Hong Kong yesterday to deliver the Sun Hung Kai Properties Nobel Laureates Distinguished Lecture at Chinese University.

Arrow later said he has suffered an investment loss of 30 percent during the financial crisis.


p/s photo: Nia Ramdhani

Reassessing Roubini's Predictions


Unfortunately for Roubini, there is no Nobel Prize in Economic for being the best predictor of global financial markets. Nouriel Roubini warns that the worst in markets and economies is yet to come. On October 23rd, Nouriel predicted the potential shutdown of financial markets. A day later U.S. stock futures suspended trading after declines of more than 6% at opening tripped the circuit breakers. Nonetheless, Nouriel does not expect another Great Depression, but states that policymakers must act quickly and wisely.

Here are the main elements of Nouriel’s outlook:

Tsunami of corporate defaults (I see some defaults in third tier companies not being able to roll over or secure new funding, but I doubt very much this tsunami of corporate defaults will happen as I still see this being largely concentrated in property, lending and banking. Yes, we are already seeing secondary effects on the broader markets but its not as debilitating as Roubini paints it out to be)

2-year U-shaped U.S. recession that threatens to turn into an L-shaped one if policymakers do not regain control of the financial system (Wow, L-shaped, I don't believe I have come across L-shaped recession recovery graphs in my economics textbooks ... if its not in textbooks, it should not exist, right... though the Japanese economy in 1990s looked very L shaped to me)

global re-coupling to the U.S. will advance from non-U.S. markets to non-U.S. real economies – not even the strongest emerging markets such as Brazil and China will escape global re-coupling (Why is Roubini talking of re-coupling, when there was no de-coupling in the first place? Mind you, all BRICs and Asian markets fell earlier and more severe than the US markets. If that's not evidence of markets NEVER ever having decoupled, I don't know what is?)

vicious cycle of deflation in goods markets, labor markets, commodity markets, financial markets, corporate and household earnings, and aggregate demand (Agree to an extent, but not a prolonged period. The basic roubini's thesis is de-leveraging = deflation, not true. De-leveraging has almost been completed, hedge funds are falling like a ton of bricks, the majority of the weak ones have closed shops already. Good thing about hedge funds, when things are bleak, they close shop very quickly... because no more 20% performance kicker, might as well close and lay low for a while, then reopen a new fund later)

de-leveraging to reduce excess debt in municipalities, households and some firms (As above)

U.S. stock markets declining another 20%-30%, bottoming fall 2009 at the earliest, then moving sideways for years post-recession if growth remains anemic as it did in Japan after its 1990s real estate and equities bust (Again being right for the first part of the call does not mean Roubini will get it right again, I think success has gone to his head. The Japanese experience was due to "inaction", banks were very slow to recapitalise, restructure or allowed to fail. Thats why it took them 15 years and growth is still flat. What the Japanese took 15 years to do, the US and European financial markets did it in 3 month. Roubini losing track of events)

U.S. unemployment rise to reach 8-9% (That is probable but not a prolonged phase because at that unemployment rate, the discount rate may very well go to zero, and we know what happens when there is negative real interest rates)

According to Nouriel, USD assets, commodities, U.S. and international equities, housing, and the USD are quite risky right now. Seek safety in cash or cash-like instruments such as T-bills and bonds of safe, large governments. Though he believes the U.S. dollar will retain its reserve currency status for decades, its status will gradually erode.

Given the size of the expected contraction in private aggregate demand (likely to be about $450 billion in 2009 relative to 2008), Nouriel argues that a fiscal stimulus to the order of $300 billion minimum (and possibly as large as $400 billion) will be necessary to partially compensate for the sharp fall in private aggregate demand.

I like Roubini a lot and he was brave enough to call and defend his views way before they came to fruition. But we should not be blinkered as well, I see some blind spots in his current predictions, as he seems almost "one-tracked-minded" on the whole shebang unfolding to the worst of his nightmares. But, what do I know, I am not a professor or an economist.

p/s photos: Im Ji Hye

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