What do USD money markets have to do with gold? Money market funds invest in short-term highly rated securities, like US Treasury bills (sovereign risk) and commercial paper (corporate credit). But who supplies such securities to these funds? For the purpose of our discussion, participants in the futures markets, who look for secured funding. They sell their US Treasury bills, under repurchase agreements, to money market funds. These repurchase transactions, of course, take place in the so-called repo market.
The repo market supplies money market funds with the securities they invest in. Now…what do participants in the futures markets do, with the cash obtained against T-bills? They, for instance, fund the margins to obtain leverage and invest in the commodity futures markets.
In summary: There are people (and companies) who exchange their cash for units in money market funds. These funds use that cash to buy –under repurchase agreements- US Treasury bills from players in the futures markets. And the players in the futures markets use that cash to fund the margins, obtain leverage, and buy positions. What if these positions (financed with the cash provided by the money market funds) are short positions in gold (or other commodities)? Now, we can see what USD money markets have to do with gold!
Let’s propose a few potential scenarios, to understand how USD money markets and gold are connected:
If money markets have liquidity, there is abundant cash to buy US Treasury bills (i.e. the repo market is more liquid), and to finance those who short commodities in the futures markets. This is negative for the spot price of gold. If money markets lack liquidity, shorting commodities becomes more difficult. This is positive for the spot price of gold.
If the US Treasury bills become riskier, on the margin, the incentive to buy them will be lower and either money market funds will reallocate the cash towards commercial paper or they will face redemptions from fearful investors. The repo market will then lose liquidity. This is positive for the spot price of gold.
Alternatively, if the rate paid by the US Treasury increases AND the risk of these bills is NOT perceived to be higher (something possible in these rigged markets with doubtful ratings), investors will be more eager to place their cash with money market funds (falling prey to an illusion) and the liquidity of the repo market will increase. This is negative for the spot price of gold.
Why do we bring this up? To be honest, it is not the first time we do so. We have introduced the topic in our letters of July 2nd, July 30th and August 6th. We bring this up today because we want to raise awareness on some measures under consideration by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that will have a direct impact on the USD money market, and hence, the repo market and the price of commodities. These policies are:
1) Minimum Balance at Risk (MBR): Kills USD money markets = lowers liquidity in repo market = Positive for gold
This has been in the works since 2010, but is only now taking shape. On August 15th, Bloomberg had a post on this under the title “Fed’s Dudley backs money fund rules to protect US Economy”. If enforced, there will be a minimum balance, which holders of money market fund units will not be able to redeem, but after a lock period. Effectively, under distress, redemptions will be restricted. As well, there are other potential measures, like floating the funds’ Net Asset Value and capital requirements. But the MBR one is the most relevant: It will make market participants see money market funds as a risky investment.
Personally, we do not see the motive behind this move because if, as some deduce, policy makers in all honesty believe that the savings currently in these funds will be reallocated as a result to bonds or stocks (boosting asset prices), they are being naïve at best and utterly idiotic at worst. Whoever invests in money market funds does so to make an extra buck on liquidity. If he/she cannot make it, then the funds will simply remain in a chequing account. Would banks use these funds in the chequing accounts to lever up their investments? Into what? Money market funds? The recent experience in the Euro-zone (discussed further below) shows it is not the case. Banks will not lend more just because they have more deposits available.
In any case, this policy would drain liquidity from the repo market and financing positions in the futures markets (i.e. shorting gold, for instance) would be more expensive. This would be positive for the spot price of commodities.
2) Introduction of Floating Rate Notes by the US Treasury: Positive for USD money markets = Negative for gold in the short-term, positive in the long-term
We introduced this point in on August 6th, after reading a series of articles at Zerohedge.com. Floating Rate Notes are variable rate notes. If floating rate notes were issued and interest rates rose (either driven by the Fed’s policy or by the market) they would have a strong bid from money market funds, bringing liquidity to the repo market. This could continue supporting speculative shorts in the futures markets, which would be negative for spot commodity prices in the short term.
However, if these rates are seen to be sticky, the Fed would have to intervene, targeting rate caps. But to guarantee the cap on the price of a good, one has to offer unlimited supply of that good. If the Fed had to guarantee a cap on NOMINAL interest rates, it would have to offer unlimited supply of US dollars. It is now easy to see why, in the long run, issuing floating rate notes would therefore be positive for the spot price, in US dollars, of commodities.
3) Zero interest on excess reserves: Would kill USD money markets (just like it did in the Euro zone) = lowers liquidity in repo market = Positive for gold
After the July 5th decision by the ECB, to pay nothing on its deposit facility, Euro-zone banks’ deposits at the European Central Bank plunged (see below, source: Bloomberg), by the tune of EUR484BN!!!
Did this money go to stocks? No! To bonds? No! Where did it go then? To a chequing account at the ECB. In the process, the Euro money markets died and the repo market suffered heavily. We had warned here that this measure would only make Euro banks less profitable and hence, riskier.
Because commodities are not traded in euros, this has not impacted the commodities market. But should a zero-interest-on-excess-reserves policy be implemented in the US dollar zone, the effect on the repo market would be to drain liquidity, a negative for futures markets and a positive for spot commodity prices.
In conclusion, there are currently three potential policy measures that would have a relevant impact in the commodities markets. Forewarned is forearmed.
The market crashes driven by HFT, like that on the NYSE in May 2010 or the recent one affecting the Knight Capital Group should be a big wake-up call. This is a new technological change which the Austrian School of Economics should further analyse. We, at “A View from the Trenches”, just wanted to leave our two-cent contribution with our thoughts.
In our last letter, we made some comments on high-frequency trading. Today, we want to briefly analyse, from a macroeconomic perspective, the underlying ideas thrown in its favour, as well as the impact this activity has on the capital markets. Why is this important? Because more than half of the trading volume in equities in the main world exchanges is driven high-frequency trades today (More than 70% of volume in the US exchanges alone).
What is high-frequency trading? We will never exhaustively address this issue here. We recommend that you do your own research on the subject. There are numerous articles on this topic. High-frequency trading (HFT) consists in using sophisticated technology to trade securities. It is highly quantitative, employing algorithms to analyze incoming market data. HF investment positions are held only very briefly, with HF traders trading in and out of positions intraday tens of thousands of times. The important feature is that at the end of a trading day there is no net investment position. Processing speed and access to the exchanges are critical.
HFT strategies can be broadly thought in terms of three main groups: Those that provide liquidity, those that trade headlines and those that trade statistics. The statistical ones are the easiest to understand (at least for us): They are based on technical analysis, correlations. The headline strategies seek to profit from momentum trading, filtering information that describes intra-day action in the exchanges. The so-called liquidity strategies are either based on market making (to profit from bid/ask spreads) or from rebate trading. Operationally, HF traders collectively send millions of orders, the most part of which (we understand above 90%) are cancelled before they are even hit. This often causes delays in the exchanges that receive them, potentially creating arbitrage opportunities in those stocks that trade in multiple exchanges.
Two main factors have been put forward in support of HFT. We will quickly dismiss them:
a) HFT provides liquidity to markets
We think this point has been misunderstood, because at a macro level, one must not refer to the liquidity of a particular asset, but of liquidity in general or, more properly, liquidity preference, since liquidity is not a condition intrinsic to any asset, but the result of preference by market participants.
Indeed, HFT may and does provide liquidity to a particular asset, but it is a different thing to say that HFT provides liquidity to the market, at an aggregate level. At an aggregate level, the liquidity preference of market participants is what matters. If they want to be liquid, they have the means to do so either by holding money or by changing it for commercial paper or short-term obligations of borrowers with a solid and steady cash-flow stream. Collectively, for market participants to allocate some of its savings to liquid assets, there is no need to see millions of quotes a day, for instance, on a risky junior mining company with assets overseas, thereby creating the illusion that the junior mining equity space is liquid.
Market participants do not need to see the universe of liquid assets expanded to satisfy their respective liquidity preferences. And if they have to get their savings out of an asset which until a minute ago seemed liquid but now is not, they will be able to do that with or without HFT, because there is no reason to believe that under a shock, the HFT bid will not disappear in a nanosecond, making the situation even worse.
Having said this, it is clear that the impact of the quoting activity by HF traders generates a distortion in the capital markets and particularly, in the capital structure of an economic system. Companies that, given the nature of their businesses, would have been forced to raise secured long-term bank debt to fund their capital expenses before the influence of HFT, may now find it easier and cheaper to raise equity. And those with investable assets captive in the system (i.e. registered funds, 401ks) will now fall prey to very risky projects, under the belief that they are protected by electronic stop-loss orders. Banks that might have been willing to provide secured lending to these equity issuers, will now find that they can only bid for less profitable working capital lines, under the belief the loans are protected by stock pledges! And it gets even worse: Those who invest in this equity may decide to pledge it under, say a 3x coverage ratio, to borrow funds and invest in even riskier, “more profitable” assets!
The liquidity argument in favour of HFT is just one more Keynesian version of the notion that inventing purchasing power ex-nihilo can get us somewhere better, but this time, applied to the capital markets in particular.
How does HFT invent purchasing power? The liquidity premium embedded in assets that wouldn’t otherwise be liquid or would not even exist, is the purchasing power we refer to. For this same reason, those who defend HFT now fear that by prohibiting it (just like their fear to prohibit fractional reserve lending) we will see a collapse in valuations. Unfortunately, that collapse will eventually take place, only still bigger and affecting global capital markets.
b) HFT facilitates the process of price discovery
What media and those in favour of HFT commonly refer to price discovery is nothing else but algorithms sniffing stop losses, causing volatility in the process. There really isn’t anything particular about HFT with respect to pricing, which human beings cannot achieve on their own. Throwing orders to exchanges that are immediately cancelled to test floors or caps on the price of a certain asset cannot be credited with price discovering. Indeed, efficient markets are those which always challenge valuations and in the process, prevent the misallocation of resources from further growing. But the challenge of valuations always represents the challenge of their underlying assumptions: Sales, leverage, productivity, management, etc. Shaking the nest, the way HFT does (with the sudden introduction of millions of quotes) to “discover” key levels is hardly the feature of a healthy capital market.
Let us bring an analogy: Human lives are not traded. Yet, if a criminal kidnapped somebody’s daughter and asked for a ransom, he would certainly be “discovering” the price of her life: The parents of the girl, having offered all they had in immediate liquid assets, would have told the criminal what the price for their daughter is. Now, this is exactly what algorithms do when testing price levels in the absence of economic news, as we have painfully seen across a myriad of asset classes.
This is not a healthy way to price assets, because just like the parents had never thought of trading her daughter for money, market participants not challenged by economic developments but by millions of fake orders, were forced to do so. A trade actually took place in an otherwise illiquid market but…what will happen next time? Neither the daughter will be left alone by the parents nor our market participants will be there for the criminals to profit from them, which is why retail money will keep flowing out of the stock exchanges (the system) as long as the status-quo is not changed.
Perhaps too, our fictional criminal will regret not having given the father more time to liquidate more assets, but of course, that would have come at the cost of higher risk. There is no difference between the criminal’s short-term line of reasoning and that which keeps HF traders from keeping positions for longer than seconds or minutes. Therefore, if we were really thinking about price discovery, neither our criminal nor HF traders did discover the true price. In the end, all we ended up with was volatility that will exponentially increase, as the exchanges impacted by HFT see participants leave to over-the-counter markets (like real estate?)…Is this the actual reason behind the high percentage of HFT volume in exchanges? Is it because we are leaving the exchanges all to HF traders?
The market crashes driven by HFT, like that on the NYSE in May 2010 or the recent one affecting the Knight Capital Group should be a big wake-up call. This is a new technological change which the Austrian School of Economics should further analyse. We, at “A View from the Trenches”, just wanted to leave our two-cent contribution with our thoughts. We leave with an interview on the subject, to Scott Patterson, author of “Dark Pools”, dated August 8th:
Click here to read this article in pdf format: August 6 2012 Today is a holiday in Canada and our letter is published later than usual. We will make a few comments on what we believe were the most relevant events impacting capital markets (do these still exist, by the way?) last week: No news [...]
Today is a holiday in Canada and our letter is published later than usual. We will make a few comments on what we believe were the most relevant events impacting capital markets (do these still exist, by the way?) last week:
No news on monetary policy
During the past week, both the Fed and the European Central Bank had the opportunity to execute on new policies, be it price or volume driven. As we anticipated in our last letter, these banks decided to past on such an opportunity. There is really nothing else they can effectively do, except explicitly monetize sovereign debt. If they opt for unconventional policies, the medicine will have a worse effect than the sickness, although we want to make this clear: Monetizing sovereign debt is also not the solution. However, it buys time and is the less distorting of all available measures. Having said this, if we are right, the rally we saw in the Euro was only short-covering and soon, we will have to enter a new downward leg.
Relevering of corporate balance sheets: Rich shareholders, poor corporations
A few months ago, we warned that: “…in the past 10 years, you have seen the S&P500 index fluctuate, nominally, without making any “improvement”. This has huge ramifications and one of them is that businessmen who would want to monetize the fruit of their labour would not be able to do so, on average, because if they are lucky, they only break even when they sell their businesses. If you were one of them, what would you do in the face of the recent monetary expansion?
I for one would leverage my company with cheap credit lines and distribute (or increase the distribution of) dividends, to cash out. And this is precisely what we are seeing and will continue to see: Leverage seems to have bottomed and now is reverting in corporates. This is not positive for growth and hence, we don’t want to own shares. We don’t want to own mining companies. We understand that the recent rally was fully driven by the expansion of the Fed (via swaps) and the European Central Bank (via Long-Term Refinancing Operations). We are simple investors and are humble enough to know that we will not be able to call the exact day in which the reversal in stocks takes place…”
This trend is increasingly becoming more evident, as new multi-billion shares-buyback programs and dividend raises are announced every week. Who’s financing this? Banks mostly and they will be sorry for it by the time interest rates (i.e. real interest rates go up). In the meantime, let’s enjoy the party!
Reconsidering our last comments on the repo market: Why we may be proven wrong
At the end of our letter on June 25th, we brought up what we thought was a sharp comment from Murray Rothbard, in his book “America’s Great Depression”. In its Chapter 12, under the section titled: “The attack on property rights: The final currency failure”, Rothbard told us that: “…despite the gigantic efforts of the Fed, during early 1933, to inflate the money supply, the people took matters into their own hands, and insisted upon a rigorous deflation (gauged by the increase of money in circulation)— and a rigorous testing of the country’s banking system in which they had placed their trust…”
We concluded therefore that this crisis has to end with a rigorous deflation or liquidation of liabilities, which must be expressed in terms of a new standard. In the ‘30s, the US dollar was still backed by gold and gold was the Fed’s asset. Today, the US dollar is backed by US Treasuries. Therefore, we concluded, “to insist upon a rigorous deflation” is to repudiate the US Treasury notes. On July 2nd, we made the case that such a repudiation was going to take the form of lower volumes in the repo market. By that, we meant illiquidity in the repo market. The same was going to make harder to short commodities naked, brining eventually one net short position in the futures markets to bankruptcy. In the process, counterparty risk would rise exponentially endangering the respective clearinghouse and forcing the Fed to intervene. The key conclusion here was that from that point on, spot prices of commodities were no longer going to be manipulated, given the broken futures markets, opening the door to high inflation.
As the title of this paragraph suggests, we may be wrong in this analysis. What makes us think so? New information: Namely, the potential massive use of floating rate notes (FRNs) by the US Treasury, starting 2013. We want clarify this: The introduction of FRNs will not suppress the process described above. It will only delay it and make the fall even more catastrophic.
The new information came to us upon reflection, based on a series of anonymous articles published on Zerohedge.com, regarding the upcoming change in the funding policy of the US Treasury. Please, find the links to these articles below. Give yourselves some time to read them carefully. They are worth it. We present them in chronological order:
Floating Rate Notes are variable rate notes. If you hold them and rates increase, for instance, you don’t suffer a capital loss. Since the beginning of the crisis, the US Treasury has basically issued fixed rate debt. The long term portion of it, courtesy of Operation Twist, is being massively bought by the Fed. The short end, is accumulating in the balance sheets of the primary dealers. If interest rates were to rise, these dealers would suffer untold capital losses, and it would be politically difficult to bail them out. Therefore, the same dealers are pushing the US Treasury to slowly start refinancing this short-term fixed rate notes in their inventory with floating rate notes. That way, by the time interest rates rise, the problem will have already been transferred to the US taxpayer, who will be in a deeper hole.
What does all this have to do with our previous analysis of the repo market? Well, if floating rate notes are issued, they will have a strong bid from money market funds and liquidity will be enhanced in the repo market, which would continue funding the commodity futures markets.
However, with the US Treasury facing a higher fiscal cliff, the Fed would be forced to intervene buying not only the long-term, but the also short-term debt, to ensure that inflation transforms these higher nominal short-term rates into lower “real” rates. The Fed would not do this only to save the US Treasury, but also the private sector. Why? As short-term liquidity shifts from commercial paper to government-issued floating rate notes, levered companies (and we just said companies are pushing leverage) would have a hard time finding short-term working capital funding. Potentially, and only years ahead, this could well end in situations seen in Latin America, where banks offered weekly or weekend guaranteed investment certificates at high rates. Gold, again, would end up being “the” store of value. But this, this is years ahead and in the making.
The consequences of high frequency trading and the myth that it is needed to bring liquidity to markets
High frequency trading was brought back to light in the past week, after the tremendous losses suffered by the Knight Capital Group. We don’t have much time but want to simply say this: The whole idea that high frequency trading brings liquidity to markets is born out of a misconception of liquidity. And here, we go with the Austrian school: Liquidity is not and should never be intrinsic to an asset, but is the result of preference by acting men.
Secondly, High frequency trading does not even provide liquidity. It just plays the operational weaknesses of markets. In a casino, when the croupier says “rien ne va plus”, all the real bids are locked. In a stock exchange, it appears that this doesn’t happen, allowing high frequency traders to introduce false signals to trigger stop losses or profit taking. If that is liquidity, our markets are broken. It is another Ponzi scheme, with no real cash at the end, played within mili-seconds.
But the underlying point here is that we should not force liquidity into all stocks. If some are not liquid, it is for a reason and providing fake demand via high-frequency trading is an expensive mistake. If the world allows high frequency trading to continue, it will end, paradoxically, in illiquid markets. The real money will leave markets and flow to real assets, because if liquidity means being exposed to the manipulation of high frequency trading….why pay a premium to be liquid?
The comments expressed in this website and daily letters are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or its affiliates.
All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent research to verify the validity of any statements made in this website before basing any decisions upon those statements. In addition, any views or opinions expressed by visitors to this website are theirs and do not necessarily reflect mine.
The information contained herein is not necessarily complete and its accuracy is not guaranteed. If you are receiving this communication in error, please notify me immediately by electronic mail (firstname.lastname@example.org) or telephone at 647-999-2055.
My comments provide general information only. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation, an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other financial instrument or any derivative related to such securities or instruments (e.g., options, futures, warrants, and contracts for differences).
My comments are not intended to provide personal investment advice and they do not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person.
All rights reserved. A view from the Trenches is proudly powered by WordPress. Wordpress theme designed and coded by SibileauLang