The ticking CDS time-bomb

The looming mess in Europe, linked to financial distress in Greece, looks like a perfect if rather frightening illustration of the malign consequences of over-dense banking interdependence on global financial stability. In this case -- as with the crisis of 2007-2008 -- the root cause of the trouble is CDSs and other derivatives. No one in Europe is quite sure how many reckless gambles banks have made over Greek debt and potential default, and the European Central Bank appears to be deadly afraid that such gambles have the potential to bring down the entire financial house of cards.

What's happened to the CDS market over the past decade? It's exploded. Amazingly, the value of outstanding CDS linked to debt in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal has doubled in the past three years -- since 2008!! The New York Times today discusses what can only be described as a ridiculous situation -- Europe pushed to the brink of a financial disaster by the actions of a small number of people gambling with other peoples' money in the dark, and doing so in the direct aftermath of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression:

The uncertainty, financial analysts say, has led European officials to push for a “voluntary” Greek bond financing solution that may sidestep a default, rather than the forced deals of other eras. “There’s not any clarity here because people don’t know,” said Christopher Whalen, editor of The Institutional Risk Analyst. “This is why the Europeans came up with this ridiculous deal, because they don’t know what’s out there. They are afraid of a default. The industry is still refusing to provide the disclosure needed to understand this. They’re holding us hostage. The Street doesn’t want you to see what they’ve written.”

 Wonderful. We've known about this danger for at least several years and have done nothing about it. But in fact, we've actually known about such danger for far longer, and have only taken steps to make our problems worse. A couple of years ago CBS aired an examination of the CDS market, and it is still worth watching. One interesting comment from the program:

It would have been illegal [selling CDSs of any kind] during most of the 20th century under the gaming laws, but in 2000, Congress gave Wall Street an exemption and it has turned out to be a very bad idea.

Dirty little derivatives secrets...

The first dirty little secret of the derivatives industry -- probably not so secret to those in the financial industry, but unknown to most others who still think financial markets in some approximation are fair and efficient -- is that some of the big banks control the market and expressly inhibit competition to protect their profits. I just stumbled across this still highly relevant exposition by the New York Times of efforts to place derivatives trading within properly defined clearinghouses, and the banks' countervailing efforts to gain control over those clearing houses so as to block competition.

The banks (invoking some questionable claims of economic theory) like to argue that derivatives make markets more efficient because they make them more "complete." As Eugen Fama puts it: "Theoretically, derivatives increase the range of bets people can make, and this should help to wipe out potential inefficiencies." Available information, the idea goes, should flow more readily into the market. But the truth seems to be that derivatives make banks more profitable at everyone's collective expense, and not only because they make markets more unstable (see more on this below). From the New York Times article:

Two years ago, Kenneth C. Griffin, owner of the giant hedge fund Citadel Group, which is based in Chicago, proposed open pricing for commonly traded derivatives, by quoting their prices electronically. Citadel oversees $11 billion in assets, so saving even a few percentage points in costs on each trade could add up to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

But Mr. Griffin’s proposal for an electronic exchange quickly ran into opposition, and what happened is a window into how banks have fiercely fought competition and open pricing.

To get a transparent exchange going, Citadel offered the use of its technological prowess for a joint venture with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is best-known as a trading outpost for contracts on commodities like coffee and cotton. The goal was to set up a clearinghouse as well as an electronic trading system that would display prices for credit default swaps.

Big banks that handle most derivatives trades, including Citadel’s, didn’t like Citadel’s idea. Electronic trading might connect customers directly with each other, cutting out the banks as middlemen.

The article goes on to describe a host of maneuvers that Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other big banks used to block this idea, or at least to make sure they'd be locked into the gears of such an electronic exchange. Eventually the whole idea fell apart to the banks' relief. Guess who's paying the price?

Mr. Griffin said last week that customers have so far paid the price for not yet having electronic trading. He puts the toll, by a rough estimate, in the tens of billions of dollars, saying that electronic trading would remove much of this “economic rent the dealers enjoy from a market that is so opaque.”

"It’s a stunning amount of money,” Mr. Griffin said. “The key players today in the derivatives market are very apprehensive about whether or not they will be winners or losers as we move towards more transparent, fairer markets, and since they’re not sure if they’ll be winners or losers, their basic instinct is to resist change.”

But there's another dirty little secret about the derivatives industry, and this goes back to the question of whether these instruments really do have benefits, by making markets more efficient, perhaps, or if instead they might make them more unstable and prone to collapse. Warren Buffet was certainly clear in his opinion, expressed in his newsletter (excerpts here) to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders back in 2002: "I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system." But the disconcerting truth about derivatives emerges in more certain terms from new, fundamental analyses of how precisely they can stir up natural market instabilities.

I'm thinking primarily of two bits of research -- one very recent and the other a few years old -- both of which should be known by anyone interested in the impact that derivatives have on markets. Derivatives can obviously let people hedge risks -- locking in affordable fuel for the winter months in advance, for example. But they're used for risk taking as much as hedging, and can easily create collective market instability. These two studies show -- from within the framework of economic theory itself -- that adding derivatives to markets in pursuit of the nirvana of market completeness should indeed make those market less stable, not more.

I'm currently working on a post (it's taking a little time) that will explore these works in more detail. I hope to get this up very shortly. Meanwhile, these two examples of science on the topic might be something to keep in mind as the banks try hard to confuse the issue and obscure what ought to be the real aim of financial reform -- to return he markets to their proper role as semi-stable systems providing funds for creative and valuable enterprise. Markets should be a public good, not a rigged casino, benefiting the few, and guaranteed by the public.

It is still " Sell the Rally".

Today was a double POMO day. Approx. US$ 10 Billion was pumped in the market but all S&P 500 has to show is only a rise of less than 7 handles. Not impressive at all.  One more thing to look for, S&P up for 3 days in a row but volume down 2 days in a row.  This is called price volume negative divergence and is normally a short sell set up.

I am not buying in the rally yet  for two reasons.  For one, I expect a lower low than the March low and second, the fear factor (VOX) has not yet reached the high 20s where we can see some panic. In fact at 3 pm, the put call ratio was .88. Means there are more calls than puts and people have reached the conclusion that the bottom is in.

I keep talking of the fear factor because stock market is ruled by greed and fear. Not by news, not by economics. In the past with SPX pullback of 10% or so, the VOX was on an average in the range of 28 +. By that reckoning, we have still some more way to go.

Stock market corrections are like quick sand. They advance two steps lower and rebound one step back, so that the fear factor does not build up too quickly. These countertrend rallies keep everyone interested and invested till such time the capital is gone.

Buying stocks in the face of fear and selling it in the face of greed is the only way to make money in stock market. I am not convinced that I am seeing that fear yet.

I love " Love Stories"!

I love this story which came out just 2hours ago.

From AFP:  Germany 'dismisses Greek debt compromise plan' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hh6sw4CF1nPYouOGX-rOU6zcTdNA?docId=CNG.105975a399e42bed5c5d964daff21f4a.761 )

“A German compromise plan to resolve a dispute with the European Central Bank over the Greek rescue that was reported by Der Spiegel magazine is no longer on the table, a government source said Sunday………. But a German official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while "several options" were being debated to involve private creditors in an Athens rescue, the reported proposal was "no longer on the agenda".

The source added that the initial plan had differed from the reported proposal in "key aspects".

German officials say they seek a plan with as few "unwanted side effects" as possible. ”.

So already the “Non-Default” event of last Friday and the perfect family reunion photo-op of Mom and Pop shaking hands has been washed down the drain. Anyway the Bond Market has already called the bluff and the brief EUR rally might come to an end sooner than expected.

 I have a feeling, those who are looking for a rally on Monday, 20^th June, might be in for some disappointment.

 I love this cartoon and could not resist copying it here. Courtesy Philstockworld.com

Whom they are trying to fool?

The pompous jacka*s duo Trichet and Sarkozy keep telling everyone who care to listen that there will be no haircut in Greek bailout. Everything will be voluntary and a Greek default is out of the question. They passionately defend everything that is European and throw hissy fit if anyone dares to say the inevitable.

One starts to wonder is it pure stupidity that these men cannot see the obvious? Or is there something else.

For an answer, let us look at the following chart.

Now we know!

The fact is, Trichet is a Frenchman and along with Sarkozy,  all he wants, is to keep the French banks out of the harm’s way, as long as possible. They know that they are just buying time and in the mean time, take money out of Germans and other still solvent European countries. They are doing the bidding of their masters after all.

Good to have such lap dogs!

The Grand Inquisitors of Rational Expectations

In this short snippet (two minutes and 23 seconds) of an interview, John Kay sums up quite succinctly the situation facing Rational Expectations theorists in the light of what has happened in the past several years. Reality just isn't respecting their (allegedly) beautiful mathematical theories.

In Bertold Brecht's play The Life of Galileo, Kay notes, there's a moment when the Grand Inquisitors of the Church refuse to look through Galileo's telescope. Why? Because the Catholic church had essentially deduced the motion of the planets from a set of axioms. They refused to look, as Kay puts it,

......on the grounds that the Church has decreed that we he sees cannot be there. This makes me think of the way some of the economists who believe in Rational Expectations have reacted to events of the past few years. [They're like the inquisitors with Galileo]. ...they refuse to look through the telescope because they know on a priori grounds that what he saw wasn't actually there.

In search of a bottom!

The stock markets have been selling off for the last 6 weeks and have barely had a green close this week.

Lots of people including many subscription based newsletters have been advising their readers to look at the long side of the trade again.

Some are saying the VIX has gone out of the BB and come back and that’s a sure sign of market rally. Some are looking at the high put/call ratio. Many are looking at chart patterns and technical Analysis to find the coming trend.

In my long association with the Stock Market, I have come to few conclusions and I base my trades on that. I do not believe that TA gives you any clue of the future. It just represents history.  I would be better off reading tea leaves. I also do not do day trading. Because I think it is like sitting on a rocking chair. It keeps you occupied but doesn’t take you anywhere. Moreover, when you are always looking at one minute or five minute charts, you tend to miss the big moves.

For a longer range trade I still depend on old fashioned fundamental analysis. But for trading purpose, I would rather look at market psychology. The stock markets represent the animal instinct and primal gambling nature of human being. Did you ever notice that there are more men than women in the field of speculation? That’s because men take more risks. Women make better investment decision although we men think we know better!

Stock markets are governed by greed and fear. And the pendulum swings between the two extremes. My measure of fear factor in the US Stock Markets is still VOX. Not VIX. VOX measures at the money options where as VIX measures out of the money options. VOX measures only the top 100 S&P companies which are more liquid and highly traded. In all similar selloffs / corrections where S&P has corrected between 5% to 10%, bottom has come when VOX has reached the level of 30%. Today it is still in the range of early 20s, which shows that while some fear is still there, panic has not yet set in.

And unless we see the panic, we would not see the bottom of this correction.

That is my humble view but market knows best and I can be very well wrong if we start a rally on Monday. After all it’s a double POMO day.

For me, I would still sell the bounce.