More stories

  • in

    The hunt for the weakest link in global finance

    As interest rates rise and asset prices slump, investors are scrambling to identify the weakest links in the global financial system. Every bear market produces national and corporate victims who get skewered. In the 1997-98 rout Thailand’s economy imploded, as did LTCM, a hedge fund. Iceland and Lehman Brothers were victims in the 2008-09 slump. Today one country has already been picked-off: Britain, where the currency has fallen and the central bank has had to intervene in the bond market to bail-out the pension system, whose overseers had foolishly made vast bets on continued low volatility. Now some believe an institutional victim of the great 2022 sell-off in markets has been spotted: Credit Suisse, a storied Swiss firm that spans wealth-and-asset management, private banking and investment banking. Its shares have fallen by 55% this year and its credit-default swaps, which measure default risk, have risen. These two red lights will be familiar to anyone who witnessed Wall Street firms struggling in 2008-09, as will the statements by Credit Suisse’s managers that the bank has a strong liquidity and capital position. This year’s version of a confidence scare at a bank comes with a new twist, too: a swirl of malicious, mad and made-up rumours on Twitter and elsewhere. Welcome to the too-big-to-fail problem in the social-media age.So does the claim on the message boards that Credit Suisse is “next” make sense? At a high level the idea that a big bank, shadow bank or investment firm might be in trouble is plausible. The financial system has become habituated to 15 years of rock-bottom interest rates. The hunt for yield has led insurers and other funds to stuff portfolios with long-duration assets that are ultra-sensitive to rising rates. American banks have retreated from lending as regulations have grown tighter, and instead a system of market-based credit has emerged that deals in trillions of dollars of low-quality debt. There have been some medium-sized blowups already, including of Archegos, a hedge fund, and Greensill, a lender.Furthermore, Credit Suisse has been poorly run and struggling for some time. It has suffered repeated risk-management and compliance scandals, including being exposed to losses from Archegos and Greensill. Its top management ranks have been a revolving door. Yet in most other respects it does not look like the epicentre of a financial explosion in the way that, say, Lehman, or AIG, an insurer, were. Instead of rampant growth fuelled by hubris, Credit Suisse’s balance sheet has shrunk continuously over the past decade in dollar terms, as it has downsized itself into the second tier of global finance. Today it is the 54th biggest listed financial firm in the world by assets. Its problems are idiosyncratic and, to a degree, an expression of management caution rather than recklessness. It owns a sub-par investment banking unit that needs to be shrunk or shut down. Based on the second-quarter results this division eats up 30% of its risk-adjusted assets and has annualised costs of CHF8bn ($8bn). It is largely to blame for the firm’s overall quarterly pre-tax loss of CHF1.17bn and awful return on equity of minus 14%. Bitter experience from firms such as Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland teaches that shrinking an investment bank is a bit like decommissioning a nuclear reactor: dangerous and expensive. Star bankers leave and business dries up faster than you can cut costs and quit long-term contracts, leading to losses. Investors’ main concern has been that these potential losses might be so big that Credit Suisse would have to raise equity to ensure it had enough capital to support its ongoing businesses, which are fairly healthy.Worries about financial firms can be self-fulfilling, as counterparties charge a higher risk-premium to lend to or deal with the firm, making it uncompetitive. In order to bring down its borrowing costs Credit Suisse will have to convince investors that it has a better proposal for shrinking its investment bank without incurring massive upfront losses. It plans to announce this on October 27th. But so far, at least, Credit Suisse is not an example of a business model which, in its spectacular excesses and implosion, encapsulates a broader madness in the markets. Instead it is an example of a relatively weak firm coming under pressure as financial conditions tighten and the economy flags. There will be many more of these, in many other industries. Meanwhile the hunt in the markets for “the big one” will go on. ■ More

  • in

    Credit Suisse and the hunt for the weakest link in global finance

    As interest rates rise and asset prices slump, investors are scrambling to identify the weakest links in the global financial system. Every bear market produces national and corporate victims who get skewered. In the 1997-98 rout Thailand’s economy imploded, as did LTCM, a hedge fund. Iceland and Lehman Brothers were victims in the 2008-09 slump. Today one country has already been picked off: Britain, where the currency has fallen and the central bank has had to intervene in the bond market to bail out the pension system, whose overseers had foolishly made vast bets on continued low volatility. Now some believe an institutional victim of the great 2022 sell-off in markets has been spotted: Credit Suisse, a venerable Swiss firm that spans wealth-and-asset management, private banking and investment banking. Its shares have fallen by 55% this year and its credit-default swaps, which measure default risk, have risen. These two red lights will be familiar to anyone who witnessed Wall Street firms struggling in 2008-09, as will the statements by Credit Suisse’s managers that the bank has a strong liquidity and capital position. This year’s version of a confidence scare at a bank comes with a new twist, too: a swirl of malicious, mad and made-up rumours on Twitter and elsewhere. Welcome to the too-big-to-fail problem in the social-media age.So does the claim on the message boards that Credit Suisse is “next” make sense? At a high level the idea that a big bank, shadow bank or investment firm might be in trouble is plausible. The financial system has become habituated to 15 years of rock-bottom interest rates. The hunt for yield has led insurers and other funds to stuff portfolios with long-duration assets that are ultra-sensitive to rising rates. American banks have retreated from lending as regulations have grown tighter, and instead a system of market-based credit has emerged that deals in trillions of dollars of low-quality debt. There have been some medium-sized blowups already, including of Archegos, a hedge fund, and Greensill, a lender.Furthermore, Credit Suisse has been poorly run and struggling for some time. It has suffered repeated risk-management and compliance scandals, including being exposed to losses from Archegos and Greensill. Its top management ranks have been a revolving door. Yet in most other respects it does not look like the epicentre of a financial explosion in the way that, say, Lehman, or AIG, an insurer, were. Instead of rampant growth fuelled by hubris, Credit Suisse’s balance sheet has shrunk continuously over the past decade in dollar terms, as it has downsized itself into the second tier of global finance. Today it is the 54th biggest listed financial firm in the world by assets. Its problems are idiosyncratic and, to a degree, an expression of management caution rather than recklessness. It owns a sub-par investment banking unit that needs to be shrunk or shut down. Based on the second-quarter results this division eats up 30% of its risk-adjusted assets and has annualised costs of SFr8bn ($8bn). It is largely to blame for the firm’s overall quarterly pre-tax loss of SFr1.17bn and awful return on equity of minus 14%. Bitter experience from firms such as Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland teaches that shrinking an investment bank is a bit like decommissioning a nuclear reactor: dangerous and expensive. Star bankers leave and business dries up faster than you can cut costs and quit long-term contracts, leading to losses. Investors’ main concern has been that these potential losses might be so big that Credit Suisse would have to raise equity to ensure it had enough capital to support its ongoing businesses, which are fairly healthy.Worries about financial firms can be self-fulfilling, as counterparties charge a higher risk-premium to lend to or deal with the firm, making it uncompetitive. In order to bring down its borrowing costs Credit Suisse will have to convince investors that it has a better proposal for shrinking its investment bank without incurring massive upfront losses. It plans to announce this on October 27th. But so far, at least, Credit Suisse is not an example of a business model which, in its spectacular excesses and implosion, encapsulates a broader madness in the markets. Instead it is an example of a relatively weak firm coming under pressure as financial conditions tighten and the economy flags. There will be many more of these, in many other industries. Meanwhile the hunt in the markets for “the big one” will go on. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter. More

  • in

    3 takeaways from our daily meeting: Stocks jump, two trades and Club names in the news

    Every weekday the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer holds a “Morning Meeting” livestream at 10:20 a.m. ET. Here’s a recap of Monday’s key moments. Stocks jump We made two trades Quick mentions: WFC, AMZN, AAPL 1. Stocks jump Stocks rebounded on Monday morning following the close of a dismal third quarter, as equities benefited from an easing in the 10-year Treasury. The S & P 500 gained 2.1%, after tumbling to its lowest level since 2020 on Friday. Despite the move north, the S & P 500 Short Range Oscillator continued to show the market as extremely oversold, driving our decision to make some trades. Oil prices also gained on news the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies such as Russia (known as OPEC+) were weighing cutting oil production by 1 million barrels per day, the largest cut since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. West Texas Intermediate crude — the U.S. oil benchmark — was up more than 4% in mid-morning trading, helping to boost oil stocks. 2. We made two trades We sold some shares of Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) on Monday to capitalize on rising oil prices. Shares of PXD were up around 6.5%, at $230.63 a share. So we decided to use this surge as an opportunity to take cash and invest it elsewhere. At the same time, we added slightly to our position in Estee Lauder (EL), which has been under pressure and was trading mainly flat Monday, at $215.87 a share. We initially reinvested in the cosmetics giant last week and are now taking advantage of this incredibly oversold stock. 3. Quick mentions: WFC, AMZN, AAPL Here are some updates on some Club names: Goldman Sachs upgraded Wells Fargo (WFC) on Monday from neutral to buy. We believe the stock has big upside potential, and we recommend any new Club member to buy. Bank of America lowered its price target on Amazon (AMZN) but maintained its buy rating, citing the strong dollar and the impact of macroeconomic headwinds on discretionary spending. We currently have no plans to touch our position in the stock and are keeping an eye on it. Morgan Stanley estimated Apple ‘s (AAPL) App store net revenue fell a record 5% year-on-year in September, driven by a slowdown in consumer spending in the U.S. and China. Despite the news, we’re sticking by our belief that investors should own, not trade, this solid long-term stock. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long AMZN, APPL, EL, PXD, WFC. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED. More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves in the premarket: Credit Suisse, Tesla, Myovant Sciences and more

    Take a look at some of the biggest movers in the premarket:
    Credit Suisse (CS) – Credit Suisse slid 6.1% in premarket trading after the bank sought to calm the fears of investors and clients about its financial health over the weekend in a series of phone calls.

    Tesla (TSLA) – Tesla dropped 5.7% in the premarket after announcing deliveries of over 343,000 vehicles during the third quarter. That number was a record high for Tesla and up 42% from a year ago, but below forecasts.
    ViaSat (VSAT) – ViaSat rallied 5.9% in premarket trading after the Wall Street Journal reported that the satellite company was close to a deal to sell a military communications unit to defense contractor L3Harris Technologies (LHX) for nearly $2 billion.
    Myovant Sciences (MYOV) – Myovant surged 31.3% in the premarket after the biopharmaceutical company rejected a bid by its largest shareholder, Sumitovant Biopharma, to buy the shares it doesn’t already own for $22.75 per share. Myovant said the offer significantly undervalues the company.
    Robinhood Markets (HOOD) – Robinhood announced it was closing five additional offices, on top of closures announced in August as part of a restructuring. The newly announced closures for the trading platform operator will result in charges of about $45 million. Robinhood fell 1% in the premarket.
    Vodafone (VOD) – The telecom company’s shares jumped 3.2% in premarket action after Vodafone confirmed a Sky News report that merger talks between Vodafone and UK rival Three UK have accelerated.

    Stanley Black & Decker (SWK) – The tool maker has eliminated about 1,000 finance-related jobs, according to The Wall Street Journal. Stanley Black & Decker is seeking to cut about $200 million in expenses as it deals with higher costs and slowing demand.
    Freshpet (FRPT) – Freshpet rose 2.3% in premarket trading after Barron’s reported that the pet food company hired bankers to explore a possible sale.
    Box (BOX) – Box jumped 3.7% in the premarket after Morgan Stanley upgraded the cloud computing company’s stock to “overweight” from “equal-weight,” pointing to strong execution and a favorable competitive landscape.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Credit Suisse shares tank 10% on restructuring, capital concerns

    Shares of Credit Suisse plunged nearly 10% in Europe’s morning session, after the Financial Times reported the Swiss bank’s executives are in talks with its major investors to reassure them amid rising concerns over the Swiss lender’s financial health.
    Spreads of the bank’s credit default swaps (CDS), which provide investors with protection against financial risks such as default, rose sharply Friday.
    They followed reports the Swiss lender is looking to raise capital, citing a memo from its Chief Executive Ulrich Koerner.

    A Swiss flag flies over a sign of Credit Suisse in Bern, Switzerland
    FABRICE COFFRINI | AFP | Getty Images

    Shares of Credit Suisse plunged nearly 10% in Europe’s morning session, after the Financial Times reported the Swiss bank’s executives are in talks with its major investors to reassure them amid rising concerns over the Swiss lender’s financial health.
    One executive involved in the talks told the Financial Times that teams at the bank were actively engaging with its top clients and counterparties over the weekend, adding that they were receiving “messages of support” from top investors.

    related investing news

    Credit Suisse divides Wall Street as JPMorgan calls bank’s capital ‘healthy’ while others have doubts

    37 minutes ago

    In a statement to CNBC on Monday, the bank said it will provide updates on its strategy review when it releases its third-quarter results on Oct. 27.
    “It would be premature to comment on any potential outcomes before then,” it said.
    Spreads of the bank’s credit default swaps (CDS), which provide investors with protection against financial risks such as default, rose sharply Friday. They followed reports the Swiss lender is looking to raise capital, citing a memo from its Chief Executive Ulrich Koerner.

    Loading chart…

    The stock is down about 60% year-to-date.
    “I trust that you are not confusing our day-to-day stock price performance with the strong capital base and liquidity position of the bank,” the CEO said in a separate staff memo obtained by CNBC.

    FT said the executive denied reports that the Swiss lender had formally approached its investors about possibly raising more capital, and insisted Credit Suisse “was trying to avoid such a move with its share price at record lows and higher borrowing costs due to rating downgrades.”
    The bank told Reuters that it’s in the process of a strategy review that includes potential divestitures and asset sales.
    Credit Suisse has also been in talks with investors to raise capital with various scenarios in mind, Reuters said, citing people familiar with the matter as saying it includes a chance that the bank may “largely” exit the U.S. market.

    The latest from Credit Suisse signals a “rocky period” ahead but it could lead to a change in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s direction, said John Vail, chief global strategist at Nikko Asset Management, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Monday.
    “The silver lining at end of this period is the fact that central banks will probably start to relent some time as both inflation is down and financial conditions worsen dramatically,” Vail said. “I don’t think it’s the end of the world.”

    Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

    “We struggle to see something systemic,” analysts at Citi said a report about the possible “contagion impact” on U.S. banks by “a large European bank.” The analysts did not name Credit Suisse.
    “We understand the nature of the concerns, but the current situation is night and day from 2007 as the balance sheets are fundamentally different in terms of capital and liquidity,” the report said, referring to the financial crisis that unraveled in 2007.
    “We believe the U.S. bank stocks are very attractive here,” the report said.
    Read the full Financial Times report here.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    America’s economy is too strong for its own good

    Two days after the latest interest-rate rise, the seven governors of the Federal Reserve met with some businessfolk. Any misgivings about the effects of tighter monetary policy would have been quickly dispelled. Cara Walton of Harbour Results, a consultancy, spoke of a plastics processor who hired 14 new employees, only for a mere three to show up on their first day (and one of those to quit before lunch). Cheetie Kumar, a restaurateur, said her peers were struggling to make rent as food and labour bills mounted. Tom Henning of Cash-Wa, a distribution company, explained his firm was passing costs onto customers. Demand was holding up, he said, thanks to the amount of money “floating out there in the economy”.Misgivings may, however, have crept back in as the governors watched the markets over the past fortnight. The central bank’s goal is to tame inflation, which is running at more than 8% year on year, just shy of a four-decade high. The realisation that the central bank is still far from that goal, and that monetary tightening will thus continue, is causing havoc. American stocks have fallen for three consecutive quarters, and sharply recently. Bond prices are tumbling, reflecting tremors in the credit markets. The ratcheting up of rates in America is driving the dollar’s appreciation, adding to inflationary pressure elsewhere and impelling other central banks to follow the Fed’s lead, no matter the state of their economies. On September 30th Lael Brainard, the Fed’s vice chair, called for her fellow governors to proceed “deliberately”, a word denoting caution in the central bank’s argot. She also said the Fed would take its international impact into account. This was an acknowledgement of the risks of the current approach—it was not an indication that the central bank is about to change tack. The Fed simply cannot ignore the strength of the domestic economy. Even with the financial upheaval, America’s economy is straining at its limits in critical dimensions. In the labour market there are two jobs available for every unemployed person. Wages, up roughly 7% compared with a year earlier, are rising at their fastest pace since the early 1980s, according to the Atlanta Fed. Although house prices declined month on month in August, new home sales jumped, confounding expectations. Corporate profits are at their highest in decades as a share of GDP. Despite higher rates, consumer confidence has been climbing. This constitutes a serious challenge for the Fed: the more resilient the economy, the harder it will have to push to rein in inflation. More jumbo rate rises are thus on the cards, heightening the risk of a monetary mistake and an eventual recession. There is always a lag between shifts in monetary policy and their impact on real activity—the recent rate rises will inevitably take a toll on the American economy over the coming year. To get a sense of why, despite the brewing trouble, the Fed remains hawkish, it is crucial to understand why the economy has remained insulated so far. Fuel in the tankThe most obvious factor also explains America’s inflation: the government was more aggressive than others in stimulating the economy during the covid-19 pandemic. America’s primary budget deficit—the difference between government spending and revenues, excluding interest payments—averaged 10.5% in 2020 and 2021, more than triple its pre-pandemic level and higher than all other big rich countries. Formally, this stimulus ended some time ago. The last big short-term fiscal package was President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) in March last year. But in reality, stimulus is still working its way through the system. Hefty dollops of ARP cash are only just hitting the economy. States were granted about $200bn in direct emergency funding. In August, they had yet to draw on a fifth of that. And they are still doling out the funding they have claimed. In the past couple of weeks alone, Louisville, Kentucky announced it would spend ARP funds on affordable housing; Monroe Country, New York directed some to health services; and Cumberland Country, Tennessee splashed out on water and sewer projects.Even more important is how the stimulus continues to puff up the balance sheets of both people and firms. Households sit on about $2trn in excess savings (relative to their pre-pandemic norm). They are now beginning to eat into this buffer—savings rates are well down this year. But the reserves have enabled them to spend at a decent clip even as inflation has eroded their incomes. It has been a similar story for businesses. At the start of the third quarter, they had about $2.8trn of cash in hand, down from the start of the year but about a quarter more than before the pandemic. They have also taken advantage of robust demand to pass on inflated input costs to customers, protecting their margins and then some. Post-tax corporate profits reached 12% of GDP in the second quarter, the highest since at least the 1940s. So long as companies are making profits, they look to hire, not fire, workers.Nor has growth been hindered, as it has in Europe, by soaring energy costs following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, America has, in one sense, benefited from it. Exports of both crude oil and petroleum products are at an all-time high. In net terms America has exported about 1m barrels a day of crude and petroleum products since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—all the more remarkable given that America was a net importer to the tune of 10m barrels a day at the start of the century. The boom in oil-export earnings has contributed to a narrowing of America’s trade deficit, which may flatter its growth figures over the rest of this year.American consumers have been rather less enthusiastic about higher prices at the pump. If they compared themselves with their peers in Europe, they might be more sanguine. Natural-gas prices have historically been a smidgen higher in Europe than America. These days they are about five times higher. Europe has been gradually cut off from Russia, its main gas supplier; America is awash with its own energy. It has only limited liquefaction capacity, which is needed for exports, meaning the gas it releases from the ground is mostly consumed domestically. In Europe monetary tightening is compounded by the negative shock from soaring energy prices, which is why forecasters expect a deeper recession. In America the Fed can more or less look beyond the ructions in the energy markets.Sooner or later, continued rate rises will drag on the American economy. That, after all, is the Fed’s intention. The most rate-sensitive sectors are already being hit. Rates on 30-year fixed mortgages have reached 7%, the highest in more than a decade. A steep rise in credit-card balances suggests that households are starting to exhaust their savings. Higher interest rates will only make debts more onerous. Corporate profits also look set to flag—one reason for the recent stock-market plunge.Nevertheless, a slow, steady return to normality after covid acts as a buffer against these dangers. Take the property market. The inventory of homes available for sale remains very low by historical standards, in part because the supply of building materials, just like other goods, has been badly constrained over the past few years. A leap in mortgage rates would usually be expected to lead to a precipitous slowdown in construction activity. This time, though, builders are still building, trying to work through the backlog of unfinished homes.Meanwhile, goods consumption shot up during the pandemic as people bought new couches, bigger televisions and fancier exercise bikes for their homes. Now they are returning to cruises and concerts. This shift matters for the job market because services tend to be more labour-intensive. Even if consumers spend less in aggregate, they are spending more on the kinds of things that require lots of workers, boosting employment.Spread over the entire economy, this is a powerful trend. America’s workforce today is basically the same size as in 2019. Its composition is, however, very different. There are 1m more workers in transportation and warehousing, reflecting the rise and rise of online shopping. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 1m workers have left the leisure and hospitality sectors over the past three years. According to the National Restaurant Association, a lobby group, roughly two in three restaurants are understaffed. Thus the slowdown in growth may lead to a smaller rise in unemployment than it otherwise would have done. Companies suffering from worker shortages have little fat to trim.So good, it’s badIn one sense, this resilience is to be welcomed. It implies that a recession, if one arrives, is likely to be mild. But the Fed is determined to get inflation down, and is focused on wage growth as a proxy for underlying price pressures. Continued labour-market tightness therefore inclines the central bank towards a tougher, longer bout of monetary tightening.The Fed has already raised rates by a full three percentage points this year, its steepest increase in four decades. As turmoil sweeps through financial markets, some economists have criticised the central bank for going too far, too fast. Some Fed officials also seem to be getting cold feet. But their hawkish colleagues have the upper hand after a year of upside surprises in inflation. The baseline expectation of investors is that the Fed will deliver at least another percentage point of rate increases before the end of the year. That may well be a conservative guess. Even after half a year of monetary tightening and a slowdown in growth, the economy still suffers from a shortfall of supply and a surfeit of demand—most especially for workers. In the face of such a mismatch, the only direction for interest rates is up. ■ More

  • in

    Despite success this year, underperformance rates are 'abysmal' for large-cap active managers for the long run

    Live, Mondays, 1 PM ET

    The S&P 500 may be trading around 2022 lows, but a new report finds active managers are having their best year since 2009. The numbers suggest they still have a long way to go, though.
    S&P Global recently published its Mid-Year 2022 SPIVA U.S. Scorecard, which measures how well U.S. actively managed funds perform against certain benchmarks. The study found that 51% of large-cap domestic equity funds performed worse than the S&P 500 in the first half of 2022, on track for its best rate in 13 years — down from an 85% underperformance rate last year.

    This is partially due to the declining market, said Anu Ganti, senior director of index investment strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices. Ganti told CNBC’s Bob Pisani on “ETF Edge” this week that losses across stocks and fixed income, as well as rising risks and inflation, have made active management skills more valuable this year.
    Despite the promising numbers, long-term underperformance remains, as Pisani noted, “abysmal.” After five years, the percentage of large caps underperforming benchmarks is 84%, and this grows to 90% and 95% after 10 and 20 years respectively.
    The first half of the year was also disappointing for growth managers, as 79%, 84% and 89% of large-, small- and mid-cap growth categories, respectively, underperformed.

    Underperformance rates

    Ganti said underperformance rates remain high because active managers historically have had higher costs than passive managers. Because stocks are not normally distributed, active portfolios are often hindered by the dominant winners in equity markets.
    Additionally, managers compete against each other, which makes it much harder to generate alpha — in the 1960s, active managers had an information edge since the market was dominated by retail investors, but today, active managers primarily compete against professional managers. Other factors include the sheer frequency of trades and the unpredictability of the future.

    “When we talk about fees, that can work against performance, but it sure helps by putting feet on the ground and putting up a bunch of ads all over the place where you may not see that as much in ETFs,” said Tom Lydon, vice chairman of VettaFi.
    Lydon added that there are not enough ETFs in 401(k) plans, which is where a lot of active managers are — 75 cents of every dollar going into Fidelity funds goes in via 401(k) plans. The 401(k) business is dominated by people who make money from large trades, in contrast to low-cost ETFs that don’t make much. With $400 billion in new assets coming into ETFs this year and $120 billion coming out of mutual funds, it may take a long time until those lines cross.
    “We’re going to have one of those years where equity markets may be down, fixed income markets may be down, and active managers may have to go into low cost basis stock to sell them to meet redemptions, which is going to create year-end capital gains distributions,” Lydon said. “You don’t want, in a year where you’ve been the one to hang out, to get a year-end present that’s unexpected and unwanted.”

    ‘Survivorship bias’

    Another component of the study is the “survivorship bias,” in which losing funds that are merged or liquidated don’t show up in indexes, and thus the rate of survivorship is skewed. The study accounted for the entire opportunity set, including these failed funds, to account for this bias.
    Thus, Lydon said, amid periods of market pullback, investors should adopt a longer-term outlook and try not to be a “stock jockey,” since the best manager today may not be the best in the long run.

    Disclaimer More

  • in

    ‘The Fed is breaking things’ – Here’s what has Wall Street on edge as risks rise around the world

    Markets entered a perilous new phase in the past week, one in which statistically unusual moves across asset classes are becoming commonplace.
    Surging volatility in what are supposed to be among the safest fixed income instruments in the world could disrupt the financial system’s plumbing, according to Mark Connors, former Credit Suisse global head of risk advisory.
    That could force the Fed to prop up the Treasury market, he said. Doing so will likely force the Fed to put a halt to its quantitative tightening program ahead of schedule.
    The other worry is that the whipsawing markets will expose the weak hands among asset managers, hedge funds and other players who may have been overleveraged or took on unwise risks. Margin calls and forced liquidations could further roil markets.

    Jerome Powell, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, during a Fed Listens event in Washington, D.C., US, on Friday, Sept. 23, 2022.
    Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    As the Federal Reserve ramps up efforts to tame inflation, sending the dollar surging and bonds and stocks into a tailspin, concern is rising that the central bank’s campaign will have unintended and potentially dire consequences.
    Markets entered a perilous new phase in the past week, one in which statistically unusual moves across asset classes are becoming commonplace. The stock selloff gets most of the headlines, but it is in the gyrations and interplay of the far bigger global markets for currencies and bonds where trouble is brewing, according to Wall Street veterans.

    After being criticized for being slow to recognize inflation, the Fed has embarked on its most aggressive series of rate hikes since the 1980s. From near-zero in March, the Fed has pushed its benchmark rate to a target of at least 3%. At the same time, the plan to unwind its $8.8 trillion balance sheet in a process called “quantitative tightening,” or QT — selling securities the Fed has on its books — has removed the largest buyer of Treasuries and mortgage securities from the marketplace.  
    “The Fed is breaking things,” said Benjamin Dunn, a former hedge fund chief risk officer who now runs consultancy Alpha Theory Advisors. “There’s really nothing historical you can point to for what’s going on in markets today; we are seeing multiple standard deviation moves in things like the Swedish krona, in Treasuries, in oil, in silver, like every other day. These aren’t healthy moves.”

    Dollar’s warning

    For now, it is the once-in-a-generation rise in the dollar that has captivated market observers. Global investors are flocking to higher-yielding U.S. assets thanks to the Fed’s actions, and the dollar has gained in strength while rival currencies wilt, pushing the ICE Dollar Index to the best year since its inception in 1985.
    “Such U.S. dollar strength has historically led to some kind of financial or economic crisis,” Morgan Stanley chief equity strategist Michael Wilson said Monday in a note. Past peaks in the dollar have coincided with the the Mexican debt crisis of the early 1990s, the U.S. tech stock bubble of the late 90s, the housing mania that preceded the 2008 financial crisis and the 2012 sovereign debt crisis, according to the investment bank.
    The dollar is helping to destabilize overseas economies because it increases inflationary pressures outside the U.S., Barclays global head of FX and emerging markets strategy Themistoklis Fiotakis said Thursday in a note.

    The “Fed is now in overdrive and this is supercharging the dollar in a way which, to us at least, was hard to envisage” earlier, he wrote. “Markets may be underestimating the inflationary effect of a rising dollar on the rest of the world.”
    It is against that strong dollar backdrop that the Bank of England was forced to prop up the market for its sovereign debt on Wednesday. Investors had been dumping U.K. assets in force starting last week after the government unveiled plans to stimulate its economy, moves that run counter to fighting inflation.
    The U.K. episode, which made the Bank of England the buyer of last resort for its own debt, could be just the first intervention a central bank is forced to take in coming months.

    Repo fears

    There are two broad categories of concern right now: Surging volatility in what are supposed to be the safest fixed income instruments in the world could disrupt the financial system’s plumbing, according to Mark Connors, the former Credit Suisse global head of risk advisory who joined Canadian digital assets firm 3iQ in May.
    Since Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and are used as collateral in overnight funding markets, their decline in price and resulting higher yields could gum up the smooth functioning of those markets, he said.
    Problems in the repo market occurred most recently in September 2019, when the Fed was forced to inject billions of dollars to calm down the repo market, an essential short-term funding mechanism for banks, corporations and governments.
    “The Fed may have to stabilize the price of Treasuries here; we’re getting close,” said Connors, a market participant for more than 30 years. “What’s happening may require them to step in and provide emergency funding.”
    Doing so will likely force the Fed to put a halt to its quantitative tightening program ahead of schedule, just as the Bank of England did, according to Connors. While that would confuse the Fed’s messaging that it’s acting tough on inflation, the central bank will have no choice, he said.

    `Expect a tsunami’

    The second worry is that whipsawing markets will expose weak hands among asset managers, hedge funds or other players who may have been overleveraged or took unwise risks. While a blow-up could be contained, it’s possible that margin calls and forced liquidations could further roil markets.
    “When you have the dollar spike, expect a tsunami,” Connors said. “Money floods one area and leaves other assets; there’s a knock-on effect there.”
    The rising correlation among assets in recent weeks reminds Dunn, the ex-risk officer, of the period right before the 2008 financial crisis, when currency bets imploded, he said. Carry trades, which involve borrowing at low rates and reinvesting in higher-yielding instruments, often with the help of leverage, have a history of blow ups.
    “The Fed and all the central bank actions are creating the backdrop for a pretty sizable carry unwind right now,” Dunn said.
    The stronger dollar also has other impacts: It makes wide swaths of dollar-denominated bonds issued by non-U.S. players harder to repay, which could pressure emerging markets already struggling with inflation. And other nations could offload U.S. securities in a bid to defend their currencies, exacerbating moves in Treasuries.
    So-called zombie companies that have managed to stay afloat because of the low interest rate environment of the past 15 years will likely face a “reckoning” of defaults as they struggle to tap more expensive debt, according to Deutsche Bank strategist Tim Wessel.
    Wessel, a former New York Fed employee, said that he also believes it’s likely that the Fed will need to halt its QT program. That could happen if funding rates spike, but also if the banking industry’s reserves decline too much for the regulator’s comfort, he said.

    Fear of the unknown

    Still, just as no one anticipated that an obscure pension fund trade would ignite a cascade of selling that cratered British bonds, it is the unknowns that are most concerning, says Wessel. The Fed is “learning in real time” how markets will react as it attempts to rein in the support its given since the 2008 crisis, he said.
    “The real worry is that you don’t know where to look for these risks,” Wessel said. “That’s one of the points of tightening financial conditions; it’s that people that got over-extended ultimately pay the price.”
    Ironically, it is the reforms that came out of the last global crisis that have made markets more fragile. Trading across asset classes is thinner and easier to disrupt after U.S. regulators forced banks to pull back from proprietary trading activities, a dynamic that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has repeatedly warned about.
    Regulators did that because banks took on excessive risk before the 2008 crisis, assuming that ultimately they’d be bailed out. While the reforms pushed risk out of banks, which are far safer today, it has made central banks take on much more of the burden of keeping markets afloat.
    With the possible exception of troubled European firms like Credit Suisse, investors and analysts said there is confidence that most banks will be able to withstand market turmoil ahead.
    What is becoming more apparent, however, is that it will be difficult for the U.S. — and other major economies — to wean themselves off the extraordinary support the Fed has given it in the past 15 years. It’s a world that Allianz economic advisor Mohamed El-Erian derisively referred to as a “la-la land” of central bank influence.
    “The problem with all this is that it’s their own policies that created the fragility, their own policies that created the dislocations and now we’re relying on their policies to address the dislocations,” Peter Boockvar of Bleakley Financial Group said. “It’s all quite a messed-up world.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More