More stories

  • in

    Chinese real estate developer Kaisa halts trading in Hong Kong, as debt concerns escalate

    Hong Kong-listed Chinese real estate developer Kaisa Group Holdings and three of its subsidiaries suspended trading in their shares on Friday ahead of the market open.
    Kaisa said Thursday that its finance unit missed a payment on a wealth management product, amid increased worries about its strained liquidity.
    Among Chinese developers, the company ranks second only to Evergrande in terms of issuance of U.S. dollar-denominated offshore high-yield bonds, according to Natixis.

    A few apartment buildings built at the Kaisa Shenzhen City Plaza project.
    Langi Chiang | SCMP | Getty Images

    Hong Kong listed shares of Chinese real estate developer Kaisa Group Holdings were halted on Friday, following news that it had missed a payment on a wealth management product earlier this week.
    It comes as investors continue to watch for developments in China’s property sector following the fallout from heavily indebted Evergrande.

    Kaisa said in an exchange filing on Friday that it will be suspending trading. Its other units — Kaisa Capital, Kaisa Health, Kaisa Prosper — also announced they will halt trading.
    On Thursday, Kaisa said its finance unit missed a payment on a wealth management product, amid increased worries about its strained liquidity.
    Kaisa shares fell nearly 13% this week before the trading suspension. The stock is down about 70% so far this year.

    Read more about China from CNBC Pro

    Investors have been closely monitoring interest payments on the Evergrande’s bonds — the company initially missed making two payments, but managed to meet them within the 30-day grace period. All eyes are now on other interest payments due in November and December.
    A few other Chinese real estate firms had also been under the spotlight for going into default, or missing payments on their debt.

    Kaisa’s debt

    Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings downgraded Kaisa last week. Both agencies cited the firm’s diminishing cash flow.
    Among Chinese developers, Kaisa is the second-largest issuer of U.S. dollar-denominated offshore high-yield bonds, according to Natixis. Evergrande, the world’s most indebted real estate developer, ranks first.
    As of the first half of this year, Kaisa had crossed two of China’s three “red lines” for real estate developers that the government outlined, according to Natixis.
    According to Fitch, Kaisa has a large amount of debt due between now and end-2022, including $400 million due in December, and around $3 billion due in 2022.
    Regulators in Shenzhen will hold a meeting on Friday to discuss liquidity issues at Kaisa and another Chinese real estate firm Fantasia, local media Cailianshe reported. Fantasia failed to repay a $206 million bond that matured early last month.
    Kaisa and Fantasia didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Stock futures are flat ahead of October jobs report

    A specialist trader works inside a booth on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, October 6, 2021.
    Brendan McDermid | Reuters

    Stock futures were flat in overnight trading Thursday ahead of the highly anticipated October jobs report.
    Futures on the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 8 points. S&P 500 futures were near the flatline and Nasdaq 100 futures were little changed.

    Investors are awaiting the release of October nonfarm payroll numbers Friday morning. Consensus estimates call for 450,000 jobs added, according to Dow Jones. September’s report tallied 194,000 additional jobs, far short of the 500,000 estimate.

    “Tomorrow’s Payrolls numbers become even more significant, as it is the first full month of hiring following the expiration of federal enhanced unemployment benefits, while public health has simultaneously improved and labor demand has remained strong,” Goldman Sachs’ Chris Hussey said Thursday.
    Thursday’s regular trading session saw the S&P 500 gain 0.4% to close at a record high in its sixth-straight winning day. The Nasdaq Composite notched its ninth consecutive positive session, rising 0.8% to a record close. The Dow bucked the trend and dipped 33.35 points.
    The technology sector led the S&P 500, up 1.5% Thursday. Financials lagged with a 1.3% loss.
    Market participants digested the Federal Reserve’s plan to begin tapering its pandemic aid by the end of November, putting the central bank on track to end its asset purchase program by the middle of next year.

    Investors also received a fresh labor market reading Thursday as first-time jobless claims totaled 269,000 last week, the lowest pandemic-era total and lower than expected.
    All three major averages are on track to end the week higher. The Dow is up 0.9% on the week, while the S&P 500 is 1.6% higher and the Nasdaq Composite is up 2.9%.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves after hours: Peloton, Pinterest, Uber and more

    A Peloton Interactive Inc. logo on a stationary bike at the company’s showroom in Dedham, Massachusetts, U.S., on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2021.
    Adam Glanzman | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Check out the companies making headlines after the bell: 
    Peloton — Shares of Peloton sunk 25% in extended trading after the exercise equipment and media company posted a wider-than-expected quarterly loss and cut its full-year outlook. Peloton reported a loss of $1.25 per share on revenue of $805.2 million, versus the Refinitiv consensus of $1.07 per share on revenue of $810.7 million.

    Pinterest — Pinterest shares gained 6.3% after hours following a quarterly earnings and revenue beat. The social media company posted adjusted earnings of 28 cents per share on revenue of $633 million. Analysts expected earnings of 23 cents per share on revenue of $631 million, according to Refinitiv.
    Uber — The ride-hailing and food delivery stock dipped 2.8% after 1.8 reported a wider-than-expected quarterly loss. Uber posted a loss of $1.28 per share versus 3.3 million expected. The company attributed the loss to the pullback in value of its investment holdings, particularly Chinese ride-hailing app Didi.
    Square — Shares of Square fell 2.5% after the digital payments company missed revenue expectations. Square posted quarterly revenue of $3.84 billion, versus the Refinitiv $4.54 billion consensus estimate.
    Airbnb — Airbnb shares rose 1.5% after the company reported stronger-than-expected third-quarter revenue. The company posted revenue of $2.24 billion versus the Refinitiv consensus of $2.05 billion.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves midday: Moderna, Nvidia, Etsy and more

    Medical syringe is seen with Moderna company logo displayed on a screen in the background in this illustration photo taken in Poland.
    Jakub Porzycki | NurPhoto | Getty Images

    Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
    Moderna — Moderna shares tumbled 17.9% after a weaker-than-expected quarterly report. The drug maker cut its Covid-19 vaccine sales forecast for the year and missed third-quarter earnings and revenue expectations. Moderna earned $7.70 per share for its latest quarter versus the $9.05 Refinitiv consensus estimate.

    Penn National Gaming — Shares of Penn National Gaming sank 21.1% after issuing quarterly results. The company reported adjusted EBITDAR (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and restructuring or rent costs) of $480.3 million versus the StreetAccount consensus estimate of $537.8 million. Penn management said the third quarter was affected by Hurricane Ida and flare-ups of the delta Covid variant.
    Nvidia — Shares of Nvidia rallied 12% after Wells Fargo raised its price target on the stock to a Street high of $320 per share from $245, citing a bullish outlook on the company’s Omniverse. “We see NVIDIA Omniverse as a key enabler/platform for the development of the Metaverse across a wide range of vertical apps,” analysts said.
    Etsy — The online crafts marketplace’s shares surged 13.2% after reporting third-quarter earnings that beat analysts’ expectations. Etsy recorded a profit of 62 cents per share, beating StreetAccount’s consensus estimate of 55 cents.
    Qualcomm — Shares of the chipmaker popped 12.7% after a better-than-expected earnings report. The company reported its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings and revenue that exceeded analysts’ expectations. Qualcomm reported a 56% year-over-year boost in smartphone chip sales despite a global chip shortage.
    Planet Fitness — Shares of Planet Fitness rose 11.7% after the fitness center chain beat on the top and bottom lines. The company posted adjusted earnings of 25 cents per share versus the StreetAccount consensus of 18 cents per share. Planet Fitness also raised its full-year revenue forecast.

    Roku — Roku shares slid 7.7% after a weaker-than-expected quarterly revenue report. The streaming company posted revenue of $680 million, while Refinitiv forecast $683.4 million. Roku also issued a fourth-quarter revenue forecast below expectations.
    Lumen Technologies — Lumen shares gained 12.6% after the telecommunications company posted better-than-expected quarterly results for per-share earnings. The company report an adjusted profit of 49 cents per share versus the StreetAccount consensus estimate of 38 cents per share.
    Qorvo — The semiconductor stock fell 13.3% after the company’s sales guidance came in well below expectations. Bank of America downgraded the stock to neutral from buy, saying that the boost to Qorvo’s revenue from 5G was slowing, possibly creating a significant decrease in revenue growth in the years ahead.
    Take-Two Interactive — Take-Two shares added 4.8% after the video game company’s quarterly revenue beat expectations. The company posted revenue of $984.9 million, versus the Refinitiv consensus of $867.5 million. Take-Two also raised its outlook.
    Electronic Arts — Shares of Electronic Arts gained 2.1% after the video game maker beat Wall Street’s quarterly earnings expectations. The video game maker also topped revenue expectations and hiked its full-year outlook.
    ViacomCBS — ViacomCBS shares fell 4.4% despite the media company’s better-than-expected revenue report. The company posted revenue of $6.61 billion versus the StreetAccount consensus of $6.56 billion. ViacomCBS’s earnings results were in line with estimates.
    Wayfair — Shares of Wayfair slid 5% after the online home goods seller reported lower-than-expected revenue. Wayfair did beat the StreetAccount earnings-per-share consensus. The company said consumers are trending more toward brick-and-mortar stores as Covid restrictions ease.
    MGM Resorts — Shares of MGM fell 2.7% after it announced it will sell the operations of its Mirage casino in Las Vegas. Bloomberg first reported the news. No sales agreement has been reached, MGM said, and the company didn’t disclose the names of potential buyers.
    Capri Holdings — Shares of the fashion brand company climbed 3.6% after Capri beat estimates on the top and bottom lines for its second quarter. The Versace parent company also hiked its full-year guidance for earnings and sales. JPMorgan upgraded the stock to overweight from neutral after the report, saying the company was showing strength across multiple brands.
    SunPower — Shares of the residential solar company slid 0.7% after SunPower missed revenue expectations during the third quarter. The company’s sales stood at $324 million for the period, short of the $333 million analysts surveyed by Refinitiv were expecting. SunPower recently announced a restructuring aimed at doubling down on the residential solar market.
    — CNBC’s Tanaya Macheel, Jesse Pound, Yun Li and Pippa Stevens contributed reporting

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Democrats put 401(k) and IRA restrictions for the rich back into their Build Back Better plan

    An updated version of Democrats’ Build Back Better plan, issued Wednesday, has new rules on retirement plans for the wealthy.
    The measures were proposed by House Democrats in September, but the White House had removed them from a $1.75 trillion framework last week.
    The proposals would create required minimum distributions for retirement accounts of more than $10 million, eliminate “backdoor Roth” loopholes and prohibit new contributions to large accounts.

    U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks as she joins religious leaders during a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol October 20, 2021 in Washington, DC.
    Alex Wong | Getty Images

    House Democrats proposed several rules to curb retirement accounts of the rich, part of a broad restructuring of the tax code tied to the party’s Build Back Better social and climate spending package.
    Wealthy individuals with more than $10 million in retirement savings would have to draw down their accounts each year, in a new type of required minimum distribution, or RMD, according to updated legislation issued Wednesday evening by the House Budget Committee.

    Lawmakers would also close “backdoor Roth” tax loopholes for the rich, and prohibit further individual retirement account contributions once those accounts exceed $10 million.
    The measures are aimed at curbing the use of 401(k) plans and IRAs as tax shelters for the wealthy.
    More from Personal Finance:Latest version of Democrat bill includes improvements to MedicareDemocrats manage to get 4 weeks of paid leave back into social spending billVaccine mandates are surging in job listings
    The proposals were included in an initial House tax proposal in September. However, the White House stripped the retirement-plan rules from a $1.75 trillion framework issued Oct. 28 after lengthy negotiations with holdout members of the Democratic party, who were concerned about some tax and other elements of the package.
    Some of the earlier retirement proposals didn’t re-appear in the new iteration, however.

    For example, the initial legislation would have disallowed IRA investments like private equity that require owners to be so-called “accredited investors,” a status tied to wealth and other factors.
    And some of the rules would kick in years later than originally proposed.

    The legislative draft, which is still subject to change, aims to raise taxes on households making more than $400,000 a year and corporations in order to fund expanded access to child care, home care and health care; cut taxes for low and middle earners; and invest in measures to curb climate change.
    Republicans staunchly oppose the plan. Democrats, who have razor-thin margins, can’t afford to lose a vote on the Senate and hardly any in the House for the measure to pass.
    It’s unclear how will the Senate will ultimately land on the tax measures and other aspects of the broad package.
    “It’s sort of like a chess game,” Robert Keebler, an accountant and estate planner based in Green Bay, Wisconsin, said. “When will the Senate make its move?”

    RMDs for $10 million accounts

    Currently, RMDs for account owners are tied to age instead of wealth. Roth IRA owners also aren’t subject to these distributions under current law. (One exception: inherited IRAs at death.)
    The House legislation would add to those rules, asking wealthy savers of all ages to withdraw a large share of aggregate retirement balances annually. They’d potentially owe income tax on the funds.

    The formula is complex, based on factors like account size and type of account (pretax or Roth). Here’s the general premise: Accountholders must withdraw 50% of accounts valued at more than $10 million. Larger accounts must also draw down 100% of Roth account size over $20 million.
    The distributions would only be required for individuals whose income exceeds $400,000. The threshold would be $450,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and $425,000 for heads of household.
    The provision would start after Dec. 31, 2028. (It would have begun after Dec. 31, 2021 in the September House proposal.)
    People with millions of dollars in retirement savings would likely change their financial plans to circumvent the rules’ impact if they’re adopted, Keebler said.
    “There may be people already at $6 million [for example] who might decide not to put more money into their IRAs, but into life insurance or other statutory tax shelters,” Keebler said.

    Backdoor Roth

    imagedepotpro | E+ | Getty Images

    Roth IRAs are especially attractive to wealthy investors. Investment growth and future withdrawals are tax-free (after age 59½), and there aren’t required withdrawals at age 72 as with traditional pre-tax accounts.
    However, there are income limits to contribute to Roth IRAs. In 2021, single taxpayers can’t save in one if their income exceeds $140,000.
    But current law allows high-income individuals to save in a Roth IRA via “backdoor” contributions. For example, investors can convert a traditional IRA (which doesn’t have an income limit) to a Roth account.
    Current law also allows for “mega backdoor” contributions to a Roth IRA using after-tax savings in a 401(k) plan. (This process lets the wealthy convert much larger sums of money, since 401(k) plans have higher annual savings limits than IRAs.)
    The House legislation would address both.
    Firstly, it would prohibit any after-tax contributions in 401(k) and other workplace plans and IRAs from being converted to Roth savings. This rule would apply to all income levels starting after Dec. 31, 2021.
    Secondly, savers would be unable to convert pre-tax to Roth savings in IRAs and workplace retirement plans if their taxable income exceeds $400,000 (single individuals), $450,000 (married couples), or $425,000 (heads of household). It would start after Dec. 31, 2031.

    IRA contribution limits

    Current law lets taxpayers make IRA contributions regardless of account size.
    However, the legislation would prohibit individuals from making more contributions to a Roth IRA or traditional IRA if the total value of their combined retirement accounts (including workplace plans) exceeds $10 million.
    The provisions of this section are effective tax years beginning after December 31, 2028. (It would have begun after Dec. 31, 2021 in the September House proposal.)
    The rule would apply to single taxpayers once income is over $400,000; married couples over $450,000; and heads of household over $425,000.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Bank of England's Bailey says 'the warning signs are there' on inflation

    The Bank surprised markets somewhat by keeping interest rates unchanged on Thursday.
    Many investors had backed it to become the first major central bank to hike rates since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.

    LONDON — Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told CNBC the “warning signs are there” on inflation, but the central bank will need to see further evidence from the labor market before hiking rates.
    The Bank surprised markets somewhat by keeping interest rates unchanged on Thursday, with many investors having backed it to become the first major central bank to hike rates since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.

    Bailey had been among the officials striking a hawkish tone in the run up to the November policy meeting, but the Monetary Policy Committee voted 7-2 to hold its benchmark interest rate at its historic low of 0.1%. However, it strongly indicated that rates will have to rise imminently, with markets now expecting a hike at its final meeting of the year in December.
    Asked whether Thursday’s policy decision had damaged the Bank’s credibility, Bailey stressed that his previous remarks that the MPC would have to act on inflation were “conditional” on whether it begins to see medium-term inflation expectations becoming “de-anchored.”
    “We don’t yet see, and we don’t see, evidence of that happening, but of course we are in what I might call a sort of very fragile period, in that sense, because we’ve got inflation going well above target,” Bailey told CNBC’s Geoff Cutmore shortly after the rate decision.
    “The warning signs are there, the bells are ringing, as it were, so we have to watch this carefully, and that’s what we’re doing.”
    The MPC also voted 6-3 to continue existing program of U.K. government bond purchases at a target stock of £875 billion ($1.2 trillion).

    Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey.
    Simon Dawson | Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Bailey said the decision to keep rates at 0.1% was a “close call,” adding that the reason policymakers held off was that it hadn’t yet seen evidence on the state of the labor market after the end of the country’s furlough scheme on Sept. 30. Around 1 million workers were still on the scheme when it ended, which exceeded the Bank’s prior expectations.
    “Clearly that was quite an important moment in time and shift in the labor market, and we haven’t yet seen any data that really give us a clear steer on what has happened post that,” he said.
    U.K. job vacancies hit a record 1.1 million in the three months to August, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.5%, indicating a tightening of the labor market and potentially higher wage growth.
    Investors had been uncertain as to whether the Bank would fire the starting gun on its path toward policy normalization on Thursday, with market data at the beginning of the week indicating that derivatives traders were pricing in a 64% probability of a 15 basis point hike.
    British inflation slowed unexpectedly in September, rising 3.1% in annual terms, but analysts expect this to be a brief respite for consumers. August’s 3.2% annual climb was the largest increase since records began in 1997, and vastly exceeded the Bank’s 2% target.
    The Bank now expects inflation to rise further to around 5% in the spring of 2022 before falling back toward its 2% target by late 2023.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Do “greedy jobs” cause the gender pay gap?

    RADICAL AND liberal feminists, as defined by philosophers, differ on the extent to which women’s freely made choices matter. A liberal feminist desires maximum autonomy for women, demanding equal rights and an end to sex discrimination. A radical feminist sees in society patriarchal forces that are bigger than any one person, and which oppress women in part by influencing their choices. Economic differences between the sexes—such as the gender pay gap—are always a sign of injustice.A new book by Claudia Goldin of Harvard University, an expert on women and work, is a study both of American women’s choices and of the context in which they are made. “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity” traces the history of work and family for college-educated women, and diagnoses what still troubles their careers today.A caricature of history might involve a journey from home to the workplace. In fact, the first generation Ms Goldin studies, born in 1878-97, contained plenty of working women. But a successful career typically required forgoing children and sometimes marriage. Among those listed in “Notable American Women”, a collection of biographies, no more than three in ten had a child, she writes. The choice women faced was “family or career”.By the third generation, those born between 1924 and 1943, college-educated women had a more uniform life experience: “family then job”. The typical woman worked after graduation, but soon married, had children and dropped out of the workforce. She returned once her children were in school, and the gradual removal of formal discriminatory barriers opened up opportunities for her. But her prolonged absence from work meant she did not have the skills and experience necessary to thrive in the workplace.It is only by the fifth group, born after 1958, that many women aspired to achieve “career and family”. The shift was aided by the contraceptive pill, which helped women delay marriage; improved fertility treatments, which helped them delay child-bearing; and more liberal social norms. Yet, despite the staggering extent of the change Ms Goldin documents, a clear gender gap still exists for these women, most notably with respect to pay. American women earn on average 20% less per hour worked. For college graduates, the gap is larger, at 26%.It is at this point that the book becomes provocative. Drawing on reams of research Ms Goldin argues that most women no longer suffer much labour-market discrimination in the sense of unequal pay for equal performance, as is often claimed by the left. Nor is the gender pay gap driven primarily by women’s choice of occupation, an explanation sometimes favoured by the right. Even if the distribution of women’s occupations matched that of men—“if women were the doctors and men were the nurses”—she calculates that at most a third of the pay gap would disappear.The most important cause is that women curtail their careers as a part of a rational household response to labour markets, which generously reward anyone, male or female, who is willing to hold down what Ms Goldin calls a “greedy job”. These are roles, such as those in law, accountancy and finance, that demand long and unpredictable hours. Parents need somebody to be on-call at home in case a child falls ill and needs picking up from school, or needs cheering on at a concert or football match. That is incompatible with a greedy job, which requires being available for last-minute demands from a client or boss. No one person can do both. The rational response is for one parent to specialise in lucrative greedy work, and for the other—typically the mother—to prioritise the children. Ms Goldin writes that “couple equity has been, and will continue to be, jettisoned for increased family income.”A gender pay gap resulting primarily from the choices of households is a thorny problem for liberals who prize freedom of choice. It is also tricky territory for economists, who often emphasise the “revealed preference” of those they study, and the resulting efficiency of market outcomes. True to her membership of the Chicago school of conservative-leaning economists, Ms Goldin does not offer the confident prescriptions for the expansion of government that could have easily followed her compelling diagnosis of the problem. Some parts of her book suggest she supports more subsidies for child care, like those proposed by President Joe Biden. But speaking to The Economist she was more circumspect, pointing out that among Mr Biden’s proposals she would prioritise cash transfers to parents (a policy that makes no attempt to change households’ choices). The book is about “what happened and why”, she says, rather than solutions.For love or moneyAnother theme of the book, however, is just how much progress for women is a result of technological change and innovation. Could similar forces disrupt greediness? For some jobs it is hard to see how; little can stop the self-employed pouring hours into their businesses, say. But firms have an incentive to make jobs less greedy, because hiring and promoting mothers means drawing from a bigger pool of talent. Ms Goldin points to pharmacy as an example of an industry that has made the transition. Many pharmacists used to be self-employed, with customers expecting personal service. But computers and consolidation have led to pharmacists becoming more substitutable for each other, making the job less greedy without a loss of status or pay. Perhaps remote work or artificial intelligence will do the same for other professions.Like a radical, Ms Goldin has identified a structural feature of the economy: “It isn’t you, it’s the system,” she reassures the reader. But she has the liberal’s hesitancy about disrupting a system that is built on choice. ■This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “The greedy-jobs gap” More

  • in

    A quantum walk down Wall Street

    FINANCE AND physics have long been productive bedfellows. When he wasn’t writing the laws of mechanics and gravity, Isaac Newton ran the Royal Mint, making coins harder to forge and forcing counterfeiters to the gallows. The quantitative tools developed in 1900 by Louis Bachelier to study the French stockmarket were taken up by Albert Einstein to prove the existence of atoms. Norbert Wiener formalised them into a mathematical framework that remains at the heart of today’s financial models.Yet finance has been slower to absorb other big ideas from 20th-century physics. That is perhaps unsurprising, because they are generally bizarre. Fire a beam of electrons through two slits onto a screen and they will pass through both at once, travelling as a wave but arriving as particles. Concentrate enough energy in a region of space, and matter and antimatter pop out of the void. Introduce the right two particles to each other and they pop back into it.All this seems worlds away from the mundane reality of traders tapping out buy and sell orders on their keyboards. But on a closer look finance bears a striking resemblance to the quantum world. A beam of light might seem continuous, but is in fact a stream of discrete packets of energy called photons. Cash flows come in similarly distinct chunks. Like the position of a particle, the true price of an asset is unknowable without making a measurement—a transaction—that in turn changes it. In both fields uncertainty, or risk, is best understood not as a peripheral source of error, but as the fundamental feature of the system.Such similarities have spawned a niche area of research known as quantum finance. In a forthcoming book, “Money, Magic, and How to Dismantle a Financial Bomb”, David Orrell, one of its leading proponents, surveys the landscape. Mr Orrell argues that modelling markets with the mathematical toolbox of quantum mechanics could lead to a better understanding of them.Classical financial models are rooted in the mathematical idea of the random walk. They start by dividing time into a series of steps, then imagine that at each step the value of a risky asset like a stock can go up or down by a small amount. Each jump is assigned a probability. After many steps, the probability distribution for the asset’s price looks like a bell curve centred on a point determined by the cumulative relative probabilities of the moves up and the moves down.A quantum walk works differently. Rather than going up or down at each step, the asset’s price evolves as a “superposition” of the two possibilities, never nailed down unless measured in a transaction. At each step, the various possible paths interfere like waves, sometimes amplifying each other and sometimes cancelling out. This interference creates a very different probability distribution for the asset’s final price to that generated by the classical model. The bell curve is replaced by a series of peaks and troughs.Broadly speaking, the classical random walk is a better description of how asset prices move. But the quantum walk better explains how investors think about their movements when buying call options, which confer the right to buy an asset at a given “strike” price on a future date. A call option is generally much cheaper than its underlying asset, but gives a big pay-off if the asset’s price jumps. The scenarios foremost in the buyer’s mind are not a gentle drift in the price but a large move up (from which they want to benefit) or a big drop (to which they want to limit their exposure).The potential return is particularly juicy for options with strikes much higher than the prevailing price. Yet investors are much more likely to buy those with strikes close to the asset’s market price. The prices of such options closely match those predicted by an algorithm based on the classical random walk (in part because that is the model most traders accept). But a quantum walk, by assigning such options a higher value than the classical model, explains buyers’ preference for them.Such ideas may still sound abstract. But they will soon be physically embodied on trading floors, whether the theory is adopted or not. Quantum computers, which replace the usual zeros and ones with superpositions of the two, are nearing commercial viability and promise faster calculations. Any bank wishing to retain its edge will need to embrace them. Their hardware, meanwhile, makes running quantum-walk models easier than classical ones. One way or another, finance will catch up.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Schrödinger’s markets” More