Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Big Oil's Secret World of Trading Fuels Profits as Climate Change Worries Rise - Bloomberg

Big Oil's Secret World of Trading Fuels Profits as Climate Change Worries Rise - Bloomberg

Big Oil’s Secret World of Trading

With the future of fossil fuels in doubt, some energy companies are counting on a hidden army of commodities traders to ride to the rescue

By  and

March 30, 2021, 5:01 AM GMT+1

 

It was a bleak moment for the oil industry. U.S. shale companies were failing by the dozen. Petrostates were on the brink of bankruptcy. Texas roughnecks and Kuwaiti princes alike had watched helplessly for months as the commodity that was their lifeblood tumbled to prices that had until recently seemed unthinkable. Below $50 a barrel, then below $40, then below $30.

 

But inside the central London headquarters of one of the world’s largest oil companies, there was an air of calm. It was January 2016. Bob Dudley had been at the helm of BP Plc for six years. He ought to have had as much reason to panic as anyone in the rest of his industry. The unflashy American had been predicting lower prices for months. He was being proved right, though that was hardly a reason to celebrate.

 

Unlike most of his peers, Dudley was no passive observer. At the heart of BP, far removed from the sprawling network of oil fields, refineries, and service stations that the company is known for, sits a vast trading unit, combining the logistical prowess of an air traffic control center with the master-of-the-universe swagger of a macro hedge fund. And, unknown to all but a few company insiders, BP’s traders had spotted, in the teeth of the oil price collapse, an opportunity.

 

Over the course of 2015, Dudley had acquired a reputation as the oil industry’s Cassandra. Oil prices had been under pressure ever since Saudi Arabia launched a price war against U.S. shale producers a year earlier. When crude prices started falling, he confidently predicted they would remain “lower for longer.” A few months later, he went further. Oil prices, he said, were due to stay “lower for even longer.”

 

On Jan. 20, 2016, the price of Brent crude oil plunged to $27.10 a barrel, the lowest in more than a decade. It was a nadir that would be reached again only in March 2020, when the Saudis launched another price war, this time targeting Russia, just as the coronavirus pandemic sapped global demand.

 

When Dudley arrived in the Swiss ski resort of Davos for the World Economic Forum on Jan. 21, 2016, the industry was braced for more doom and gloom. Wearing a dark suit and blue tie, the BP chief executive officer made his way through the snowy streets. After one meeting, he was asked—as usual—for his oil forecast by a gaggle of journalists. “Prices will remain low for longer,” he said. This time, though, his by-then-well-known mantra came with a kicker: “But not forever.”

 

Few understood the special significance of his comment. After months of slumping oil prices, BP’s traders had turned bullish. And, in complete secrecy, the company was putting money behind its conviction.

 

“It is impossible to show exactly what we are doing, unless we want to completely open up our entire trading book, which is something we simply cannot do”

 

Shortly before flying to Davos, Dudley had authorized a daring trade: BP would place a large bet on a rebound in oil prices. Although its stock is in the FTSE 100 index and owned by almost every British pension fund, this wager, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, has remained a closely guarded secret until now.

 

BP was already heavily exposed to the price of oil. What the traders wanted to do was double down, to increase the exposure by buying futures contracts much as a hedge fund would. BP’s trading arm—staffed by about 3,000 people on its main trading floors in London, Chicago, Houston, and Singapore—argued that the price had fallen so far that it could only go up. And Dudley agreed.

 

Quietly, BP bought Brent crude futures traded in London. It was a “management position”—a trade so large it couldn’t be the responsibility of any one trader and had to be overseen by the company’s most senior executives.

 

The optimistic coda Dudley attached to his catchphrase in Davos proved prescient. By early February, oil was up by a third, trading above $35 a barrel. By the end of May, it was more than $50 a barrel.

 

That’s when the company started to count the profits. The trade “made a lot of money,” says a former BP executive with direct knowledge of it. Another executive, who also was involved, put the payout at about $150 million to $200 million, declining to provide an exact figure. Publicly, however, BP —whose vast size means it’s not obligated to disclose even a windfall of that scale­­—said almost nothing.

 

Timing the Market

BP’s trades in the midst of the 2016 slump are a ­demonstration of one of Big Oil’s best-kept secrets. The company and its rivals Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Total SE aren’t just major oil producers; they’re also some of the world’s largest commodity traders. Shell, the most active of the three, is the world’s largest oil trader—ahead of independent houses such as Vitol Group and Glencore Plc.

 

Massive trading floors that mirror those of Wall Street’s biggest banks are becoming increasingly important to the oil companies, which are driven by fears that global oil demand could start to drop in the next few years as climate change concerns reshape society’s—and investors’—­attitudes toward fossil fuel producers. No longer looked down upon as handmaidens to the engineers who built Big Oil, the traders are increasingly being seen as their companies’ saviors. The brightest stars can make more than $10 million a year, outstripping their bosses.

 

Like BP’s 2016 trade, much about the oil majors’ trading exploits has never been reported. Bloomberg Markets pieced together the story of these lucrative but secretive operations through interviews with more than two dozen current and former traders and executives, some of which were conducted for The World for Sale, our new book on the history of commodity trading.

 

The oil majors trade in physical energy markets, buying tankers of crude, gasoline, and diesel. And they do the same in natural gas and power markets via pipelines and electricity grids. But they do more than that: They also speculate in financial markets, buying and selling futures, options, and other financial derivatives in energy markets and beyond—from corn to metals—and closing deals with hedge funds, private equity firms, and investment banks.

 

As little known as their trading is to the outside world, BP, Shell, and Total see it as the heart of their business. In a conference call with industry analysts last year, Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell, described the company’s trading in almost mystical terms: “It actually makes the magic.”

 

And the wizardry pays off: In an average year, Shell makes as much as $4 billion in pretax profit from trading oil and gas; BP typically records from $2 billion to $3 billion ­annually; the French major Total not much less, according to people familiar with the three companies. In the case of BP, for instance, profits can equal roughly half of what the company’s upstream business of producing oil and gas makes in a normal year, such as 2019. In years of low prices, like 2016 or 2020, trading profits can far exceed those of the production business. Last year, both BP and Shell made about $1 billion above their typical profit target in oil and gas trading.

 

One reason profits are so high is because the three companies can reduce their trading tax bill by routing their business through low-tax jurisdictions—a strategy not available to their oil pumping and refining businesses, which are rooted in physical infrastructure in particular countries. Shell, for example, concentrates all its trading of West African and Latin American crude via a subsidiary in the Bahamas. With just 36 traders in Nassau, Shell reported profits in the Bahamas of $847.5 million in 2019. Yet it didn’t pay a single dollar in taxes on those gains.

 

Even better for the trio, trading profits tend to soar when markets are oversupplied, as was the case in 2015-16 and again in 2020, helping to cushion the blow of low prices on the traditional business of pumping and refining oil. Trading also gives them an edge over their U.S. rivals, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., which for historical and cultural reasons have eschewed trading.

 

For most shareholders, however, the trading business is a black box. "It is impossible to show exactly what we are doing, unless we want to completely open up our entire trading book, which is something we simply cannot do," Shell's van Beurden said last year when asked how much money the trading unit made. Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné, asked a similar question, replied more bluntly: “The oil trading is a secret.”

 

What isn’t a secret is the size of the trades. Together the three companies trade almost 30 million barrels a day of oil and other petroleum products, equal to the daily production of the entire OPEC cartel. Shell alone trades about 12 million barrels a day. That’s physical trading. The paper volumes are much larger. Total, for example, trades 6.9 million barrels of physical oil a day, but the equivalent of 31 million barrels of oil derivatives such as futures and options.

 

With trading comes risk. The business “suits people who have a real commercial bent, a real desire to make money for the company,” Andrew Smith, head of trading at Shell, says in a recruiting video. They must be fearless, too: “They also have to be comfortable with taking risk. There are very few risk-free trades. Some days we make money; some days you’d lose money,” he says.

 

BP, Shell, and Total declined to comment for this article.

 

Trading Giants

The history of Big Oil and trading goes back to the industry’s origins. Shell started life in London in the 19th century as an oil trader—“Shell” Transport & Trading Co.—and only later got into oil production. Then, in the first half of the 20th century, oil trading simply ceased to exist as the biggest producers squeezed others out of the picture.

 

A few large companies came to dominate the industry, underpinned by their agreements to divvy up the oil resources of the Middle East. These companies, BP and Shell among them, were known as the Seven Sisters. Outside their ­oligopoly, there was very little left to buy or sell.

 

BP was emblematic of the era. The British group had grown out of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., established after oil was first struck in Iran in 1908, and by the early 1970s it could rely on a gusher of oil from its Iranian assets that provided much of the total 5 million barrels a day that it was pumping around the world. BP didn’t need to trade. Instead the nerve center of its business was the dull-sounding “scheduling department,” charged with arranging for BP barrels to be transported in BP tankers into BP refineries and sold into BP fuel stations.

 

Already early traders such as Marc Rich, who founded the company that is today Glencore, were finding ways to trade oil outside the control of the Seven Sisters on the nascent spot market. The big oil companies regarded trading as beneath them and looked down on the upstarts, but they would soon be forced to think differently.

 

The Iranian revolution of 1979 at a stroke dispossessed BP of much of its oil production. The company was forced to turn to the spot market that it had long disdained to buy the oil its refineries needed.

 

Soon BP was doing much more than just buying oil for its own refineries. Andy Hall, then a young graduate working in its scheduling department in New York, would go on to be one of the most successful oil traders in history after leaving BP. He recalls that he started buying any oil that looked cheap, whether BP needed it or not, figuring to resell it at a profit. “We basically started trading oil like crazy,” he says.

 

“They also have to be comfortable with taking risk. There are very few risk-free trades. Some days we make money; some days you’d lose money”

 

The oil price slump of the late 1990s set the stage for what the three large trading businesses would become as a wave of consolidation swept through the oil industry.

 

When Exxon merged with Mobil, which had had a successful trading business, the nontrading culture of Exxon ­prevailed. The same happened when Chevron took over Texaco. The Americans were pretty much out of the trading business.

 

Meanwhile, BP bought Amoco, which had a large trading unit, expanding its reach. The merger of French companies Total and Elf—both large traders—further consolidated Total’s trading business. Shell, too, reorganized and centralized its trading unit.

 

By the time the wave of consolidation was over in 2000, the European trio emerged as the kings of oil trading. Their timing was exquisite: Commodity trading was about to enjoy an enormous boom as skyrocketing Chinese demand spurred a decade-long supercycle in prices.

 

 Big Oil’s trading floors would be at home at JPMorgan Chase & Co. or UBS Group AG. Rows of desks sprouting vast arrays of flashing multicolored screens stretch out almost as far as the eye can see. The traders are arranged according to their market or region of focus, each desk representing a trading “book,” a little empire of supply contracts and derivatives deals.

 

The floors don’t just look like Wall Street’s—they’re often located alongside them. BP’s London trading base isn’t at the company’s head office near Buckingham Palace, but in the banking hub of Canary Wharf. In Chicago its traders occupy the historic floor of the former Chicago Mercantile Exchange building.

 

All in all, BP, Shell, and Total employ about 8,000 people in their trading divisions, a small fraction of their overall workforce of 250,000. The traders have more in common with the investment bankers across the road than they do with their colleagues sweating on oil rigs in Nigeria or mapping fields off the coast of Brazil. “Trading is a very uber-competitive environment,” Christine Sullivan, a 30-year veteran of Shell trading, says in one of the company’s ­recruiting videos. “Every day I can see the impact I’ve made to the bottom line. You see that moving up, hopefully, on a daily basis, and it just makes you want to do more.”

 

Big Oil’s bosses like to say that speculation isn’t part of the business model of their trading units. That’s not really true. Within BP’s trading division, for example, there was for a number of years a pot of money traded, effectively, by a computer. The so-called Q Book was devised in the 1990s by two of BP’s in-house math whizzes—Chris Allen and Gordon Izatt—long before algorithmic trading became a dominant force in financial markets.

 

The Q Book algorithm traded dozens of commodity futures including gold and corn, according to people with knowledge of it. And while BP shut down the Q Book a few years ago, it still has a unit that resembles an in-house hedge fund: The so-called Alpha One Book, run by Tim Hayes, aims to make money betting on financial commodity markets. At Shell and Total, there are similar groups.

 

Even so, big speculative wagers on the direction of the price of oil, like the one BP took in 2016, are rare. The day-to-day job of the traders is a little like the role of the scheduling department of bygone eras, but with a healthy dose of entrepreneurial spirit thrown in.

 

Their role gives them a huge position in the markets and opens up all kinds of opportunities to maximize profits. Last year, for example, Shell’s traders realized that the spreading coronavirus pandemic would have a catastrophic impact on international travel. They decided to bet that demand for jet fuel would collapse. It was a wager almost no other trader in the market could make on the scale that Shell did: Jet fuel is a niche market, dominated by refineries and airlines, and the market for jet fuel derivatives isn’t liquid enough for most traders to bet on easily.

 

But Shell was well poised. It owns the Pernis refinery in Rotterdam—the largest in Europe, each day pumping out enough gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to keep half of the cars, trucks, and planes in the Netherlands moving. It supplies jet fuel to Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport.

 

In early 2020, before air travel shrank, Shell’s traders tweaked Pernis’s production, cutting out jet fuel entirely while increasing output of other refined products. Shell still had contracts to supply jet fuel, however, so the company was left with a big short position: It would have to buy jet fuel in the market to deliver to its customers, whatever the price, if the company’s traders were wrong about the pandemic. If the price went up, Shell stood to lose millions.

 

Of course, the traders weren’t wrong. Jet fuel demand soon plunged 90% in northwestern Europe. Across Europe, prices fell from $666 a ton at the beginning of the year to $125 a ton by late April. “We could buy jet fuel, make money on that particular trade, and then again reconstitute the products coming out of the refinery to make money elsewhere,” Shell’s van Beurden explained in an earnings call with investors in July. “That’s no ordinary trading. That is actually optimizing market positions that we know better than anybody how to take advantage of.”

 

Shell didn’t disclose how much money it made on that single trade, but people familiar with the company said that in just the second quarter of 2020, the jet fuel traders made as much as they usually do in a whole year.

 

A Boon From a Nosedive

“Inside Shell and BP, the traders are their Navy SEALs,” says former Shell oil analyst Florian Thaler, now head of OilX, an industry data analytics company. For their skills, traders are highly paid.

 

For years their remuneration packages were a closely guarded secret. Then in 2006 a BP trader sued the company in the U.S. in a pay dispute. The legal fight that followed exposed the riches of Big Oil trading. The trader, Alison Myers, revealed that, on top of her regular annual salary of $150,000 for 2006, she was due a $5.5 million performance bonus—three times what BP’s then-CEO John Browne took home the same year.

 

The legal battle revealed that others at BP did even better. The company said other traders took higher bonuses not only because their desks made more money, but also because speculative traders were generally better paid. “The market value of paper traders was higher than the value of physical traders,” BP said in a court filing.

 

Since then, bonuses have only gone up. Nowadays many traders take home from $1 million to $10 million a year, and a handful even more. Every year at BP a list goes to the board for approval. It contains the names of the dozen or so traders whose bonuses are higher than those of the CEO, according to two people familiar with the process.

 

At the top of the list typically sits the lead trader of the Cushing Book—the one responsible for buying and selling oil at the Oklahoma town that serves as the delivery point for the West Texas Intermediate benchmark. In a good year, this trader can make as much as $30 million, an amount that would outstrip the $23 million that David Solomon, the boss of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., took home in 2019.

 

“We love complexity like this. It is why we have elevated our trading function to the leadership table”

 

The immense scale of the oil companies’ trading units gives them outsize clout. Shell, as Bloomberg News has reported, has in the past made bold trades that, while not illegal, have violated the unspoken rules governing this lightly regulated market. On one occasion in 2016, for example, Shell bought roughly 70% of the cargoes of North Sea crude available for a particular month, triggering wild price gyrations while squeezing out other traders who privately complained to Shell.

 

At times, Big Oil traders have broken the rules outright. In 2007, BP paid more than $300 million to settle charges that it manipulated U.S. propane markets, for example. At the time the fine was one of largest ever for alleged market manipulation in commodities. Earlier, U.S. regulators fined Shell $300,000 for manipulating U.S. oil futures markets in 2003 and 2004 and $30 million for manipulating natural gas markets in 2000 and 2002.

 

Still, constrained by the sheer size and high public profiles of the companies they work for, BP, Shell, and Total traders are nowhere near as swashbuckling as their counterparts at independent houses, who, history has shown, have been more willing to make a foray into countries where corruption is rife and where buying oil sometimes involves suitcases full of cash.

 

That means the oil giants have left many of the juiciest deals to the independents. Brian Gilvary, a former BP head of finance, puts it this way: “Is there value available to us that could be captured over and above what we capture today? Absolutely. Are we prepared to take the risk associated with that? Definitely no. I can give you a list of countries, but you know where they are.”

 

In the last few years, Big Oil has muscled more and more into the realm previously dominated by big banks. When, after the 2008-09 financial crisis, the U.S. Congress attempted to tighten regulations around the vast and opaque market for swaps—a form of bespoke derivatives traded ­bilaterally—the process revealed for the first time the scale of the oil companies’ role in the financial markets.

 

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act on financial reforms required all major players in the swaps market to register themselves. There were the usual suspects: Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, ­JPMorgan, and other financial behemoths. And then there were three names that seemed out of place: Cargill, the world’s largest trader of agricultural commodities, BP, and Shell.

 

As Wall Street banks scaled back their presence in commodities in the post-crisis world, Big Oil stepped in. Shell, for example, in 2016 became the first nonbank to move in on what commodity traders at Wall Street banks see as their largest annual deal: helping the Mexican government hedge its exposure to the price of oil.

 

For its part, BP, in a brochure for its trading unit, says, “Our customers also include banks, hedge funds and private equity firms.” The document lists a range of financial ­strategies it can help customers implement—from “options (vanilla & tailored)” to “tiered volume restructure.”

 

With investors of all kinds increasingly unimpressed by the traditional oil-pumping business, trading is ­becoming an ever more important part of the oil companies’ sales pitch. In a virtual meeting with investors in October 2020, Shell’s van Beurden described the company’s trading unit as “absolutely core to the success of our company.” Even Exxon, which long sneered at trading as an unnecessary distraction, has changed its stance, hiring experienced oil traders to start making bets with the company’s money.

 

As BP shifts its investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy, its traders will help it juice the relatively low returns on those investments, Bernard Looney, who last year succeeded Dudley as CEO, said in a presentation to investors in 2020. Renewable energy projects typically generate returns of 5% to 6%, he said, but the company’s expert traders can add about 2 percentage points to that.

 

As steeped as BP may seem to be in the rigs and offshore platforms and snaking pipelines of yesteryear, Looney painted an energy future that encompasses electric cars, hydrogen, and biofuels. “We love complexity like this,” he said. “It is why we have elevated our trading function to the leadership table.”

 

Blas and Farchy cover energy out of London. Their book, The World for Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources, was published in the U.K. in February by Random House Business and in the U.S. in March by Oxford University Press.

 

 

 

Subscribe to Bloomberg Markets

Terms of Service Manage Cookies Trademarks Privacy Policy ©2021 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved

Careers Made in NYC Advertise Ad Choices Contact Us Help



Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Coronavirus Updates: The post-pandemic workplace - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

Coronavirus Updates: The post-pandemic workplace - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

It is not yet entirely clear how long immunity lasts after vaccination. But experts say protection should last for at least three months, based on clinical trial results — if not longer. Though antibody responses may wane over time, memory cells can persistently recognize the virus. And those protective memory cells can adapt to new variants, too, one immunologist told The Post. This new FAQ dives into what exactly that means for you and what scientists are focused on now.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Bill Hwang Archegos Capital Linked to Derivatives at Nomura, Credit Suisse - Bloomberg

Bill Hwang Archegos Capital Linked to Derivatives at Nomura, Credit Suisse - Bloomberg

Billions in Secret Derivatives at Center of Archegos Blowup

By Sofia Horta e Costa, Tracy Alloway, and Bei Hu

March 29, 2021, 6:24 AM EDT Updated on March 29, 2021, 7:58 AM EDT

 Archegos used equity swaps or CFDs, people familiar have said

 Instruments are popular with hedge funds, allow non-disclosure

 

The forced liquidation of more than $20 billion in holdings linked to Bill Hwang’s investment firm is drawing attention to the covert financial instruments he used to build large stakes in companies.

 

Much of the leverage used by Hwang’s Archegos Capital Management was provided by banks including Nomura Holdings Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG through swaps or so-called contracts-for-difference (CFD), according to people with direct knowledge of the deals. It means Archegos may never actually have owned most of the underlying securities -- if any at all.

 

While investors who build a stake of more than 5% in a U.S.-listed company usually have to disclose their position and future transactions, that’s not the case with stakes built through the type of derivatives apparently used by Archegos. The products, which are made off exchanges, allow managers like Hwang to amass stakes in publicly traded companies without having to declare their holdings.

 

The swift unwinding of Archegos has reverberated across the globe, after banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley forced Hwang’s firm to sell billions of dollars in investments accumulated through highly leveraged bets. The selloff roiled stocks from Baidu Inc. to ViacomCBS Inc., and prompted Nomura and Credit Suisse to disclose that they face potentially significant losses on their exposure.

 

One reason for the widening fallout is the borrowed funds that investors use to magnify their bets: a margin call occurs when the market goes against a large, leveraged position, forcing the hedge fund to deposit more cash or securities with its broker to cover any losses. Archegos was probably required to deposit only a small percentage of the total value of trades.

 

The chain of events set off by this massive unwinding is yet another reminder of the role that hedge funds play in the global capital markets. A hedge fund short squeeze during a Reddit-fueled frenzy for Gamestop Corp. shares earlier this year spurred a $6 billion loss for Gabe Plotkin’s Melvin Capital and sparked scrutiny from U.S. regulators and politicians.

 

The idea that one firm can quietly amass outsized positions through the use of derivatives could set off another wave of criticism directed against loosely regulated firms that have the power to destabilize markets.

 

While the margin calls on Friday triggered losses of as much as 40% in some shares, there was no sign of contagion in markets broadly on Monday. Contrast that with 2008, when Ireland’s then-richest man used derivatives to build a position so large in Anglo Irish Bank Corp. it eventually contributed to the country’s international bailout. In 2015, New York-based FXCM Inc. needed rescuing because of losses at its U.K. affiliate resulting from the unexpected de-pegging of the Swiss franc.

 

Much about Hwang’s trades remains unclear, but market participants estimate his assets had grown to anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion in recent years and total positions may have topped $50 billion. Hwang didn’t respond to requests for comment.

 

CFDs and swaps are among bespoke derivatives that investors trade privately between themselves, or over-the-counter, instead of through public exchanges. Such opacity helped to worsen the 2008 financial crisis and regulators have introduced a vast new body of rules governing the assets since then.

 

Over-the-counter equity derivatives occupy one of the smallest corners of this opaque market. Swaps and forwards linked to stocks had a gross market value of $282 billion at the end of June 2020, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements. That compared with $10.3 trillion for swaps linked to interest rates and $2.4 trillion for swaps and forwards linked to currencies.

 

Dark Corners

Equity swaps are a small part of the opaque OTC derivatives market

 

SOURCE: Bank for International Settlements

 

NOTE: FX swaps include 'outright forwards and forex swaps' and currency swaps

 

Regulators have begun clamping down on CFDs in recent years because they’re concerned the derivatives are too complex and too risky for retail investors, with the European Securities and Markets Authority in 2018 restricting the distribution to individuals and capping leverage. In the U.S., CFDs are largely banned for amateur traders.

 

Banks still favor them because they can make a large profit without needing to set aside as much capital versus trading actual securities, another consequence of regulation imposed in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Among hedge funds, equity swaps and CFDs grew in popularity because they are exempt from stamp duty in high-tax jurisdictions such as the U.K.

 

— With assistance by Lulu Yilun Chen, and Donal Griffin

 


Archegos blowup. - 5 things to start your day - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

5 things to start your day - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

...
Bloomberg
FOLLOW US   GET THE NEWSLETTER

Margin call rattles markets, the ship starts to move, and global Covid cases rise. 

Tiger clubbed 

The family office of former Tiger Management trader Bill Hwang was behind the unprecedented selling of more than $20 billion worth of shares on Friday, according to people directly familiar with the trades. The possibility of further trades looming combined with the usual end-quarter volatility means investors will be glued to their screens this morning. There have already been some large moves in Asia and Europe as Nomura Holdings Inc. tumbled after warning of a "significant" potential loss, while Credit Suisse Group AG fell after saying it may face a loss in the first quarter related to a U.S. hedge fund client defaulting in margin calls. 

Ship shifted

The Ever Given container ship has been partly refloated, with maneuvers set to continue this morning to fully release the vessel. The salvage team said getting the front of the ship back in the water will be a challenge. The nearly week-long blockage of the channel has left billions of dollars of goods stuck on ships with 453 vessels queuing to cross the canal by yesterday evening. There is also a growing traffic jam on the other side of the world, with waiting times for ships to unload at the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California lengthening amid shortages of equipment and labor.

Paid Post

Was your experience in math and science classes more frustrating than fun? With Brilliant's interactive website and app, your natural curiosity will guide you, not the threat of a test! Develop and deepen the critical thinking skills you need to succeed by solving fun, interactive challenges!

Cases rising 

Global cases of the coronavirus rose for the fifth straight week, with the death toll continuing to accelerate. India and Brazil are seeing some of their worst periods of the pandemic. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has threatened to exert federal authority over regions on Covid restrictions as cases mount. Some restrictions are being relaxed in the U.K. today, while the U.S. saw more than 3 million vaccine doses administered for the last three days in a row. 

Markets mixed

Global equity markets are off to a bit of a nervous start to the week as investors try to gauge the extent of the fallout from Friday's trading. Overnight the MSCI Asia Pacific Index added 0.2% while Japan's Topix index closed around 0.5% higher. In Europe the Stoxx 600 Index was 0.2% higher at 5:50 a.m. Eastern Time with banks and financial services stocks among the worst performers. S&P 500 futures dropped, the 10-year Treasury yield was at 1.657%, oil was lower and gold fell. 

Coming up... 

Dallas Fed manufacturing for March is at 10:30 a.m. It is a quiet start to the week for monetary policy speeches with only Fed Governor Chris Waller scheduled to speak today. The big focus this week from the data point of view will be Friday's payrolls number, with economists expecting more than 600,000 positions to have added this month. 

What we've been reading

Here's what caught our eye over the weekend.

And finally, here’s what Joe's interested in this morning

There are two things on my mind this morning related to the Archegos blowup.

1. It's not that unusual to see big banks take a hit on some kind of trade that's gone bad. What's weird about the potential losses incurred at Nomura and Credit Suisse, however, is that they're related to a client who made risky stock bets. Normally when you get headlines about banks taking a hit, it's as a result of some bet that everyone wrongly assumed was ultra safe, like a mortgage bond or a can't-lose arbitrage trade. With stocks, everyone knows they're risky and volatile, and as such, are rarely the locus of some surprise loss catching everyone offnguard. The lack of good risk controls makes you wonder if the "stocks only go up" mentality has been over-internalized.

2. When Viacom was crashing on Friday -- before it became clear what happened -- I went looking for headlines about what would have caused the stock to peak just a few days earlier and then plunge so rapidly. Did they come out with some kind of warning? Was there some new news development that caused a rethink of their business prospect? Not really. There were some downgrades. But downgrades happen and rarely have that kind of dramatic impact on price alone. There was also a stock sale earlier in the week, but again, none of the news seemed to justify such an extreme reaction in the stock.

However, it had rallied nearly 800% since the March bottom last year. And we know, in retrospect, that there was at least one very large, leveraged buyer adding fuel to the rally. The longer you have such extreme, one-sided action, the less it takes to disturb the whole thing. Some downgrades and stock sales in a normal environment would probably be ho-hum news. But in the wrong environment, little things can contribute to a much larger chain of events and then you have a wreck like this one.

Joe Weisenthal is an editor at Bloomberg. 

Crypto Shadow Banking Explained and Why 12% Yields Are Common - Bloomberg

Crypto Shadow Banking Explained and Why 12% Yields Are Common - Bloomberg

Here’s how the trade works. It starts with the price discrepancy between the spot price for Bitcoin and the value of derivatives contracts that come due months in the future, what’s known as a basis trade. On March 15, Bitcoin traded for $56,089 while the July future contract on CME Group Inc. was at $60,385.

A hedge fund could buy Bitcoin at that spot price and sell the July futures, meaning the derivatives would gain value if Bitcoin fell. Doing so on March 15 locked in a 7.7% spread between the cash and futures price. Annualizing that over the 137 days between March 15 and July 30 when the futures contract expires equates to a 21% annual return.

The hedge fund, however, needs cash to buy the spot Bitcoin, so would be willing to pay what seems to be exorbitant rate of 12% for the loan as long as it can earn 21%, or a 9% profit, on the trade. The spread between spot and futures has been even higher in recent months.

“The basis trade was paying 42% annually the other week,” Michael Saylor, the chief executive officer of enterprise software maker MicroStrategy Inc. who has bought 91,326 Bitcoin since December worth about $5 billion, said March 17 at the Futures Industry Association conference.

One aspect of this trade is that it’s almost risk free, assuming CME Group doesn’t go bust as a counterparty. That’s because once the spot and futures prices are locked in, they will converge so that the spread between them is the payoff, minus trading fees.

Mass Live Concert Offers a Glimpse of Music in Post-Pandemic Era - Bloomberg

Mass Live Concert Offers a Glimpse of Music in Post-Pandemic Era - Bloomberg

..To get in, you couldn’t just turn up at the Sant Jordi stadium a few minutes before the start and get a ticket at the door. Fans had to download an app, input their contact details and book a time for a rapid Covid test on the day of the concert.

People testing negative got a code to gain entrance to the building, while those who tested positive were offered a refund. Inside, masks were mandatory and the public was divided in three areas holding about 1,600 people...

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Globalization runs aground - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

Globalization runs aground - btbirkett@gmail.com - Gmail

In the latest installment of our Bloomberg New Economy Conversations series this week, we highlighted how there is no future for our planet without the kind of globalized effort that produced breakthrough Covid vaccines. Scientists and researchers all over the world have worked together to develop diagnostics and therapies that will (hopefully) soon return the global economy to something approaching normal.

Netherlands coronavirus: Dutch people are partying like it's 2019 | CNN Travel

Netherlands coronavirus: Dutch people are partying like it's 2019 | CNN Travel

....Everyone in attendance tested negative for coronavirus no more than 48 hours beforehand. They're all wearing electronic tags to track contacts. It's part of a government-backed experiment to see how the events industry can get back on its feet in a country that, like much of mainland Europe, has been slow to roll out vaccinations.

..."So far the guinea pigs were very happy with being in the research," laughs Andreas Voss, professor of infection control at Radboud University.
While they have not yet published any conclusive results, Voss said that by comparing the data from concert-goers to that from the general population, they believe that attending a well-regulated event, divided into bubbles, with a negative PCR test, is no more risky than going about your normal daily life in the Netherlands.
"So far the risk is mostly lower than it would be untested, outside the event," Voss said. "We certainly have promising results, which show that in many of the situations we created, the risk during the special situation was lower or equal to the one at home."

Saturday, March 27, 2021

When Will Covid End? We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic - Bloomberg

When Will Covid End? We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic - Bloomberg

We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic

With coronavirus mutations pitted against vaccinations in a global arms race, we may never go back to normal.

 

By Andreas Kluth

March 24, 2021, 1:30 AM EDT

 

For the past year, an assumption — sometimes explicit, often tacit — has informed almost all our thinking about the pandemic: At some point, it will be over, and then we’ll go “back to normal.”

 

This premise is almost certainly wrong. SARS-CoV-2, protean and elusive as it is, may become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse. And even if it peters out eventually, our lives and routines will by then have changed irreversibly. Going “back” won’t be an option; the only way is forward. But to what exactly?

 

Most epidemics disappear once populations achieve herd immunity and the pathogen has too few vulnerable bodies available as hosts for its self-propagation. This herd protection comes about through the combination of natural immunity in people who’ve recovered from infection and vaccination of the remaining population.

 

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, however, recent developments suggest that we may never achieve herd immunity. Even the U.S., which leads most other countries in vaccinations and already had large outbreaks, won’t get there. That’s the upshot of an analysis by Christopher Murray at the University of Washington and Peter Piot at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

The main reason is the ongoing emergence of new variants that behave almost like new viruses. A clinical vaccine trial in South Africa showed that people in the placebo group who had previously been infected with one strain had no immunity against its mutated descendant and became reinfected. There are similar reports from parts of Brazil that had massive outbreaks and subsequently suffered renewed epidemics.

 

That leaves only vaccination as a path toward lasting herd immunity. And admittedly, some of the shots available today are still somewhat effective against some of the new variants. But over time they will become powerless against the coming mutations.

 

Of course, vaccine makers are already feverishly working on making new jabs. In particular, inoculations based on the revolutionary mRNA technology I’ve previously described can be updated faster than any vaccine in history. But the serum still needs to be made, shipped, distributed and jabbed.

 

And that process can’t happen fast enough, nor cover the planet widely enough. Yes, some of us may win a regional round or two against the virus, by vaccinating one particular population — as Israel has done, for instance. But evolution doesn’t care where it does its work, and the virus replicates wherever it finds warm and unvaccinated bodies with cells that let it reproduce its RNA. As it copies itself, it makes occasional coding mistakes. And some of those chance errors turn into yet more mutations.

 

These viral avatars are popping up wherever there’s a lot of transmission going on and somebody bothers to look closely. A British, a South African and at least one Brazilian strain have already become notorious, but I’ve also seen reports of viral cousins and nephews showing up in California, Oregon and elsewhere. If we were to sequence samples in more places, we’d probably find even more relatives.

 

We should therefore assume that the virus is already mutating fast in the many poor countries that have so far received no jabs at all, even if their youthful populations keep mortality manageable and thus mask the severity of local outbreaks. Last month, Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, reminded the world that 75% of all shots had been administered in just 10 countries, while 130 others hadn’t primed a single syringe.

 

A pathogen’s evolution is neither surprising nor automatically worrisome. One frequent pattern is that bugs over time become more contagious but less virulent. After all, not killing your host too efficiently confers an advantage in natural selection. If SARS-CoV-2 goes this route, it’ll eventually become just another common cold.

 

But that’s not what it’s been doing recently. The variants we know of have become more infectious, but no less lethal. From an epidemiological point of view, that’s the worst news.

 

Consider two alternative evolutionary paths. In one, a virus becomes more severe but not more transmissible. It will cause more disease and death, but the growth is linear. In the other path, a mutating virus becomes neither more nor less virulent but more contagious. It will cause increases in disease and death that are exponential rather than linear. Adam Kucharski at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine explains the math here.

 

If this is the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2, we’re in for seemingly endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings. At least in rich countries, we will probably get vaccinated a couple of times a year, against the latest variant in circulation, but never fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity.

 

I’m not arguing for defeatism here. In the grand sweep of history, Covid-19 is still a relatively mild pandemic. Smallpox killed nine out of 10 Native Americans after the Spanish brought it to the Americas in the 16th century. The Black Death carried off about half of the Mediterranean population when it first came to Europe in the sixth century. Worldwide, the coronavirus has killed fewer than four in 10,000 so far. And with our science and technology, we’re armed as our ancestors never were.

 

But we must also be realistic. Resilience demands that we include this new scenario into our planning. The good news is that we keep getting better at responding. In each lockdown, for example, we damage the economy less than in the previous one. And we may achieve scientific breakthroughs that will eventually make life better. Our Brave New World needn’t be dystopian. But it won’t look anything like the old world.

 

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

 

To contact the author of this story:

Andreas Kluth at akluth1@bloomberg.net

 

To contact the editor responsible for this story:

James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.net