Archive

Archive for the ‘Financial Markets’ Category

The VIX and the Trump effect

March 22, 2017 Leave a comment

The VIX concept formulates a theoretical expectation of stock market volatility in the near future. The current VIX index value quotes the expected annualized change in the S&P 500 index over the next 30 days, as computed from the options-based theory and current options-market data. There has been significant financial market volatility over the last five years. A non-exhaustive list of risk events over this period includes:

  • Greece debt crisis – 2012
  • Chinese stock market shocks – August 2015 & January 2016
  • Brexit – June 2016
  • Election of Donald Trump as the US President – November 2016

Interesting to see that the Trump effect was limited when you compare it to Brexit, Chinese Stock market etc. Markets seem to be tolerant of the change in the President mainly due to:

  • Trump’s pro-business stance, which brings expectations that he’ll cut corporate tax and deregulate aspects of the economy.
  • Trump promised  increased infrastructure spending which will inject more money into the circular flow which should increase aggregate demand.

VIX

Categories: Financial Markets Tags:

Teaching ethics: the sub-prime crisis

February 28, 2017 Leave a comment

Teaching ethics to my Yr 10 class I have used the sub-prime crisis as an example. As with behavioural economics the conventional view of finance assumes that markets are efficient and that the price of shares, bonds and other financial instruments are a reflection of the fundamental economic values that they represent. Behavioural finance is all about understanding why and how financial markets are inefficient. If there is a difference between the market price of a share or bond and its fundamental value then in conventional economics no one can make money in financial markets by exploiting the difference.

 
Global Financial Crisis


In July 2007 a loss of confidence by US investors in the value of sub-prime mortgages caused a liquidity crisis.  Sub-prime mortgages were loans that were high risk and many mortgage holders unable to meet their  repayments. The mortgages were pooled into what was know as a Collaterised Debt Obligation (CDO) which were sliced into tranches – safe – okay – risky. Investors tended to buy safe tranches as they were rated AAA by the rating agencies. However the rating agencies were very generous in their assessment of these investments as they were paid by the banks who created the CDOs. Banks also were able to take out insurance on the CDO even if they didn’t own them. This was called a Credit Default Swap (CDS).

Timberwolf.pngThe flow chart (above) and video (below) shows how Goldman Sachs sold a CDO called Timberwolf to investors and proceeded to bet against that investment by buying insurance from AIG so that when the CDO failed they got a pay out from them. As you maybe aware AIG sold a lot of CDS’s and ultimately had to be bailed out by the US government. However a significant portion of the bailout money went to the banks that had created the problem.

Below is another very good clip from the Big Short that explains how the mortgage market brought down the financial system. Good references to CDO’s in which celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain compares fish to finance?

Credit Markets in 2017

January 24, 2017 Leave a comment

Below is an image from National Australia Bank (NAB) with regards to the prospects for credit markets in 2017 looking at various scenarios – Bearish, Bullish and Base Case.

Credit Markets 2017.png

Categories: Financial Markets

‘Trading Places’ movie – short-selling explained

January 18, 2017 Leave a comment

The 1983 movie ‘Trading Places’, staring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd tells the story of an upper class commodities broker Louis Winthorpe III (Aykroyd) and a homeless street hustler Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy) whose lives cross paths when they are unknowingly made part of an elaborate bet.

There is a great part in the movie when they are on the commodities trading floor that explains price and scarcity. Winthorpe and Valentine are up against the Duke Brothers in the Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice (FCOJ) futures market.

How a futures market works
As opposed to traditional stock/shares futures contracts can be sold even when the seller doesn’t hold any of the commodity. For instance a contract of $1.30 per pound for a 1000 pounds of FCOJ in February indicates that the seller is compelled to provide the produce at that time and the buyer is compelled to buy the produce.

Here’s how it worked in the movie

The Duke Brothers believe they have inside knowledge about the crop report for the orange harvest over the coming year. They are under the impression that the report will state the harvest will be down on expectations which will necessitate greater demand for stockpiling FCOJ – this will mean more demand and a higher price. Therefore at the start of trading the Dukes representative keeps buying FCOJ futures. Others saw they were only buying and wanted in on the action, those that had futures were not willing to sell so the price kept rising. However the report was fake and Winthorpe and Valentine had access to the genuine report which stated that the orange harvest had not been affected by adverse weather conditions. Knowing this they wait till the the price of FCOJ reaches $1.42 and start to sell future contracts.

Then when the crop report is announced and it indiates a good harvest investors sell their contracts and the price drops very quickly. The Dukes are unable to sell their overpriced contracts and are therefore obliged to buy millions of units of FCOJ at a price which exceeds greatly the price which they can sell them for. In the meantime Winthorpe and Valentine for every unit they sold at $1.42 they only have to pay $0.29 to buy it back to fulfill their obligation. This results in a profit of $1.13 per unit.

India and Venezuela’s battle to purge the shadow economy.

January 12, 2017 1 comment

India Ruppee notes.jpgOn the 8th November last year India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, announced that all 500 and 1000 rupee notes could no longer be used as a medium of exchange – this accounts for 86% of cash in circulation. These notes could be exchanged for new ones by the end of the 2016.

Why did they outlaw the use of 500 and 1000 rupee notes?

  • The main motivation was to remove the country of shadow economy millionaires hoarding of illegal cash. It is estimated that the shadow economy accounts for 20% of India’s GDP.
  • Demonetisation increases the use of electronic banking allowing better tracking by tax authorities.
  • The printing of new denomination money would hopefully inflate away the value of illegal cash in the shadow economy.
  • Encourage people to deposit cash in the bank where it would earn interest
  • Greater tax revenue for the government by firms declaring their earnings. This additional money could be used for infrastructure projects as well as tax incentives for companies.

What have been the problems?

  • The Reserve Bank of India hasn’t been able to print the new money fast enough to replace the $207bn in rupees. There has been almost no new cash in rural banks and therefore keeping millions of farmers deposits that total $46bn. With limited cash in rural areas prices have collapsed.
  • Factories in some cities have closed as employers can’t pay their workers although some have resorted to giving supermarket coupons to keep workers on the job.
  • A dentist in an affluent part of Delhi has found a 70% fall in business since the cash ban.
  • Outside the major cities cash transactions are very common and not recognising 500 and 1000 rupee notes provides a significant monetary shock for those areas
  • Not all the shadow economy can move to a more legal environment with demonetisation and this represents a potential loss of economic activity.
  • A shortage of cash has led to small businesses having to shut down.

In the long-run the forced priming of bank accounts and the switch to electronic payments will mobilize more money for lending and taxes.

Demonetisation.pngVenezuela

Venezuela also became a country mostly without cash on December 16, sparking scattered protests and looting around the country as people fumed at having their already limited purchasing power cut off almost entirely.

As the nation’s most widely used banknote went out of circulation, the higher-denomination bills that were supposed to replace the 100-bolivar note had not yet arrived at banks or ATMs. That forced people to rely on credit cards and bank transfers or to try to make purchases with bundles of hard-to-find smaller bills often worth less than a penny each. The government was forced to delay the withdrawal of the 100-bolivar banknote until January 2. The graphic shows the volume of bank notes that are required to make $10m – Venezuela needs 14 sizable trucks to carry the 100-bolivar banknotes.

Source: The Economist – December 3rd 2016

Economics – Holiday Reading.

December 23, 2016 Leave a comment

I will be disappearing for a couple of weeks to the beach where there is no internet access. Therefore here are some books that might be worthwhile reading over the festive season – reviews are from amazon.com. I will be back again on 10th January – have a great xmas and new year.

makers-and-takersMakers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business by Rana Foroohar

Eight years on from the biggest market meltdown since the Great Depression, the key lessons of the crisis of 2008 still remain unlearned—and our financial system is just as vulnerable as ever. Many of us know that our government failed to fix the banking system after the subprime mortgage crisis. But what few of us realize is how the misguided financial practices and philosophies that nearly toppled the global financial system have come to infiltrate ALL American businesses, putting us on a collision course for another cataclysmic meltdown.

 

 

Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup by Andrew Zimbalist

Circus Maximus.jpgThe numbers are staggering: China spent $40 billion to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing and Russia spent $50 billion for the 2014 Sochi Winter Games. Brazil’s total expenditures are thought to have been as much as $20 billion for the World Cup this summer and Qatar, which will be the site of the 2022 World Cup, is estimating that it will spend $200 billion. How did we get here? And is it worth it? Both the Olympics and the World Cup are touted as major economic boons for the countries that host them, and the competition is fierce to win hosting rights. Developing countries especially see the events as a chance to stand in the world’s spotlight. This book is also reviewed here by Michael Cameron on his blog Sex, Drugs and Economics.

 

 

Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization by Branko Milanovic

Global Inequality.jpgThis is a scholarly book about global inequality, that is, ‘income inequality among citizens of the world’. It is, as Milanovic explains, ‘the sum of all national inequalities plus the sum of all gaps in mean incomes among countries’.

In his study, Milanovic focusses on the Kuznets hypothesis – that in industrialized countries, inequality will initially increase and then decrease, resulting in an inverted U-shaped curve. In recent times, inequality seems to be rising when all the factors indicate that it should have followed the Kuznets curve. Milanovic explains why the projected pattern did not materialise. One can point to ‘the hollowing of the middle class and the rising political importance of the rich’, but there are other factors. Milanovic explains the phenomenon through the historical data of the Kuznets curve in countries across the world.

This is a learned, but dry and technical treatise on a subject that seems to evade comprehension even by renowned economists and political scientists. That is not to say that Milanovic is a boring writer. This book will be appealing to economic and political science students, but the general reader may find Milanovic’s 2011 book, ‘The Haves and the Have-nots’ more interesting and palatable.

Categories: Financial Markets, Inequality, Sport Tags:

PBS: Mervyn King and the future of global finance.

October 18, 2016 Leave a comment

Another good video from Paul Solman of PBS ‘Making Sense of Financial News’.

In his new book, “The End of Alchemy,” Mervyn King still worries that the world banking system hasn’t reformed itself, eight years after its excesses led to collapse. He states that it’s easy with hindsight to look back and say that regulations turned out to be inadequate as mortgage lending was riskier than was thought. Furthermore, you are of the belief that the system works and it takes an event like the GFC to discover that it actually doesn’t.

Paul Solman asks the question that a large part of the problem that caused the GFC was the Bank of England and the US Fed were not able to keep up with the financial innovation that was going on in both of these countries. King refutes this by saying that there were two issues that were prevalent before the GFC:

  1. Low interest rates around the world led to rising asset prices and trading looked very profitable.
  2. Leverage of the banking system rose very sharply – Leverage, meaning the ratio of the bank’s own money to the money it borrows in the form deposits or short-term loans.

Central banks exist to be lenders of last resort. Problem: Too big to fail. And that’s what began happening in England, just like America, in the ’80s and ’90s. There needs to be something much more robust and much more simple to prevent the same problem from happening again. King makes two proposals:

  1. Banks insure themselves against catastrophe by making enough safe, secure loans so they have assets of real value to pledge to the Central Bank if they need a cash infusion in a hurry.
  2. Force the banks to keep enough cash on hand to cover loans gone bad as during the crisis banks didn’t have enough equity finance to absorb losses without defaulting on the loans which banks have taken out, whether from other bits of the financial sector or from you and I as depositors.

He finally states that the Brexit vote doesn’t make any significant difference to the risks facing the global banking system. There were and are significant risks in that system because of the potential fragility of our banks, and because of the state of the world economy.

%d bloggers like this: