Beware Blaming Bad Bond Bets!

The debate about speculation vs. investment has gone on at least since the Sumerians traded wine forwards five or six millennia ago. More recently − five or six decades ago −  one of our most famous value investors put it this way:

ben graham

“The speculator’s primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor’s primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices.”

– Benjamin Graham
The Intelligent Investor

Graham’s words of wisdom come to mind after reading this piece from It keys off a “study” by the Services Employees International Union about derivatives usage by municipalities.

The central premise: if a municipality (and by extension, a corporation, asset manager, pension fund, sovereign or other entity) decided to lock in rates a few years ago with an interest rate swap, it made a “bad bond bet.” That’s because rates stayed low, meaning there was no need to hedge and so the premiums spent on the hedge could have been spent elsewhere.

The logic (?) of this position is: it’s better to stay exposed to market fluctuations than to manage the risk of those fluctuations.

But isn’t that betting (or speculating)?

Well, yes, actually, it is.

But wait…what about the fact that terminating that hedge can mean big payments from a hedger to its counterparty? Isn’t that another sign that it’s just a bad bet?

Well, no, actually, it is not. Here’s why:

Assume a hedger issues floating rate debt and then does a swap to lock in a fixed rate (by paying fixed and receiving floating).

Rates then go lower, which means the cost of the floating rate debt declines. The hedger pays less in interest income on the debt.

At the same time, the hedger continues to make the same fixed rate payments on the swap (and continues to receive floating rate payments from its counterparty). The market value of the swap has changed, because the hedger’s fixed rate payments are more valuable now that rates have gone down.

So if the hedger wants to terminate the swap, its counterparty wants a larger termination payment to compensate for the loss of those fixed rate payments.

Keep in mind that the hedger is under no obligation to terminate the swap. Its decision to do so is voluntary.

So why would a hedger voluntarily pay a large termination fee to exit a swap?

The most likely reason: It has determined that it could save money by issuing new debt — and by calling in its existing debt and terminating its existing swaps.

So, to summarize: a hedge enables a hedger to optimize its financings while protecting against changes in rates. The effectiveness of the hedge is a function not just of its cost but also of the cost of the hedger’s debt. Termination payments reflect changes in value of the swap hedge and are made voluntarily when the hedger has determined that there’s financial value in calling old debt, terminating swaps related to that debt and issuing new bonds.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

After this, therefore because of this.  

Students of Latin (and devotees of the The West Wing TV show) know that the phrase above describes a common logical fallacy. One thing does not (and can not be said to) cause another simply because it came first.

The current debate over rising commodity prices brings this thought to mind.

As several recent articles have noted (including these from The Independent and the Financial Times), there has in recent years been an increased flow of investment funds into commodities. Commodity prices have experienced volatility and price changes during this time.

This has raised concerns that the “financialization” of and increased financial speculation in these markets are adversely impacting them. One thing (increased investment) leads to the other (higher prices), at least in the minds of some.

Given its importance, there have in recent years been a number of research studies conducted by leading academics and government institutions into this issue. What does the research show?

As Professor Craig Pirrong of The University of Houston has written, “As yet there is no serious theory, and certainly no serious evidence that speculators have distorted commodity prices.” In addition, a US CFTC Commissioner — Michael Dunn — stated in 2011, “To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support either the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation.”

In fact, there is today abundant evidence that supports the view that speculation makes little, if any, difference to food prices and price volatility:

Criticism of “speculation” and “financialization” might be timely and trendy, but it’s important to base policy decisions on the facts.  As ISDA has written:

“Although speculation is often blamed for causing problems in markets, the economic evidence shows that it is in fact a necessary activity that makes markets more liquid and efficient, which in turn benefits hedgers, investors, and other market participants.  Speculation increases market liquidity by reducing bid-offer spreads, by making it possible to transact more quickly at a given size, and by making markets more resilient.  Speculators make markets more efficient by helping move prices closer to fundamental values: short sellers, for example, provide discipline against overpricing while speculative buyers counteract unjustified drops in price.  Without speculation, markets would be less complete in that there would be fewer opportunities for other market participants, especially hedgers, wishing to manage the risks they encounter in their financial activities.”

The potential adverse impact is echoed in the academic literature. An EDHEC-Risk Institute paper notes that “proposals to restrict speculation fall somewhere in the continuum of being a placebo to actually being harmful to the goals to which they aspire.”

In addition, the Irwin-Sanders paper states:  “the policy implication of the available evidence on the market impact of commodity index funds is straightforward: current regulatory proposals to limit speculation — especially on the part of index funds — are not justified and likely will do more harm than good…. The net result is that moves to tighten regulations on index funds are likely to make commodity futures markets less efficient mechanisms for transferring risk from parties who don’t want to bear it to those that do, creating added costs that ultimately are passed back to producers in the form of lower prices and to consumers as higher prices.”

All of this brings to mind another Latin phrase that’s worth keeping in mind the next time someone tries to sell you a story about the financialization of commodities markets:
Caveat emptor.

Speculating on Position Limits

Amidst the clamor over high gas prices in the US, the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times both weighed in today on the issue of those prices and whether they are being influenced by speculation.

The Journal’s editorial commented on a briefing held by the Administration in Washington on Tuesday and stated:

“Nowhere in his remarks did the President claim that speculation is doing any harm. He did not cite any negative impact on the oil market. He did not say that speculators are manipulating oil prices, nor did he describe in even the vaguest terms the individuals or institutions that might be involved. He didn’t cite any research. Mr. Obama didn’t even, well, speculate about whether oil prices would be higher or lower if not for unnamed actors who may or may not be affecting the markets.”

The Times, not surprisingly, had a different take. It stated that: “Research…indicate[s] that …excessive speculation, mainly by Wall Street index-fund traders, is needlessly driving up prices…”

What is “excessive” speculation? And what exactly does the Times have a problem with: your garden-variety speculation or excessive speculation?

No matter. The Times editorial goes on to say:

 “…it is important that the administration’s working group on oil and gas price fraud — formed a year ago by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. — finally weighs in on the question of how, and how much, manipulators and speculators are pushing up prices. The group’s silence raises questions about how serious the White House really is about addressing this issue.”

We all agree that illegal market manipulation is wrong and needs to be policed and prevented. But could it be that the reason for the delay is that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that speculation is distorting commodity markets?

The editorials go on to discuss the lawsuit that ISDA (along with SIFMA) filed against the CFTC’s position limits rule. (The lawsuit is currently pending in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.) These rules are intended to curb speculation.

The Journal writes that: “…the commission now must defend in court a rule it enacted last fall to curb speculation… the regulator has to find a way to carry the argument without the evidence to support it.”

It notes then-Commissioner Michael Dunn’s statements when the position limits rule was passed:

“ ‘No one has proven that the looming specter of excessive speculation in the futures markets we regulate even exists,’ said then-Commissioner Michael Dunn before the CFTC voted on the new rule last October… Mr. Dunn, a Democrat, provided the swing vote in favor of new limits on the size of trading positions only because he believed the Dodd-Frank law left him no choice.

“But even though he voted for the rule, Mr. Dunn said that ‘position limits may actually lead to higher prices for the commodities we consume on a daily basis.’ Less liquidity makes it more difficult for market participants to hedge their risks, which could raise costs for everyone.”

The Times says this:

“The Dodd-Frank financial reform law directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement new ‘position limit’ rules, which would curb speculation by limiting the share of the market that traders can control at any given time. Unfortunately, the rules recently proposed by the C.F.T.C. are weak, watered down by disagreements between the Democratic and Republican appointees on the commission. The new rules have already been challenged in court by industry groups that represent banks and derivatives dealers.”

Just to be clear, the basis of our lawsuit was two-fold. First, we believe the position limits rule may be harmful to commodities markets, and to end-users, by reducing liquidity and increasing price volatility. As we stated then: “The evidence is overwhelming that position limits are, at best, unnecessary and may, at worst, negatively impact commodity markets and users. Numerous studies have been conducted by government agencies and others into commodity price volatility and little, if any, support exists for the idea that speculation causes that volatility or that position limits curb speculation.”

We also believe the CFTC’s decision-making process in enacting the rule was procedurally flawed. The rule was adopted without making findings as to the necessity and appropriateness of the position limits, as required by statute. Furthermore, the CFTC failed to conduct any meaningful cost-benefit analysis and lacked a reasoned basis for its rule.

To summarize, there are several questions here: Does speculation distort commodity prices? Will position limits help curb speculation? Did the CFTC properly follow the law in enacting its position limits rule? We believe the answer to each question is no, and that the prevailing evidence supports our position.