If Hedge Funds, Then Investment Banks

I’m still flooded by my workload, so just one comment this evening.  The Wall Street Journal posts an article on overly favorable (and smoothed) returns at hedge funds through securities that are mismarked favorably.  It was no surprise to naked capitalism, and no surprise to me either (point 26).  I’ve been writing about this issue off and on for three years now, because economic processes are messy, and tend to generate messy returns, not smooth returns, particularly once the easy arbitrages are glutted with yield-seeking investors.  Also, I know what the temptation is to mismark illiquid bond positions when incentive payments may be riding on the result (which is why we took the marking out of our hands at a prior firm).

Having been an actuary in financial reporting for twelve years, I know what the pressure is when someone above you in the hierarchy asks if your reserve is wrong.  It is rarely asked when the reserves are too low.  Few managements are so farsighted.  It is always asked when income is too low, and adjusting reserves downward is so convenient.  And who will notice?  Few, I’m afraid, but most actuaries I know are highly ethical, and resist these pressures.

My target here not insurance companies, though, but the investment banks.  Actuaries have detailed rules for setting reserves.  We have societies and ethics codes.  Those who work at the investment banks are not typically CFAs, which is more of a buy-side thing, so there is no industrywide ethics code there.  Also, the value setting rules for many investment banking assets and liabilities are far more squishy than for insurance liabilities.  Finally, investment banks frequently hold the same instruments as the hedge funds, and get their pricing marks from the same sets of sources.  I suspect that the positions are similarly mismarked, and they are big enough to hide it, because derivative books are never unwound.

Well, almost never.  Buffett phrased it well in his 2005 Annual Report: (pp. 9-10)

Long ago, Mark Twain said: “A man who tries to carry a cat home by its tail will learn a lesson that can be learned in no other way.” If Twain were around now, he might try winding up a derivatives business. After a few days, he would opt for cats.


We lost $104 million pre-tax last year in our continuing attempt to exit Gen Re’s derivative operation. Our aggregate losses since we began this endeavor total $404 million.


Originally we had 23,218 contracts outstanding. By the start of 2005 we were down to 2,890. You might expect that our losses would have been stemmed by this point, but the blood has kept flowing. Reducing our inventory to 741 contracts last year cost us the $104 million mentioned above.


Remember that the rationale for establishing this unit in 1990 was Gen Re’s wish to meet the needs of insurance clients. Yet one of the contracts we liquidated in 2005 had a term of 100 years! It’s difficult to imagine what “need” such a contract could fulfill except, perhaps, the need of a compensation conscious trader to have a long-dated contract on his books. Long contracts, or alternatively those with multiple variables, are the most difficult to mark to market (the standard procedure used in accounting for derivatives) and provide the most opportunity for “imagination” when traders are estimating their value. Small wonder that traders promote them.

A business in which huge amounts of compensation flow from assumed numbers is obviously fraught with danger. When two traders execute a transaction that has several, sometimes esoteric, variables and a far-off settlement date, their respective firms must subsequently value these contracts whenever they calculate their earnings. A given contract may be valued at one price by Firm A and at another by Firm B.


You can bet that the valuation differences – and I’m personally familiar with several that were huge – tend to be tilted in a direction favoring higher earnings at each firm. It’s a strange world in which two parties can carry out a paper transaction that each can promptly report as profitable.


I dwell on our experience in derivatives each year for two reasons. One is personal and unpleasant. The hard fact is that I have cost you a lot of money by not moving immediately to close down Gen Re’s trading operation. Both Charlie and I knew at the time of the Gen Re purchase that it was a problem and told its management that we wanted to exit the business. It was my responsibility to make sure that happened. Rather than address the situation head on, however, I wasted several years while we attempted to sell the operation. That was a doomed endeavor because no realistic solution could have extricated us from the maze of liabilities that was going to exist for decades. Our obligations were
particularly worrisome because their potential to explode could not be measured. Moreover, if severe trouble occurred, we knew it was likely to correlate with problems elsewhere in financial markets.


So I failed in my attempt to exit painlessly, and in the meantime more trades were put on the books. Fault me for dithering. (Charlie calls it thumb-sucking.) When a problem exists, whether in personnel or in business operations, the time to act is now.


The second reason I regularly describe our problems in this area lies in the hope that our experiences may prove instructive for managers, auditors and regulators. In a sense, we are a canary in this business coal mine and should sing a song of warning as we expire. The number and value of derivative contracts outstanding in the world continues to mushroom and is now a multiple of what existed in 1998, the last time that financial chaos erupted.


Our experience should be particularly sobering because we were a better-than-average candidate to exit gracefully. Gen Re was a relatively minor operator in the derivatives field. It has had the good fortune to unwind its supposedly liquid positions in a benign market, all the while free of financial or other pressures that might have forced it to conduct the liquidation in a less-than-efficient manner. Our accounting in the past was conventional and actually thought to be conservative. Additionally, we know of no bad behavior by anyone involved.


It could be a different story for others in the future. Imagine, if you will, one or more firms (troubles often spread) with positions that are many multiples of ours attempting to liquidate in chaotic markets and under extreme, and well-publicized, pressures. This is a scenario to which much attention should be given now rather than after the fact. The time to have considered – and improved – the reliability of New Orleans’ levees was before Katrina.


When we finally wind up Gen Re Securities, my feelings about its departure will be akin to those expressed in a country song, “My wife ran away with my best friend, and I sure miss him a lot
.”

I could go on about this, but it’s late.  There are other weaknesses in the system as well.  A good rule of thumb is that whenever there is a lack of natural counterparties, there will be pricing difficulties.

Closing comment: When I was at a Stable Value conference in 1994, I ran into some investment bankers and talked to them about this topic.  I asked them how they hedged their synthetic wrap exposures.  They said they didn’t hedge because it was riskless “free money.” I pointed out the scenario under which they could lose money, and asked how their auditor could sign off on the lack of the hedge.  Their comment went like this: “When we find an auditor capable of auditing our derivative books, we hire him and pay him ten times the salary.”

In a world like that, who knows what problems may lurk in the derivative books, because the auditors stand a better chance of figuring out the truth than the ratings agencies and regulators.

Tickers mentioned: BRK/A, BRK/B