Steve Cohen Raises $1.5 Billion In Days To Fill Melvin (No) Capital Losses

Steve Cohen Raises $1.5 Billion In Days To Fill Melvin (No) Capital Losses

One week after Steve Cohen’s Point72 invested $750MM in Melvin (No) Capital alongside Citadel’s Ken Griffen, only to suffer immediate losses as Melvin – run by Cohen’s former PM Gabe Plotkin – saw its losses balloon from 30% to 53% in just a few days as the marketwide short-squeeze forced the fund to unwind its billions in shorts at massive losses, and just one day after Charli Gasparino reported that Cohen opened his fund to new investors “amid losses at firm due to exposure to Melvin Capital”, the hedge fund has already secured a whopping $1.5 billion in commitments in a matter of days, Bloomberg reports citing people familiar with the matter.

Yet while Gasparino reported that Point72 was rising the capital in response to its Melvin Capital losses – and one certainly can’t deny that the timing is quite peculiar – according to Bloomberg, Point 72 “is raising the fresh cash because it sees investment opportunities in the market.”

Right – the same way that Robinhood just raised $4 billion because it is “seeing a flood of new clients.”

blue eyes, blue sweater.

Oh, and the fact that the “legendary” hedge fund was down 9% in January has nothing at all to do with its scramble to raise an offsetting amount of new capital…

And while we would love to Steve Cohen for a comment for this story, sadly he deleted his twitter account over the weekend due to “threats”.

Meanwhile Gabe Plotkin, whose Melvin is a dead fund walking after the deluge of redemption requests coming in this week, remains busy adding a tennis court to his Miami beachfront mansion.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/02/2021 – 14:38

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3awexh4 Tyler Durden

House Impeachment Managers and Trump’s Defense Lawyers File their Impeachment Trial Briefs

Impeachment

This morning, both the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers filed their respective trial briefs. The House brief is available here, and the defense brief here.

The House brief is an impressive and thorough analysis of both the facts leading up to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and the various legal issues involved. On the former, it is worth emphasizing, as the brief does that the relevant evidence includes not just Trump’s January 6 speech to the crowd that later attacked the Capitol, but his previous history of making bogus accusations of election fraud and condoning violence by his supporters. It is the combination of all three which makes Trump culpable, and which led some of his supporters to reasonably assume that he wanted them to attack the Capitol. As the brief notes, many of the Capitol rioters have explicitly said they did what they did because that’s what they thought that’s what Trump wanted.

The House brief also effectively addresses both of the major legal defenses offered by Trump’s supporters: that a conviction would undermine freedom of speech, and that it is unconstitutional to try a former president. I have previously written about both issues at length (e.g., here, here, and here), and won’t go over them in detail in this post. To my mind, the best short analyses of these two issues are by my Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Keith Whittington (see here and here). Keith’s writings are—deservedly—cited repeatedly in the House brief (which also includes some citations to writings by other VC writers, including a couple of my own posts).

By contrast with the House brief, the defense brief is short and mostly consists of assertions unsupported by either evidence or or legal argument. These flaws may reflect the fact that Trump’s current lawyers only took over the case yesterday, after he parted ways with his original legal team over the weekend.

The brief contains a few notable whoppers, such as the claim that “[i]nsufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statements [about the election results] were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false.” This simply ignores the overwhelming evidence of rulings by numerous courts rejecting Trump’s bogus claims of election fraud, including ones authored by judges Trump himself appointed (a fact effectively summarized in the House brief).

The defense brief predictably raises both the free speech defense, and the claim that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional. But it fails to address any of the numerous flaws in these arguments pointed out by a variety of legal commentators across the political spectrum—and duly summarized in the House brief.

Trump’s lawyers’ brief also contends that the impeachment is unconstitutional because it is a “bill of attainder” (a law targeting a specific individual  for punishment). I will mostly leave this issue to those with greater relevant expertise. But I will point out that there can be no bill of attainder without punishment (usually for some sort of crime). Impeachment  and conviction inflicts no punishment, and does not deprive the target of life, liberty, or property. It is instead a mechanism for protecting the constitutional system against threats, by removing dangerous officials from office, and (as in this case) potentially barring them from holding office again in the future.

If this impeachment qualifies as a bill of attainder, the same would be true of virtually any other impeachment. After all, almost all impeachments target specific individuals. Removing or barring specific individuals is the whole point of the impeachment process.

Perhaps the best argument in the defense brief is the claim that the Impeachment Article combines several different issues into one charge, in the hope  of assembling the required two-thirds supermajority to convict, from senators who may not fully agree with the charge, but do agree with parts.

I think it might have been better to include a separate count for Trump’s earlier efforts to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State into illegally overturning the election results in his state. But I don’t believe this issue should be a deal-breaker for conviction. Senators can conclude Trump is guilty of inciting the insurrection even if they don’t agree with all of the reasoning in the Article. Unlike in a criminal trial, which will often properly focus on technical details of specific charges, an impeachment vote is not a narrow legalistic process, but rather should be focused on the bottom line of whether defendant’s actions justify removal from office (in the case of a sitting official) or being barred from future office-holding.

While the House brief is clearly superior to the crude and superficial work product of the defense team, I am not naive enough to think that this will make a major difference to the outcome. Impeachment is at least as much a political process as it is a legal one, probably more so. That’s why Mitt Romney (in Trump’s first impeachment trial) is the only senator to have ever voted to convict a president of his own party. Trump’s second impeachment trial will almost certainly add to the count. But partisan bias—combined with GOP senators’ fear of retribution by Trump’s supporters within the party—seems likely to save Trump from conviction by the required 2/3 majority.

I don’t doubt, by the way, that partisan bias plays a role on the Democratic side, as well. Few politicians are immune to it. But it is notable that the Trump impeachment has gained greater bipartisan support than any other impeachment of a president (with the possible exception of the potential impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974), and that it has been backed by numerous right-of-center legal scholars and other commentators who have little, if any, love for the Democratic Party.

At this point, there seems little likelihood of a conviction, as 45 GOP senators recently voted against tabling a motion to reject Sen. Rand Paul’s objection to the impeachment trial based on the claim that former presidents cannot be tried after they leave office. But some of those senators have indicated they are leaving their options open when it comes to the final verdict—including, significantly—minority leader Mitch McConnell. Only time will tell how many senators will vote to convict, though it is highly doubtful it will be enough to reach the necessary two-thirds majority.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2MOZ43u
via IFTTT

Presidential Shackling

In my 2017, I identified four species of high-level influence, which I described as “presidential maladministration.”

First, [Presidential Reversals] where an incoming administration reverses a previous administration’s interpretation of statute, simply because a new sheriff is in town, courts should verify if the statute bears such a fluid construction. Second, [Presidential Discovery] where an administration discovers a heretofore unknown power in a statute that allows it to confer substantive rights, courts should raise a red flag, especially when the authority exercised was one Congress withheld. Third [Presidential Nonenforcement], where an administration declines to enforce a statute that Congress refuses to repeal, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, courts should view the action with skepticism. Fourth [Presidential Intrusion], where evidence exists that the White House attempted to exert its influence and intrude into the rule-making process of independent agencies, courts should revisit the doctrine concerning altered regulatory positions.

The transition from the Trump to the Biden administration has shined a light on a fifth species of presidential maladministration. I’ll call it Presidential Shackling.

Shortly before January 20, the executive branch signed different agreements that limited its discretion. The obvious import of these agreements was to handcuff to incoming Biden Administration. For example, the Department of Homeland Security signed an agreement with Texas. Under the terms of this provision, DHS must give advance notice to Texas before making any changes to immigration policy. And DHS must consider Texas’s views when making changes to immigration policies. The upshot is that the Biden Administration cannot change immigration policies without Texas’s consultation.

The New York Times reported that DHS signed a similar agreement with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Union.

One clause in the contract requires homeland security leaders to obtain “prior affirmative consent” in writing from the union on changes to policies and functions affecting agents. It also appears to allow the ICE union to argue that it can reject changes such as Mr. Biden’s recent order to focus on violent criminals and not prioritize other undocumented immigrants.

One of the agreements, for example, says: “No modifications whatsoever concerning the policies, hours, functions, alternate work schedules, resources, tools, compensation and the like of or afforded employees or contractors shall be implemented or occur without the prior affirmative consent” in writing by the union.

Health and Human Services signed a similar agreement with red states. Now, changes to Medicaid could trigger further litigation.

Soon enough, the courts will have to consider the validity of these agreements. In the abstract, the executive branch often reaches settlement agreements that limits its own discretion. But the intent here is to shackle the next administration.

What happens next? I can think of three options. First, the Biden Administration can treat these agreements as ultra vires. For example, Ken Cuccinelli lacked the authority to enter into these agreements. But the decision to ignore these agreements could trigger litigation over their validity, and Cuccinelli’s status. And that litigation can take time. Second, the Biden Administration could move to rescind these agreements. But the decision to terminate the agreement is a tacit recognition that the agreements are valid. And under Regents, the courts can scrutinize all changes in policy. Third, the Biden Administration can say these agreements interfere with his ability to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Therefore, they can be ignored.

My guess is the Biden Administration will choose a combination of the first two approaches.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2MjdedB
via IFTTT

Hedge Fund CIO: Elon Musk Has Already Bought Bitcoin

Hedge Fund CIO: Elon Musk Has Already Bought Bitcoin

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“In retrospect it was inevitable,” tweeted Elon. No doubt that’s true. Everything in retrospect is inevitable. Musk had just posted “#bitcoin” onto his Twitter bio, a journey complete, destiny digital, inevitable.

It’s possible Elon hasn’t yet bought his bitcoin, and pre-announced the intention, lifting the price ahead of his purchases. But sane people don’t do such things.

Only central bankers do. They tell us what they’ll buy, in what quantities, and at what time, knowing that those with capital front run their purchases. For decades this helped bankers distort the price of money, accessibility to credit, and asset valuations.

In retrospect, it was inevitable that those with the means to front run the Fed’s manipulations would amass far more wealth than those without.

In retrospect, it was inevitable that those without those means would come to resent those with.

And it was thus inevitable, in retrospect, that in the absence of sensible policies to restore balance to the system, those who benefited from Fed policies would come into increasing conflict with those who did not.  Naturally, the latter would vastly outnumber the former and they would thus ultimately prevail in a full-blown conflict.

So in retrospect it was inevitable that those with the means to front run the Fed would find ways to have their politicians give just enough money to those without to forestall such a clash.

And as they argued over whether to approve $1,400 checks, it was also inevitable that those without would rise-up in unexpected ways, to assault the institutions they blamed for the injustices they suffered. Storming our Capitols. Short-squeezing our Citadels.

It was also inevitable, that such conflicts were just the prelude to a tumultuous decade.

And of course, it will be inevitable, in retrospect, that while the central bankers and politicians grew increasingly desperate to fill the growing cracks of their own creation, with printed paper, sane people sought refuge from such things.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/02/2021 – 14:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3oEMy3T Tyler Durden

Don’t Let Biden Sink Troops Back Into the Afghanistan Quagmire

bidenafghanistan_1161x653

Will we ever get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, ever? ABC News reports that President Joe Biden’s administration is preparing for the likelihood that troops will remain in Afghanistan past a May deadline established in an agreement with the Taliban because of ongoing attacks and assassinations there.

During the Democratic primary debates, Biden said he wanted to end our wars in the Middle East and bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but he also made it clear he does want to keep some military presence within the country for antiterrorism and intelligence purposes.

As his presidential term ended, Donald Trump pushed for a faster withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which drew criticism even though it’s what Americans across the political spectrum actually want.

ABC points to this decision from Trump in an attempt to suggest that the drawdown is contributing to the challenge of actually leaving Afghanistan: “U.S. troops are at their lowest level in Afghanistan now, which the Pentagon said in a new report Monday has imposed ‘limitations’ on completing its mission.”

The report they reference is from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). And while the office’s quarterly report does say that the drawdown “introduces some limitations on force capacity and on the train, advise, and assist mission,” the very next sentence says that leaders of the U.S. forces have said that that the drawdown to 2,500 troops was not currently adversely affecting its work.

It’s slightly odd of ABC News to attempt to paint SIGAR as some sort of critic of Trump’s troop withdrawal because for years now SIGAR reports have been the primary way that Americans who were still paying attention would know that our continued involvement in Afghanistan has absolutely failed to stabilize the country and served primarily as a massive money pit for defense spending and a threat to the lives of our troops.

The latest report is no different, and ABC News does take note of that:

“There has been no cease-fire agreement and high levels of insurgent and extremist violence continued in Afghanistan this quarter despite repeated pleas from senior U.S. and international officials to reduce violence in an effort to advance the peace process,” John Sopko, the longtime special inspector general, wrote in the report’s introduction. “Nor is it evident, as SIGAR discusses in this report, that the Taliban has broken ties with the al-Qaeda terrorists who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States.”

So the agreement that’s supposed to allow the U.S. to exit Afghanistan in May has not, in fact, led to peace.

What about political stability in Afghanistan? Have we at least given Afghan citizens a government to turn to? Today, SIGAR put out another report about the state of the country’s election system. One of the major findings:

Election fraud in Afghanistan is rampant and takes many forms: Political leaders exert influence over senior election officials and, through them, lower-level staff, and election commissioners and their senior staff sell their services for financial gain. Senior election officials thus play an ambiguous role, serving variously as protectors of the process, perpetrators of fraud, illicit collaborators with senior government officials, and victims of their abuses. Fraud is also perpetrated by local powerbrokers trying to curry favor with candidates in the anticipation of reward, in the form of government contracts, jobs, or payoffs. It is difficult to detect and prove fraud, and even harder to reduce it. Anti-fraud measures are often co-opted to perpetrate more fraud, and even successful fraud mitigation can end up suppressing legitimate votes, sometimes in ways that favor one group over another.

We are bringing neither peace nor democracy to Afghanistan, and a sober read-through of SIGAR’s reports makes it pretty clear that the country is likely to remain unstable for the near future.

After two decades of military intervention in Afghanistan, there is little reason to believe continued military participation, training of the country’s police forces, or oversight of the nation’s elections is going to work. Biden promised on the campaign trail to get the U.S. out of this quagmire. So did the prior two presidents. Trump did finally manage to get some troops out of there. Rather than treating this as some sort of reckless behavior—as through throwing billions of dollars away and losing thousands of U.S. troops there is not reckless—Biden needs to follow through on his promise.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LgFsFg
via IFTTT

Biden Declares Myanmar Crisis A Coup D’Etat – Sanctions Coming As Unrest Looms

Biden Declares Myanmar Crisis A Coup D’Etat – Sanctions Coming As Unrest Looms

The State Department is warning of the potential for “civil and political unrest in Burma” following the dramatic military takeover of the country and arrest of its civilian leadership Monday. This as all international travel has been halted, and various communications including internet were cut to the capital. 

The Biden administration has now formally declared it as a coup d’état, which means Washington is required by law to cut off all foreign assistance to the southeast Asian country. It further announced that targeted action will be taken “against those responsible” for the arrests and continued detention of the elected civilian leadership, likely in the form of sanctions. 

Via FT

“After careful review of the facts and circumstances, we have assessed that Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma’s ruling party, and Win Myint, the duly elected head of government, were deposed in a military coup on February 1,” the State Department announced Tuesday.

“We continue to call on the Burmese military leadership to release them and all other detained civil society and political leaders immediately and unconditionally.”

“In addition, we will undertake a broader review of our assistance programs to ensure they align with recent events,” the official said.

Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Army commander Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, via Bankok Post

“At the same time, we will continue programs that benefit the people of Burma directly, including humanitarian assistance and democracy support programs that benefit civil society. A democratic civilian led government has always been Burma’s best opportunity to address the problems the country faces,” the statement added.

According to the State Department, currently “very little” foreign assistance goes to Myanmar’s government given recent years of what’s been dubbed “democratic backsliding” in international reports.

One local eyewitness told BBC of the chaotic hours after military raids on government leaders’ homes: “We woke up with the news of the military coup in the early morning and some of our friends were detained,” according to BBC’s Newsday program.

“The internet connectivity is not there anymore… I can’t go out and use my phone, there is no data at all. This is what’s happening right now. There are military cars roaming around the city,” the eyewitness added.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/02/2021 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rgR8as Tyler Durden

Don’t Let Biden Sink Troops Back Into the Afghanistan Quagmire

bidenafghanistan_1161x653

Will we ever get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, ever? ABC News reports that President Joe Biden’s administration is preparing for the likelihood that troops will remain in Afghanistan past a May deadline established in an agreement with the Taliban because of ongoing attacks and assassinations there.

During the Democratic primary debates, Biden said he wanted to end our wars in the Middle East and bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but he also made it clear he does want to keep some military presence within the country for antiterrorism and intelligence purposes.

As his presidential term ended, Donald Trump pushed for a faster withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which drew criticism even though it’s what Americans across the political spectrum actually want.

ABC points to this decision from Trump in an attempt to suggest that the drawdown is contributing to the challenge of actually leaving Afghanistan: “U.S. troops are at their lowest level in Afghanistan now, which the Pentagon said in a new report Monday has imposed ‘limitations’ on completing its mission.”

The report they reference is from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). And while the office’s quarterly report does say that the drawdown “introduces some limitations on force capacity and on the train, advise, and assist mission,” the very next sentence says that leaders of the U.S. forces have said that that the drawdown to 2,500 troops was not currently adversely affecting its work.

It’s slightly odd of ABC News to attempt to paint SIGAR as some sort of critic of Trump’s troop withdrawal because for years now SIGAR reports have been the primary way that Americans who were still paying attention would know that our continued involvement in Afghanistan has absolutely failed to stabilize the country and served primarily as a massive money pit for defense spending and a threat to the lives of our troops.

The latest report is no different, and ABC News does take note of that:

“There has been no cease-fire agreement and high levels of insurgent and extremist violence continued in Afghanistan this quarter despite repeated pleas from senior U.S. and international officials to reduce violence in an effort to advance the peace process,” John Sopko, the longtime special inspector general, wrote in the report’s introduction. “Nor is it evident, as SIGAR discusses in this report, that the Taliban has broken ties with the al-Qaeda terrorists who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States.”

So the agreement that’s supposed to allow the U.S. to exit Afghanistan in May has not, in fact, led to peace.

What about political stability in Afghanistan? Have we at least given Afghan citizens a government to turn to? Today, SIGAR put out another report about the state of the country’s election system. One of the major findings:

Election fraud in Afghanistan is rampant and takes many forms: Political leaders exert influence over senior election officials and, through them, lower-level staff, and election commissioners and their senior staff sell their services for financial gain. Senior election officials thus play an ambiguous role, serving variously as protectors of the process, perpetrators of fraud, illicit collaborators with senior government officials, and victims of their abuses. Fraud is also perpetrated by local powerbrokers trying to curry favor with candidates in the anticipation of reward, in the form of government contracts, jobs, or payoffs. It is difficult to detect and prove fraud, and even harder to reduce it. Anti-fraud measures are often co-opted to perpetrate more fraud, and even successful fraud mitigation can end up suppressing legitimate votes, sometimes in ways that favor one group over another.

We are bringing neither peace nor democracy to Afghanistan, and a sober read-through of SIGAR’s reports makes it pretty clear that the country is likely to remain unstable for the near future.

After two decades of military intervention in Afghanistan, there is little reason to believe continued military participation, training of the country’s police forces, or oversight of the nation’s elections is going to work. Biden promised on the campaign trail to get the U.S. out of this quagmire. So did the prior two presidents. Trump did finally manage to get some troops out of there. Rather than treating this as some sort of reckless behavior—as through throwing billions of dollars away and losing thousands of U.S. troops there is not reckless—Biden needs to follow through on his promise.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LgFsFg
via IFTTT

California Rep. Speier Says Republicans Should Be Called “Terrorists”

California Rep. Speier Says Republicans Should Be Called “Terrorists”

Authored by Annaliese Levy via SaraACarter.com,

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said Democrats should start labeling Republicans as terrorists in a tweet posted on Monday.

“The Republicans have been calling Democrats the radical left. Time to call Republicans the terrorist right?,” she wrote on Twitter.

Speier’s tweet received strong support on social media, including from “One Tree Hill” actress Sophia Bush, who replied, “it’s been time.”

“The Republican Party has become a deranged group of political fanatics,” a Twitter user said in response to Speier.

“They’ve descended away from the principles of the constitution and into political fanaticism. Their deranged fanaticism is dangerous and it is making the domestic terrorist threat grow in our country.

Another user replied, “Trump Talibanners?”

Speier’s office didn’t immediately respond to this reporter’s request for comment. The story will be updated if and when a statement is received.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/02/2021 – 13:41

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YJCvjn Tyler Durden

Will WallStreetBets Send The VIX Soaring Next? One Bank’s Surprising Answer

Will WallStreetBets Send The VIX Soaring Next? One Bank’s Surprising Answer

One week ago, the Reddit crowd – then numbering 2 million users- sparked a historic squeeze among the most shorted Russell 3000 stocks (led by Gamestop) which inflicted hundreds of billions of losses on some hedge funds (while making other hedge funds that much richer), and launched a deleveraging VaR shockwave which forced even non-shorting hedge funds to unwind some of their biggest (and most popular) positions.

Then, this Monday, the same Reddit crowd – now having tripled to 7.5 million users – managed to spark the biggest surge in silver prices since the collapse of Lehman, and even though there were not nearly as many shorts here, the move was sizable enough to unleash another major VaR shockwave across markets, and forcing even unlinked assets to selloff amid another degrossing wave.

What the two episodes had in common is that any outlier event – and last week’s “most shorted vs most popular” slamdown was a 7 sigma event, which nobody had anticipated, with Goldman writing that Tuesday “was the worst day for GS HF VIP longs vs GS Most Short in our records (-7.7%)”…

… stood to unleash a cascading sequence of adverse events due to just one thing: leverage.

It’s the record level of leverage in the system that prompted Morgan Stanley’s chief equity strategist to warn that the short-squeeze shake out is not yet over and that the correction is “likely to get worse”:

“Third, the aggressive short squeeze strategies employed by a certain group of investors was the spark. These targeted squeezes forced the leverage to come out of the system starting with hedge fund gross exposures. Initially, it didn’t have much of an effect on the major indices but last week that all changed. The forced reduction of gross leverage via short covering led to a reduction in long exposure and net leverage. Major averages traded lower by 3-5% with many stocks down 10% or more.”

In a note published on Tuesday, SocGen’s derivatives team picks up on this warning, and adds a new wrinkle looking squarely at what could happen to the volatility space, writing that while so far “most of the extreme price moves are stocks that were too small in size and are unable to directly impact large cap stock market volatility (or the VIX index), hedge funds that are under pressure are being forced to unwind some of their best positions to finance the drawdowns and that leads to selling pressure on the wider technology/high quality complex. This can be evidenced by the extreme negative correlation between some of the high short-interest stocks and the favourite stocks of the hedge funds (chart below).

The socgen quants then observe that “while average single stock implied and realised volatilities in the S&P500 have been steadily increasing over the past couple of months, last week’s increase in implied correlation (chart below) finally took index implied volatility significantly higher.” In fact, they note, the “VIX reacted much more strongly than its historical relationship with S&P500 moves would suggest.”

Obviously, whether these levels of volatility persist or not will depend on whether the de-grossing of hedge fund leverage is done for now – something which Morgan Stanley thinks is certainly not the case yet – which is why SocGen warns that “if funds continue to take leverage off, it will involve them selling their longs as well, which could put further upward pressure on the implied volatility of large caps.”

Not holding back at all, SocGen then takes on JPM’s Marko Kolanovic (who made precisely the opposite argument recently predicting that vol control funds are a source of stock buying due to their low exposure), and warn that systematic, vol-dependent or momentum strategies “will be another potential indirect source of volatility over the next few days. Because of higher volatility, the systematic vol-linked investment strategies will need to de-lever and sell their equity holdings, leading to further risk-off moves in the market.” Ignoring Kolanovic’s now traditional permabullish narrative, SocGen warns that “vol control strategies are estimated to have increased their leverage over the past few months and now stand at levels last seen in February 2020. The same can be said about the trend-following strategies in equities – the positioning is quite elevated and likely to come off in case of trends turning lower.”

SocGen then makes another troubling point, namely that the events of the past week could make market participants “extremely cautious of being short convexity in any form” and certainly reluctant to be outright short. Such caution would bring about “further de-grossing in hedge fund balance sheets but is also likely to manifest in another pullback from vol sellers, thereby pushing back the time needed to gather the critical mass to push expensive convexity lower.”

Indeed, as SocGen shows in the next chart, “there are already signs of excessive stress in the VIX complex as it is trading at extreme premiums, both to realized volatility as well as S&P500 1-month variance swaps.”

As a further indication of depressed trader sentiment to bet on declines in the VIX, the French bank points to short-term variance swap flow, especially in the US, which hasn’t recovered from the large losses suffered by risk-transfer funds during the peak of the pandemic in March last year “and this is evident in the absence of 1m variance swap volumes (chart below).” This according to SocGen, “adds to the trend of elevated implied volatility that could further delay normalisation.”

Conversely, one can argue that for those who are brave enough to take the other side of this trade, the recent surge in VIX premium “makes the entry point for certain investment ideas to monetise convexity even more attractive” but for now the bigger question is how much more pain can the vol complex sustain before we reach the inevitable reversal.

Which brings us to the main point of the SocGen note: can – or maybe will – the Reddit crowd focus on the volatility market next? In other words, could we see a repeat of the Feb 2018 Volmageddon event?

In response to those who are quick to say “no way”, SocGen takes the other side and writes that “if we were to see the Gamestop wave carry over to the VIX ETP complex, it would be easy to imagine increased volatility and some very large moves.”

But how? Well, theoretically, retail traders could either go long or short volatility (i.e. they may buy either calls or puts), according to SocGen, although based on recent events, it is far more likely that retail would aim to squeeze the VIX higher, not lower: 

Buying puts may appeal to them at a higher level of VIX futures, but the current momentum suggests that they are more likely to add long call positions, especially given the convex returns profile.”

So let’s say wallstreetbets decides to take on the granddaddy of all asset classes – the one which even Jerome Powell back in 2012 admitted tacitly that “The Fed Has A Short Volatility Position” – how would the millions of retail traders go about this?

According to SocGen, the two most likely vehicles are the iPath VIX ETN (unlevered) and the Proshares Ultra VIX futures (1.5x levered), and then makes the following remarkable observation:

“The simple fact remains that the structure of the modern financial market is simply not built to suddenly absorb a very large marginal buyer or seller – and the volatility market is no exception.”

If one ignores everything else in this note, this is the take home message as it explains so much of the market action observed over the past two weeks when the WSB daytrading horde has jumped from stock to stock, and asset to asset, showing just how illiquid virtually everything is, and susceptible to massive ramps higher (and perhaps one day, lower).

Going back to SocGen, the bank’s derivative analysts then warn that “membership of r/wallstreetbets has grown from 1.8 million members at the end of 2020 to ~8 million now (and the membership has been growing exponentially). More ominously, the volatility complex has been the topic of recent discussions on the forum.

Why does this matter?

Because while some of these recent members are likely to be hedge fund analysts trying to monitor the forum activity, even if 1.8 million original members add one additional call option on VXX or UVXY, the new flow will double the existing open interest of VXX (1.92m) and almost triple that of UXVY (1.04m). This is happening against a backdrop of already elevated AUMs and call option open interest in VXX and UVXY (charts below)!

SocGen next looks at the existing call open interest on VXX and UVXY, and finds that there is some decent existing inventory above current spot levels – could we possibly see the dreaded gamma squeeze within the vol complex itself? that’s what SocGen is hinting, when it warns that “the hedging activity from market makers could initially lead to some exacerbation in price moves on the upside. Thereafter, there is also some runway for strikes to be rolled. We would therefore recommend investors to be prepared for some upcoming turbulence in the implied volatility market.

Going back to our earlier point that what could happen next is another Feb 2018 “Volmageddon” event, SocGen next looks at the chart below left, which shows that the VIX spike of February 2018 “also led to a strong (but temporary) upward repricing of far out-of-the-money fixed strike options on the S&P500 – put options more than 15% out of the money were responsible for almost half the value of VIX in the immediate aftermath of the incident.”

Which brings us to SocGen’s stunning prediction: “We could potentially see a similar repricing of S&P500 options this time around”, especially when one considers that the net short positioning on the VIX future is not that far off its all time high:

* * *

That said, even if we do go through another Volmageddon 2.0 in the coming weeks, the good news is that – like in 2018 – it won’t last, if it ever happens at all – because as SocGen explains, “exponential strategies that work on penny stocks don’t always carry over to volatility products” and there are obvious differences between the two assets, chief among them being: 1) volatility is mean reverting, 2) VIX options are bounded theoretically to the pricing of S&P500 options, and 3) as volatility rises, the leverage in options decreases significantly.

“To expand a bit on the last point, even if volatility on penny stocks rises and options become expensive, one can always roll the strikes up to the sky. However, we would like to believe that the upside in a VIX-related option cannot continue to be rolled up forever if the investor wants a positive expected P&L. The volatility of an individual stock with large short interest can reach 500%, that of a large market cap index such as the S&P500 arguably cannot.”

There is another mitigating factor: assuming the market does sell off to the same extent as last year, any profits made on VXX options will likely be significantly lower than what was achieved in 2020 simply because the starting level of volatility is significantly higher now than in January of last year: recall that at its peak in March last year, VIX 1-month constant maturity future rose by 355% compared to the levels in mid-February 2020. “However, if the VIX 1-month future does reach the same levels going forward, it will only have roughly doubled from today’s level (26v).”

 

Quantifying the P&L impact from such a move, a reasonable estimate of upside from current levels for VXX would be 150%, which is a far cry from the 1600%+ return on Gamestop according to SocGen. Furthermore, if the surge in VIX futures soar take place, it is unlikely to stays positive for an extended period as gains are not going to be explosively exponential due to the negative carry nature of the VIX curve.

* * *

In conclusion, SocGen deriv team comes remarkably close to the view of Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson, and writes that given the imbalance caused by the sheer size of this retail cohort, “we recommend that investors reduce leverage in the short term and should expect to see some large moves in the VIX complex.”

Furthermore, due to the reflexive herding nature of the WSB forum, SocGen “would not be surprised to see this retail flow move into put options on VIX ETPs once we see a spike in volatility” as the momentum chasers in a highly illiquid market get on board next. And while “these flow-related moves could also have unintended  consequences on the S&P500 option markets – the stress should be mitigated by already elevated convexity levels.”

Finally, perhaps worried that it could freak out its clients, the French bank says that it expects “some regulation of these retail flows in case of severe volatility” and notes that we have already seen various trading platforms restrict some volatile stocks, “and this may very well be repeated in case VXX and UVXY become too volatile.” Finally, the bank is also watching the response from exchanges and regulators, with the SEC saying it is “monitoring the situation closely” and the CEO of the Nasdaq recently saying she may look to halt trading on certain stocks to let investors reposition given the recent bouts in volatility.

That said, and looking at the bigger picture, SocGen ends on a cheerful note (same as Morgan Stanley) and expects 2021 “to be a year of adjustment and think the forward volatility over the year 2022 is expensive at these levels” and concludes that “although the environment could stay volatile in the short term, post the near-term shocks” the bank would seek to put on two bullish trades: 1) Sell S&P500 Dec21/Dec22 forward variance, and 2) Sell S&P500 Dec21 var-vol spread.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/02/2021 – 13:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tf31PX Tyler Durden

Elizabeth Warren is “calling your bluff”

Herodes Atticus was born in the year 101 AD into a wealthy family in Greece, which at the time was part of the Roman Empire.

During Emperor Hadrian’s rule, Herodes petitioned for public funds to build a proper water system in the famed city of Troy.

When the water system cost more than double what Herodes had estimated, Hadrian expressed his displeasure.

But Herodes’ father wrote to Hadrian, saying “Do not, O Emperor, allow yourself to be irritated over such trifles. The amount spent in excess of 3,000,000 [drachmas] I am presenting to my son, and my son will present to the city.”

(3 million ancient Greek drachmas is roughly $11 million US dollars today.)

It was actually common practice at the time for wealthy citizens to take on public works projects using their own wealth. And Herodes continued the tradition.

He built aqueducts to bring clean water to the city of Olympia, and sponsored the construction of pools meant to heal the sick at Thermopylae. He built stadiums and theaters and threw feasts and festivals for the people, all at his own expense.

And for his contributions, Herodes was honored and praised.

The people celebrated him, and built a statue in his honor. He went down in history as one of the biggest philanthropists of his day.

Today, people in the completely tolerant and mostly peaceful Left, do the opposite— they shame and ridicule the wealthy for their contributions to society.

For example, last year when the CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos pledged billions of dollars to improve the earth’s climate, an editorial in The Guardian asked: Why doesn’t Jeff Bezos pay more tax instead of launching a $10bn green fund?

The message was clear: no amount of philanthropy is good enough. It’s only acceptable if Bezos hands over his money to the government first, so that politicians can squander most of it on wasteful bureaucracy and corrupt self-dealing.

Ironically, Bezos was actually ready and willing to pay more taxes when he chose to build a second Amazon headquarters (‘HQ2’) in New York City.

HQ2 would have been a bonanza of tax revenue for New York.

But AOC and her merry band of Marxists were having none of that. Because Amazon’s HQ2 would have received a federal tax break, they poopoo’d the deal and chased Amazon out of town.

Goodbye 25,000 high-paying jobs. Goodbye $500 million per year in local tax revenue.

Now New York is facing a $15 billion budget deficit fueled in part by wealthy people and prominent businesses fleeing the state for more tax friendly places like Florida and Texas.

But rather than cut spending or give wealthy people incentive to stay, New York’s Emperor Cuomo wants to raise the state income tax on the wealthy to 10.86%, up from 8.82%.

Talk about a bad idea. According to IRS data and the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of income earners pay almost 40% of state and federal taxes.
Raising taxes will only chase away more of them.

But politicians deny this simple truth. They think they can raise taxes on the rich and there won’t be any consequences, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example, is back on her high horse, demanding a 2% annual wealth tax on rich Americans.

However, when a CNBC anchor asked Warren if she had concerns that the wealth tax would make Americans leave the country, Warren scoffed, saying:

“I’m sorry, there is no evidence that anyone is going to leave this country because of a [wealth tax]… you’re telling me that they would forfeit their American citizenship… and I’m just calling your bluff on that. I’m sorry that’s not going to happen.

Really? No evidence?

What about the 6,000+ Americans who renounced their citizenship during the first nine months of 2020 (versus only roughly 2,000 Americans who renounced in all of 2019).

37,000 Americans have renounced since 2010, and the trend has been growing ever since around halfway through the Obama presidency.

There are 9 million American expats currently living overseas, and about 23% report seriously considering renouncing their American citizenship. Much of their reasoning is tax-related.

But Warren dismisses this evidence entirely.

To her, the 37,000 people who have already renounced their citizenship don’t exist, nor do the 23% of expats who are considering renouncing. It must be fake news.

She can’t possibly imagine a world where her decisions have a negative impact.

Her way of thinking is also quite instructive. Just look at what she’s saying— ‘we can do whatever we want to successful people, raise their taxes to whatever we want, and they’re just going to have to take it.’

That’s pretty scary.

And this trend is only going to continue as the Bolsheviks think of new ways to punish successful people.

Because, for them, it’s not just about the tax revenue. It’s about shame and ridicule.

AOC tells her Twitter following, for example, that wealthy people “don’t MAKE a billion dollars. They TAKE a billion dollars.”

She thinks earning money from willing customers is theft. But the government taking money by force is righteous. THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

These people are totally clueless… and yet they’re the ones in charge. Nothing we do will change that fact.

But what does make a difference is taking rational, legal steps to distance yourself from their insanity.

Tax is a great example. No matter what crazy legislation these politicians pass, almost EVERYONE still has completely legitimate ways to reduce their tax bills.

For example, you can take advantage of retirement plan tax incentives; and it’s hard to imagine anyone would be worse off paying less tax and having more money set aside for retirement.

Or someone could take advantage of Opportunity Zones, captive insurance companies, or the incredible incentives in Puerto Rico (and US Virgin Islands).

Point is- there are plenty of options. But you have to educate yourself and take action… because Elizabeth Warren and AOC certainly won’t find the deductions for you.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/3cxbd83
via IFTTT