In the wake of some hedge funds pulling back risk, participants at a recent Investing Summit in Asia feel that private equity, boutique firms, institutions, and sovereign wealth funds will begin buying distressed debt (see FinanceAsia.com article). Many of these firms are expected to enter the secondary market for distressed assets given the opportunity to buy them at large discounts. Nonetheless, participants at the conference worried that all the "distress" was not currently in these assets, and that there was no reason to rush into buying them. Ed Altman, Professor of Finance with the NYU Stern School of Business, agrees, and predicts that the assets and the bargains will be available for another 6-12 months.

Per a recent SEC filing, and as reported in a WSJ article, the Harvard University Endowment appears to have cuts its holdings of public stock by about two-thirds. This is two-thirds of a position that has already been lowered over the years as a result of an increased exposure to alternative investments. About 70 stocks and publicly traded funds were recently valued at less than $600 million within a fund that was valued in total at nearly $37 billion last June - before losing a reported 30 percent of its value. While it appears that Harvard may have sold some of these assets near the bottom, they may have had little choice given that a significant portion of their portfolio is either managed by external managers and/or is illiquid, such as timber, real estate, and private equity investments (which in some cases could have additional funding obligations) - see a previous post that discusses potential liquidity risk issues at Harvard.

There have been a number of stories over the last few years of academic endowments moving into alternative investments, in particular hedge funds, private equity, real estate, and natural resources, such as timber. While many of these funds have been hurt during the recent downturn, many still found their portfolios falling less than the general market (see previous posts here and here). While losing "only" 20 percent is not as bad as 30-40 percent (although many with budgets getting cut would disagree with losing any money), other consequences of the move into alternative investments are often overlooked, including the valuation of such assets, funding commitments, and issues with liquidity.

A recent WSJ article highlights some of these difficulties. For one, hedge funds often have lock-up periods, keeping endowments in these investments at a time when shrinking budgets and donations are calling out for liquidity (see previous post here). In the case of private equity, the consequences of liquidity risk are even worse since not only is your investment "tied-up," but as a result of previous funding agreements, new capital calls may force you to commit another 50-75 percent of your initial investment, once again at a time when liquidity is tight and budgets are shrinking. While such need for liquidity is challenging for any fund, it is even more difficult for a fund that has decreased equity exposure to the 10-20 percent range, or lower, and has nearly all but eliminated interest bearing fixed income from the portfolio.

As with any shock to the system, strategies will be re-evaluated, and changes will be made. Unfortunately, for many academic institutions this will involve not only changes to the composition of their endowment portfolios, but also an evaluation of their capital improvements, expansion plans, operating budgets, and financial aid for students.

Recently it was reported that the Harvard Endowment had fallen at least 22 percent and was on its way to possibly a 30 percent loss once alternative investments are considered (see previous blog post). Now, the WSJ is reporting that the Yale Endowment has fallen 25 percent since the end of June when the endowment was valued at $10.1 billion (see WSJ article). Of interest is how marketable securities in the endowment "only" fell 13 percent, giving Yale a problem similar to Harvard - decreasing alternative investments, such as real estate and private equity, have caused the overall losses to be more severe than expected. As with Harvard, the diversification and increased use of alternative investments has helped Yale weather the downturn in the equities markets, but at the cost of decreased liquidity. The subsequent fall of less traded real estate and private equity markets has introduced a form of liquidity risk that was either unexpected, uncovered, deemed unimportant, or some combination of the three.

Fortunately, such endowments do not have the same problems with redemption requests that hedge funds experience, and can therefore possibly hold assets longer, waiting for more liquid markets. On the other hand, the academic endowments do rely on their investments for funding scholarships and supporting the general operating budget, among other things. At Yale, the endowment supports 44 percent of the $2.7 billion annual budget, or nearly $1.2 billion per year. With a decline of twice this amount in the endowment, belts at Yale will definitely needed to be tightened given that a guaranteed 16 percent return on the remaining approximately $7.5 billion would be needed in order to pay current expenses and still keep the principal in place. Of course, this just got more difficult now that the market is on its back, not to mention that the only sure bet in town - Bernie Madoff and his "guaranteed return" hedge fund - are out of business. Difficult times indeed.

Private equity investors are starting to ban together to renegotiate terms of previous commitments (see Financial Times article). In particular, endowments and foundations, which have recently increase exposure to alternative investments, are looking for ways to scale back commitments after losing money and finding it difficult to meet their operating budget without dipping too deep into existing endowment funds.

The Lehman bankruptcy has apparently went better in the US (see Financial Times article). The UK FSA is even traveling to New York to see why the US insolvency regime has worked better than in Britain in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Problem have caused many hedge funds to move assets to the US to avoid similar problems, causing London to worry about it status as a major financial center.

A recent WSJ article is highlighting once again the losses incurred at university endowments, especially those at Harvard. The Harvard endowment is reported to have lost "at least" 22 percent in the first four months of the school's recent fiscal year. This equates to approximately an $8 billion loss for the nearly $37 billion portfolio. Unfortunately, the pain may get worse as the current value does not appear to consider real estate or private equity investments, causing the university to start planning for a total decline of 30 percent for the fiscal year. While alternative investments have helped to shelter endowments at Harvard, Yale, and elsewhere from past sell-offs in the general market, this time the recent credit crisis has affect nearly every asset class. This has made the losses on relatively illiquid assets, such as real estate and private equity, potentially quite severe as portfolios are forced to sell such assets at deep discounts. Private equity investments with Harvard are reported to only be receiving bids of 50 cents on the dollar. Diversification and investing in alternative investments has its benefits, but it can also introduce new risk to manage, such as liquidity risk. Certainly a lesson we all need to be taught, even if we have to learn it the hard way.

There is an interesting Forbes article that discusses the issue of whether hedge fund selling as a result of redemption notices has been contributing to market volatility (see previous posts here, here, here, and here, on the subject). The article notes that while last Saturday was the 45 day period before the end of the year that is often the one and a half month last chance opportunity to request withdraw of funds as required by some hedge funds, recent volatility cannot be blamed entirely on the forced selling of hedge funds before this date. Many funds have shorter notices, while for some the required notification period is longer. Furthermore, any volatility that was experienced may have been due more to the self-fulfilling prophecy that often follows other calendar events, such as those experienced with the January Effect, option expiration dates, and end of month/quarter trading. Instead, analysts expect that it is more likely hedge funds will systematically continue to sell as needed over the next 12 months in order to meet requests.

Of interest is that many funds have been accumulating cash, with managers eager to deploy funds into a market that some managers feel is depressed and laden with attractive values. While funds are nervous about locking up money in longer-term and possibly illiquid investments, many are also unwilling to simply sit on the cash. As a result, some are engaging in more short-term trading, both from the buy and sell sides, that ironically may be contributing to the volatility being blamed solely on redemption requests. Furthermore, there is an expectation that once redemption requests slow down to normal levels, much of this money will quickly find its way back into the market, generating a rally that could be as large as the one recently seen on the downside, albeit over a longer time frame. Of course, predicting the timing of such a move is difficult, but once previously illiquid instruments such as complex debt securities, private equity, and thinly traded companies start to increase on higher level of trading volume, the market may start seeing the beginning of hedge funds once again throwing their weight, and capital, back into the market.

The success of the Yale and Harvard Endowments has cause many to consider trying to mimic their asset allocation models (see article, and previous posts here and here). Unfortunately, this offers a few problems. For one, small investors do not have as easy access to alternative investment, whether it be private equity, hedge funds, venture capital funds, or certain types of real estate. Even those that do find that performance suffers when funds that were suppose to be hedged were not. Furthermore, many of the alternative asset classes turn out to be more correlated than expected, especially during market sell-offs.

Studies are also showing that adding the diversification of alternatives to your portfolio may turn out to not reduce volatility in ways normally expected. Morgan Stanley examined the risk and return characteristics of a hypothetical endowment model portfolio that had 40 percent allocation to alternative investments. While the portfolio outperformed a traditional portfolio allocating 60 percent equities / 40 percent for bonds, it did not materially reduce volatility. The performance of US equities alone explained 94 percent of the return.

Another problem is that private investors do not have the same tax advantages of endowments, many of which have access to top-tier funds and other tax-exempt groups. In some cases, seeking an pre-tax return of 10 percent would require an average hedge fund to return 14.5 percent in order to overcome the fees. For a fund of funds, the return is even higher, at 17.1 percent due to the extra layer of fees.

Those of us in the academic world often hear the common retrain from our industry colleagues, "Well, that just the academic theory. Things are different in the real world." At least for mimicking endowment funds, the refrain may ring true.

As pension funds look for ways to increase return, and adjust to the changing markets, the GAO is recommending more guidance as they begin to invest more in alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity (see Reuters article). While there is always worry of over-stepping when Congress gets involved, the trends are real and will most likely cause more concern going forward given the lower level of transparency for alternative investments. Whether future restrictions and regulations will impose a greater cost burden on such funds is yet to be seen. Of interest, data shows mid- and large-size funds to have between 21 and 27 percent investment in hedge funds, and more than 40 percent in private equity. These trends are not unlike those seen at various academic endowments (see previous post). It would not surprise me if more individuals begin exploring these investment areas as related products start to become available to retail investors.

The Harvard Management Company, in charge of the mighty Harvard Endowment, appears to be generating a return between 7-9% for fiscal 2008, according to sources familiar with the fund (see WSJ article). As a comparison, the S&P 500 fell about 15% during the same time frame. Performance has been good enough and long enough that other management companies are trying to mimic their returns (see previous post). One key to their performance is diversification. Harvard invests in 11 non-cash asset classes. In fact, when you look at the asset allocations, it is different from some traditional allocation benchmarks. From the WSJ:

"U.S. equities constitute 12% of the portfolio; developed foreign equities are 12% and emerging market equities are 10%. Total foreign equities account for 22% of the portfolio, up from 19% in 2007, compared with 12% domestic. Real assets, including commodities, are 33%, up from 31%. Fixed income dropped to 9% from 13%."

Can the average investor duplicate the returns of the Harvard endowment? The author of the WSJ article, James B. Steward, believes so - to some degree. Individual investors can duplicate most categories with individual stocks, sector mutual funds, and ETFs. Foreign equities and real assets are also able to be purchased, and are currently cheaper than just a few months ago, as are energy and commodity stocks and funds. The most difficult areas to duplicate are private equity and hedge fund returns. New long-short ETFs, and various hedge fund replication strategies are being considered, but making such investments is not currently as easy as in the other asset classes. Private equity is particularly troublesome. Nonetheless, and as mentioned by the author, given the current returns of private equity and hedge funds in general, lower weighting in these assets class may not be such a bad thing in the short-term - even if they did juice past returns. Maybe new products will become available before everyone jumps back on the alternative investment train.

The news with Lehman Brothers just keeps coming. In a yesterday's post I highlighted some recent articles that discussed the value of Lehman Brothers Headquarters (article), potential private equity investment and/or purchase of Neuberger Berman (article), and plans for Lehman to cut 1,500 jobs (article). Now it appear that even as plans for reducing the work force are being put into place, Lehman Brothers is looking to hire at various B-schools (see DealBreaker article). While the move is not unprecedented (companies often hire cheap college grads to replace expensive long-timers), the timing and focus are interesting. Not only does news of the job ads come less than a week after the news of lay-offs (granted, it may have been in the works for a long-time), but Lehman is apparently looking for an "Investment Banking Full Time Associate." Of interest in the job description is the following:

"The division provides comprehensive financial advisory and capital raising services. This includes advice relating to mergers and acquisitions, privatizations, and debt and equity financings and restructuring."

No doubt that capital raising and private equity experience would certainly be useful at Lehman right now. Then again, a potential drawback is that "the program begins with four weeks of training in New York." The company could look very different in one month. As mentioned in the DealBreaker article, new hires better "act now, before they go under." Yes, I know. This is too easy to make fun of, and real people are losing real jobs. Nonetheless, given Lehman's recent moves, in particular its desire to have both a quick and sensible sale of their mortgage-related assets, at some point reality will need to step in. To see just how silly things have gotten, check out a recent Here In The City News article regarding a funny spoof email making the rounds on Wall Street. Who ever thought Lehman Brothers, the Tooth Fairy, and Tinkerbell would be in the same article. As with most good humor, there is often a little bit of truth hidden in the satire.

Of course, all of this has the contrarian in me wanting to poke around a little in the stock. I mean, how much worse can it get? Bear Stearns II cannot happen again, can it? Recent valuations certainly seem to be pricing the possibility. The moves have also been extreme enough that the technicals don't provide much help. Some support exists around $13.50, and even near the current price around $16, but both are weak. Downward trend line resistance is near $20. Investors could wait until this trend is broken, but one would have to give up four points and over 25 percent while waiting for confirmation. Traders, acting a little quicker could capture the moves, but as we saw with Bear Stearns, even nimble traders sometimes don't have enough time to act. In the mean time I will probably just sit on the sidelines and enjoy the show. There are just too many other stocks with better risk-reward ratios for investing and trading, even if they are not quite as entertaining.

It is never a good sign when your company is in financial trouble to find out that reporters, analysts, and private equity investors are suddenly interested in the value of the building that houses your headquarters. As reported in a Here Is The City News article, apparently this is exactly what some at the Financial Times and elsewhere are doing. The Lehman Brothers Times Square headquarters building is estimated to be worth $1.3 billion, or about twice what Lehman paid for the building in 2001. When you add its worth to that of asset manager Neuberger Berman, which may be valued anywhere from $6.5 to $13 billion, the sum of the two could dwarf the current market cap of Lehman, currently around $9 billion. This of course opens up the possibility of value for investors, or more likely, private equity investment (see a recent Bloomberg article on the private equity companies interested in Neuberger Berman).

This week it was also reported in a MarketWatch article and elsewhere that Lehman is planning to cut 1,500 jobs, and is also developing plans to off-load some of its real-estate loans (see the WSJ article). The company has $40 billion in commercial real estate assets and another $24.9 billion in residential assets. Lehman is desperately looking for ways to unload the mortgage-related assets for more than the 22 cents on the dollar that Merrill Lynch received (which was even worse when you considering the financing deal Merrill offered Long Star). The sale of these toxic assets may eventually make it easier to value Lehman Brothers, moving them from a "bad bank" to a "good bank" (see an interesting article by Roger Ehrenberg on the importance of separating such assets). By getting the hard to value assets off the balance sheet, Lehman should go a long way towards allowing investors to see the real value in the company, and in the process hopefully reverse the trend of their decreasing market cap. Unfortunately, it may take a fire sale of their good assets to keep them afloat long enough to see it happen. Another reason why a quick and sensible sale of their mortgage-related assets is so critical.

The Swiss funds-of-funds firm Gottex Fund Management is launching a new fund that will emulate the investments and strategies of some of the larger U.S. academic endowment funds, such as those at Harvard and Princeton (see the HedgeFund.net article). The new Gottex fund will also allocate around 65% of the fund to alternative investments. Why 65%? When preparing the fund, the Gottex group found that a 65% exposure to alternative investments, when combined with traditional investments, did the best over the long-term. No indication if that means risk-adjusted or not. As for the alternative investments, everything from hedge funds, private equity, long-only equity, commodities, fixed income, real estate, and other real assets will be utilized. Given the current environment, the timing could prove advantageous. As mentioned by fund manager William Landes, "For the short-term the challenging environment for alternative products like private equity and hedge funds was where the opportunities lie. If I put my investor hat on, I would say that if I have a six to nine-month tactical horizon, global equity markets and some alternative markets are actually where I want to be.” Given the move by many academic endowments towards greater exposure to real assets, commodities, private equity, and international equities, any new fund emulating the likes of the Harvard fund may offer no other choice.

As discussed a few days ago, private equity firms are looking to take advantage of the recent sell-off in the banking sector by investing in beaten down banks trading at cheap valuations (see previous post). These same firms are also looking for ways around regulatory requirements that limit how large their stake can be in these banks. Now the Financial Times is reporting that private equity firms are also increasing their exposure to leveraged buy-out debt, purchasing the debt at discount rates. It is normal for these firms to take on leveraged debt as they purchase companies, but the recent credit issues have made it difficult to borrow enough using traditionally means in order to do such deals. As an alternative, firms are now buying loans at prices near 80 cents on the dollar and using the debt to help finance current deals. While the private equity industry as a whole may not be picking a bottom in the banks, recent moves indicate that they certainly appear to like current valuations and the discounts they are receiving.

With banks trading at historically cheap valuations, private equity firms are now looking not only for bargains in the sector, but also for ways to get around regulatory hurdles (see FT article). Currently, federal rules prevent investors from holding more than 24.9% of a bank if they own other companies. The reason for the rules were to keep larger companies and conglomerates from buying banks simply to fund their other businesses. This has been a sticking point in the past given that many private equity funds like to have the flexibility to take large, and at times controlling positions. Furthermore, anytime you own a bank there is also the possibility that regulators will come in and require additional risk capital to be set aside, further reducing investment returns.

However, funds are looking for ways around regulations, and indications are that some are succeeding as regulators are starting to show flexibility. Some funds are launching new funds with different names and no direct ties with the home fund, allowing the isolated fund or investors to take a controlling stake in the banks. Can anyone say SIV? Other companies have been able to take stakes that are slightly larger than the 14.9% benchmarks that in the past have usually resulted in regulatory disapproval. Both moves seem to go against safety and transparency, and indicate not only more flexibility with the regulators, but maybe also a little desperation as well. Given the decrease in SWFs for being the capital provider of last resort for U.S. companies (see previous post regarding decreased sovereign wealth funding), some regulators may be forced with a choice between less regulation and transparency, or flat-out insolvency. Sometimes you just need to look for more choices. This may be one of those times.

Tomoko Yamazaki discusses in a Bloomberg article how current market dynamics have created four new power brokers: Asian governments, oil exporters, hedge funds, and private equity groups. The four had a combined $11.5 trillion in funds at the end of 2007, and increased assets by 22% last year. As an illustration of their influence, Asian governments and oil-rich nations invested $59 billion in western financial institutions over the last 15 months. As for the numbers, Asian governments, including sovereign wealth funds, increased to $4.6 trillion over the last decade, oil exporter assets increased to $4.6 trillion by the end of 2007, private equity assets reach $900 billion globally, and hedge funds grew assets under management to $1.9 trillion in 2007.

While each new power broker has provided much needed capital and liquidity to the markets, there are also some potential problems listed. Most notably is how increased liquidity may spur asset price inflation, sovereign wealth funds might use their capital for political means, there is the potential for leverage abuses in the private equity arena, and hedge funds could exacerbate, or even start a financial destabilization given the herd mentality to invest in similar hot sectors, as well as utilize similar trading strategies. While it is mentioned by the author that the rise of the new power brokers could pose risks, it appears that all potential problems have either occurred at one time or another fairly recently, and/or are beginning to show their ugly side once again. Of course, capital and liquidity needs to come from somewhere, and the Federal Reserve and the government can only do so much. So while the trend is intact, we should continue to expect each power broker to have some influence on capital allocation going forward.

As discussed in a recent article in Financial Week, Ernst & Young found that businesses sold by private equity firms last year had more growth in profits, and subsequent value than comparable public companies. The enterprise value of companies previously owned by private equity firms increased 24% in 2007, compared to half that amount for public companies previously listed. In fact, the enterprise value grew by a rate of 32% per year when private. Nonetheless, given the recent downturn in the markets, and the poor environment for IPOs, it is expected that many private equity firms will need to hold on to some companies longer than expected, and may subsequently see slower growth and lower returns when exiting through sale or initial public offerings. Of interest to me was the quote: “The myth of private equity as financial engineers who cut costs to make their money is false.” Actually, this may not be a total myth, but simply not all of the story. Cutting cost is one part of adding value, and apparently, many private equity firms have figured out a way to increase the value of the businesses they own through cost cutting and other means, while also selling them at the most opportunistic times. Timing may be as important as cost cutting and financial engineering.

As reported a few days ago at the Financial Times, the Federal Reserve is reviewing whether or not to consider changing or loosen existing restrictions for non-bank holding companies, allowing them to take larger stakes in the banks without getting regulators involved. Some private equity firms have been interested in taking larger stakes, and providing the banks with much needed capital, but have stayed away due to existing limitations. Currently, companies that are not holding companies are prevented from owning more than 25% of a bank, and even less if they hold a board seat. Holders of large positions are also required to make what are called "source of strength" commitments, in essence agreeing to put up additional funds if necessary. While private equity funds are willing to take initial positions, many are reluctant to keep funding a decreasing asset.

The review by the Fed is in response to the need from banks to raise additional capital. Sovereign wealth funds provided some initial capital, but many have been shying away from U.S. financial companies, even at their current cheaper levels. To date banks have raised as much as $400 billion, but may need closer to $1,300 billion. To close the gap, the Fed may be forced to loosen restrictions in order to provide new ways to get the necessary capital to the struggling financial companies. The fact that the Fed is even considering such actions gives you an idea of how worried they are that another failure could develop. Even today there is an article in Vanity Fair discussing how rumor may have been the main contributer for initiating the run on Bear Stearns. The last thing the Fed, or the U.S. economy needs right now is for worries of capital concerns to cause another financial company to go under. Given the recent price action in LEH, C, JPM, MER, MS, and GS, the market certainly seems to be hinting at this possibility. Given that the Fed has its hands tied with regard to interest rates, unconventional approaches, such as making it easier for private equity to invest, or continuing to work through the discount window, may be its only current options.

A number of hedge funds are hiring talent from Wall Street as investment banks cut back on salaries and bonuses. As reported at Bloomberg, many traders, bankers, and analysts are giving up the once preferred bonuses and prestige of investment banks for the potential to cash in with hedge funds as the security once offered by investment banks decreases. As investment banks perform less underwriting and reduce leverage by selling assets, less money is being generated by Wall Street, translating to less bonuses come year end. Pay packages are expected to fall by 20% or more this year alone. Private equity is also benefiting from the dissatisfaction as they too are scooping up investment banking talent. Given the recent closures of small hedge funds, which in many cases are either shutting down entirely or simply being absorbed into larger funds, it looks as though the deck chairs of Wall Street will continue to shift over the summer as the market looks to right itself after the recent credit problems and current commodity and inflation issues.

Below are the weekly link summaries for the usual topics, with energy added. As usual, hopefully you find some interesting articles that you may have passed over.

Commodities and Energy

S&P launches new commodities and natural resources indices
Hedgeweek
* Standard & Poor's has launched two new indices, the S&P Global Natural Resource Index (with contributions from 60 large energy, agribusiness, metals, and mining companies), and the S&P PMI Commodities and Resources Index (similar sectors, but with 160 stocks for broader exposure). The indices can be invested in and are available for benchmarking. Often, but not always, this kind of activity begins to mark the top, or at least short-term peak, in a sector or market. Time will tell.

Why Cap-And-Trade Won't Work
Paul Cicio - Forbes
* An opinion article in Forbes about the problems with the proposed cap-and-trade legislation. Beyond the pros and cons of whether cap-and-trade will actually help reduce carbon emissions, of interest is the effect on clean energy. Low carbon alternatives, such as natural gas, should see an increase in price as companies look for ways around new mandates. Nuclear is another carbon-free option for power generation, but given its own regulatory issues, and the 10-20 year backlog for reactor domes and other critical components, it is likely that natural gas will be the only viable short-term alternative. If the legislation is passed, expect natural gas prices and electricity prices (natural gas plants currently set the marginal price) to increase.

Joy Global Mines Money From Commodities Boom
Melinda Peer - Forbes
* As usual, look for and consider the "consequence" or periphery plays when investing in sector booms. As for commodities, mining equipment makers Joy Global and Bucyrus International are doing well, very well. Downturns in these and other similar companies may give an early indication of changes in the commodity landscape. Often it is the pick equipment makers, and not those selling the gold, that make the most money during the rush.

Coal seam gas seen as Asia's next hot energy play
Reuters
* Interesting article from Reuters talking about how some countries are using coalbed methane (CBM) as an energy source to power cars and electricity plants, among with things. Methane stores in Asia are estimated at 2,100 trillion cubic feet. As LNG prices continue to rise, CBM is hoped to be a viable alternative for both developing and developed countries with large coal deposits. Storage is still a problem for some counties as they retool existing plants. Coal seam gas also has a lower heating value compare to natural gas, but is able to be blended with LPG (liquefied petroleum gas). The gas does have a low sulfur and carbon content, allowing it to burn cleaner.

Derivatives

Banks launch central clearer for derivatives
Hal Weitzman - Financial Times
* To mitigate some of the risk of privately negotiated credit derivatives, 11 of the world's biggest banks announced the creation of the first central clearer for derivatives, in particular credit derivatives. The clearer will use funds contributed by traders to guarantee against counterparty default. The clearing will be run by The Clearing Corporation, a Chicago-based institution backed by the banks.

Canada's emissions-trading market open for business
Boyd Erman - Globe and Mail
* Short article about a new emission-trading market, called the Montreal Climate Exchange, from the TSX Group. The exchange will allow companies (AKA "polluters" in the article) to buy and sell carbon credits. Look for emissions trading to continue to be a big business going forward. It will be of interest to see if these markets allow for "greener" companies to develop and survive. Since carbon credits can be traded from non-polluters to polluters, a green company could sell its carbon credits to the polluters, essentially making the polluting companies subsidize part of their business. In fact, just about any business, with or without environmental intentions, could do this. I guess it depends on how the credits are distributed, but the system may leave itself open for gaming and profit opportunities.

Climate-Bond Plan by UN Official Aims to Boost Energy Investing
Alex Morales - Bloomberg
* Why should Canada have all the fun? The United Nations is considering a new climate bond that would be sold to investors in developing countries as a way to spur investment in green projects. How would they work? Mature bonds, after they have been used to finance green projects, could be exchanged for credits that allow industrial plants to emit a certain amount of carbon gases. How are they funded and priced? The amount of money generated would depend on the level of emissions-reduction targets set in the current round of UN climate talks. I guess if you need more funds, you could raise emission targets. As with the Canadian system, the effort is noble in intentions, but has the potential to kill the goose that laid the golden egg (or provides the revenues in this case), while not really solving the problem. Hopefully safeguards will be put in place to prevent abuse. In its current form it is also not clear that overall emissions will actually be reduced. Time will tell.

US and European debt markets flash new warning signals
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - Telegraph (London)
* The cost of insuring against default on bonds of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and others has increased in the last few weeks, as debt markets are signaling fears that the global credit problems are still here, and could be entering another phase of write-downs. Inter-bank Libor and Euribor spreads are back to near record levels, with Lehman Brothers debt credit default swaps rising from 130 to 247 in a little over one month. Merrill Lynch debt has spiked to 196. As reported by Willem Sels, a credit analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort, ".... banks are beginning to face waves of defaults on credit card, car loans, and now corporate loans. We believe we're entering Phase II. The liquidity crisis has eased a little, but the real credit losses are accelerating. The worst is yet to come." It is also felt that the increase in corporate bankruptcies is not yet being seen by the usual indicators, which tend to lag the market.

Bonds Insuring Next Hurricane Hugo Beat Subprime
Erik Holm - Bloomberg
* As hurricane season begins, investors are clamoring once again for catastrophe bonds, the market of which as tripled over the past three years to more than $13 billion. Some of these bonds yield near 15%, with the average around 11% - assuming that we don't get another Rita, Katrina, or Hugo. One attraction to the bonds is their lack of correlation with the stock and bond markets. The key here is weather or natural disasters, and not credit. Given the problems with mortgages and subprime, hurricanes and earthquakes seem like a safer alternative for some - but it is still possible to lose your entire cat bond investment if the big one does occur. What I find interesting is how the whole market is somewhat circular. Cat bonds are often offered by insurance companies as a form of reinsurance to protect themselves if a catastrophe does occur and they are forced to pay out. Who buys the bonds? We do, through pension funds, hedge funds, and less so through individual investments. We are essentially taking out insurance with the insurance companies to protect against an event happening, and then buying bonds against the event actually happening. On the other hand, insurance companies are selling us the insurance to protect us in case the event does happen, betting themselves that it won't, and then selling us bonds to protect themselves in case it does. Confused? Ah, you have to love the markets. Who are the big reinsurance companies? Swiss Re, Munich Re, and General Re (Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway's reinsurance company).

Hedge Funds

Hedgeweek Comment: Going with the flow
Hedgeweek
* There was been a lot of talk about hedge funds looking for investment in Asia, but not as much action as the talk (although some investments). It appears that now some funds are entering Asia, and not just for opportunity (which they can take advantage of stationed nearly anywhere). Instead, funds are opening in Asia to take advantage of liquidity and capital that is not as available in the west, as in the past.

Prime Brokerage Will Make $11B in ’08: Study
Christopher Glynn - HedgeFundfont>.net
* Prime brokerages are expected to receive $11 billion in hedge fund money in 2008, a 15% increase over the 2008 value. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan, who own the majority of prime brokerage market share, are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Private Equity

Morgan Stanley, Citigroupfont> Bankers Leave as LBOsfont> Slow
Pierre Pauldenfont> and Jonathan Keehnerfont> - Bloombergfont>
* Top bankers are leaving larger firms, such as Morgan Stanley and Citigroupfont>, as the LBOfont> market grinds to a near-halt, compared to recent years. Many banks are still trying to clear out old loans that they are unable to get off their books. Banks have traditionally made money twice, once on the deal, and once when they sell the debt to others. Many banks are now being forced to hang on to the bad debt that in the past they were able to push off on other investors. Some of this debt is now selling for less than 70 cents on the dollar, making it difficult unload without taking a huge loss.

FT REPORT - CORPORATE FINANCE 2008: Public life after private equity
Chris Hughes - Financial Times
* Interesting case study of one company, now public after it was floated on the stock market by a private equity group, is now having difficult dealing with current high energy and raw material cost after taking on previous private equity debt. Companies with high leverage can do well in boom times, but suffer more in downturns given that their fixed cost per unit begin to rise rapidly as sales decrease. The effect on the bottom line is intensified as variable cost increase, as they have for many companies highly dependent on raw materials and energy. We often hear about the slowdown and problems with private equity investors, but often forget about the companies that are now dealing with the debt issues directly.

An unlikely financier
Janet Morrisseyfont> - Investment News
* Yes, you too can start you own private equity firm. Interesting story of Malonfont> Wilkusfont>, a college dropout that started his own private equity firm, American Capital Strategies, with a focus on middle-market companies. So far the fund has delivered annual compound returns of 18%, including an average dividend yield of nearly 10%. Not bad, although last year the firm was down 22% with other financial stocks.

Quantitative Finance, Financial Engineering, and Trading

Prospectors join Canada's electronic gold rush
Melanie Wold - Financial News
* Not a specific trading strategy article, but does highlight to impact of the recent commodity boom on trading, at least in Canada. Given the rise and interest in trading in the commodity-rich country, investors are taking an increased interest in the Canadian markets. As such, market technology vendors and investors are increasing, providing numerous alternative trading systems, platforms, and trade crossing networks, causing Canadian regulators to implement institutional trade matching, settlement framework, and best practice guidelines. This looks very similar to the buildup of ECNsfont> and exchanges in the late 1990s during the U.S. technology dot-com boom. Hopefully it does not end the same way for the Canadian market.

China rebukes west’s lack of regulation
Jamil Anderlinint> - Financial Times
* Interesting perspective from Liaont> Min, the head of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, about how western governments must strengthen oversight of their financial markets. There argument is that by giving the market too much leeway, problems such as the subpriment> crisis were allowed to develop. It is believed that tight regulation has made it nearly impossible for exotic financial instruments to be developed in China. Of interest from the regulator is worries regarding the increased flow of money into their market, as a result of investors abandoning the dollar and U.S. markets (argued as being due to our regulation-lacking induced problems). This shift in funds is causing a potential asset bubble and rising inflation in the Chinese market. As a result, China is considering advocating new international laws and regulations for providing timely and accurate information during crisis. Even so, as international economies develop and mature, and the flow of money into the "new" economies slows down, I would not be surprised to see their use of derivatives increase (in order to internally reallocate capital), regardless of current perspectives.

Three ETF-of-ETFsnt> are launched
David Hoffman - Investment News
* Admit it. You knew it was going to happen. It was just a matter of time. Invescont> PowerSharesnt> Capital Management has launched three new ETFsnt> that invest in ...... what you say ..... other ETFsnt>. While providing investment advisers more choice, especially those that are not investment strategists, many advisers are not happy. Why, the ETFsnt> of ETFsnt> (ETFsnt> squared anyone - you heard it here first, I think) reduce the fees that advisers receive for recommending and selling products to investor. Why get one fee when you can get three by selling three different ETFsnt>. Even worse, some investors may realize that they don't even need an adviser, and can just invest in a diversified exchange traded pool of diversified asset classes. Then again, some investors probably will not know what that means, so the advisers job is probably safe. Now, if we only had derivatives on ETF-squares. Ah, Wall Street can dream.