Bill Gross on a rampage, firing up his asset class

Non Contagious Subprime

Bill Gross in on fire today.

Some wonder what squelched the hunger of potential lenders so abruptly, while in the same breath suggesting that the subprime crisis is "isolated" and not contagious to other markets or even the overall economy. Not so, and the sudden liquidity crisis in the high yield debt market is just the latest sign that there is a connection, a chain that links all markets and ultimately their prices and yields to the fate of the U.S. economy. The fact is that several weeks ago, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s finally got it into gear, downgrading hundreds of subprime issues and threatening more to come. "Isolationists" would wonder what that has to do with the corporate debt market. Housing is faring badly but corporate profits are in their prime and at record levels as a percentage of GDP. Lenders to corporations should not be affected by defaults in subprime housing space, they claim. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case.

As Tim Bond of Barclays Capital put it so well a few weeks ago, "it is the excess leverage of the lenders not the borrowers which is the source of systemic problems." Low policy rates in many countries and narrow credit spreads have encouraged levered structures bought in the hundreds of millions by lenders, in an effort to maximize returns with what they thought were relatively riskless loans. Those were the ABS CDOs, CLOs, and levered CDO structures that the rating services assigned investment grade ratings to, which then were sold with enticing LIBOR + 100, 200, 300 or more types of yields. The bloom came off the rose and the worm started to turn, however, when institutional investors – many of them foreign – began to see the ratings downgrades in ABS subprime space. Could the same thing happen to levered structures with pure corporate credit backing? To be blunt, they seem to be thinking that if Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have done such a lousy job of rating subprime structures, how can the market have confidence that they’re not repeating the same structural, formulaic, mistake with CLOs and CDOs? That growing lack of confidence – more so than the defaults of two Bear Stearns hedge funds and the threat of more to come – has frozen future lending and backed up the market for high yield new issues such that it resembles a constipated owl: absolutely nothing is moving.

Bond managers should applaud. It is they, after all, who have resembled passive owls for years if not decades. If, as I pointed out in my opening paragraph, wealth has always wound up in the hands of those that take risk with other people’s money, then private equity and hedge fund managers have led the charge in recent years. Of course they have been aided and abetted by those monsoon forces of globalization and innovation, producing worldwide growth that led to escalating profits and equity prices, often at the expense of labor. But the Blackstones, the KKRs, and the hedge funds of recent years also climbed to the top of the pile on the willing backs of fixed income lenders too meek and too passive to ask for a part of the action. Covenant-lite deals and low yields were accepted by money managers as if they were prisoners in an isolation ward looking forward to their daily gruel passed unemotionally three times a day through the cellblock window. "Here, take this" their investment banker jailers seemed to say, "and be glad that you’ve got at least something to eat!"

Well the caloric content of the gruel in recent years has been barely life supporting and unhealthy to boot – sprinkled with calls and PIKS and options that allowed borrowers to lever and transfer assets at will. As for the calories, high yield spreads dropped to the point of Treasuries + 250 basis points or LIBOR + 200. Readers can sense the severity of the diet relative to risk by simply researching historical annual high yield default rates (5%), multiplying that by loss of principal in bankruptcy (60%), and coming up with an expected loss of 3% over the life of future loans. At LIBOR + 250 in other words, high yield lenders were giving away money!

Full article here.

Posted on July 25, 2007 and filed under Finance.

No Free Lunch (Death Bonds)

Businessweek does a big article on death bonds (otherwise known as life settlements). A good article, but they miss the key factor that will hold back this asset class.

First an overview. It is funny to see this concept main-stream. We looked at this concept at my prior job and predicted about three years ago that it would grow as a concept. The returns at that stage were quite high. BW explains the basic concept well.

Death bond is shorthand for a gentler term the industry prefers: life settlement-backed security. Whatever the name, it's as macabre an investing concept as Wall Street has ever cooked up. Some 90 million Americans own life insurance, but many of them find the premiums too expensive; others would simply prefer to cash in early. "Life settlements" are arrangements that offer people the chance to sell their policies to investors, who keep paying the premiums until the sellers die and then collect the payout. For the investors it's a ghoulish actuarial gamble: The quicker the death, the more profit is reaped. Most of the transactions are done by small local firms called life settlement providers, which in the past have typically sold the policies to hedge funds. Now, Wall Street sees huge profits in buying policies, throwing them into a pool, dividing the pool into bonds, and selling the bonds to pension funds, college endowments, and other professional investors. If the market develops as Wall Street expects, ordinary mutual funds will soon be able to get in on the action, too.

Here BW forgets to put on its skeptic's glasses and trace the cash...

The truth is, at this early stage, there's no way of knowing how popular death bonds might become. Wall Street's innovation machine has turned out both huge hits and big flops over the years. But the growth of the underlying market for life settlements has been torrid so far. In 2005 about $10 billion worth were transacted, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. (AB ), up from virtually nothing in 2001. Industry analysts say this number rose to $15 billion in 2006, and could double this year, to $30 billion. Over the next few decades, as the ranks of retirees swell, Bernstein predicts that the face value of life settlement deals will top $160 billion a year in today's dollars. Death bonds will never approach the size of the mortgage market, which saw $1.9 trillion of securities issued last year. But if Wall Street achieves its goal of turning most of the life settlements created each year into death bonds, the market could rival the size of today's junk-bond market, where issuance totaled $128 billion in 2006, up from $56 billion in 1996, according to market watcher Dealogic.

This will not happen because life-settlements is a zero-sum game and all the gains for investors are coming at the cost of the insurance companies. In effect, investors are gambling that they are more rational about the payouts than elderly individuals (which they certainly are). That policy holder irrationality benefits the insurance companies and increases their profits. When life settlement providers come in, they are effectively stripping out some of the insurance company profit that was priced into the policy.

So as long as life settlements stay a small percentage of policies, the insurance companies will tolerate it because there is still no advantage in them publicizing the fact to their customers that their cash settlement amounts are too small.

If life settlements start to eat up too much underwriting profit, then the insurance companies will either:

a) raise premiums to make up the reduced profitability and reduce the profitability of the policy to the policy holder

OR

b) selectively raise cash settlements to the customers who are most likely to die and leave the 3rd parties with worse risks (e.g. in this model, the healthy people)

So, while insurance companies are notoriously slow to innovate and so this might run for a while, let's review the relevant facts:

a) returns to life settlement investors are coming directly out of the pocket of the insurance companies b) the insurance companies have the actuarial data that investors don't have c) the insurance companies already have the relationship with the policy-holder

Who is going to win this game in the long run?

Posted on July 23, 2007 and filed under Finance.

The Future is Here (an occasional series)

Some good links from Kurzweilai.net Bionic hand controlled by the mind

A highly functional bionic hand which was invented by a Scottish NHS worker has gone on the market. The thumb and fingers can move and grip just like a human hand and are controlled by the patient's mind and muscles.

Robot insect takes off for the first time

A life-size, robotic fly has taken flight at Harvard University. Weighing only 60 milligrams, with a wingspan of three centimeters, the tiny robot's movements are modeled on those of a real fly. While much work remains to be done on the mechanical insect, the researchers say that such small flying machines could one day be used as spies, or for detecting harmful chemicals.

The Reaper goes to war

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) - The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada.

The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.

Much of what we have been seeing in science-fiction movies over the last 50 years and have dismissed as fantasy, will actually come true in the next 20 to 30 years, included automated, robotic war and the merging of man and machine.

Posted on July 22, 2007 and filed under Robots Are Our Future.

How to Bait Turkey?

From Global Guerrillas John Robb writes:

The question for global guerrillas operating in Iraq is: how do you bait Turkey to invade Kurdistan?

Turkey already has 140,000 troops massed on the border with Kurdistan -- in response to its support of PKK guerrilla attacks within Turkish territory. One mechanism is to heat up attacks on ethnic Turkmen living in Iraq (a social systempunkt of 800,000 people). The early July marketplace car bomb in Emerli, which killed an estimated 210 civilians, was a step in this direction. We can expect more attacks like this in the future. A Turkish invasion of Kurdistan would achieve:

* Political disorder. A massive rift between the US and Turkey. A defacto state of war between Iraq and Turkey. Strong alignment of political goals between the PKK and Kurdistan.

* Factional disintegration in Iraq. The departure/desertion of Kurdish troops from the Iraqi army. Refurbished Kurdish peshmerga are the heart and soul of the Iraqi army (as well as many private military companies).

* Supply and economic disruption. Loss of vital commercial connectivity with Turkey (needed for a huge range of business and supply needs).

There is not much more for me to say on this, except that this is within the range of reasonable possibilities and would be a disaster. Turkey is vulnerable to being baited because they are very sensitive about both the Kurdish and Turkmen issue.

And if they came into Kurdish Iraq, they would have quite a fight on their hands vis-a-vis the peshmerga. Just like with US troops, the Turkish army would win the mechanized, conventional war and then end up in an endless grind of guerrilla warfare. Turkey was not really able to subdue the PKK for years in Turkey and the PKK was much weaker than the peshmerga are.

And beyond that, it probably puts all of Iraq in play and makes a US withdrawal all but impossible.

Right now, this is just muscle-flexing by Turkey, but it will be interesting to see what happens. The Kurds, spread across Turkey, Iraq and Iran, remain the largest ethnicity by far without a nation-state and have to secretly be wondering if and how this turmoil ends up giving them an opportunity to carve out a state of their own (a la Kosovo).

Of course the wisest thing for Turkey would be not to take the bait, so we will see if they have that level of strategic maturity on the issue.

Posted on July 15, 2007 and filed under Global Economy.