≡ Menu

Weekend reading: The default drama is in the details

Weekend reading

Good reading from around the Web.

It’s taken over two years and more financial plot twists than you’d get in an episode of EastEnders: Canary Wharf edition, but I’m finally nervous about one of the economic dramas that so excites the world’s worrywarts.

I’m not too bothered about Europe. Despite claims such as those made by The Economist in my reading list below that the situation in Italy and Spain is the real threat, I have long shrugged my shoulders at the escalating crisis and uttered a Gallic “boff!”

Nobody should be surprised by what’s come to pass so far in Europe – it’s the inevitable result of monetary union without fiscal and political union – and Europe as a whole can meet its obligations. But doing so will entail the deeper integration long hankered for by Europe’s politicians but not its people, ushered in through the bond market’s back door. Sixty-odd years after the EU was set-up partly to contain its nationalistic ambitions, Germany will finally be at the heart of an integrated Europe. Whether she’ll be pleased is a different bowl of sauerkraut.

No, much more worrying is the complacency in the market about the threat of a systemic shock of some sort due to the farce unfolding in Washington.

Newspaper headlines are desperately trying to conjure up a ‘market in meltdown’ on these fears, but in fact, the markets haven’t moved much. In the epicenter of the potential quake, US government bond yields have actually dropped, meaning purchasers are judging them safer, not riskier – even as the chance of a downgrade to AA status or worse grows.

I can’t believe the US would be so insane as to default on its debts, but if it does then it will be tin hat time with nobs on.

Quoted by CNBC, Credit Suisse analyst Andrew Garthwaite finds that if no budget deal is struck but the U.S. does not default, each month of no rise in the debt ceiling could easily take 0.5-1 percent off GDP. He predicts equity markets would drop by 10-15%, prompting Congress to find a solution, and that bond yields would fall to 2.75%. Investors would in Garthwaite’s opinion need to get into defensive stocks, and out of the dollar.

But far worse would be an outright default:

That is where things could get nasty, according to the Credit Suisse team.

“This is very unlikely, but if it occurs, GDP could fall 5 percent plus, and equities by 30 percent,” Garthwaite said.

I think even this understates the dangers.

My concern is that the vast issuance of financial undertakings known as repos (repurchase agreements) that make the money markets go around are explicitly linked to the so-called risk-free rate, which is invariably AAA US government debt. A minor downgrade or default that might seem amusing to Republican revisionists could unwittingly set-off a massive chain reaction if it threatens the small print of these multi-trillion dollar obligations – a fear that is already causing some in the City to sit on their hands in a disturbing echo of the post-Lehman’s lock-up of 2008.

Hopefully there will be no US downgrade, and if there is then hopefully such small print will prove a technical sideshow.

However it’s the unforeseen dangers and the unintended consequences that tend to spark true financial routs.

[continue reading…]

{ 9 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reading from around the Web.

Here’s why 50-somethings need to stop bemoaning that politicians are trying to steal money owed to them by raising the pension age.

From Business Insider:

"Talking about their generations..."

We’re creaking down into an unfunded hole, and we’re pulling our young down with us.

Alas, people have been lied to for years – they genuinely believe the tuppence ha’penny they paid in National Insurance for 30 years has been set aside to underwrite 20 years of golf courses and trips to Spain.

I don’t think the problem is insurmountable, but, aside from environmental degradation, there’s hardly a more urgent one for the West to confront.

[continue reading…]

{ 8 comments }

Video: Trial, error, and the God complex

Tim Harford explains The God Complex

A lot of people find it very hard to accept the randomness in economic cycles, the stock markets – or in life.

If a share goes down 5%, they have a reason for it. If a share rises 5%, they have a reason for it. Yet if there IS a reason for it, you can be sure they don’t all have the right answer. The sheer multiplicity of their explanations guarantees that.

The snap conclusions that we’re all inclined to make about share prices is a manifestation of The God Complex, a quirk of human psychology that basically says that no matter how complex the situation you’re looking at, you strongly believe your own solution is correct.

Worse, if you’re an expert then you’re even more convinced – when in reality, your superior knowledge should often encourage you to be more circumspect.

It’s well worth taking 18 minutes of your time to watch the following presentation from TED by Tim Harford, the author of The Undercover Economist, on the dangers of The God Complex:

No doubt the God complex equipped us well for life on the plains of Africa, when we had to move quickly and with confidence to avoid being a snack for a passing lion. But it doesn’t help us to evaluate a share for potential investment, or to solve other complex investing issues.

I can barely remember a time when those prepared to speak out about complex economic problems like the debt crisis in the US and Europe spoke in such simplistic, misleading and vehement terms, nor when in contrast those who feared that very complexity were so reluctant to make a move in the market.

For example, I seem to be alone in thinking that European politicians are doing exactly the right think with Greece. They are edging towards a solution via trial and error, seeing how much time a bit of fiddling at the fringes can buy – time for the infinitely more capable market to move towards a solution.

I’m more than happy to keep investing in the face of such fear. The opinion among most media and finance bloggers, in contrast, is that the system will explode unless there’s some ‘grand solution’ that will somehow solve all Europe’s problems for the next 20 years out at a stroke.

In response, I’ll quote a poet:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
– William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming

Further reading

{ 7 comments }

Anxiety was the standout feature of my early adventures in choosing Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

Anxiety laced with confusion:

How do I know which of the hundreds of cryptically named funds to pick? What if I waste my cash on a lame horse that’s about to be shot?

Experience soon calmed my newbie nerves. Experience and a checklist I use to help me choose the best index trackers more quickly.

My checklist, like Ancient Gaul, is divided into four parts. Today’s final part scrutinises the ETF-only features to watch out for when you decide that only an index-tracking vehicle that’s spooking global regulators will do:

Do your homework before buying an ETF

Here’s what to look out for.

Check the bid-offer spread

The bid-offer spread refers to the fact that it costs you more to buy your ETF on the exchange than you’d get for selling it. The difference is the spread – a source of tidy profits for the middlemen that make the market.

The spread is a cost of trading, so keep it as low as possible. The best funds will only weigh you down by a few basis points – the worst by several hundred!

Check the bid-offer prices of rival ETFs on the website of your broker or ETF provider. Spreads tend to bump about, so watch it for a few days to get a good fix.

A spread greater than 20-30 basis points (0.2 – 0.3%) is heading into the luxury price bracket when it comes to ETFs.

Broker commission

Bear in mind the cost of broker commissions when comparing ETFs with index funds.

You’ll pay a broker’s commission every time you buy and sell an ETF. You can avoid dealing charges on funds if you choose certain percentage fee brokers.

Aim to keep the commission under 1% and ideally no more than 0.5%.

Buying at NAV

You’re up there with Alan Sugar if you can buy an ETF at a discount to its Net Asset Value (NAV) and sell it at a premium. Essentially, you’re buying the ETF for less than its underlying assets are worth, and selling it for more!

Conversely, buying at a premium and selling at a discount is the work of a first-round Apprentice failure who only took part to further their ‘media career’.

In practice, NAV discounts and premiums aren’t usually a big deal for long-term investors who trade in the largest, Niagara-liquid funds – you can normally count the divergence from NAV in pennies.

But yawning gaps can open up during extreme market conditions. Some Japanese ETFs were trading at a premium of 8% to NAV in the aftermath of the tsunami. Standard practice should be:

  • Avoid trading during a market crisis.
  • Compare the ETF’s market price to its NAV.
  • If the gap is wide then aim to buy at a discount and sell at a premium.

Number of market makers

Market makers are the ETF middlemen that marry up buyers and sellers on the stock exchange.

They provide the bid-offer quotes for the ETF and ensure its liquidity. The more market makers an ETF has, the more competition between them narrows the bid-offer spread.

Four to five market makers is champion. You’ll usually find the market makers listed on the ETF’s website.

Daily trading volume

A large trading volume isn’t just a way for boastful ETFs to intimidate each other in the locker room – it’s also used by some as a measure of ETF liquidity.

A high trading volume indicates that an ETF is easily traded because it has many buyers and sellers. This should tighten the bid-offer spread and help the ETF remain liquid during bouts of market turbulence.

You can hunt down the trading volumes of similar ETFs on the London Stock Exchange website.

Look at the total value of the trades (in the prices and trades tab for each ETF) to account for the affect of higher share prices on volumes. The more money that flows, the more liquid the ETF (in theory).

As with bid-offer spreads, check back on the data over a few days to get a feel for an ETF’s performance.

In conclusion

None of these more minor factors trump choosing the right index to track in the first place, nor picking an ETF with a low tracking error and TER. But they can help narrow your search and relieve the agony of choice.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 3 comments }