About Those MBS Purchases in Option Expiry Week

Several readers were kind enough to write in with more material about this correlation as noted in the ContraryInvestor as I had requested.

If the Fed is buying in the TBA portion of the MBS, it is clear that this is a cross-correlation, since both this market and option expiration have similar dates.

Friend Lee Adler over at the Wall Street Examiner has also been tracking this and notes:

"Jesse (whose work I greatly respect or I wouldn't feature it) is wrong on this count in my view, but correct in that the MBS purchases do have an impact on stocks, as does any liquidity pumping. But that impact is far less than the direct impact of open market operations directly with the Primary Dealers, as was the case in the direct Treasury purchases, and the GSE purchases. When the MBS liquidity is withdrawn it will have an impact, but mostly on the Treasury market. The impact on stocks will be secondary, and not pretty, I might add."

He specializes in this area, and his analysis seems to be 'spot on.' But I have to add to this that Jesse is not the Contrary Investor, although I would be glad to be the author of his databases and excellent analysis on the markets, on the whole, week in and week out. And I often rely on information and perspectives from a variety of connoisseurs of financial data, who add immeasurably to the daily fare here.

Here is what JESSE said.

"The data is intriguing to say the least. As you may recall, option expiration in the US stock indices occurs on the third Friday of every month. We have pointed out in the past that this monthly event is often the occasion of some not so subtle racketeering by the funds and prop trading desks of the banks in separating the option players from their positions, and pushing prices around to maximize the pain.

Why would the Fed wish to provide extra liquidity, to the tune of $60 billion or so, for the banks during that week? There must surely be other ways to support the equity markets. Such as buying the SP futures in the thinly traded overnight session. I am not aware of a strong correlation for stock selloffs or extraordinary weakness in option expiry weeks per se.

It might not be a coincidence, but there could be some unrelated event in the mortgage markets that also occurs on the third Friday or Thursday of each month. We are not aware of it, but that does not mean it does not exist. They might also be making the purchases more randomly, but reporting them on some schedule as the Fed does its H.41 reports, for example. Anyone who might know of such a cross correlation would be kind to let us know of it."

And here is my addendum from today.

Addendum 22 Jan: Several readers have written to suggest that the Fed is buying
in the TBA markets, new issues, and that they have fixed settlement dates that
roughly coincide with stock options expiration. That does not remove the
potential material effect of providing liquidity in options expiry week, but it
certainly does nullify the imputation of deliberation. I think the front running
as noted in the blog today in Treasuries is more obvious and plausible."

I was intrigued but skeptical of the meaning of this correlation, confessed my lack of specific knowledge, AND suggested an unrelated cross-correlation, with a request for input from readers. It was just too obvious and did not seem to have a point. Option expiry is a week of back and forth manipulation and not a substantial ramp. It also goes against my basic model that the Fed minds the bond market, and the Treasury, as head of the Working Group on Markets and the Exchange Stabilization Fund, keeps it eye on stocks via the SP futures. And a defendant will have gone to prison on weaker circumstantial evidence than that which supports the case for central bank manipulation in the precious metals markets.

"Jesse" is often on the edge in his inquiry, and asks a lot of questions, reads lots of material, but always seeks the data, and cuts it with a skeptical eye. That is the method of preparation in Le Cafe.

Related, here is some additional information on how MBS Analysts Watch the Fed's Every Trade.

I think the real question does remain, "What happens when the Fed stops buying?" and of course, "Is someone front running the Fed's purchase in the Treasury markets (and perhaps MBS for that matter)?"

Audit the Fed, and we will know much more.

Why Are 86% of the NY Fed's MBS Purchases Occurring During Option Expiration Weeks?

My friends at ContraryInvestor have published some remarkable data this evening in their twice weekly (subscription) analysis of the economy and the markets. This is one of the best analysis sites we follow, and highly recommend that you at least take advantage of their complimentary monthly newsletter.

This data suggests that the Fed's purchases of Market Backed Securities serves not only to artificially depress mortgage rates and the longer end of the yield curves. The purchases occur, with a remarkably high correlation of 86%, during monthly stock market options expiration weeks in the US.

"...since July, there has only been one options expiration week whereby the Fed did not buy at least $60 billion of MBS during the options expiration week itself, providing instant and meaningful liquidity during options expiration weeks that have historically had an upward bias anyway! Talk about timing of liquidity injections to get maximum effect in the equities market."

The data is intriguing to say the least. As you may recall, option expiration in the US stock indices occurs on the third Friday of every month. We have pointed out in the past that this monthly event is often the occasion of some not so subtle racketeering by the funds and prop trading desks of the banks in separating the option players from their positions, and pushing prices around to maximize the pain.

Why would the Fed wish to provide extra liquidity, to the tune of $60 billion or so, for the banks during that week? There must surely be other ways to support the equity markets. Such as buying the SP futures in the thinly traded overnight session. I am not aware of a strong correlation for stock selloffs or extraordinary weakness in option expiry weeks per se.

It might not be a coincidence, but there could be some unrelated event in the mortgage markets that also occurs on the third Friday or Thursday of each month. We are not aware of it, but that does not mean it does not exist. They might also be making the purchases more randomly, but reporting them on some schedule as the Fed does its H.41 reports, for example. Anyone who might know of such a cross correlation would be kind to let us know of it.

Addendum 22 Jan: Several readers have written to suggest that the Fed is buying in the TBA markets, new issues, and that they have fixed settlement dates that roughly coincide with stock options expiration. That does not remove the potential material effect of providing liquidity in options expiry week, but it certainly does nullify the imputation of deliberation. I think the front running as noted in the blog today in Treasuries is more obvious and plausible.

See Also About Those MBS Purchases in Option Expiry

But otherwise, it would be a good question to ask of the Fed. Are they in fact supplying extra liquidity to the banks at certain intervals to support a manipulation of the market to boost their prop trading results?

Perhaps at the next occasion of Ben's visit to Congress. Or maybe the SEC can pick up the phone and call NY Fed CEO Bill Dudley, formerly of Goldman Sachs. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Tel: (212) 720-5000.

ContraryInvestor is one of the more 'squared away' analysts we follow, and they do go to some pains to stress their reluctance to ever take the conspiratorial route. There may be a perfectly innocent reason why the Fed buys the MBS when it does. Some correlation based on the calendar.

Inquiring minds would like to hear all about it, Revelations-wise.

"...in trying to follow the money we know the bulk of Fed money printing has gone to support the mortgage markets with the Fed buying up a huge swath of MBS since March of last year. From the summer of 2008 until the present, the Fed has been a huge help in getting conventional 30 year mortgage paper costs from the mid-6% range to the high 4% range. Quite the accomplishment.

But if you take a very careful look at the character of the Fed balance sheet since the big time money printing effort started in March of 2009, you'll see that their buying of MBS has been a bit of a multi-use exercise. Without trying to sound conspiratorial, we believe they have also used the MBS buying program to help "support" equity prices by essentially providing liquidity to the aggregate financial market at quite the opportune times...

You may have seen that recently Charley Biderman at MarketTrimTabs has been suggesting that he cannot account in aggregate for just who has been buying equities since March of last year. He suggests that although he cannot prove it, the Fed may indeed be a key buyer. MarketTrimTabs is the keeper of the records of the kingdom when looking at equity mutual fund flows, etc. We even did a bit of this ourselves in a discussion a while back by documenting that traditional equity buyers that have been households and corporations (buybacks) were essentially nowhere to be found in 2009.

In fact, households were selling and on a net basis corporations were issuing equity, not buying it back. That leaves institutions, banking sector prop desks, the hedge community, etc. as the key provocateurs of equity price movements in the rally to date. No wonder Charley is scratching his head a bit and wondering just how we could have scaled the largest 10 month rally in market history without households and corporations playing along. But like Charley, we can prove nothing about the Fed actually acting to buy equities or futures, etc.

But there just happens to be one thing we can prove when we “follow the money” that the Fed has been doing. And it ties right back to their purchasing of MBS in the marketplace. Remember, when the Fed buys a mortgage backed security from the financial sector, it provides liquidity that can 1) be lent out, 2) reinvested in other mortgage backed securities (not a chance), 3) used to buy bonds, or 4) used in prop desk trading. We already know the lending is not happening, MBS purchases have been the province of the Fed with few other buyers, banks have bought bonds, but in moderation, and finally banks are announcing “record trading profits” as per their prop desk activities. Get it? Of course you do. The prop desk destination has been a liquidity magnet.

So here’s the important issue regarding the Fed's MBS purchases relative to equity market outcomes. It’s the timing of the Fed’s MBS purchases that has been the key support to equity prices. And we see it that way when we analytically follow the money. Ok, the chart below chronicles ALL Fed purchases of MBS by the week since March of last year. The blue line is the ongoing level of Fed ownership of MBS as this position has been accumulated over the last 10 months. It’s an almost perfect stair step higher pattern. Although it may seem random, the dates we input into the chart happen to be the weeks ending on a Friday. Friday's of options expiration weeks. Notice a pattern here?



Of course you do. It’s blatantly obvious. To the bottom line, the Fed has been very significantly goosing its purchases of MBS during equity options expiration weeks. In fact, since July, there has only been one options expiration week whereby the Fed did not buy at least $60 billion of MBS during the options expiration week itself, providing instant and meaningful liquidity during options expiration weeks that have historically had an upward bias anyway! Talk about timing of liquidity injections to get maximum effect in the equities market.

Folks, this is right out in the open. No mysteries and fully disclosed on the Fed’s own balance sheet. And guess what? It gets better. The second largest weekly period for Fed purchases of MBS outside of the expiration week itself? You guessed it - month end week. Another maximum effect week where we usually see institutions engage in a bit of window dressing. Nothing like providing a few extra chips "on the house", no?



To put a little summation sign around this section of commentary, the chart below breaks down the timing of Fed purchasing of MBS since June of last year. Yes, 86% of all Fed purchases of MBS since that time occurred directly in equity options expirations weeks. Another 7.8% of total MBS purchases occurred in final weeks of each month. And an overwhelming 5.8% of total Fed purchases of MBS occurred at other times.

In following the money, this is the only thing we can prove in terms of actual Fed actions relative to the equity market itself. A mere coincidence? Not a chance. As we see it, the Fed printing of dough to buy back MBS has had a dual purpose. The ultimate new age definition of cross-marketing? Yeah, something like that.

Now that we have covered this data, the question of "what happens when the Fed stops printing money in March?" takes on much broader meaning and significance. Of course the Fed has not directly been buying equities with their clever and clearly very selective timing of MBS purchases, but they sure as heck were providing the immediate and sizable liquidity for "some one else" to do so during equity periods where they could achieve "maximum effect".

Wildly enough, at least as of last week's option-ex, the Fed was still purchasing $60B in MBS. So, as we stand here today, there are now two more options expirations weeks prior to us theoretically reaching the end of the game for Fed printing and MBS buying. You already know we'll be watching, errr.. following the money that is.

When/if the Fed stops printing to buy MBS, do we also lose an options expiration week and month end equity liquidity sponsor? Something we suggest you think about as we move forward. See why we suggest following the money is a key theme?

Goldman Expects to Keep Cake, Eat Same, Stick Public with Tab

Dick Bove says that Obama's proposal will be good for Goldman Sachs because it will take away the prop trading from banks that have deposits, but will not affect Goldman Sachs who will once again eliminate more competition.

So buy the stock. Hard to imagine anything short of Armageddon that would cause the word 'sell' to emanate from his bloviateness when he is talking his book.

And Goldman Sachs says that it is 'unrealistic' to take away their place at the Fed's teats as a subsidy sucking bank holding company.

"Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status."

Perhaps they will lobby for a special category of bank. Some banks are more equal than others? The public might be dumb enough to buy it, but doubtful Lloyd's peers on the Street would not raise a fuss.

More likely that the corrupt Congress takes this idea of Volcker's, and leads it up a blind alley, and strangles it with delays, transitions, and deceptions, and grandiose discussion of new regulatory architectures, rather than simple but elegant focus on primary mission, and the elimination of conflicts of interest.

The threats of 'lack of competitiveness,' 'stifling the recovery,' and 'portfolio diversity' are already resounding from the canyons of Wall Street and their pond skimming sibyls on financial television.

Bloomberg
Goldman Will Benefit From Obama’s Proposal, Bove Says
By Rita Nazareth

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will benefit from President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit Wall Street risk because it may force deposit-taking banks to unwind trading operations, Rochdale Securities analyst Dick Bove said.

Obama called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce the risk of another financial crisis. The proposals would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

He also proposed expanding a 10 percent market-share cap on deposits to include other liabilities such as non-deposit funding as a way to restrict growth and consolidation.

“Banks with large deposit bases have distinct advantages in certain sectors of the market,” Bove wrote in a report today. “If the banks are told they cannot use deposits in this fashion in the future, it ‘levels the playing field’ for companies like Goldman Sachs. This is not a time to sell this stock, it is a time to buy it.”

Goldman Sachs shares erased an early advance as Obama prepared to outline his proposal. The shares lost 4 percent to $161.15 in New York at 2:56 p.m. after rising as much as 1.9 percent at the start of trading.

Bonus Pool Slashed

Goldman, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, reported record earnings that beat analysts’ estimates as the bank slashed its bonus pool. Net income of $4.95 billion, or $8.20 per share, for the three months ended Dec. 31 compared with a loss of $2.12 billion, or $4.97 a share, for the same period in 2008. The average estimate of analysts in a Bloomberg survey was $5.18 a share.

The record profit came as Goldman Sachs, facing criticism from politicians and labor unions for near-record compensation, set aside $16.2 billion to pay employees, the smallest portion of revenue since the firm went public in 1999.

“The adjustment of compensation lower leaves more money for shareholders,” Bove wrote.

Bove said that if the bank had not slashed its bonus pool, earnings may have been only about 3 cents to 5 cents a share in the quarter, “under certain assumptions concerning compensation,” because of a slowdown in trading.

“Investors are reacting sharply to the fourth quarter results at this company,” Bove wrote. “However, all indicators -- M&A, new financings, increasing volatility in a number of markets, growth in the money supply -- all suggest that this quarter may be a one-time event.”

Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status.

Obama Proposes to Restrain the Banks from Speculation

A good first move, but almost a year late.

It still remains to be seen if it can pass with any teeth in it through a deeply conflicted and compromised Congress. The devil is in the details, loopholes, and exceptions.

Allowing the banks to speculate for their own accounts in the markets inexorably intermingles their risks with those of the broader financial system. It is also a tilt to the playing field to allow these market makers with access to proprietary information, very favorable positioning with the exchanges, and the Fed discount window and special programs to sit at the same table with other investors and funds.

This is so basic a move that one has to wonder why Obama waited so long to propose it. Or rather to listen to Paul Volcker who has been advising it, and largely unheeded.

Goldman and perhaps Morgan Stanley will give up the charade of commercial banking to become a full time investment bank, aka hedge fund, again. One positive outcome is that the next time they get into trouble they are on their own. And given their blind greed it won't be all that long before they do.

It is nice to see Paul Volcker gaining a voice in an administration dominated by Wall Street sychophants.

Let the threats, whining, tales of doom, financial media spin, and an army of lobbyists now go forth from Wall Street to try and stop this very basic reform.

It's a beginning. Barney Frank is already talking about putting a five year transition period on the change. Ludicrous really considering the banks that just grabbed their charters. Barney is part of the problem. A bigger part than most people probably suspect.

A good next step would be fire Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, and to permit Bernanke to gracefully step aside and go back to grading term papers. Obama needs to nominate someone with a stronger practical experience profile in that job. Volcker could do quite well.

National Post
Wall Street reels over plan to ban prop trading
Jeff Mason and Kevin Drawbaugh, Reuters
January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama proposed stricter limits on financial institutions' risk-taking Thursday in a new populist-tinged move that sent bank shares tumbling and aimed to shore up the president's political base.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat who is just starting his second year in office, laid out rules to prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He also called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Mr. Obama told reporters, flanked by his top economic advisors and lawmakers.

"Too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward."

The rules, which must be agreed by Congress, would also bar institutions from proprietary trading operations, unrelated to serving customers, for their own profit.

Proprietary trading involves a firm making bets on financial markets with its own money, rather than executing a trade for a client. These expert trading operations, which can bet on stocks and other financial instruments to rise or fall, have been enormously profitable for the banks but also increase market volatility.

The White House blames the practice for helping to nearly bring down the U.S. financial system in 2008.

Mr. Obama's move is the latest in a series to crack down on banks and comes as he reels from a devastating political loss for his Democratic Party in Massachusetts on Tuesday, when a Republican captured a U.S. senate seat formerly held by the late Democratic senator Edward Kennedy.

Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies after Mr. Obama's announcement.

JPMorgan Chase & Co fell 5.8%, helping push the Dow Jones Industrial average lower.

Citigroup Inc fell 6.36% and Bank of America Corp fell 7% while Goldman was down 5.5% despite posting strong earnings Thursday.

"This is going to have a tremendous impact on big-name brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan," said Ralph Fogel, investment strategist at Fogel Neale Partners in New York.

"If they stop prop trading, it will not only dry up liquidity in the market, but it will change the whole structure of Wall Street, of the whole trading community."

Mr. Obama targeted banks for taking big risks while assuming taxpayers would bail them out if they failed.

"When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide, which includes lower-cost capital, it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit," Mr. Obama said.

"That is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers' interests," he said.

Before the announcement, Mr. Obama met with Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who heads his economic recovery advisory board and who favors putting curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The House approved a sweeping financial regulation reform bill on Dec. 11.

The House bill contains a provision that empowers regulators to restrict proprietary trading by financial firms subjected to stricter oversight because they are judged to pose a risk to the stability of the financial system.

The Senate has not yet acted on the matter, but the Senate Banking Committee continues to seek bipartisan agreement on financial regulation reform.