Tag Archives: bstresource

Cyber Warfare Risk: What Are The Investment Impacts?

by Ron D’Vari The devastating cyber-attack against Sony and its allegedly state-sponsored origins raises several key questions with respect to the security risk for the global financial system. For example: Should investors be worried about advanced threats on the global financial system by cyber terrorists and/or state-sponsored adversaries to destabilize the global economy and markets? Could there be attacks on the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury or one or more mega banks of a magnitude that would destabilize the U.S. dollar and prompt a global stock market collapse? Do U.S. monetary and fiscal policies render this type of cyber threat potentially more devastating? In what ways could the cyber-threat to the financial system affect the relative attractiveness of “real assets” (real estate, physical commodities, infrastructure investments, etc.) vs. “financial assets” (enterprise value-related assets)? U.S. intelligence agencies as well as major companies are gradually waking up to the critical nature of cyber security to systemic financial stability. Indeed, the financial services industry has already recognized it can no longer work in isolation, marked by the formation of a member-owned non-profit entity, the Financial Services Information Sharing & Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), to provide resources for cyber and physical threat intelligence analysis and to share information about hackings. The U.S. government has not yet developed a unified approach to help companies coordinate a response to an attack and share information. Complications and lack of coordination in the Sony case made that obvious. As a result, the government is expected to sharpen its focus on this. Companies and government agencies will be investing large sums of money in innovative encryption and firewall solutions to make data, Internet and payment systems safer. Cyber war games have already been created as a way to test a company’s response to cyber incidents. The net effect will be positive for investments in the cyber security industry, but may also lower the overall profitability and productivity of the economy in aggregate. Financial advisers have already been warming to real assets as stock market volatility has picked up and demand for a long stream of cash flows by pension funds has increased. With increasing incidents of cyber-attacks, the trend is expected to continue. There will naturally be a slew of litigations in high-profile data breaches and operation interruptions. These will include claims by employees, customers, suppliers and shareholders. Shareholders can sue if a breach affects share values and future financial streams. Now that you’ve read this, are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Sentiment on ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Why are you ? Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague

SEC Enhancing Regulatory Monitoring Of Asset Managers

by Ron D’Vari The asset management industry is evolving rapidly and so are the regulatory environment and tools that govern and support it. The larger managers had thought they had received a reprieve by the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s decision not to designate individual asset management firms as Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), but instead focusing its attention on potential risks within asset managers’ activities and products they offer. As a result, the giant asset managers are spared from Federal Reserve. In an apparent response to that, the SEC is increasing focus on the asset management industry. In a speech on December 11, SEC Chair Mary Jo White referenced new initiatives to address portfolio composition risks and operational risks of asset managers. Portfolio composition risks include liquidity and leverage risks of a fund’s holdings and operational risks encompassing inadequate or failed internal processes and systems. The heightened SEC monitoring will include expanded data reporting and enhanced controls on risks related to portfolio composition and liquidity management. A more comprehensive approach will be taken to monitor the risks associated with the increasingly complex nature of fund holdings and the use of derivatives. Additionally, the SEC will be looking into “transition planning” and stress testing, both market and operationally. Asset managers will be expected to safeguard against the impact on investors of a market stress event or when an investment adviser is no longer able to serve its clients. There has been a significant increase in the use of derivatives by funds in general. More and more, fund managers are using derivatives to adjust or obtain exposure to a market sector more efficiently. However, the risks of implied leveraged exposures and potential illiquidity in derivative instruments can be opaque or underestimated. As a result, management of liquidity and redemption and the use of derivatives in widely distributed mutual funds, ETFs and separately managed accounts are becoming key areas of focus by the SEC. The SEC staff will be watching for significant risks of inadequate controls in those areas, to the funds and their investors, as well as potential impact on the overall financial system. Asset managers will be required to manage risks of not being able to meet redemptions under stressful market scenarios. This means that not only the giant managers have to meet enhanced composition and liquidity regulatory requirements; the entire asset management industry needs to. Now that you’ve read this, are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Sentiment on ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Why are you ? Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague

Revisiting The ‘Problem’ With Leveraged ETFs

Editor’s note: Originally published at tsi-blog.com on January 6, 2015. My 3rd November blog post explained why leveraged ETFs should only ever be used for short-term trades. To set the scene, here is an excerpt from this earlier post: The crux of the matter is that leveraged ETFs are designed to move by 2 or 3 times the DAILY percentage changes of the target indexes. They are NOT designed to move by 2 or 3 times the percentage change of the target indexes over periods of longer than one day. Due to the effects of compounding, their percentage changes over periods of much longer than one day will usually be less – and sometimes substantially less – than 2-times (in the case of a 2X ETF) or 3-times (in the case of a 3X ETF) the percentage changes in the target indexes. In the earlier post, I presented tables to show that the greater the volatility of an index and the greater the leverage provided by an ETF linked to the index, the worse the likely performance of the leveraged ETF over extended periods. The worse, that is, relative to the performance superficially implied by the daily percentage change relationship between the index and the leveraged ETF. I concluded that leveraged ETFs are only suitable for short-term trades and that a trade should be very short term if it involves a 3X ETF and/or a volatile market. To illustrate how badly a leveraged ETF can perform relative to the performance superficially implied by the daily percentage change relationship between the leveraged ETF and the market to which it is linked, here is a chart comparing the performances of the Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF ( GDXJ) and the Direxion Daily Junior Gold Miners Index Bear 3X Shares ETF ( JDST) since the end of 2013. JDST is designed to have a daily percentage change that is roughly three times the INVERSE of GDXJ’s daily percentage change, so it is an ETF that someone would buy if they were bearish on GDXJ. For example, on a day when GDXJ lost 5%, JDST would gain about 15%, and on a day when GDXJ gained 5%, JDST would lose about 15%. Given that GDXJ is presently about 15% lower than it was at the end of 2013, people who are unfamiliar with how leveraged ETFs work would likely jump to the conclusion that a JDST position purchased at the end of 2013 and held through to the present would show a healthy profit. However, this conclusion could not be further from the truth, because JDST has lost 81% of its value over the period in question. The dismal performance of JDST is a trap for the novice trader, but it is not a design flaw. As outlined in my 3rd November post, it is a mathematical function of how the leverage works and simply means that this type of ETF should only ever be used in trades with time frames of no more than a few weeks. Now that you’ve read this, are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Sentiment on ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Why are you ? Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague