Bank of England Interest Rates. Will They or Won’t They?

This month on June 20th the Bank of England’s MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) will meet and decide whether or not to keep interest rates on hold. At the last meeting of the MPC in May, interest rates were held at 5.25% for the sixth consecutive month and are still at their highest level since the Global Financial Crisis 2007 – 2009. The Bank of England’s target figure for inflation is 2% and in April it dipped to 2.3% which is a significant difference to March’s figure of 3.2%. 

However, experts in the financial markets had expected CPI (Consumer Price Index a common measure for headline inflation) for April to come in at 2.1%. However an important element in core inflation (does not include figures from food and energy sectors) came in at 5.9% in April down only 0.1% from March. All the above figures are supplied by the ONS (Office of National Statistics).

At the May meeting of the MPC Governor Andrew Bailey indicated that June may see a cut in interest rates though it is not a “fait accompli”, whilst also advising that like other central banks any cut in interest rates will be data driven. In mid-May financial markets suggested that an interest rate cut in June was circa 60% as measured by the overnight index swaps*, but since the release of the April inflation figures in late May that suggestion of an interest rate cut has subsided mainly in part due to sticky service inflation figures.

*Overnight Index Swaps – This is a financial bet on the direction of short-term interest rates and is a type of interest rate swap. In this case, it is typically a fixed for floating swap, where one party pays a fixed rate and receives the floating rate (linked to an overnight index) while the other party does the opposite. The overnight index for sterling is known as Sonia (replaced sterling Libor) and stands for Sterling Overnight Index Average.So will the Bank of England cut interest rates on June 20th? A number of experts suggest that an interest rate cut may not happen as the services sector inflation remains a problem and came in a lot hotter than market analysts predicted. Many experts feel that services inflation remains a critical part of the Bank of England’s thinking regarding inflation and interest rate cuts, and therefore the MPC may well decide to once again hold rates on June 20th.

China to Issue Yuan 1 Trillion (USD 138 Billion) Long-Term Special Treasury Bonds

China’s finance ministry has confirmed that starting Friday 17th May 2024 Long-Term Treasury Bonds with a tenor of 30 years and a value of Yuan 40 Billion will be issued. Bonds with a tenor of 20 years and 50 years will be issued on 24th May 2024 and 4th June 2024 respectively, with the balance of the bonds with a tenor of 30 years being issued in November 2024. This confirms China’s bond announcement in March of this year, with the issuance being the first of its kind for 26 years.

The breakdown of the bonds are as follows,

20 Years  – Yuan 300 Billion

30 Years  – Yuan 600 Billion

50 Years – Yuan 100 Billion

Experts suggest that the Chinese government, which is facing pressure from weak consumer confidence and the on-going housing crisis, is increasing fiscal support to help the economy. The government may well use some of the funds to spend on infrastructure which will be key to hitting their annual growth target of 5%, with some experts suggesting that the boost to Gross Domestic Product could be as much as 1%. Analysts suggest the timing of the bond issue coincides with protectionist tariffs against Chinese goods by the United States, (the latest of which announced 14th May 2024)*, and is intended to offset any impact incurred by such tariffs.

US Protectionist Tariffs – The new measures affect $18 billion in imported Chinese goods including steel and aluminium, semiconductors, electric vehicles, critical minerals, solar cells and cranes, the White House said. The EV figure, while headline-grabbing, may have more political than practical impact in the U.S., which imports very few Chinese EVs.

Experts expect that the Chinese government will use the funds to move the economy away from the investment in infrastructure and property growth model which has caused the increases in debt held by local governments. Interestingly, if compared to a global standard, the Chinese economy has enough room to potentially issue over the next five to ten years bonds to the value in excess of three trillion yuan. Indeed, analysts advise that more long-dated bonds will be issued in the future to strengthen energy and food security sectors, as well as the manufacturing supply chain.

Recent data released showed that aggregate financing (a broad credit measure) shrank for the first time in April by circa Yuan 200 Billion (USD27.7 Billion), down from March, being the first decline since comparable data began in 2017, which reflects a contraction in financing activity. Data shows that in April financial institutions offered Yuan 731 Billion in new loans lower than the project figure 0f Yuan 916 Billion. Experts advise that the issuance of the Long-Term treasury bonds will increase credit expansion in both May and June whilst officials from China’s top commercial banks were recently summoned to the Ministry of Finance to arrange underwriting of the long-term bonds.

United Kingdom Interest Rates: May 2024

Interest rates reached 5.25% in August 2023 and have held steady ever since.

Once again on 9th May 2024, the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, BOE), held rates steady at 5.25%. A number of experts and analysts felt that the Bank of England would cut interest rates this time around, but data showed that inflation was stickier than otherwise predicted. A rate cut is still expected this year, but the timing may have just been kicked slightly down the road. Interestingly, the Deputy Governor of the  Bank of England along with external member Swati Dhingra voted for an immediate cut in a 7 – 2 split favouring keeping interest rates steady

However, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has given the clearest hint yet that interest rates may soon be cut by indicating that he feels the financial markets have under-priced the pace of easing in the coming months. The governor further advised that before the next meeting on June 6th, there are two rounds of data regarding inflation and wages which will be highly important regarding any rate cut. Governor Bailey went on to say, “It’s likely that we will need to cut bank rates over the coming quarters and make monetary policy somewhat less restrictive over the forecast period, possibly more so than currently priced into market rates”. 

Whilst the governor was not actually confirming that 6th June will see an interest cut saying that date is “neither ruled out or a fait accompli’, this is the first time he has addressed investors/financial markets directly regarding expectations on future interest rate cuts. After the governor’s comments, traders priced in a 25 basis point as 50/50 in June but have fully priced in a cut in interest rates in August. The markets are now suggesting that there will be 59 basis points cut in 2024 as opposed to early suggestions of 54 basis points.

By the end of the second quarter, officials in the Bank of England feel inflation will be down to 2% (Bank of England target) due mainly to lower energy bills. These officials have further advised that they expect inflation to rise slightly throughout Q3 and Q4 but at a gentler pace than previously expected, though they warned geopolitical factors might negatively impact inflation. Interestingly, a number of experts and economists have advised that inflation may well fall below the target figure of 2% by the end of Q2, forcing the Bank of England into cutting interest rates.

The Spiralling Price of Cocoa Beans

Chocolate producers will soon be increasing the prices of favourite chocolate bars and making them smaller. Why? Because consumers will have to be the ones to pay for under investment, supply line problems and inconsistent weather that is hitting the growers of cocoa beans. In the the past few months the rise in the price of cocoa beans has been relentless, which is reflected in the futures market in London when on Tuesday 28th February 2024, the cocoa futures traded at a record high of GBP5,827 per tonne as opposed to a year ago when the price was GBP1,968, an increase of 296.08%.

There are a number of factors impacting the rise in cocoa prices: one of which is weather. In Ghana and the Ivory coast, who between them produce circa 66% of the worlds cocoa beans, (Ghana 16%, Ivory Coast 50%) poor weather has affected crop yields. Furthermore, El Nino returned in 2023 (which occurs every three to five years) which brings very dry heat preceded by unseasonal heavy rainfall to both Ghana, the Ivory coast and the rest of the region. Data released by the ICCO (International Cocoa Organisation) forecasts that the cocoa crop on a global basis will be 11% less than last year.

Experts advise that the current situation is far from being temporary. Whilst it is agreed the current price surge is down to El Nino together with speculators in the financial markets going big time into futures, there are deep structural problems underpinning a lack of production along with massive underinvestment. Problems that are here to stay. However, many commentators wonder that with the prices being so high, reinvestment in cocoa farms should not be a problem.

Today many farmers’ trees are suffering from swollen shoot virus, which is transmitted by mealy bugs, and cocoa pods are rotting thanks to a fungal disease, caused by the high humidity created by heavy rainfall. The only way to combat swollen shoot virus is to rip out the trees and many farmers in Ghana are saying that most of their trees are ending their life cycle. Whilst there are new seeds that can adapt to the climate change, many farmers do not have the money to invest, and as such are moving into alternative easier to produce crops such as Cassava (a tuberous root from which cassava flour, breads, tapioca and a type of starch are derived).

Many of the farmers have not got the cash to buy pesticides and fertilisers and have not planted new trees since the year 2000. So, why do the farmers have no money to invest? One simple answer is the companies/individuals in the middle are taking advantage of the difference in the sales price to the farmers and current price in the markets. For example, on Monday 4th March 2024 in New York, cocoa future prices were traded at USD6,648 per tonne, yet one farmer in Ghana gets paid USD1,700 per tonne. Experts advise that unless the situation is addressed, yields will only get lower and lower, with the obvious result being the end product of chocolate prices going through the roof.

In the pas, both the Ivory Coast and Ghanaian governments have taken steps to protect farmers from low prices by forming an export cartel modelled on OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). The price per tonne to farmers is based on the average price of the previous season and is to protect them from bad times but also in the good times such as now, the farmers cannot benefit. Furthermore the cartels, Cocobod (Ghana Cocoa Board) and CCC (Conseil du Café-Cacao – Ivory Coast), justify the low prices as they are supposed to provide new trees, pesticides and fertilisers, but in truth this rarely happens.

The put it simply, cocoa farmers are being shortchanged and, though production is falling, demand globally for chocolate has doubled in the last twenty years. The ICCO has released data predicting that in 2024 demand will outstrip supply to the tune of 370,000 tonnes. In the meantime, chocolate makers have adapted to market conditions and analysts advise that last year Mars shaved 10 grams off their standard size galaxy bar and repacked the smaller size at the same price. This is a standard practice when the cost of cocoa rises, sell consumers smaller amounts of chocolate at the same price or produce confection with no chocolate at all. 

Many chocolate companies are focusing their marketing on filled or lower-chocolate products, and recent data released suggest that over 40% of segmented or moulded chocolate bars that are currently being sold in the United States are filled with other products such as caramel, fruits or nuts. This shift to lower chocolate products were on display in adverts during the recent Super Bowl (2024), where circa 124 million people saw M&M’s (Mars) filled with peanut butter and Reese Cups (Hershey’s) filled with added caramel. Other methods of cost savings by some companies is replacing cocoa butter (circa 20% of cocoa butter makes up an average milk chocolate bar) with a cheaper substitute such as palm oil. Most of the switches though are on non-premium applications such as fillings in bakery items and thin coatings, such as those found in granola bars, rather than on the premium or traditional chocolate bars.

At the ports in the Ivory coast as of 11th February 2024, data released show that cocoa arrivals totalled 1.09mt so far for this season, reflecting a fall of 33% year on year. Experts are predicting that Ghana’s crops could be as much as 25% lower year on year, taking stocks to their lowest levels in over ten years. However, despite the prices for consumers (both household and business), destruction of demand has not been enough to balance the market which suggests that a further increase in prices will be needed to balance supply and demand. Indeed, looking at data released for grinding* for Asia, North America and Europe, grindings for 2023 were down overall by circa 4% year on year, where in Asia grinding fell by 5% year on year, North America fell by 9% year on year and Europe fell by 2% year on year.

*Cocoa Grinding – This is the process of converting cocoa nibs (also known as cacao nibs, which are crumbled bits of dried cocoa beans which grow on the cocoa tree) into fine powder then into chocolate. They need to be ground at high speed for several days  in order to become smooth craft chocolate bars. 

Figures released show that in Europe  between 2024 and 2027 the annual growth rate of the chocolate market is expected to expand at 4.95% but with supply contracting prices will increase at a faster rate. Furthermore, in Brussels there are major concerns that cocoa production is linked with child exploitation and deforestation which is contrary to their rules on ethical production. It is reported that due to expanding cocoa plantations, the Ivory Coast has since 1950 lost 90% of their dense forests. Come 2025, the European Union (who import 50% of Ivory Coast’s cocoa yield) will ban any sale of chocolate derived from deforestation under the EUDR (the European Union’s regulation on deforestation-free products), which will potentially push chocolate prices even higher. 

It seems a formality that from restaurants to households the price of purchasing chocolate will continue to appreciate at an alarming rate unless cocoa farmers receive critical investment in the near future. The cost of chocolate may well become prohibitive and could suddenly be classed as a luxury item, as producers of chocolate look to grow output of lesser chocolate products in the marketplace. The figures for Europe show that demand is ever increasing, and Switzerland will particularly suffer as they are the largest per capita consumers of chocolate in the world, with data released in 2023 showing the average person consumed 11.8kg of chocolate in 2022. By 2027, this may all be ancient history, unless pressure is brought to bear on Ghana and the Ivory Coast to reinvest in their cocoa farmers, otherwise enjoying a quick bite of chocolate may be a thing of the past.

Will Renewable Energy Suffer Due to a Shortage of Copper? 

For those government ministers throughout the world in charge of renewable energy, the year on their lips is 2030, where global renewable energy capacity is expected to grow by 2.5 times. However, governments need to go further to achieve the goals that were agreed at the 2023 United Nations climate talks. Part of the report coming out of this meeting suggests that the biggest challenge to meeting the 2030 goal will be the deployment of renewables and the scaling up of financing in most developing and emerging economies. But there is one more important constituent to consider…

The retooling of transportation and power to run on renewable energy goes a lot further than just political will, it will actually require more copper than the mining companies are currently committed to deliver. The big question is: will the mining companies, who are by tradition cautious (and are having to deal with increasing rigorous regulations) invest the capital required to help the world reach their 2030 goal and beyond? The current belief by experts suggest this will not happen as currently Anglo American Plc is facing a USD39 Billion takeover bid by BHP Group Ltd, suggesting that investment is angled towards mergers and acquisitions rather than increasing growth in production. 

When it comes to conductive metals, copper is second in line after silver, and the comparisons made between the use of copper in renewables compared with non-renewables is staggering. Data released from the Copper Alliance shows that wind and solar farms require more copper per unit of power produced than today’s gas and coal fired power stations. In order for renewable energy to meet future demand more complex grids have to be built, and in order to balance the intermittent supply, millions of feet of copper wiring will be required. Another statistic shows that electric vehicles use twice the amount of copper than petrol driven automobiles.

There are, however, socio and economic barriers in the way of increasing copper production. Experts suggest there is enough unmined copper to serve future world demand, but copper is a bellwether within the global economy falling and rising together with industrial production, and miners for decades have been very wary by increasing production then getting caught out by a drop in demand. Furthermore, on the excavation side, new deposits are getting more expensive and harder to extract, and with ore grade decreasing, more rock has to be excavated to secure the same amount of copper. Environmental scrutiny is ramping up which is also discouraging further investment in production. 

Recent data released suggests that over the next ten years the mining industry will have to spend circa USD150 Billion to cover what is projected as an annual shortfall in supply of 8 million tons. If there are severe copper shortages in the future this would cause a surge in prices affecting smart grids, renewables, EV’s and would slow the pace of turning to renewable energy. Whilst higher prices would incentivise miners to increase production in tandem with higher demand, experts suggest it would take a decade for the world to feel the difference. For those companies manufacturing clean energy technologies, it may well be prudent to try and find, if not an alternative to copper, but a way of using less, otherwise such goals as the 2030 and beyond renewable energy goals may become difficult to achieve.

Bad Debts and Chinese Banks 

Chinese banks have for years been reluctant to disclose any information on poorly performing loans or outright bad debts. They go to extraordinary lengths to hide these problems usually teaming up with an AMC (Asset Management Company)* where a transaction takes place that removes these loans from their books. So it came as a surprise when the Bank of Jiujiang on the 19th of March 2024 announced that profits for the previous year will probably fall by Circa 30% due to loans performing poorly.

*AMC’s – Chinese Asset Management Companies came into existence in 1998 and were established by the Ministry of Finance with the purpose of professionally managing third-party assets and was considered at that time to be a major landmark in the development of China’s financial system. It marked the transition from an unregulated environment to one where these specialist companies would operate with a defined set of financial parameters, regulations, and standards. 

The deal with AMC’s to hide these bad debts or poorly performing loans is as follows. First, the bank lends to the AMC who in return purchases the toxic loan(s) from the bank. Within the contract between the two parties it stipulates that the AMC will avoid any and all credit risks in regard to the toxic loans they are purchasing. Furthermore, the contract is also riddled with confidentiality clauses that keep either party from disclosing the arrangement, indeed sometimes even to courts. The result is that when the bank comes to declare their profits for the year to their investors they can produce a relatively clean balance sheet. 

For a long time the financial regulators were hoodwinked into believing that many of the banks were actually solving their bad debt problem, when in fact things were just getting worse and a number of experts suggest for literally hundreds of banks across China these toxic loans now represent a ticking time bomb. However, NAFR (The National Administration of Financial Regulation established 10th March 2023) the new financial regulatory body has caught on to these subterfuges and have been handing out fines left right and centre some in the region of Yuan200 Million (USD30 Million). Indeed, NAFR, with new heightened enforcement capabilities, are taking debt concealment much more seriously. 

Sadly for the banking institutions many AMC’s have themselves become distressed and are now reluctant to take more bad debt on board. Some decades ago China actually created four centrally controlled AMC’s to take on bad debt and are now currently struggling with one needing a bail out in 2021 to the tune of USD6.6 Billion. This is becoming a runaway freight train of bad debt, and with Bank of Jiujiang’s bad loan book increasing 700% between 2015 and the end of 2023, the whole banking system may soon become imperilled. 

What is Bank Liquidity and Why is it Important?

The global financial crisis of 2007 – 2009 is a classic example of what happens when banks do not have enough cash to pay their debts, e.g., all those items on the liability side of their balance sheets. The reasons for the named financial crisis have been written about and discussed and dissected many times, which is why banks and other financial institutions have to adhere to very strict rules implement by their own authorities, on the back of the Basel iii Agreement*.

*The Basel iii Agreement was implemented in 2009 after the global financial meltdown, this agreement was produced by the Bank for International Settlements in conjunction with 28 central banks from across the globe. This agreement was designed to promote stability in the international banking sector and is a set of reforms to mitigate risk that require banks to keep certain levels of liquidity and maintain certain leverage ratios.

Simply put, banks are now required to maintain adequate cash or assets that can be easily turned into cash to meet the demands of depositors and financial market counterparty transactions in the event of an economic shock as seen in the global financial crisis and in events in March 2023. If liquidity rules are revoked in any way the results can be catastrophic as in the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in March 2023, which also resulted in a run on other banks.

These failures were put down to President Donald Trump signing into law a bill that reduced scrutiny on banks with assets under USD250 Billion. This was down to the naive thought that with the extra liquidity now available to certain banks, they would be able to invest the funds profitably. What became clear, however, is that these financial rules make a huge difference, and are truly there to stop banks failing. 

Sadly, it appears that despite financial disasters, lessons are never learned and the next financial crisis could be just around the corner. If this is the case, it is hoped that throughout the major financial centres in the world, the banks have got their houses in order. Indeed, last year the vice president of the European Central Bank announced that banks in Europe had robust liquidity and high capital ratios and depositors would be safe in times of economic stress. Furthermore, recent announcements from the Federal Reserve in the United States advise they will stress test thirty two large lenders in scenarios under severe economic shock.

Today it appears that financial authorities and regulators have put in place (or are putting in place) sufficient regulations and stress tests that will satisfy the Basel iii agreement. However, extreme vigilance must be constant by authorities and political masters should be advised to keep well away from the rules and regulations of banking systems. Financial shocks always come as a surprise, so it is always important to make sure that the regulations implemented to protect society are followed to a letter, and not just undone the moment someone forgets about the last crisis.

What is Basis Trading and How Does it Affect the Treasury Bond Market?

Basis trading is a financial trading strategy regarding the purchase of a particular financial instrument or security (in this case Treasury Bonds) or commodity, and the sale of its related derivative. In this example, it is the purchase of a Treasury Bond and the sale of its related futures contract. In the treasury market, the trade is centred on the price differential between treasury bonds and their associated futures contracts.

From time to time, due to heavy purchasing of Treasury bond futures by insurance companies, institutional investors and pension funds*, the bond futures price rises above the price of the underlying bond. Once this price differential is in place hedge funds take advantage of this price differential and will buy Treasury bonds and at the same time sell corresponding Treasury futures. The upshot of this trade is that by selling the higher priced bonds in one market and buying the cheaper priced bonds in another market, the hedge funds can profit from the price differential. 

*Purchasing Treasury Bond Futures – Asset managers instead of buying actual Treasury bonds quite often prefer to buy futures because there is less upfront cash to pay. 

However, the profits from these trades are very small, and therefore heavy borrowing is required in order to make them more lucrative. Sometimes when there are unexpected episodes or events, this can quite often lead to market volatility leading to potential tragic consequences for the trade leaving the trader no option but to straight away unload all their holdings. This form of arbitrage*, as mentioned previously, requires heavy borrowing, and hedge funds usually borrow from the Repo Market**. It is normal for hedge funds to offer their Treasury bonds as collateral, as the normal practice is to roll-over these loans on a daily basis. Experts advise that these trades can be quite risky due to the amount of leverage involved (on average USD50 for every USD1 invested so 50 times leverage), plus a big reliance on short-term borrowings. 

*Arbitrage – the simultaneous buying and selling of currencies, commodities or securities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of the differing prices of the same asset.

**Repo (Repurchase Agreement) Market – In this market money market funds, banks and others lend short-term capital against government securities, in this case US Treasury Bonds. Basically, in this transaction a borrower temporarily lends a security to a lender for cash with an agreement to buy it back in the future at a predetermined price. Ownership of the security does not change hands in a repo transaction.

When the Treasuries market experiences volatility, it can increase the cost of the trade thereby negating profitability, so hedge funds must very quickly unwind their trades in order to repay their loans thereby increasing volatility in an already volatile market.  Such fluctuations can see liquidity drying up and a decrease in the availability of buyers. In such instances* the Treasuries market can literally seize up, and with Treasury bonds being so fundamental to the credit market (and they are risk-free), the US Federal Reserve has had to intervene when the normal functioning of the market has become impaired. 

*Onset of the CoronaVirus – Back in 2020 when the Covid-19 appeared the huge volatility in the markets prompted margin calls in Treasury bond futures, amplifying funding problems in the repo market. Simultaneously, Treasury bond holdings were being dumped by foreign central banks in order to prop their own currencies with US Dollars. This prompted cash bonds to underperform their futures counterparts which is the opposite of the conditions needed for the basis trade to make a profit. It was never fully understood how much basis trading contributed to the turmoil in the market, but the rapid unwinding of positions by hedge funds certainly increased volatility. The upshot was the Federal Reserve promised to buy trillions of dollars of Treasury Bonds to keep markets running smoothly whilst providing the repo market with emergency funding. 

Basis trading subsided after the 2020 debacle but returned in early 2023 due the Federal Reserve monetary tightening policies by raising interest rates a record eleven times in eighteen months, which pushed up yields on 10 year Treasury bonds to circa 5%. On the demand side, this yield (highest since 2007) once again attracted large institutional buyers to buy futures, and on the supply side the Federal Reserve has increased sales of bonds to fund the US Government deficits, which has put downward price pressure on cash bonds. Therefore there is now a sufficient gap between the price of cash bonds and futures to have basis traders up and running again.

Financial watchdogs and authorities are unhappy over these trades, specifically because they are highly leveraged, and the fact that they are direct from one party to another. This means regulation is difficult, plus hedge funds themselves have much less regulation than banks. To this end, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve have called for closer monitoring of basis trades. Indeed the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalised a rule in May of this year (starting June 2024)requiring all private funds to report sudden large losses, margin increases and any other significant changes.

Due to Government Crackdown, Chinese Quant Funds Suffer

 For many international investors who are eyeing the Chinese equity markets with suspicion, the recent and sudden trading restrictions is yet another reason to avoid the markets. Indeed, until February 2024, China has endured a record outflow from the equity market, and due to never before seen crackdowns on the property and tech sectors, foreign direct investment is at a thirty year low. Furthermore, as a result of the Chinese government’s efforts to halt a USD$ Trillion sell-off in stocks the Quant industry*, (once a booming and integral part of the equity market) it has suffered losses and is yet another casualty of government policy.

*Quant (Quantitative) Fund – This is a fund that identifies with automated algorithms and advanced quantitative models together with statistical and mathematical techniques to make investment decisions and execute trades. Unlike other funds (e.g., hedge funds) a Quant fund has no human judgement or intellect in investment decisions, and experts argue that the computer based models mitigate losses and risks related to human fund management. 

Market analysts advise that the new restrictions will require Quant funds to be scrutinised and regulators will demand that any new entrants will have to report trading strategies before actually trading. Apart from sweeping regulations that are harming Quant funds, they have been caught off-guard by government intervention. Due to the five year low on the *CSI 300 index, they took very hard and forceful measures to stabilise the markets, with Quant funds firmly in their sights.

*The Shanghai Shenzhen CSI 300 Index is designed to replicate the performance of the top 300 stocks traded in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges and is weighted for market capitalization. As such, it is seen as a blue-chip index for mainland Chinese stocks.

First of all, in early February 2024, the head securities regulator was dismissed and replaced by a veteran known as the “Butcher Broker” due to his previous record of hard crackdowns Experts suggest that Quants were targeted as the authorities were concerned that declines in equities were compounded by Quant funds making short bets and unloading large blocks of shares. Therefore some Quant funds were limited in their ability to undertake short trades, which, combined with shifts in the market, inhibited and stifled Quant funds. 

Analysts advise that a favourite trade for Quant funds is purchasing small cap stocks as they are susceptible to mispricing and the quants computer programmes exploits this opportunity to gain profitability, whilst hedging market exposure by shorting index futures. However, declines in small cap stocks made sure that quant funds reduce holdings and the huge selling triggered losses in the derivatives market known as snowballs*. This caused further panic in the market (known as a quant quake) and index futures were dumped by brokerages as well. 

*Snowballs – A Snowball product is a structured hybrid derivative which pays a bond-like coupon and consists of additional options on basic financial assets, which include underlying assets such as stocks or stock indexes. The word snowball derives from the fact that coupons can be rolled over and coupon pay-outs rely on the underlying asset trading within a certain range. 

Finally the volatility that was in the equity markets impacted those funds (e.g. hedge funds) who had invested in what is known as market-neutral products* and in many cases had leveraged themselves up to 300%, thus forcing them to unwind their positions creating even more havoc in the market which was already going south. This prompted the authorities to prop up exchange traded funds via government-led funds known as the national team, which resulted in a boost for large caps stocks but ignoring the small caps. Data released showed some of the top Quant funds lagging behind the CSI 500 Index (a well-known indicator of the performance of Chinese mid and small cap companies), by circa 12 points for 2 week’s ending 8th February 2024.

*Market Neutral Products – These funds/investments are designed to target returns that are independent of market directions. This is achieved with equal long and short positions in any industry and by investing in equities where the long positions are expected to outperform their peers and the short equities are expected to underperform. Any losses in the short position are offset by profits in the long position.

Following the crackdown on quants the main equity index has risen in nine straight sessions including every day from 19th -23rd February 2024, the longest run of uninterrupted gains in six years. So for now, the strong arm tactics of the authorities are working to stop the downward spiral of equities, however experts wonder if Quant funds will continue operating where there are such arbitrary market interventions. The question is this: will investors be convinced this a one off intervention? Or will the image the authorities have tried to create over the last thirty years that China is committed to a professional and open market be soured?

 The Continuing March Upwards of Private Credit

Private credit can trace its roots back to the 1980’s where companies with strong credit/borrowing records were being loaned funds directly from insurance companies. However, post the 2007 – 2009 Global Financial Crisis, private credit really came into its own as an alternative to bank lending, especially as financial regulators were cracking down on those deposit taking institutions who were involved in risky lending. In today’s market, private credit has become a major contender in the loans market, and a serious rival to banks and similar lending institutions.

As of June 2023, data released shows that global closed-end private debt funds* have assets under management of circa USD1.7 Trillion, whereas as of close of business December 2015 global assets under management were circa USD500 Billion. Indeed, expert money managers suggest that by 2028, due to possible massive shifts in the financial markets, borrowers would flock to the front door of private credit funds, boosting the value of the global private debt market to USD3.5 Trillion. 

Closed-End Fund – This fund is a type of mutual fund, and in order to raise capital or investment, the fund issues a fixed number of shares through a one-time initial public offering (IPO). The shares can be bought and sold on a stock exchange if the fund is quoted, but no new money can be received into the fund once the IPO closes. Access to closed-end funds is only available during a New Fund Offer (NFO).

Open-End Fund – As opposed to a closed-end fund, the open-end fund such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETF’s) accept new capital on a constant basis and also issue new shares. 

Mutual Fund – This is an investment opportunity where monies/investments are received from a wide range of individuals and pooled together in order to purchase a wide range of stocks, bonds and other securities. Funds are managed by professional money managers and are structured to match the prospectus where the investment objectives are stated.

Private credit is responsible for providing a vast amount of financial resources into a number of differing investment strategies, some of which are outlined below.

1.     Mezzanine Finance – Mezzanine loans or capital can be structured either as subordinated debt or as equity which is usually in the form of preferred stock. Mezzanine financing is recognised as a capital resource which can often be seen as subordinated debt and sits between higher risk equity and less risky senior debt. To facilitate the explanation of mezzanine debt, below are the definitions of senior debt and subordinated debt.

·      Senior Debt – often issued in the form of senior notes and also known as a senior loan, is a debt that will be paid first by the borrowing company. In other words, it takes priority over other unsecured debt and in the event the borrowing company goes into liquidation, owners of senior debt will be the first to be repaid.

·      Subordinated Debt – or as the name implies junior debt, is usually the last type of debt to be repaid. It has a lower status to senior debt and hence the name subordinated debt. Typically, subordinated debt or loans will carry a lower credit rating and will therefore offer a higher return than senior debt.

2.     Venture Debt – Venture debt, sometimes referred to as venture lending, is a certain type of debt lending to venture-backed companies. A venture-backed company that receives venture debt is defined as companies who are at the start-up stage of their existence and rely on venture capital to expand their business. Typically the company has yet to make a profit, and loan size is usually based on the company’s recurring revenue

3.     Distressed Debt – Private credit funds are known a). for buying up corporate debt that is currently trading well under its original value and b). where companies are in difficulties to provide new financing, with a view to make a profit when the company either liquidates or restructures. 

4.     Direct Lending – This type of lending by private credit funds, (aka unitranche loans), are typically a senior term loan (first lien and the least) but can also involve credit lines and second lien loans which are subordinated to the first lien. 

5.     Special Situations –  As the subject suggests, loans in this case are applicable when a special situation or event occurs, and the company’s profitability or growth (a company’s metrics) are not taken into account when lending decisions are made.

A number of experts have asked the question: will private credit stand a sustained protracted recession? Private credit fund managers have answered that in many cases their loans are safer as they are locked in for longer than your standard lending institutions. However, the uncertainty that surrounds the terms in the private credit market means that in a recession no one really knows how far valuations would fall, and as a result would investors in funds that are struggling be able to sell out their positions. 

Regulators in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union are looking at expanding regulation in the private credit market. Indeed, regulators in the EU are putting strictures in place which ensure that private credit funds will diversify risk, and will cap leverage, whereby funds use borrowed funds to enhance profits. However, it appears that regulation will remain somewhat opaque as there seems to be a lack of appetite to bring regulation in line with banks and other lending institutions. This of course may reflect the attitudes of many governments, who seem happy to encourage private credit investment that they deem too risky for banks.