Googleanalytics

Friday, November 11, 2011

The CME acts on MF customer accounts

Interesting development in the MF Global story after the close:



The $300mm is in the form of a guarantee. The objective is to get the Bankruptcy Trustee to release money owed to former MF customers. From the CME release:

"Though CME Clearing does not guarantee FCM-held assets, CME Group is willing to provide a $250 million financial guarantee to the trustee to give the trustee greater latitude to make an interim distribution of cash to customers now, given the monumental task he faces to sort through considerable data and claims in order to complete the MF Global liquidation and make distributions to creditors.”

Some thoughts:

-The amount of “missing” customer money is $600. So the CME is picking up the tab for half of the nut.

-This is a glass half full for MF customers. Yes, they are getting half their money back. But my read from this is that this other half is very much at risk.

-The CME steps up for $300 large and they don’t have to? Nobody does that. There is more to this offer than meets the eye.

-I can’t see how the CME can be held liable for MF customer losses. Therefore the money is an attempt to preserve the integrity of the exchange and to protect its members.

-It’s possible that the CME action was done with a gun to their head. Absent a fix (partial or otherwise) a systemic risk was (is) a consequence. The only one who could hold a gun in this discussion is Treasury.

-Has anyone noticed that Treasury has been silent on the MF story? I’ve been very surprised at this. It’s long since time that Geithner should have spoken publicly on this important development. The WH wants to steer clear of anything that smells like a bailout. The WH is ignoring its responsibilities.

-It’s (again) clear that there is a ton of cash sitting with the Trustee. The reason this money has not been forwarded to customers is that there is a claim against it. I can’t imagine how that can be.

-The most likely entity that is claiming the money is JPM. It’s possible that JP is acting on behalf of yet another party, but I doubt that.

-That this matter has now gone on for two weekends confirms to me that there are losses outside of MF. What shouldn’t have happened has happened.

-Early next week the Trustee will accept or reject the CME deal (I’m sure there are strings). If the Trustee does reject this (its very unusual) then there will be some fallout. If this happens, all of the customer money is at risk.

-I’ve thought from the beginning that this had the makings of a Black Swan. I’m not sure that the actions by the CME defuse the risk.

-If there is going to be a reaction (capital withdrawals from other brokers, liquidity issues in futures markets), it will be evident on Monday.

-If I had an account with a second tier broker I would take the money out. It’s easy to put it back in. It’s a disaster if you can’t take it out.


12 comments:

  1. It is indeed most likely JPM. It was counterparty or custodian to MFG's bets with customer funds and figured out a way to write the contracts that left it holding the assets when the music stopped. Why is it getting avoidance claim protection for allowing use of $8 million in cash by MFG?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bruce says, "The reason this money has not been forwarded to customers is that there is a claim against it. I can’t imagine how that can be."

    Sure you can imagine how. Brokerage agreements for margin accounts and futures and FX accounts allow the broker to hypothecate the assets by pledging them for borrowings by the broker, lending them for others to do short sales, and other things.

    This means that if a broker pledged customer assets, the secured lender could have a claim on the assets senior to the customer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. vbounded,

    No doubt but that you are correct. MF used client funds to back its own asset positions.

    That is not supposed to happen. But it did.

    I am astounded by this as it breaks one of the golden rules. If it goes down like this and clients end up losing money it will be a Black Swan event.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have IRA accts with IB, do I need to be concerned?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The part of law that prohibits brokers from pledging customer accounts and assets should void/override the agreements between broker and dealer. Is there any law left in USA to implement this. The entire world is laughing at the lawless ness of USA seen from 2008

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure why you guys think a broker isn't supposed to pledge customer assets. It's in your brokerage agreements that they can, and I've always thought they did it, and it was legal. But that most people didn't pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (I'm at least the 2nd, maybe 3rd, Anonymous.)

    On Thursday I spoke with the investments chief at a very large insurance firm with interests in ag, timber, etc. They're active in regulated futures markets. I asked him what he wanted to see happen next in the MFGLQ matter. His reply: "I can't talk about that" and then he said something else. My guess: at least one firm with considerable firepower who is not on the creditors' committee is ready to sue and views CME as the last auditor who saw the books before the 10/31 filing. They can't be the only one thinking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The only protection you have is using a broker that commits to doing no proprietary trading, and monitoring their credit risk. I know of various referring brokers that have warned clients away from certain brokers due to these types of concerns.

    Brokers aren't alone in lending out securities, borrowing against them, and the like. Mutual funds do this. Read your prospectuses; if they say they can do things you don't like, invest somewhere else.

    Not every fund and broker take these kinds of risks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bruce and vbounded,

    Please tell me which brokers would you recommend? I have hard earned money in retirement accounts. Thank you kindly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regarding what is legal or not, the spirit of the law is that brokers are not speculators, but they are clerical transmitters and functionaries of client monies especially in the futures market. A mutual funds likewise is not a blank check to the broker, such that, if a person buys a fund in metals, the fund manager goes bet on diamonds. These laws must be corrected, not upheld as is. Defend not inadequate laws but the spirit of law and order.

    ReplyDelete
  12. cheap goose coats sale online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    goose trillium parka jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    Canada goose freestyle vest online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    Canada Goose Chilliwack Bomber sale online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    Canada Goose Mens Citadel jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    cheap Goose Expedition Parka coats online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    canada goose snow mantra parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    Canada Goose Yorkville Parka Jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    womens Goose Chilliwack Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    womens Goose Expedition Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    womens Goose Kensington Parka Jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    womens Goose Montebello Parka jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
    Canada Goose Womens Solaris Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK.

    ReplyDelete