The huge "hedge fund short" 101
Many have published a chart that say "hedge funds have the largest speculative short futures position in history". The data is accurate. It also needs interpretation.
Here's my chart it's a few weeks old but illustrates my point
The hedge fund short is someone else's long. That long is institutional investors. It's very big. But that is not the important story. This unlike the ES charts which looked the same and were a choose your fighter Long Only Simps vs Hedge funds (which I got completely wrong)
Respect Long only Simps 🫡
Hedge funds short ES covered like mad. I was wrong.
But fixed income futures positions are quite different. While the long side of the positions are indeed levering up by long only asset managers the short side which is getting so much doomism is more complex
H/T @leadlagreport for this example
Why do hedge funds short bond futures
Speculation IS a real thing!
BUT also to hedge out interest rate risk on something they are long in the derivatives or cash market like:
Corporate and High Yield Bonds, Physical Treasury Bonds, Mortgage Bonds, Muni's, Converts, EM debt etc
For example let's say long only institutions bid up futures to lever up a bet. A hedge fund can buy the correspond US Treasury to that futures contract and take out a spread between the futures and cash markets. It's an arbitrage between the cost of leverage in the futures
Markets and the actual cost of leverage the hedge fund is able to achieve in their funding of the UST long position.
Now. It's possible that the hedge fund is purely speculative or it's possible that they own the bond and are using repo to finance the long and are short the
Futures. Let's go to the data. As this "historic" futures short has been built. Levered long positions have grown by half a Trillion dollars. Either that should be added to the long position of real money
Or should be subtracted from the short position of hedge funds who are doing the cash and carry arbitrage. I won't show all my data but just say that this is a complex topic and the signal in Fixed Income is pretty weak regarding TFF rates data the doomers are posting
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The job of the Fed is not easy. The tools they have are crude. Predicting the future is hard. The economy is complex and the tools used may have varying impact. Markets themselves often undo policy lever influences or accelerate policy moves in an undesired way
Fiscal policy can be highly influential either accentuating or directly counteracting monetary policy stance. Perhaps less relevant for the Fed than other CB's ROW fiscal and monetary policies and needs and desires of global markets can enhance or counteract Fed objectives
The Fed is also an institution with a large hierarchy of people of various backgrounds. Just like any large institution it is prone to internal and external influences. Just like any large institution it is likely to have inertia and over index on experience vs open mindedness
An equity security of a corporation values the market value of assets - the market value of liabilities 101
At every moment this equation holds true. So what to do about it.
Mostly one should ignore as market participants are pretty good in aggregate of making this estimate
However when you look at a particular company transparency matters. Financial accounting doesn't tell us the MV of assets or liabilities for almost all corporations. It tells us the Book Value of the assets, liabilities and equity
Those things diverge radically as the book value reflects the "cost"of the asset roughly. For instance NVDA's BV is 2.69 per share and its MV is 137. Does that mean NVDA is rich? Not at all. It means the BV does not reflect the MV of its assets or its liabilities
Does cash want assets or do assets want cash 101 - Part 2
At the end of part 1 we dropped this cliffhanger that fear/greed "value" investing and long or short margin calls don't need cash on the sidelines to act. That is because when banks are healthy they can create money out
Of thin air to allow risk takers to take risk.
So part 2 really doesn't need to even deal with the size or rate of interest of cash on the
Sidelines. These next 3 drivers don't depend on it. However they do depend on bank health. But let's not jump the gun to that point yet
Fear and Greed. A basic human nature is to have more confidence when you are winning or see your friends, family and neighbors winning. You may think gosh I'm doing so well and it's so easy that I must be better than the market. Or with FOMO you may say jeez my nephew,
A few days ago I wrote this thread on "Cash on the Sidelines" it debunked the idea that cash can be transformed into asset purchases. The bigger question will be the topic of this thread
Remember cash grows based on three primary factors 1. Banks create money out of thin air 2. Federal reserve buys assets (QE) and government spends 3. Federal reserve pays interest on reserves and RRP Balances.
In each of these situations. Cash is created and no new assets are created for the markets to absorb. (assuming the bank doesn't resell its loan in case 1). So it stands to reason that some of that new cash creation wants assets more than cash. Let's dig into that a touch
Credit spreads are not tightening as much as you may think - 101
One way of measuring value in corporate bonds is to compare their yield to a treasury bond of similar maturity. When doing this credit spreads have fallen all year and are at historic tights. BUT this is deceptive
To arbitrage a corporate bond which one presumably would want to short because of TOO tight spreads which provide too little compensation for default one has to hedge the duration of the corporate bond.
In other words one has to short a corporate bond and buy a similar maturity treasury bond. Because arbitrage requires financing a long and borrowing a short and investing the proceeds of the sale one has to lock in financing of the package.
Today news articles are reporting that Money Market Mutual Fund assets have grown to over 7TN
That is a fact.
The problem is those who interpret this "cash on the sidelines" as a bullish (or bearish but that's never said) signal because it
represents future demand for stocks, bonds, gold or crypto.
In this thread I will try to explain why cash has grown and how it could continue to grow or shrink
BUT also how it mechanically cannot go down because those in cash want to own assets
Lastly how investor preferences
Holding cash and assets can and does result in price changes.
Tl;dr
1. cash assets grow in a growing economy, 2. A holder of cash who buys assets buys them from a seller who now has cash and thus cash assets don't change 3. Assets and cash are always in equilibrium where