Search

Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Special Report: Inside Chesapeake, CEO ran $200 million hedge fund


NEW YORK | Wed May 2, 2012 11:04am EDT

 (Reuters) - As chairman and CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corp, Aubrey McClendon has been a powerhouse in the vast U.S. natural gas market, directing the company's multibillion dollar energy-trading operation and setting output targets for America's second-largest producer.

Behind the scenes, a Reuters investigation has found, McClendon also ran a lucrative business on the side: a $200 million hedge fund that traded in the same commodities Chesapeake produces.
On Tuesday, two weeks after Reuters reported that McClendon has taken up to $1.1 billion in loans against his stakes in Chesapeake oil and gas wells, the company stripped McClendon of the chairmanship and reiterated that it's reviewing details of the loans. A statement quoted McClendon, who will stay on as CEO, saying that the move will enable him to focus his "full time and attention on execution of the company's strategy."
But for at least four years, from 2004 to 2008, McClendon's attention extended well beyond his job at Chesapeake.
During that time, said a veteran trader who helped run McClendon's private hedge fund, the Chesapeake executive engaged in "near daily" communications and "exhaustive" calls to help direct the fund's trading.

The fund, Heritage Management Company LLC, was started by McClendon and Chesapeake co-founder Tom Ward. The hedge fund listed Chesapeake's headquarters in Oklahoma City as its mailing address, documents show. Heritage's staff included an accountant who was simultaneously employed by Chesapeake. The fund also earned McClendon and Ward management fees and a cut of profits from outside investors.
There is no evidence that McClendon or Ward used inside knowledge gleaned from Chesapeake in their hedge fund trading. Neither the company nor McClendon would comment, and Ward said he saw nothing wrong with the arrangement.
But experts on energy trading, corporate governance and commodity-market regulation said they were stunned by the latest revelation.
"An executive's first responsibility is to shareholders and the betterment of their investment," said Carl Holland, who ran the trading-compliance department at former U.S. oil major Texaco. "Personal trading in the commodity around which the CEO's business is based would be a clear no. We would never have tolerated that, ever."
Thomas Mulholland, a risk-management consultant to oil and gas producers for Golden Energy Services in St Louis, said such matters are "taken very seriously by energy companies, and there are strict codes against it. Even if there is just a whiff of impropriety," he said, "it can be enough to lead to a termination."
The commodities markets are less regulated than equity markets, where corporate executives are prohibited from trading stock in their own companies based on undisclosed financial information. In commodities markets, insider trading isn't illegal unless price manipulation can be proven.
Nonetheless, personal dealing in energy markets is typically forbidden by oil and gas companies for a variety of reasons.

In Chesapeake's case, McClendon would have been aware of major decisions that could affect natural gas prices before that information became public. Accounting for 5 percent of U.S. natural gas production, Chesapeake holds tremendous sway over markets. On January 23, the company announced sharp output curbs in response to low prices. In response, U.S. natural gas futures surged by 8 percent the same day.
"If the company needs to make an operating decision which might move the market against the CEO's positions, there's a risk that will influence the decision-making at the top of the company," said Jeff Harris, former chief economist at the market's U.S. regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and now professor of finance at Syracuse University.
Another potential problem is known as "front-running." That's when a trader buys or sells a commodity in advance of a client's or his company's orders. In theory, McClendon's first-hand knowledge of Chesapeake's own plans to trade would enable him to profit by trading ahead of Chesapeake - a move that could raise costs for the company.
"Advance knowledge of Chesapeake's activities could be perceived as having insight into the movement of commodities prices, which certainly raises conflict-of-interest issues as well as ethical issues about the ability to enrich himself on non-public information," said Tim Rezvan, oil and gas industry analyst at Sterne Agee in New York.
"If correct," Rezvan said, "these disclosures would be even more alarming than the personal loans."
A securities law professor said the very existence of the hedge fund could prompt a securities investigation.
"I would argue, and I think the SEC would argue, that the failure to disclose that you are engaging in this kind of conduct can constitute a securities fraud problem," said Elizabeth Nowicki, a professor at Tulane University. She said a failure by McClendon and Ward to disclose their fund to Chesapeake's shareholders may constitute a "material omission" that could draw SEC scrutiny.
"A reasonable investor would want to know that the CEO could be in a situation where he's betting against the interests of the company personally," Nowicki said. "That, it seems to me, is a slam dunk."
An SEC spokesman declined to comment.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
It remains unclear whether McClendon received permission from Chesapeake's board to run a hedge fund and actively trade in the commodities markets for himself, or whether his trading continues. Chesapeake and McClendon's personal spokesman declined to comment.
Chesapeake also declined to say whether employees would be prohibited from operating such a hedge fund or trading their own cash in oil and gas markets. The issue isn't clearly addressed in a code of ethics published on Chesapeake's website.
Two Chesapeake board members contacted by Reuters declined comment. "Given litigation, we are constrained in what we can say," said Chesapeake spokesman Michael Kehs, who was referring to shareholder lawsuits filed in the wake of the Reuters report on McClendon's personal loans.
Oil and gas markets are secretive, and trading positions are almost never made public. McClendon's hedge fund partner Ward said the two were always careful not to let Chesapeake's decisions influence the hedge fund's endeavors.
Ward, who continues to trade his own personal cash in commodity markets and is now CEO of oil and natural gas driller SandRidge Energy, said he doesn't know whether Chesapeake's board knew of the hedge fund he ran with McClendon. But he said he sees "no conflict of interest."
"We did not use any proprietary knowledge of (Chesapeake) trades to make our own individual decisions," Ward said.
Peter Cirino, who helped trade natural gas for the hedge fund, also said he knew of no discussions about what Chesapeake was doing in energy markets: "They were much too smart as individuals," Cirino said of McClendon and Ward. "They would be able to manage that conflict there, if there was one."
Today, McClendon leads the three-man team that oversees Chesapeake's trading in oil and gas for the purposes of hedging, or offsetting the risk of unfavorable price swings. When Reuters asked McClendon last year whether he traded for himself in energy markets, McClendon said: "No, no, no. I'm part of Chesapeake's hedging committee."
That committee has helped Chesapeake "lock in" high prices for the gas it sells. This year, the company has not hedged. It told investors in a presentation that it doesn't expect natural gas prices - near 10-year lows - to continue falling.
The company's own trading has been a big success. "The bottom line is that Chesapeake has delivered $8.4 billion in realized hedging gains to shareholders since 2006," said Kehs, the company spokesman. "That's extraordinary shareholder value added through innovation and by far the best record in the oil and gas industry."
After Reuters disclosed McClendon's $1.1 billion in loans, Standard & Poor's cut Chesapeake's debt rating, citing "shortcomings" in corporate governance. The SEC and the Internal Revenue Service have begun probes in the wake of the loans report.
Chesapeake shares rose more than 7 percent on Tuesday on the news that McClendon is being replaced as chairman. After the stock market closed, the company reported a first-quarter net loss of $71 million. Its shares fell 5 percent in after-hours trading and are down almost 20 percent this year.

BIRTH OF HERITAGE
A search of Chesapeake's public filings turned up no disclosure of McClendon's hedge fund, Heritage.
Reuters traced its roots to Delaware, where it was registered in 2004 by Corporation Trust Company, a firm that helps companies incorporate. Another filing in New York, where Heritage employees executed many of the fund's trades, lists its mailing address as Chesapeake headquarters in Oklahoma.
A Heritage telephone number listed in several business directories was answered "Chesapeake Energy" by a person who said she hadn't heard of the fund. The fund is also listed in a database compiled by the National Futures Association, which doesn't disclose its owners.
Heritage also shared at least one employee with Chesapeake: John D. Garrison. Garrison, an accountant listed as executive business manager for Chesapeake Energy in federal election campaign donation filings and as a Chesapeake employee since 2004, handled the hedge fund's bookkeeping, Cirino said. The arrangement is not illegal.
Business directories including Dun & Bradstreet also list Garrison as Heritage's chief financial officer. Garrison declined to comment when a reporter visited his home near Oklahoma City.
Heritage was born when commodity trader Cirino and four other traders went searching for capital to start a hedge fund, Cirino said. Through industry contacts, they landed a coveted audience with McClendon and Ward, already famed Oklahoma drillers before becoming pioneers of the shale-gas boom.
The Chesapeake founders, Cirino recalled, agreed to seed the fund with a total of $40 million of their own cash. But McClendon and Ward insisted on full ownership and involvement in the fund's trading strategy, Cirino said.
"They took a leap of faith to invest money in us, so we knew we were on the line," said Cirino, Heritage's former head trader and risk officer. "That they were in charge was made very clear."
The fund's trading wasn't limited to energy markets. It bet on a variety of goods, from natural gas to cocoa and coffee. It even had a cattle trader in Oklahoma.
As Heritage racked up stellar returns of between 15 to 25 percent a year, McClendon and Ward decided to open the hedge fund to outside investors, including friends and associates, Cirino said. When Ward left Chesapeake in 2006, he retained his stake in the fund.
By 2007, Heritage was managing around $200 million, Cirino said. That enabled Ward and McClendon to profit in another way: by charging outside investors a management fee equal to 2 percent of assets and pocketing 20 percent of the fund's profits. It's a typical structure in the hedge fund industry, known as "2 and 20."
Cirino and Ward's recollections differ on at least one point. Ward said he didn't interact with the fund's outside investors. Cirino recalled that "every investor I was involved with either met with McClendon and Ward or at least spoke with them by phone before investing." The hedge fund's healthy gains were a lure, but "the cachet of those two individuals certainly also helped," Cirino said.
In addition to weekly Monday conference calls and regular emails, the two owners met frequently with traders in New York and occasionally in Oklahoma, Cirino said.
In 2007, as the price of natural resources surged on booming demand from China and other fast-developing countries, commodity traders with a successful track record were popular on Wall Street. After three years of double-digit returns, the fund's traders told McClendon and Ward they wanted an equity stake, Cirino said.
But the executives weren't ready to cede control, Cirino said, and the traders left to open their own shop, Perennial Capital LLC, a $200 million fund that has no financial ties to McClendon or Ward. Cirino said the departure was amicable.
At Heritage, all of the money from external investors was returned by 2008, Cirino said. McClendon and Ward continued to operate the fund during that year, Ward said, but by 2009, Heritage traded no more.
What happened next to McClendon's commodity-trading ventures is unclear.
By June 2008 - as natural gas and oil prices were peaking, and just before the financial crisis - McClendon and Ward both held huge positions in natural-gas derivatives, according to confidential trading data disclosed last year by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.
The trading information was assembled as part of a CFTC inquiry into derivatives markets and their impact on real-world energy prices. McClendon and Ward were among only a handful of individual investors identified by the CFTC. Most of the other players were big corporations.
The data indicated McClendon and Ward were betting that the rally of 2008 would continue. By purchasing derivatives, they controlled nearly identical positions in natural gas worth around $2.3 billion apiece, according to Reuters calculations based on closing futures prices as of June 30, 2008. McClendon held oil contracts worth another $240 million, the CFTC data showed.
Of 300 banks, hedge funds, energy companies and other traders identified in the CFTC survey, only four held larger bullish bets in natural gas.
Oil fell by more than 75 percent between July and December. Natural gas futures dropped almost 60 percent.
It isn't clear how McClendon and Ward's investments fared. McClendon would not discuss his trading. Ward said he could not recall the outcome of his own trades in 2008.
McClendon suffered a well-documented personal cash crunch later that year, however.
In early 2008 McClendon held a big position in Chesapeake stock purchased with borrowed money. Later that year, margin calls from his brokers forced McClendon to unload more than 90 percent of his Chesapeake shares and suffer a $2 billion paper loss. His selling contributed to an 88 percent fall in Chesapeake's share price from its all-time high of $74 that year. Chesapeake has since restricted "leveraged" trading in the company's shares by its executives.
Months later, McClendon became one of the highest paid CEOs in America for the year, receiving a total compensation package worth $112 million. The payout included a one-time cash bonus of $75 million to help him meet requirements for paying the costs of his personal stakes in Chesapeake-owned wells.

(Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Brian Grow, Anna Driver and Roberta Rampton. Editing by Blake Morrison and Jonathan Leff.)

Rundown on Champions' League Semi-Finals- and how to prove expectations wrong

Monday 23rd April Yesterday's surrender of a 2 goal lead to Everton was very disappointing to say the least. This gives Man City a fighting chance for the league title. Bring on the derby next Monday and the title is now at stake. Tuesday 24th April It's a lovely wet season and I had myself drenched to the toes but not to worry- have got a late match to watch: Barca against Chelsea- nothing to fret about here for me but I enjoyed Ramires overhead chip over Valdes. Wednesday 25th April First time I've enjoyed a late night match for long- knowing that I'd be off work today. My grandmother's first anniversary today and I thought I'd take a rest for that. Trouble is I think I may have destroyed my PC. Thursday 26th April Feels like the first day of the week and the last -all in one. I'm off work today and tomorrow. I lost my school project on my faulty computer but the good thing is that.I'd sent an email of my final draft to my mentor and it should be retrievable. Friday 27th April No electricity meaning that I had to drag my machine to a cyber place so that it can be 'diagnosed'- I'm told I have to pay for that. The problem could be the mother board, the fan or the processor. The whole unit, in short. Saturday 28th April I escaped payment for the diagnosis yesterday after promising to think over buying an older PC at the same place. Now I have to spend the whole day thinking about it- do I have choices? Sunday 29th April Rode to work alongside a jovial driver whose making my morning look all the more brighter discussing business. The guys at airtel will still not give me a refund despite their being the main reason that my computer crushed. They need me to test their replacement modem yet I don't have a machine to test it on.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

On football and investments-chick steps first!

Monday 16th April Today was not too bad nor too good a workday. Came out tops in my department with regard to quality but still have to improve and catch up considering the last 2 weeks' results. Glad to have my article on Yahoo Voices just before Easter Sunday- considering its relevance. Its getting good traffic if I may add. Next article should be about football, then I'll start writing my memoirs (sic). Tuesday 17th April Returned my Airtel modem for a 3rd time- I'm sure whoever is concerned doesn't know the damage caused but it's nearly causing my PC to crash since I don't care much about using anti virus software. Good news about my school project-turns out there was a technical problem with the submission and some parts went missing in the process. And that's not my fault. Wednesday 18th April The all-Espagne Champions' League Final seems a long way off after Bayern Munich beat Real Madrid 2-1. Courtesy of another last minute winner from a lesson that they picked in May 1999. Thursday 19th April Surprising news of Chelsea beating Barcelona 1-0 at the Bridge. Messi and Guardiola conspicuously subdued. Friday 20th April Spent the day repairing a chicken shed-yes a chicken shed. Why? Because I think that's my next investment strategy-away from Wall Street and City. I think I'm getting more attached to watching actual living things grow as opposed to virtual stuff. Saturday 21st April Having to watch football and writing some articles relating to it is a welcome break from the norm. The problem is that I have to go to work tomorrow while everybody else is resting. Sunday 22nd April Now, when Man.Utd blow a lead they really know how to go about it. Exciting match as they go about drawing 4-4 against Everton after leadind 4-2 at 80 minutes. That sets up an interesting match at the Etihad on 30th April.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Sarkozy courts French far right after Hollande win

By Daniel Flynn and Brian Love


Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:31pm EDT

( Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy appealed directly to far right voters on Monday with pledges to get tough on immigration and security, after a record showing in a first round election by the National Front made them potential kingmakers.Polls show center-right leader Sarkozy on course to become the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30 years, trailing Socialist challenger Francois Hollande ahead of a May 6 run-off.

 
Hollande piped Sarkozy in Sunday's 10-candidate first round by 28.6 percent to 27.2 percent, but National Front leader Marine Le Pen stole the show, surging to 17.9 percent, the biggest tally a far-right candidate has ever managed.
Her performance mirrored advances across the continent by anti-establishment Eurosceptical populists from Amsterdam and Vienna to Helsinki and Athens as the euro zone's grinding debt crisis deepens anger over government spending cuts and unemployment.
"National Front voters must be respected," Sarkozy told reporters as he left his campaign headquarters in Paris. "They voiced their view. It was a vote of suffering, a crisis vote. Why insult them? I have heard Mr. Hollande criticizing them."
The unpopular Sarkozy, the first sitting president to be forced into second place in the first round of a re-election bid, now faces a difficult balancing act to attract both the far-right and centrist voters he needs to stay in office.
The weak showing by Sarkozy spooked investors already nervous about European governments' ability to service their debts, helping to send French stocks and bonds lower.
Returning to the campaign trail on Monday, Sarkozy hammered home promises to toughen border controls, tighten security on the streets and keep industrial jobs in France - signature issues for Le Pen at a time of anger over immigration, violent crime and unemployment running at a 12-year high.
After five turbulent years leading the world's fifth economy, Sarkozy could go the way of 10 other euro zone leaders swept from office since the start of the crisis in late 2009.
Hollande has vowed to change the direction of Europe by tempering austerity measures with higher taxes on the rich and more social spending. Polls published on Sunday predicted he would win the run-off with between 53 and 56 percent of votes.
But the strong showing of Le Pen, gravel-voiced 43-year-old daughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, offered Sarkozy a glimmer of hope by suggesting there are more votes up for grabs on the right than had been thought.
"Marine Le Pen's breakthrough throws the second round wide open," read the front page of right-leaning Le Figaro, while left-wing Liberation read: "Hollande leads. Le Pen the killjoy".

HIGH TURNOUT
Hollande blamed Sarkozy for fuelling the rise in the far right and said he would make no attempt to seek National Front votes. "Since some voters supported them out of anger, I will listen to them...but I will not court the far right," he said.
On a strong turnout of 80.2 percent, more than a third of voters cast ballots for protest candidates outside the mainstream, foreshadowing a possible reshaping of France's political balance of power at parliamentary elections in June.
Le Pen's focus is now on securing a strong National Front showing in the parliamentary vote, and she is keeping her distance from Sarkozy, describing him as doomed.
"Faced with an outgoing president who will leave a much weakened party, we are the only true opposition to the neo-liberal left," she told cheering supporters on Sunday.
She said she would give her view on the runoff at a May Day rally in Paris next week. Leading National Front figures, including Le Pen's partner and party vice-president Louis Aliot, suggested that she would not formally endorse either candidate.
It is hardly the first time Sarkozy has appealed to National Front voters before a runoff - the tactic him win his first mandate in 2007. Le Pen's strategy director Florian Philippot said it would not work twice: "The French no longer fall for this electioneering game Sarkozy plays."
Financial market analysts say whoever wins in two weeks' time will have to impose tougher austerity measures than either candidate has admitted during the campaign, cutting public spending as well as raising taxes to cut the budget deficit.

INVESTOR JITTERS
European markets were sour after the French results and the Dutch government's failure to push through an austerity budget made elections there almost unavoidable. The euro retreated from two-week highs, European stocks opened lower, and safe-haven German bonds opened higher, increasing the premium investors demand to hold French and Dutch bonds.
"It's beginning to look like the perfect storm," said Stewart Richardson, chief investment officer at RMG. "It looks like the French vote was more against Sarkozy than we would have thought last week, and so there is a leftward lurch in France."
Sarkozy challenged Hollande to three television debates over the next two weeks instead of the customary one. But Socialist aides said Hollande, who has no ministerial experience and is a less accomplished television performer than Sarkozy, had made clear he would accept only one prime-time live debate, on May 2.
Communist-backed hard leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon, who polls showed at one stage challenging Le Pen for third place, finished a distant fourth on 11.1 percent, ahead of centrist Francois Bayrou with 9.1 percent.
Political pundits said Hollande still appears to have larger reserves of second-round votes than Sarkozy, who would need to pick up at least three quarters of Le Pen's supporters and two thirds of Bayrou's to squeak a wafer-thin victory.
Polls taken on Sunday by three institutes suggested that between 48 and 60 percent of Le Pen voters planned to switch to the president, while Bayrou's backers split almost evenly between the two finalists, with one third undecided.
"The game is getting very difficult for Nicolas Sarkozy," Jerome Saint-Marie of CSA polling agency told i>TELE. "There's a genuine demand for social justice, precisely because times are hard and voters see sacrifices will have to be made ... What they want is that this pain is fairly shared."
Melenchon, whose fiery calls for a "citizens' revolution" drew tens of thousands to open-air rallies, urged his followers to turn out massively on May 6 to defeat Sarkozy, but he could not bring himself to mention Hollande by name.
Clementine Autain, spokeswoman for his Left Front coalition said his supporters would do all they could to get Sarkozy out and Hollande into power.
Greens candidate Eva Joly endorsed Hollande, who can also count on the modest votes of two Trotskyist also-rans.
"Sarkozy is going to be torn between campaigning in the middle ground and campaigning on the right. He'll have to reach out to the right between the rounds, so he'll lose the centre," said political scientist Stephane Rozes of the CAP think-tank.
If Hollande wins, joining a small minority of left-wing governments in Europe, he has promised to renegotiate a European budget discipline treaty signed by Sarkozy. That could presage tension with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who made the pact a condition for further assistance to troubled euro zone states.
A spokesman for Merkel said on Monday she continued to support Sarkozy but had no plans to campaign on his behalf.

(Additional reporting by Catherine Bremer, John Irish, Nicholas Vinocur, Vicky Buffery, Alexandria Sage, Brian Love, Matthias Blamont and Daniel Flynn in Paris, Anirban Nag in London; Editing by Peter Graff)

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Regulators to Ease a Rule on Derivatives Dealers

Mary L. Schapiro, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, testified before Congress on Tuesday.

By BEN PROTESS
April 17, 2012, 8:40 pm

As federal regulators put the finishing touches on an overhaul of the $700 trillion derivatives market, a major provision has been tempered in the face of industry pressure.

On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are expected to approve a rule that would exempt broad swaths of energy companies, hedge funds and banks from oversight. Firms would not face scrutiny if they annually arrange less than $8 billion worth of swaps, the derivative contracts tied to interest rates and commodities like oil and gas.

The threshold is a not-insignificant sum. By one limited set of regulatory data, 85 percent of companies would not be subject to oversight. After five years, the threshold would reset to $3 billion; it is the same amount suggested by a group of energy companies in a February 2011 letter, according to regulatory records.

When regulators first proposed the rules in late 2010, they set the exemption at $100 million. At that level, only 30 percent of the players would have been excused from the oversight, which was mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

It is unclear whether that data tells the full story. Other numbers produced by the S.E.C. suggest that the initial $100 million plan would have ensnared some companies that the law did not intend to affect.

The agencies that wrote the rule covering so-called swap dealers note that their policy would oversee the largest derivatives players that pose a systemic risk to the broader economy. And despite exempting many companies from oversight, the rule still would capture the vast majority of swaps contracts because it applies to several big banks like Goldman Sachs that arrange most of the deals. Under the rule, the agencies also must study whether the $8 billion figure is appropriate. The agencies could change the figure if it proved too high or low.
Some watchdog groups, however, fear that regulators are carving out a significant loophole that will open the door to problems. The exemption, the culmination of wrangling among the regulators and a yearlong lobbying blitz, would excuse firms from having to post additional capital and file reports.

“That’s bad for the markets, customers and the system as a whole,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and chief executive of Better Markets, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The new rule comes as financial regulation takes center stage in Washington. President Obama called on Tuesday for more “cops on the beat” to monitor speculative commodities trading, which some experts blame for rising gas prices. In a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama invoked the Enron scandal, in which the energy firm amassed a major derivatives trading operation and skirted the law amid lax rules.

In the new rule set to be completed on Wednesday, the controversy lies in the so-called de minimis exemption, a sort of regulatory hall pass for firms that have insignificant derivatives holdings. At $8 billion, Mr. Kelleher said it amounts to a de maximum exemption.

The initial $100 million limit met harsh criticism from most derivatives players, who argued that a single swaps trade can carry a notional value of billions of dollars. The notional amount reflects the value of the underlying assets rather than the amount of money that changes hands. So, on the face of it, even the $8 billion level would be a blip for a market that is valued at $700 trillion.

But the regulatory fine print could allow many firms to whittle down the size of their activity to under $8 billion.

Under the rule, companies can exclude the swaps they use to hedge their business against risk like, say, interest rate fluctuations. And the rule would apply only to a company’s swaps transactions, so firms would not need to count their other varieties of derivatives, like forwards and options. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also scrapped a strict provision that would have prevented companies that are exempt from the rules from arranging more than 20 swap contracts in one year, regardless of the dollar amount.

As federal regulators put the finishing touches on an overhaul of the $700 trillion derivatives market, a major provision has been tempered in the face of industry pressure.
On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are expected to approve a rule that would exempt broad swaths of energy companies, hedge funds and banks from oversight. Firms would not face scrutiny if they annually arrange less than $8 billion worth of swaps, the derivative contracts tied to interest rates and commodities like oil and gas.

The threshold is a not-insignificant sum. By one limited set of regulatory data, 85 percent of companies would not be subject to oversight. After five years, the threshold would reset to $3 billion; it is the same amount suggested by a group of energy companies in a February 2011 letter, according to regulatory records.

When regulators first proposed the rules in late 2010, they set the exemption at $100 million. At that level, only 30 percent of the players would have been excused from the oversight, which was mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

It is unclear whether that data tells the full story. Other numbers produced by the S.E.C. suggest that the initial $100 million plan would have ensnared some companies that the law did not intend to affect.

The agencies that wrote the rule covering so-called swap dealers note that their policy would oversee the largest derivatives players that pose a systemic risk to the broader economy. And despite exempting many companies from oversight, the rule still would capture the vast majority of swaps contracts because it applies to several big banks like Goldman Sachs that arrange most of the deals. Under the rule, the agencies also must study whether the $8 billion figure is appropriate. The agencies could change the figure if it proved too high or low.
Some watchdog groups, however, fear that regulators are carving out a significant loophole that will open the door to problems. The exemption, the culmination of wrangling among the regulators and a yearlong lobbying blitz, would excuse firms from having to post additional capital and file reports.

“That’s bad for the markets, customers and the system as a whole,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and chief executive of Better Markets, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The new rule comes as financial regulation takes center stage in Washington. President Obama called on Tuesday for more “cops on the beat” to monitor speculative commodities trading, which some experts blame for rising gas prices. In a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama invoked the Enron scandal, in which the energy firm amassed a major derivatives trading operation and skirted the law amid lax rules.

In the new rule set to be completed on Wednesday, the controversy lies in the so-called de minimis exemption, a sort of regulatory hall pass for firms that have insignificant derivatives holdings. At $8 billion, Mr. Kelleher said it amounts to a de maximum exemption.

The initial $100 million limit met harsh criticism from most derivatives players, who argued that a single swaps trade can carry a notional value of billions of dollars. The notional amount reflects the value of the underlying assets rather than the amount of money that changes hands. So, on the face of it, even the $8 billion level would be a blip for a market that is valued at $700 trillion.

But the regulatory fine print could allow many firms to whittle down the size of their activity to under $8 billion.

Under the rule, companies can exclude the swaps they use to hedge their business against risk like, say, interest rate fluctuations. And the rule would apply only to a company’s swaps transactions, so firms would not need to count their other varieties of derivatives, like forwards and options. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also scrapped a strict provision that would have prevented companies that are exempt from the rules from arranging more than 20 swap contracts in one year, regardless of the dollar amount.

As a result, some large banks and other players are expected to avoid regulatory scrutiny in swaps, based on data from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Both Northern Trust and BOK Financial, the parent company of Bank of Oklahoma, which are listed among the top 25 banks in the derivatives business, could be exempt. Major energy firms like Constellation Energy are also expected to get a pass.

Such companies pushed regulators to relax the rules. A coalition of energy firms, including BP, Constellation Energy and Shell, sent regulators a letter that pitched a $3.5 billion threshold and even suggested specific wording changes to the rule. Another group, known as the Coalition of Physical Energy Companies, proposed a $3 billion figure, the threshold that regulators are set to adopt after five years.

The energy groups dominated the frenetic lobbying effort surrounding the rule and its exemption. Firms dispatched executives to testify before Congress, hired an army of lobbyists and lawyers to draft comment letters and held more than 100 meetings with regulators to discuss the rule, records show. The Coalition of Physical Energy Companies hired the law firm of the former New York City mayor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to plead its case in Washington. The other group that included Shell and BP had more than 10 meetings with regulators.

That coalition, led by law firm Hunton & Williams, also hired a consulting firm and a former prominent regulator, Sharon Brown-Hruska, to study the rule. Ms. Brown-Hruska, who was acting chairwoman of the C.F.T.C. under President George W. Bush, concluded that “the proposed expansive definition of ‘swap dealer’ is contrary to the public interest.” The study said the rule would reduce liquidity in markets and cause energy companies to cede their business to riskier too-big-to-fail banks.

That concern was echoed by a trade group representing midsize banks, which urged regulators in a letter “to closely examine and understand the low-risk nature of small dealers’ businesses in connection with establishing the criteria for the de minimis exemption.”

Inundated with pressure and complaints from industry groups, regulators debated the proper size of the exemption for months. The trading commission scheduled several meetings to vote on the rule, only to delay the vote each time as both agencies reviewed the final draft.

Ultimately, regulators found only imperfect numbers to support their oversight effort surrounding swaps. The data, which showed that an $8 billion figure would exclude about 85 percent of the companies, is limited to one type of derivatives contract known as a credit-default swap. But the data also encompassed a broader group than necessary, most likely including pension funds and municipalities that are not subject to the federal regulatory crackdown. The S.E.C. relied on separate information that showed the exemption would affect a significantly smaller percentage of companies.

Regulators said they tried to strike a balance using the limited data as a guide. At the least, they argued, the new rules add transparency to a market that went unpoliced during the financial crisis.

pic: Benjamin Myers/ Reuters

Monday, 16 April 2012

Italian banks are the most exposed to their national debt

Mon, Apr 16 2012, 14:38 GMT | FXstreet.com Trader Talk

Source: BNP Paribas

Figures from the European Banking Authority revealed that Italy is the eurozone's country that is the most exposed to its own national debt. The exposure to domestic public debt (% of assets)
is at 7.6%. At the same time, since the euro debt crisis erupted, Italian banks (main ones and small ones) have increased their bond buying and loans to sovereigns. The share of the balance sheets' exposure to sovereign risk has continued to rise and is now at 14%.

Game on for the title: Preview for Man City v Man. Utd: April 30th 2012

Monday 9th April
Dealing with new schedules & superiors is a headache and refreshing at the same time. One thing though, I feel sorry for Shawn Derry, QPR skipper for being wrongly sent off against Man Utd. My opinion is that the decision should be withdrawn to allow QPR to resume the battle against relegation. Utd remain on top of the league but referees should get their decisions right and have the play have the right of spotlight.

Tuesday 10th April
Going through the drudgery that's work and absorbing more pressure like a sponge from the quality department.

Wednesday 11th April
The DW Stadium used to be happy hunting grounds for the Mancunian Reds but not today. Game on for the top spot as Man City win 4-0 against West Brom.

Thursday 12th April
Feeling whooped as to energy-result of sleep-depravation. Some headway on internet access -after reporting to communications authorities- equivalent of FMCC.

Friday 13th April
The dreaded Friday the 13th passes by without raising eyebrows. Despite requesting a review with regards to the assessment criteria, I have to do more research for my degree project-so I went about collecting data at the 2 major banks I'm researching. THen to the laundry in a rain-drenched afternoon.

Saturday 14th April
I wonder what the difference is between 3.75G and 3G in a modem- I still can't have internet access.

Sunday 15th April
Man City winning 6-1 at Norwich & chanting 06161 is one thing, Man Utd beating Villa 4-0 is another.Ashley Young is running against one Juergen Klinsmann for the Goalmouth Theatrics Crown.

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Millions From Diamonds Go to Mugabe, Observers Say

By JOHN ELIGON

Published: December 16, 2011
Alexander Joe/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, center, at a meeting of Southern African leaders in Johannesburg in June.


JOHANNESBURG — Tens of millions of dollars in diamond profits — perhaps more — are being secretly extracted from state-owned mines in eastern Zimbabwe, bypassing the nation’s treasury and raising fears that President Robert Mugabe is amassing wealth to help extend his 31-year reign, according to monitoring groups, diplomats, lawmakers and analysts.

Even if Mr. Mugabe’s allies in the mining ministry are telling the truth about the number of diamonds produced, the treasury was still shortchanged by at least $60 million last year, according to a budget report by the finance minister, one of the president’s chief opponents.

But the amount of money being withheld from the nation’s coffers may be much larger than that. Experts, and even some members of Mr. Mugabe’s own party, say the president’s allies are lowballing the nation’s diamond figures by millions of dollars, hoping to hide the fact that profits are being diverted for personal and political ends.

“The benefits of the diamond sales go primarily to allies of the president,” said Mike Davis, a specialist at Global Witness, a group that has extensively researched the contested mines in eastern Zimbabwe, known as the Marange fields. The strategy, Mr. Davis added, was “part of a wider attempt by people around Mugabe to seize the diamond wealth for their own political purposes, which in the short term means beating and cheating their way to another election.”

Now that Mr. Mugabe no longer controls the Finance Ministry — the result of a tenuous power-sharing arrangement to end the rampant state-sponsored violence during the 2008 presidential election — analysts say he needs outside income to finance his political operations. Diamonds offer him a rare opportunity to do that, especially now that international monitors have agreed to let Zimbabwe sell vast quantities of them, despite repeated warnings that it would enable Mr. Mugabe to tighten his grip on the nation.

Recent expenditures by Mr. Mugabe and his security forces have worried observers that unaccounted money from Marange, estimated to be one of the world’s richest troves because of its volume of diamonds, is financing his party’s groundwork for the early elections he is seeking next year.

The country’s defense forces, which answer to Mr. Mugabe and helped secure his victory in the last election by force, recently bought a large shipment of weapons and equipment from China, local news media reported. The mining ministry has paid millions of dollars in salary increases for civil servants outside its ranks, a form of patronage intended to win votes, according to some lawmakers and watchdog groups. And Anjin — a Chinese mining company in Marange that local and Western officials say the Zimbabwean military has a direct ownership stake in — is financing a new military academy.

“It’s quite clear that there’s much more money floating around than is justified by the level of economic activity,” said Eddie Cross, a Mugabe opponent in Parliament. He told the legislature in October that, based on information from geologists and production records, one company alone mined $1.4 billion in diamonds in Marange last year, far more than the $300 million the mining ministry had reported for all its operations there.

Questions about the diamonds have even caused some splintering within Mr. Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF, as some benefit personally while others get cut out.

“I personally don’t think the numbers tally at all,” said a former senior ZANU-PF official, speaking anonymously to maintain relationships within the party. “When you look at the fields they are mining and how rich they are and what they later declare, you see that there must be a huge difference.”

“People are asking, ‘Where is the diamond money?’ ” the official added, “and the answers don’t seem to be coming out.”

While Mugabe officials deny any sleight of hand, other members of his party acknowledge that the nation’s mineral wealth does not always make it into the public treasury.

Edward T. Chindori-Chininga, a ZANU-PF member who is chairman of the Parliament’s committee on mines and energy, said that while 60 percent of the country’s exports came from mining, the sector accounted for only 10 to 15 percent of the government’s revenue. All of Zimbabwean mining, including platinum and gold, needs to make sure “that the money truly does come” to the treasury, he says, though he argues that there is no evidence of his party using any money improperly.

The diamonds have become a vivid symbol of Zimbabwe’s conflicts. International monitors and human rights groups say the army seized the Marange fields in 2008, using “horrific violence against civilians.” The Kimberley Process, an international coalition trying to prevent the trade of diamonds that fuel conflict, initially suspended trading from Marange. But in 2010, under pressure from some of Zimbabwe’s neighbors, it authorized two sales over objections from Western powers like the United States.

Zimbabwe sold an additional four million carats of diamonds in November 2010, and last month it was given official approval to export diamonds from Marange, drawing harsh criticism from human rights groups and some Western nations. Global Witness, which helped to establish the Kimberley Process, quit the coalition in protest last week.

Officials within Mr. Mugabe’s party insist that they have accurately reported all Marange revenue. “It is not possible in Zimbabwe to stash away anything by anybody,” said the mining minister, Obert Mpofu. “The systems are so tight. Everything that has been mined in this country, sold in this country, is accounted for.”

Critics, monitors and diplomats strongly disagree. “We hear very detailed reports of how sales are made through suitcases full of cash and antisanctions units in local banks,” said a Western official. “By those sales and revenue details not being conveyed in treasury figures, it leads many to believe that real sales are higher, possibly much higher.”

The political consequences could be stark. A military operation known as Operation Zhunde Ra Mambo, or “blessings of the chief,” financed by the ZANU-PF member who oversees the state’s interests at Marange, has deployed troops to rural areas to intimidate political opponents, according to one former opposition intelligence operative.

Mr. Mugabe has said the power-sharing deal is not working and has called for elections next year, a year ahead of schedule. Some analysts argue that Mr. Mugabe is pushing for elections because of his poor health — ZANU-PF would crumble or fracture without its leader — and to capitalize on the diamond wealth while he has it.

How much of the profits the nation’s coffers deserve is a matter of fierce debate. In his budget report, Finance Minister Tendai Biti said the government was entitled to at least 75 percent of gross proceeds, but received only 56 percent of reported earnings last year. Mining officials say the treasury got all it was owed.

But whether all the profits are being reported is another matter. One of the mining companies, Mbada, is owned by the state’s Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation and The New Reclamation Group, a company based in the wealthy Johannesburg suburb of Sandton. The chairman of Mbada is Robert Mhlanga, Mr. Mugabe’s former pilot and a former member of the Zimbabwean defense forces.

A diamond production expert provided what he said were Mbada’s records for November 2010. They indicate that it produced between $100 million and $121 million worth of diamonds in that month, or possibly more than $1 billion that year. If accurate, that means a single company produced more than three times the amount claimed by the mining ministry for all of Marange.

Mr. Mhlanga and David Kassal, an owner of the New Reclamation Group, declined to comment. But skeptics abound.

“The people who are mining are ZANU-PF faithfuls,” said Moses Mare, another Mugabe opponent in Parliament. “They are not mining for the government. They are mining for their leaders.”

A Zimbabwean journalist contributed reporting.