Who's Greg Smith and WTF is a "Structured Product"?

Another mysterious product warning

Yesterday came the 'news' that sales of "structured products" by investment banks to retail and small business customers have soared, in spite of FSA warnings about them. Today, in perhaps unrelated news, came Greg Smith's resignation letter from Goldman Sachs, where he was executive director and head of the firm’s US equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa:

"I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact." 

Which begs the question what a "structured product" actually is, and whether small business customers and their advisers had any idea what they were buying - or that they weren't supposed to be buying them.

The explanation of "structured products" at the official MoneyAdviceService is not terribly helpful (a general comment on the site that I've made before). We're told these products involve a 'note' and a 'derivative'. But under the bold heading "How Your Capital is Protected" it says rather ironically that:

"Even if a product offers ‘capital protection’ it can sometimes fail, causing you to lose some or all of your original money."

Oh come on, you say, the Money Advice Service?! Surely the global investment banks aren't going to be selling to 'Moms and Pops'!

But that's exactly the concern. I'm sorry, but just how sophisticated do you believe the average owner/director of an unlisted business really is when it comes to finance deals involving derivatives? One chap said his firm was sold "a £601,000 amortising, enhanced collar swap" and thought it had the same effect as a household mortgage. Yet businesses are being told to go to court against investment banks if they think they've been ripped off, rather than look to the regulator.

But does the regulator really understand these products well enough to be of any help? It seems to be speaking another language altogether. The first footnote to the FSA's industry consultation paper on the subject purports to explain structured products, but somehow I doubt the average banker would understand exactly what qualifies and what doesn't, let alone its customers:

"This publication deals with structured investment products (capital-at risk and non-capital-at-risk) and structured deposits.

We define a structured capital-at-risk product (SCARP) as in our Handbook i.e. as a product, other than a derivative, which provides an agreed level of income or growth over a specified investment period and displays the following characteristics:
(a) the customer is exposed to a range of outcomes in respect of the return of initial capital invested;
(b) the return of initial capital invested at the end of the investment period is linked by a pre-set formula to the performance of an index, a combination of indices, a 'basket' of selected stocks (typically from an index or indices), or other factor or combination of factors; and
(c) if the performance in (b) is within specified limits, repayment of initial capital invested occurs but if not, the customer could lose some or all of the initial capital invested.

A non-SCARP structured investment product is one that promises to provide a minimum return of 100% of the initial capital invested so long as the issuer(s) of the financial instrument(s) underlying the product remain(s) solvent. This repayment of initial capital is not affected by the market risk factors in (b) above.

We define a structured deposit as in our Handbook i.e. as a deposit paid on terms under which any interest or premium will be paid, or is at risk, according to a formula which involves the performance of:
(a) an index (or combination of indices) (other than money market indices);
(b) a stock (or combination of stocks); or
(c) a commodity (or combination of commodities)."

All clear then?
 
Image from HappyPlace.

Why The GIB Should Be P2P

In this month's Financial World, Michael Mainelli helpfully explains why the Green Investment Bank "supporters get a hard ride from City anlaysts." The problem, he says, is lack of independence from the government, especially since government policy on alternative energy is "capricious".

I like the "slightly subversive" suggestion for an index-linked carbon bond with the coupon set to the government's performance against its green energy targets. Although if the City won't gamble on government policy, we probably shouldn't let the government bet taxpayer money on its own performance either.

However, there is a way to encourage both broad-based retail investment and widespread household commitment to alternative energy without direct government support. Allow individuals to directly finance each other's alternative energy projects via a dedicated channel on any peer-to-peer finance platform - or, indeed, on dedicated peer-to-peer platforms. Credit risk would sit with individual lenders who are able to diversify across many projects and limit the amount allocated to each one, while earning a better return on their surplus cash than bank savings rates. The initial and ongoing capital requirements for each platform operator would be nominal, compared to the £3bn currently being contemplated for the GIB. And the transparency of online P2P platforms would enable easy measurement of the capital dedicated to alternative energy. In effect, the government would be leveraging its subsidies towards feed-in tariffs etc., not by borrowing on its own account through the bond markets, but by attracting surplus personal savings that currently lack a decent return.

As I've previously explained, this would also avoid the primary risks associated with the vertical credit model of existing bond structures, namely:

1. The separation of lender and borrower, and fragmentation of the original loan note makes it harder to adjust loans when borrowers get into trouble (as highlighted by the 'fraudclosure' and 'forced repurchase' problems in the US also explained in Confessions of a Subprime Lender).
2. The process of transforming 'maturity' (changing the date when loans or debt instruments are due to expire) creates balance sheet risk for the intermediary.
3. It is unclear whether ratings, accounting and audit functions really do remove information asymmetry between borrowers and lenders. Do we have "credible" ratings agencies, when only three dominate the market and they are paid by the issuers of the securities they grade? Similar problems exist in the accounting and audit markets - hence the calls for reforms in these areas.
4. There are huge challenges for subsequent bondholders to undertake adequate due diligence on large volumes of original loans long since disconnected from the bonds and often not even under the bond issuer's control.
5. Pressure to reduce the amount of capital required by each operator in the vertical chain of intermediaries results in a game of regulatory, tax, capital and ratings arbitrage that spans the globe and creates endlessly complex corporate structures.
6. Various factors lead to underestimation of the capital required for the private and implicit public sector guarantees required to support it. This is further complicated by the fact that "...the performance of highly-rated structured securities... in a major liquidity crisis... become highly correlated as all investors and funded institutions are forced to sell high quality assets in order to generate liquidity."
7. The knowledge that the market can ultimately 'put' problem securities on the taxpayer (whether this is explicit, implicit, direct or indirect) creates a moral hazard that seems to increase in line with the demand for the securities until the system irretrievably melts down.

Horizontal credit intermediation, is a feature of peer-to-peer finance platforms - like Zopa, Ratesetter and Funding Circle - where each borrower's loan amount is provided via many tiny one-to-one loans from many different lenders at inception.

The one-to-one legal relationship between borrower and lender/loan owner is maintained for the life of the loan via the same loan origination and servicing platform (with a back-up available), allowing for ready enforcement. The intermediary has no balance sheet risk, and therefore no temptation to engage in regulatory, tax or other arbitrage. Loan maturities do not need to be altered to achieve diversification across different loans, loan terms and borrowers. The basis of the original underwriting decision remains transparent and available as the basis for assessing the performance of the loan against its grade, as well as for pricing the loan on any resale or refinance, making due diligence by subsequent owners easy. To the extent that credit risk were to concentrate on certain borrowers or types of borrowers, those risks would remain visible throughout the life of the loan, rather than rendered opaque through fragmentation, re-packaging and re-grading. Similarly, the transparency of the initial underwriting and subsequent loan performance removes the scope for moral hazard.

Image from Carnation Canada.

Anatomy Of A Dodgy AAA Rating?

Can't wait for a judgment in Cassa di Risparmio della Repubblica di San Marino SpA v. Barclays Bank Plc (Case No. 08-757, High Court, Queen’s Bench Division).

According to Bloomberg, CRSM claims that "Barclays Plc deliberately designed structured notes that would have a much higher risk of default than their triple-A rating suggested" - i.e. "25% or more" instead of “a fraction of 1 percent.”

With any luck, the case won't settle, and we'll have some more forensic insight into the relationship between investment banks and ratings agencies, as well as due diligence and the ratings methodologies...