Two years there was a music festival at Knebworth, in central Britain, that was very different. At “Hedgestock” 4,000 hedge fund managers and investors paid US$1,000 a ticket for a weekend of rock’n’roll, champagne, laser clay pigeon shooting and seminars on arcane aspects of how to make even more millions. Some wore beads as part send-up, part veneration of Woodstock, 1960s hippies and “hedgies” bound by the bond of anti-establishment love of liberty, as if the aims of getting stoned and making a fortune gambling in unregulated financial markets were curiously united. The Who played out the event, with proceeds going to the Teenager Cancer Trust.
“Hedgies” were the cool face of capitalism. This year, a rerun of Hedgestock would be pilloried and rightly so. Oil prices are spiraling higher and the plight of stricken banks, property companies and housebuilders is made more acute because of hedge funds’ aggressive speculation. Late last month there were fresh fears that the Western financial order simply could not cope and global stock markets reeled. Hedge funds are emerging as one of the triggers of a first order crisis.
The scale of speculation is eye-poppingly huge. Since Hedgestock, hedge funds have become ever more important. The worldwide industry manages US$2 trillion in assets and a leading hedge fund manager told me they are only a third into their growth cycle — another US$4 trillion is to come. One cynic mocked that the only unifying definition of hedge funds is that they are vehicles to enrich the people risking others’ money; with a 2 percent management fee and a 20 percent share in any investment profits, they certainly do that.
Hedge funds are rich enough to attract any of the great names in investment management and investment banking. New York has more than 120 hedge funds managing more than US$1 billion each, with London running it a close second with more than 80, mainly based in the exclusive areas of Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Belgravia. Some 200 hedge fund partners in London make US$40 million a year, but for the partners who do well, annual earnings can be many times higher. In 2006 Nathaniel Rothschild made US$240 million from his Atticus Capital, while last year George Soros’s Quantum fund returned 32 percent and netted him US$2.9 billion.
Their pitch to investors — from insurance companies to company pension funds, sheiks, Russian oligarchs, the British aristocracy and anybody with sufficient cash — is simple. They set out to make a return of 30 percent a year any way they can in no-holds-barred, hyper-aggressive financial gambling. They take positions in any share, financial instrument or commodity you can name. When they were small you could argue they were a justifiable irritant, challenging and punishing governments and companies alike, who had got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. But now they are becoming the mainstream, degrading the operation of capitalism, turning it into a casino, reducing people’s lives to the chips.
It is fashionable among commentators to regard the UK’s Labour government as the epitome of uselessness, but occasionally there are signs of life. HBOS bank, Britain’s largest mortgage lender, and Bradford & Bingley bank have come under organized attack from hedge funds as they try to raise money from their shareholders. Their shares were being sold to force down the price before being bought back — “short-selling.”
British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling and the UK’s Financial Services Authority announced that sellers should disclose their identity. The results are revelatory. The hedge funds were not even buying back the shares, they were “borrowing” them from pension funds to manipulate the market. Ten percent of the shares in Bradford & Bingley were in play, with HBOS only marginally less under siege. Darling flushed the speculative princes of the hedge fund world — Harbinger, Tiger Global Management, GLG — into the open.
A spotlight has been shone on some very murky corners of the financial markets. There practices occur that challenge the very conception of what we consider a company to be, and the accompanying obligations of ownership. A multibillion dollar business has emerged in which shareholders lend their shares to hedge funds to be played with. For a tiny fee, a hedge fund will arrange to borrow shares from a great insurance company or pension fund which it proceeds to sell. Share-loans are believed to exceed a stunning US$15 trillion.
What then happens is the opposite of a bubble, a kind of financial black hole. The hedge funds sell the shares simultaneously and the downward movement becomes self-reinforcing, with companies raising money during a rights issue particularly vulnerable. This is why the government forced disclosure. The hedgies reacted as if they were in Stalin’s Russia; their freedom to kill a company stone dead was being challenged. Let’s not mince words, that is the aim and it gets ugly and personal. A senior UK official told me that in one case some hedge funds had allegedly warned the banks underwriting one rights issue to abandon it or face speculative attack — Mafia practice.
Neither are companies raising money the only target. A visit to the Data Explorers Web site (www.dataexplorers.com) gives you some idea of the extent of the nightmare. For example 10 percent of the shares in UK housebuilder Barratts have been borrowed to be sold. Chief executive Mark Clare said he thought his company was the victim of a sellers’ conspiracy. So it was, and is.
Hedge funds say they are only exposing real frailties and that if the shares are undervalued, long-term investors will buy them. But financial markets do not work like that. They create bubbles and black holes of excess optimism and pessimism, which hedge funds set out to exaggerate. The impact on companies is devastating. British firms no longer have long-term owners who share their long-term mission and purpose. Instead their owners have become their enemies; as Clare says, hardly motivating.
US senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins have been holding hearings to investigate why the oil price is so high. One witness, hedge fund manager Michael Masters, argued that there were two identifiable sources of new demand over the past five years — from China and from speculation — both around the same scale. Without the speculation the oil price would still be below US$100 a barrel.
The senators are proposing that hedge funds, along with other speculators, should be prohibited from oil speculation — and they mention London by name. They said it is hedge funds in London’s unregulated oil futures markets that are making middle America pay twice as much for its gasoline.
That is probably over the top, but there is a truth there. The price of gasoline and the toughness of the credit crunch are being increased by the operation of hedge funds, as is the weakening of your job prospects as companies are forced into ever harsher behavior. It does not have to be like this; the necessary changes in the markets and corporate ownership are fairly easy to make. They would make it harder for some very rich people to get even richer, but in the US and mainland Europe politicians are ready to contemplate that, partly to defend the legitimacy of capitalism itself. Only in Britain is nothing said, a sign, I think, not of our economic maturity, but political emasculation.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
RSS