|
Development
Through
Wage-Led Growth
By
Henry C.K. Liu
Part I: Stagnant
Worker Income Leads to Overcapacity
Part II: Gold Keeps
Rising as Other Commodities Fall
Part III: Labor
Markets de-linked from the Gold Market
Part IV: Central Banks
and Gold
Part V: Central
Banks
and Gold Liquidity
Part VI: The London
Gold Market
The average daily volume of gold cleared at the London
Bullion Market Association (LBMA) in November 2008 was reported to be
18.3
million ounces (worth $13.9 billion at an average price of $759.56 per
troy
ounce, still substantially below the peak gold price of $850 per troy
ounce set
in January 1980, which was not breached for 28 years, an extraordinary
long
period for a bear market for gold. Gold price fell again to a
historical low of
$250 per troy ounce in July 1999 while inflation was rampant.) The
November
2008 clearing volume meant that an amount equal to the annual
production of all
gold mines in the world was traded and cleared at the LBMA every 4.4
trading
days.
As noted earlier in this series, the Gold Anti-Trust Action
Committee (GATA) claims that net clearing data substantially
understates the
gross trade volume in gold, due to the fact that the calculation of
clearing
statistics shows only final net settlement of linked trades. The
pre-net
turnover may actually be four times greater than net clearing turnover.
That
means that the LBMA handles a pre-net turnover equal to the annual
production
of gold every trading day. Since all pre-existent gold has already been
traded
and owned, LBMA daily volume means that every ounce of gold produced by
mines
around the world is traded every trading day in London
as soon as it is mined.
The day will not be far off when the increase in daily
pre-net trading volume in gold trade at the LBMA will be larger than
new gold
produced by all the mines in the world. With the rise of gold
derivatives, gold
trading is no longer limited in volume by the available amount of
unallocated
physical gold. Gold is traded on a notional quantitative amount of gold
as an
underlying asset of gold derivatives. Gold trading is a transactional
platform
that expands or contracts with rising or falling trade velocity
regardless of
price, which is one of the structural components in the logic of an
asset
bubble.
Gold Different from
Oil
Gold, unlike oil which is sometimes referred to as Black
Gold, is not consumed by combustion for the production of energy. Oil
trading
is based on the prospect of an eventual final delivery for
non-renewalble
consumption, no matter how remote; but such a fate of final delivery
for
non-renewable consumption does not exist for gold trading. Gold is
consumed in
the market mostly by owning which does not deplete quantitatively in
the world.
Unlike oil, which is a transitional asset, gold is a final asset.
There is no such phenomenon as “Peak Gold”, as the term
“Peak Oil” is bantered about in the socio-technical discourse on
non-renewable
energy. Physical gold will continue to increase in quantity as long as
gold
mines continue to produce gold. But if and when all the gold in the
ground has
been mined, including those under deep sea beds, physical gold will
still only
stay constant in quantity without quantitative decline. Gold
consumption
involves only a transfer of ownership, not a physical depletion of
gold. This
is why referring to oil as Black Gold is problematic. And this is why
oil is
only a
commodity, albeit a prime commodity, and why oil cannot perform as a
reserve
monetary asset.
London Gold Market
not for Individual Traders
The London gold market
is not accessible to individual traders because of two big barriers:
1. Large transaction
size
The standard physical bullion accepted in trade is the
London Good Delivery Bar, which weighs 400 troy ounces each (12.4
kilograms).
At a price of $1,400 per troy ounce, each Good Delivery Bar is worth
$560,000. This
standard per trade module is too high in price for most individual
traders.
Even if gold price falls to $400, and one London Good Delivery Bar
being worth
$160,000, individual accounts are not large enough to attract the
attention of dealers,
the business economics of which prefers trades of $500,000 as a
transactional minimum.
And that minimum is expected to increase over time due to rising
overhead cost.
The day will come when the trading unit of gold is 10 Good Delivery
Bars. This high entrance threshold for
individual
investors is what drives the emergence of gold exchange traded funds
(ETFs).
2. High regulatory
qualification for opening gold trading accounts
Even if an individual is able and willing to trade
sufficient amount of gold, most dealers will not accept an individual
account
except for extremely high-net-worth individuals. Logistical, regulatory
and business
considerations add to the high threshold of entrance to the gold
trading game.
Logistically, storing and delivering gold are costly undertakings that
continually discount the monetary value of gold held. Regulatory
requirements also
place strict legal obligations on firms that deal with the retail
public, These
facts make individual accounts not a cost-effective business for
profit-minded
gold dealers.
Gold Trading Account Types
There are two types
of gold trading accounts:
Allocated Gold Accounts
Allocated Gold Accounts are accounts held by gold dealers in
each clients name on which are maintained balances of specifically
identifiable bars, plates or ingots of metal ‘allocated’ to a specific
customer
and segregated from other gold held in the dealer’s vault. A client
with an
allocated account has full title to the specific physical gold in it,
with the
dealer acting as custodian holding the “allocated”
gold on the clients behalf. To avoid confusion, gold in a client’s
allocated
account is separated from a gold dealer’s assets.
Unallocated Gold Accounts
Unallocated Gold Accounts are the most common vehicle for
trading, settling and holding gold, as well as other precious metals
such as silver,
platinum and palladium. Transactions may be settled by credits or
debits to an
unallocated account without specific direct allocation in a general
pool of
gold. The balance in an unallocated account represents the indebtedness
or
financial obligations between the client and the dealer based on an
underlying
notional amount of gold that is not expected to be delivered
physically. Credit
balances on an unallocated account do not entitle the creditor to
specific bars
of gold, but are backed by the general stock of the gold dealer with
whom the unallocated
account is held. A client with an unallocated account is an unsecured
creditor
to the gold dealer for the monetary value of a notional amount of gold
the
client bought or sold at a specific price. Profit and loss in an
unallocated
gold account is calculated from the difference between the transaction
price
and the spot price of gold. Unallocated gold trading is a transactional
platform that creates profit opportunities by price volatility, which
is one of
the conceptual components behind the logic of an asset price bubble and
also
behind the logic of the bubble’s eventual burst.
Unallocated Gold Account Risks
The total quantity of unallocated gold in the gold market is
estimated to be around 15,000 tonnes at the end of 2008. The 2,134
tonnes on a
daily average of spot gold traded through London
represent 14.2% of the unallocated gold pool. This amount of daily gold
turnover is high compared to the average daily turnover in UK
equities of between 0.34% and 0.63% for the 12 months ending September
2009.
While LBMA members are not required to provide information
on the amount of unallocated gold held in their books, the relatively
high
turnover in gold trade suggests that gold dealers operate at a low
fractional
reserve system where unallocated gold accounts are only fractionally
backed by
physical gold. When gold is bought and sold by clients of LBMA member
dealers
with no intention of taking delivery of physical gold, the amount of
gold
reserve needed to back the volume of unallocated gold trade remains
unaffected
by the volume of trade because a buy must be balanced with a sale
simultaneously
in a trade. Unallocated gold trades require gold reserve only as a
notional
value that provides adequate backup for net balances, and not a
physical
reality because the same non-delivery gold can be traded many times in
the
course of a trading day. The gold market expands by increasing
transactional
velocity, unrelated to the size of the pool of unallocated physical
gold. Transactions that depends on the
velocity of
trades generally contributes to the forming of price bubbles.
Since there is no minimum gold reserve requirement set by
the LABMA for member gold dealers, unallocated gold trading accounts
are in
fact fractionally backed only by a notional
amount of gold made credible by the
collective credit standing
of the gold dealers, unrelated to the amount of physical gold actually
held
collectively or individually by LBMA members.
Gold dealers can always meet requests for physical delivery
of the gold they sell by buying it in the gold spot market. The
uncertainty
involves only the spot price at which dealers can acquire the gold for
delivery, physical or virtual. This spot price is a function of the
balance
between buyers and selling. When the number of buyer exceeds the number
of
sellers, the spot price of gold rises and vice
versa. Since gold trade is mostly non-delivery trades, the spot
price of
gold is determined by imbalance between buys and sells, unrelated
directly to
the supply and demand for physical gold. This makes the gold market
highly
susceptible to market trend imbalances.
Gold trading is a transactional platform on which price is
determined by the directional flow toward equilibrium between buying
and
selling, which is one component way to define the logic of a trade
bubble.
Ironically, the directional flow towards equilibrium in a
reverse-resistent
imbalance between buying and selling will also lead to market failures
when no
seller can be found at any price (inflationary bubble) or no buyer can
be found
at any price (deflationary bubble). The gold market’s detachment from
physical
gold substantially increases the probability of such scenarios of
market
failure.
Trades in unallocated gold are basically monetary loans (derived
from the transactional price of gold) from buyers to the gold dealer
since
physical gold delivery is not required or expected in gold trades.
Sellers in
unallocated gold accounts are merely calling back monetary loans
(derived from
the transactional price of gold) previously extended to the gold
dealer. The gold
dealer uses unallocated gold that its clients bought from it as part of
the
dealer’s liquid reserve, while paying off the monetary loan previously
extended
by some sellers derived from the price of gold, as a seller must have
been a
buyer previously in order to have the gold to sell currently.
When gold price rises after a buyer bought the gold, the
buyer makes a profit on paper until he sells; when gold price falls
after a
buyer bought the gold, the buyer suffers a loss if he needs to sell.
Theoretically, the gold dealer’s solvency is not affected by volatility
in gold
price, provided the dealer does not operate a proprietary gold trading
desk,
and provided its clients do not default in their financial obligations
to it.
A gold dealer can fail financially if it suffers
unsustainable loss from its own proprietary trading account, or the
market
value of its gold reserve falls below what the dealer paid
earlier on credit and the dealer is unable to
meet margin calls, or because new buyers are paying a lower price than
old
buyers previous paid to buy the gold and the dealer does not have
enough money
to pay new sellers because there are more sellers than buyers.
A dealer caught in a work-out resolution must pay first, from
its allocated holdings, the allocated account clients as secured
creditors. The
unallocated account clients, being unsecured creditors with only
unsecured
claim on the unallocated gold pool held by the gold dealer, will get
paid last,
provided there is enough unallocated gold left in the dealer’s reserve
to pay
all of them. If not, under a bankruptcy regime, all unallocated
accounts will
only receive a pro-rated amount among other unallocated accounts.
Similarly to a bank run on fiat money that can quickly
deplete a bank’s fractional reserve, LBMA unallocated gold account
holders are susceptible
to financial loss caused by the depletion of unallocated gold reserve
if a
sufficiently large number of market participants with unallocated
accounts
suddenly request delivery of physical bullions they own. In normal
times, this
is considered unlikely as much gold trading is part of hedging
strategies that
place claims and counter-claims on the same physical gold many times
over
without demanding actual delivery. But the operative emphasis of this
logic is
on “normal times”.
The London
Over-the-Counter (OTC) Gold Market
The London gold
market is an Over-the-Counter (OTC) market - which means that buyers
and
sellers trade directly with each other bilaterally, arranged by the
gold
dealer, and not on an exchange floor through open price competition
among all
other market participants operating under the same exchange rules and
governmental regulatory regimes. The surviving one of the two bilateral
parties
in an OTC bilateral trade carries the entire risk burden of
counterparty
default, unlike trades in an central exchange where the counterparty
risk of
default is assumed by the exchange as a financial intermediary.
Bilateral
counterparty risk include the effects of other counterparty risks
knowingly or
unknowingly assumed separately by the initial bilateral counter
parties in a
daisy chain of risks. A central exchange mitigates counterparty risk by
enforcing strict membership and trading rules and by requiring solid
financial
qualifications for membership. The rules and practices of the central
exchange
offer more protection to exchange trading members than OTC traders
enjoy
bilaterally.
Outside of London,
only a small limited amount of gold trading takes place on the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) or the Tokyo Commodity Exchange (TOCOM).
Gold forward
contracts, known also as gold futures contracts, are non-standardized contracts between two parties to
buy or sell gold at a specified future time at a price agreed to on the
trade
day. A gold forward contract is a transaction in which two
parties bilaterally
agree on the purchase and sale of gold at a future date, commonly 1
month, 3
months, 6 months or 1 year hence, but any specifically structured dates
may be
traded by any two parties in the OTC market. These bilateral forward
contracts
often contain terms that are party specific, that are difficult to
transfer
readily to other third parties, making them less liquid in the open
market.
Such illiquidity is compensated by a larger premium
on the transaction.
Gold Option Premiums
The premium on a gold
forward transaction in US dollars will reflect current Euro-dollar
interest
rates less an allowance for current gold leasing rates. Gold forward
contracts
are the basic modules of many gold-related swap
arrangements. For example, a central bank would sell gold at spot price
while
simultaneously entering into a forward contract to buy the gold back at
the
same price or a lower price by a future date if such contract are
available at
a reasonable premium.
Gold mining companies have also made extensive use of the gold
forward market in recent years as part of their more sophisticated
hedging
programs designed to mitigate gold price volatility over specific
periods. Gold
miners would pay a premium to enter
into forward contract at a strike
price to ensure them a desired profit margin over the current or
estimated
future cost of production.
In the options market, the right, but not the obligation, to
buy is referred to as a call option (‘call’);
and the right, but not the obligation, to sell is referred to as a put
option
(‘put’). The pre-agreed price of the
transaction is known as the strike
price or exercise price. The pre-agreed strike price is not the price
of
the
option because the transaction is designed to be self neutralizing in
value.
The price of an option is the premium
on the price-neutral transaction based on currently known market
implications.
Options have become the third dimension of the gold market, beside
physical gold and gold futures transactions. The gold option market has
expanded
at a fast pace since the 1980s, along with other structured finance
markets
such as debt securitization and derivatives markets. The options market
has
generated a lexicon of specialized terminology that forms its own
nomenclature
to accommodate the great variety of trading and hedging strategies with
increasing esoteric complexity.
A premium (basic
price of the option) is the compensation the grantor of the option
receives
from the buyer for providing the opportunity of meeting the buyer’s
expected
transaction aims. The premium for an
option is calculated based on a combination of the current gold price,
the
strike price, current interest rates, the time to expiration and the
anticipated gold price volatility during the period of the option
contract.
The premium in an
option is the logical mathematical product of market implications. It
is not
based on the hunch of a gambler. The risk in option transaction lies in
paradigm shifts in the market that renders the logic behind market
implications
inoperative, such as an unexpected external perturbation, as the
Russian
sovereign debt default in 1998 and its adverse impact on the
high-leveraged
trading strategies of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a
spectacularly
successful hedge fund before its sudden demise from an unexpected shift
in
market paradigm, causing its over-leveraged positions to turn bad,
after losing
$4.6 billion in less than four months,
Black-Scholes Formula
for Pricing Options and the Emergence of CDS
In pricing options, the premium
is the amount required to compensate for the specific amount at risk to
the issuer.
The premium can be precisely calculated
electronically using the Black-Scholes
model.
In their 1973 paper, “The Pricing of Options and
Corporate Liabilities”, Fischer Black (1938-95) at the University
of
Chicago and MIT, and later a partner in Goldman Sachs before falling
victim to
cancer, and Myron Scholes, (1941-Present) at MIT and later in 1994 was
one of
the founding partners of LTCM, published an option valuation formula
which has
since come to be accepted by the market as the standard method of
pricing
options. Black and Scholes derived a stochastic partial differential
equation
governing the price of an asset on which an option is based, and then
solved it
to obtain their formula for the price of the option. Robert C. Merton,
(1944-Present), also of MIT, published a paper expanding the
mathematical
understanding of the options pricing model and coined the term
“Black-Scholes”
option pricing model. Merton and Scholes received the 1997 Noble Prize
for
Economics for this and related work.
Black and Scholes made path-breaking contribution to the growth of the
option
market by providing a mathematical calculation for precise pricing of
an
option, changing it from mysterious intuitive guesses to measurable
rational
market implications. The formula was the intellectual godfather of the
conceptual logic behind credit default swaps (CDS), a pivotal
financial
product that helped enable the spectacular growth of structured
finance, and as
it turned out, one of the prime causes of the global financial crisis
in
deregulated globalized markets that broke out in mid 2007. (Please see
my December 3, 2009
AToL article: DERIVATIVE MARKET
REFORM, Part 1: The Folly of Deregulation; or on my web
site)
As pointed out in my May 25,
2009 article: Mark-to-Market
vs Mark-to-Model, a $10,000 bet on a CDS failure could
stand to win
$100,000,000 in insurance payments within a year. That was exactly what
many
hedge funds did because they could recoup all their lost bets even if
they only
won once in 10,000 years.
As it turned out, many only had to wait a couple of years
before winning a huge windfall. But until AIG was bailed out by the
Fed, these
hedge funds were not sure they could collect their winnings from AIG,
their
insurer of choice.
And, as it turned out, AIG was bailed out by the Treasury
and the Fed so that its CDS contracts to cover Goldman Sachs were paid
in full
by AIG. A search for key words: “Geithner
AIG hearings” on Youtube will lead to video clips on
Congressional and
Commission hearings on the scandalous AIG bailout and the unseemly
relationship
between AIG, Goldman Sachs, the Fed and the Treassury.
Gold Option Premiums
Among the parameters that determine the premium of a
gold option: the current gold price, the strike price,
the current interest rates, the time to expiration and the anticipated
gold
price volatility, only the anticipated gold price volatility is not
known.
Therefore, most option market-makers quote premiums
based on identical calculations, with variance only in their
expectations of gold
price volatility. Accordingly, only the position in the market-maker’s
book
will vary from those of other market-markers.
Premiums of gold
options predictably can fluctuate considerably, but as a general rule,
they are
usually in the range of $15 to $25 per troy ounce in a calm market. On
occasion,
premium can fluctuate much higher in volatile markets, specially when
gold
prices are higher or lower than fundamentals. That is both the
attraction and consequent
importance of options to market participants: options offer affordable
yet immense leverage because the buyer only has to
pay the premium to build up large positions
with relatively small capital outlay.
The premium in an
option is the only amount at risk for the buyer, whether call or put,
because
the option is itself value neutral. If the buyer paid a premium
of $20 for an option contract, that would be all the buyer
stands to lose. For the grantor on the other side of the options
transaction,
the attraction is the premium income,
but the grantor stands exposed if the underlying price moves against
the option
grantor who must normally hedge this exposure at a cost below the premium income.
All options strategies, no matter how complex, are made up
of a combination of the two basic transactions – a call
and a put. A call option is
“in-the-money” when the strike price is lower than the
current
price; and is “out-of-the-money” if its strike
price is higher than the current price. A put option
is “in-the-money” if the strike price is higher than
the current price and is “out-of-the-money”
if its strike price is lower than the
current price. The amount by which an option is in-the-money is called
its intrinsic value.
For example, say spot gold is $975 per troy ounce and a call
option is bought at a strike price of
$1,000 for 6 months. If
the price then rises to $1,000 during the life of the option (within 6
months),
it is described as ‘at market’. The holder could either exercise the call option to buy gold at that price,
or hold on to it since the option has no intrinsic value even to cover
transaction cost in fees.
If gold price then rises to $1,100, the call option
would be “in-the-money”, and it could be exercised to
buy gold at the strike price of $1,000,
resulting in an immediate profit of $100 per troy ounce for the holder
of the
option, at the expense of the issuer of the option.
The issuer of the call
option then suffers at least an immediate opportunity cost, as he/she
may or
may not suffer a real loss, depending on the price at which he/she
acquired the
gold earlier. Most likely the issuer already hedged his/her risk with
positions
in another option. The premium of the call
option is the price charged by
the issuer reflecting on the issuer’s judgment of the market
implications on
the probability of of gold price rising
above the strike price of $1,000 per troy ounce
Similarly, a put
option is purchased when gold spot price is $1,000 per troy ounce at a strike price of $975. If gold falls to
$$975, the option is “at market”. If gold falls to $875 before the
expiration
date, or expiry, the holder can exercise the right to sell at $975 and
make a
profit of $100 per troy ounce at the expense of the issuer either as
opportunity cost or a real loss depending the price at which he/she can
sell
the gold at a later date.
Some hedge funds manage to achieve extraordinarily high
performance with a strategy of Options Statistical Arbitrage (“OSA”)
that
targets 30%+ net annual returns with a Sharpe ratio of 3+.
Sharpe Ratio
The Sharpe ratio (or reward-to-variability ratio), developed
by William Forsyth Sharpe, is a measure of the excess return, or risk
premium,
per unit of risk in an investment asset or a trading strategy. The
return on a
benchmark asset, such as the risk-free rate of return, is the expected
value of
the excess of the asset return over the benchmark return. The standard
deviation of the asset excess return is a constant risk-free return
throughout
the period.
The Sharpe ratio is used to characterize how well the return
of an risky asset compensates the investor for the risk taken. When
comparing
two assets each with the expected return against the same benchmark
risk free
return, the asset with the higher Sharpe ratio gives more return for
the same
risk.
Investors are often advised to pick investments with high
Sharpe ratios. However, like any other mathematical model, it relies on
the
data being correct. Pyramid schemes with a long duration of operation
would
typically provide a high Sharpe ratio when derived from reported
returns, but
the inputs are false because the true risk is masked by the
continuation of the
fraud.
When examining the investment performance of assets with
smoothing of returns, the Sharpe ratio should be derived from the
performance
of the underlying assets rather than the fund’s returns. Sharpe ratios
are
often used to rank the performance of portfolio managers or mutual fund
managers.
The principal advantage of the Sharpe ratio is that it is
directly computable from any observed series of returns without need
for
additional information surrounding the source of profitability.
Unfortunately,
some users are carelessly drawn to refer to the ratio as giving the
level of
“risk-adjusted returns” when the ratio gives only the volatility of
adjusted
returns when interpreted properly.
Given that a hedge fund manager typically aims for a Sharpe
ratio of greater than 1.0, a commodity trading advisor (CTA) manager
with a
Sharpe ratio of 0.19 would do poorly under this criterion. A Sharpe
ratio of
1.0 would suggest that the relevant percentage of return and risk is
about
even. A Sharpe ration of 2.0 is excellent but probably cannot be
sustained for
long.
But the Sharpe ratio has its own set of difficulties as a
performance measure. In September 1996, after 31 months of operation,
LTCM
reportedly had a Sharpe ratio of 4.35 (after fees). With the benefit of
hindsight, one can say that LTCM’s realized Sharpe ratio after
two-and-a-half
years of operation did not give a meaningful indication of how to
evaluate its
investments.
LTCM started with $1.3 billion in initial assets and a
strategy focused on bond trading. The trading strategy of the fund was
to make
convergence trades, which involve taking advantage of arbitrage between
securities that are temporarily incorrectly priced relative to each
other. Due
to the small spread in arbitrage opportunities, the fund had to
leverage itself
highly to transform its conceptual advantage to make money. At its
height in
1998, the fund had $5 billion in capital, controlled over $100 billion
of
assets and had positions whose total worth was over $1 trillion in
notional
value. Soon, it had to cut its capital down by more than half ($2.7
billion)
without correspondingly reducing to risk exposure in an increasingly
risk
adverse market in order to maintain accustomed high return. All it did
was to
increase its Sharpe ratio.
Due to its highly leveraged nature and a financial crisis in Russia
related
to the default of sovereign bonds which led to a abrupt flight to
quality, LTCM
sustained massive losses and was in danger of defaulting on its
extensive
financial commitments. The large size and wide breath of its positions
made it
difficult for LTCM to cut its losses in its bad positions without also
wiping
out still profitable positions. LTCM held huge positions in the market,
totaling roughly 5% of the total global fixed-income market.
LTCM had borrowed massive amounts of money to finance its
leveraged trades. Had LTCM gone into default, it would have triggered a
global
market seizure and financial crisis, caused by the massive write-offs
its
creditors would have had to make. In September 1998, Fed-assisted
bailout of
LTCM, a classic model of too-big-to-fail, prevented a systematic
meltdown of
the market at the last moment.
Volatility tends to come in lumps, as volatility tends to
breed more volatility. The LTCM near collapse and the Russian sovereign
debt
crisis showed that high volatility would stay with the markets for
extended
time periods even after the precipitating events had subsided. Some
market
observers believe major volatility events tend to occur every four
years,
inherent in the structural dynamics of deregulated financial markets.
(Please see again my December
3, 2009 AToL article: DERIVATIVE
MARKET REFORM, Part 1: The Folly of Deregulation; or on my web
site)
Gold Mining Companies
and Options
Gold mining companies in
particular can buy this kind of put
option for price protection. Of course, with either the call
or the put, if the
strike price of $1,000 per troy ounce is not reached, the option
expires with
no intrinsic value or even “out-of-the-money”, the holder loses only
the premium.
The mining company, to continue
that example, will not mind if a put
option with a strike price at $1,000 expires unexercised by the holder
to avoid
loss (extrinsic value) of $25 per troy ounce, because with spot gold
actually
up at $975 per troy ounce within the option period, the put
provides price insurance to the mining company if the price
should fall below $975 per troy ounce, while the company could still
participate in the higher price during and after the option period.
Much more complex option strategies have been devised to
meet the specific hedging needs of buyers with different appetite for
risk
against protection or for profit from market volatility, but the basic
principle remains.
Normally a grantor of options would seek insurance using
what is known as delta hedging, a
formula measuring the amount of gold to be bought or sold to cover the
exposure.
The formula is a by-product of the Black-Scholes model used in precise
option
pricing. The variable factor in delta
hedging is the measure of probability of an option being exercised
against
a grantor.
If, for example, the strike price is $1,000 per troy ounce
of gold, the closer gold gets to that price the more the grantor must
buy or
sell to become ‘delta neutral’. Delta
hedging can have considerable
impact on the market price if large options positions of 100,000 ounces
or more
have to be covered by the equivalent purchase or sale of part or all of
that
gold.
Delta hedging is a
strategy undertaken by grantors of options to manage their price
exposure. The delta is the mathematical differential
used by gold options market participants to measure the amount of gold
to be
bought or sold in order to hedge price exposure. The ‘delta
variable’ is a measure of the probability of an option being
exercised against the grantor and therefore dictates how much an option
grantor
must hedge to be covered or ‘delta
neutral’.
The delta hedge is
calculated on a basic model taking into account changes in the spot
price, the
time to expiration and the difference between the strike and spot
prices. As
the delta changes, the option grantor
will either buy or sell the metal.
The term delta
describes how the value of
an option changes as a result of small changes in the underlying asset,
assuming ceteris paribus (all the
other factors influencing option pricing being constant). The delta of an option can also be viewed as
the required hedge for the option against changes in the underlying
stock, i.e.
the position in the stock which ensures that the Profit/Loss on the
option is
offset by the Profit/Loss on the stock position.
The term gamma describes
how the delta of the option changes when the
underlying asset changes. Hence, the gamma
also describes how one should change one’s hedge to remain delta
neutral when the spot price moves. All purchased standard
options, calls and puts, have positive gamma.
The gamma position
also provides insight into the investor's view on the volatility of the
underlying asset, as a long position shows expectations of a volatile
market
while a short position indicates that the investor expects a calm
market.
The term theta describes
the change in the
value of the option when time passes and everything else remains
constant. This
change stems from the fact that the passage of time shortens an
option’s remaining
expiration period. This reduction in an option’s contract life is also
commonly
referred to as how much the option “bleeds” the speculator. The theta (sensitivity) is often noted in pips
lost in value per day that passes.
A pip is the smallest price change
that a given exchange rate can make. Since most major currency pairs
are priced
to four decimal places, the smallest change is that of the last decimal
point -
for most pairs this is the equivalent of 1/100 of one percent, or
one
basis point
The term vega describes
the change in the
value of the option when the volatility changes. The volatility
represents how
large the swings are in the underlying asset and is the cornerstone in
option
pricing. Larger swings imply that the underlying asset is more likely
to take
on more extreme values. While the option holder’s risk is limited to
the premium, the upside is unlimited for
vanilla options. Hence, an increase in the volatility of the underlying
asset
increases the value of the option.
The term rho
describes the sensitivity of
the option price, based on the Black-Scholes model, with regards to
changes in
the interest rate.
For the grantor, or writer, of options, the objective is premium
income while price risks are
hedged. But the term premium has a
additional meaning in gold trading.
In the gold market, a premium
is normally charged for extra quality on bars over 995 fine. A premium is also normally charged on the
manufacturing costs of bars smaller than the standard 400-troy-ounce
(12.5
kilogram) good delivery bars, such bars as kilobars
and ten-tola bars.
The tola bar is a
unit of weight for gold popular on gold markets in the Indian
sub-continent.
One tola = 0.375 ounces (11.1 grams)
of 999 fineness usually marketed as 10-tola
bars and also 5-tola bars. The 999
ten-tola bars mainly go to India
but also circulate widely in the Gulf States;
999.9 ten-tola bars are sold in Saudi
Arabia. Swiss refineries account for
around 50%
of 999.9 ten-tola bars output,
supported by UK,
South African and Australian production.
A premium over loco London may also
be charged for bars c.i.f. certain locations, such as regional markets
like Dubai
or Singapore.
A premium is also
percentage mark-up over the actual gold content of a coin or small bar.
Bullion
coins were conceived to keep this premium
as low as possible.
Gold Swaps
The term ‘swap’
has come to have several meanings in the physical gold market.
It can simply mean the exchange of metal in one location for
metal in another to avoid the costly and risky movement of gold. For
example,
gold held in New York
with the
Federal Reserve Bank may be swapped for gold held in London
with the Bank of England with no actual movement of physical gold.
A ‘swap’ has
increasingly come to describe the simultaneous spot sale of gold with a
forward
transaction to buy the same amount back at a later date. For
governments and
central banks, swaps have become a
way either of raising cash to meet short-term contingencies or simply
to invest
the money on an interest-bearing basis. Gold swaps
have become an important source of liquidity to the market.
Swaps have been
used in particular by gold mining nations such as South
Africa, Brazil
and the Philippines,
which market their local production. Instead of selling the gold
outright, they
can swap it to provide immediate liquidity.
South Africa,
for example, entered into extensive swap
programs from the 1970s onwards, often using part of her reserves in
addition
to the regular gold production that she was marketing. Swaps,
usually for six months, were either rolled over on maturity
or, on occasion if the price was high, the gold was partly sold and
partly
taken back into reserves. At the peak in the mid-1980s South
Africa was estimated to have as much
as four
hundred tonnes of gold out on swaps.
The Reserve Bank of India
also swapped gold for a stand-by loan
from the Bank of Japan in 1991 to tide it over a short-term foreign
exchange
crisis. Central banks usually, though not always, indicate when they
have swapped gold by showing a drop in their
published reserve figures in the International Financial Statistics
publication
of the IMF; this is sometimes taken as an outright sale; often it is
not.
In futures markets, swaps
can be used for rolling over or rolling forward contracts. In practice,
the
mechanism of a gold forward contract incolves a central bank lending
gold to a
bullion bank for a specific period at a gold lending rate. The bullion
bank
then sells the gold at spot price and deposits the cash proceeds in an
interest-bearing account. At the expiration date of the central bank
lease
contract, the bullion bank closes the cash account, then pays a gold
mining
company the cash including interest earned from the interest-bearing
account,
less the LIBOR rate and the bullion bank fees. The mining company then
delivers
the gold back to the central bank to unwound and complete the forward
transaction.
Spot gold is traded for settlement two business days
following the trade date (T+2), with a business day defined as a day
when both
the New York and London
markets are open for business.
The Gold Spot and Forward
Markets
Unlike many other commodity markets, the gold forward market
is driven by spot prices and interest rate differentials, similar to
foreign
exchange markets, rather than underlying supply and demand dynamics.
This is
because gold, like fiat currencies, is borrowed and lent by central
banks and
in the interbank market.
Because interest rates for gold tend to be lower than US
domestic interest rates because cash is more liquid than gold -- it
encourages
gold borrowings so that central banks can earn interest on their large
gold
holdings -- in normal circumstances the gold market tends to be in contango, meaning the forward price
of gold is higher than the spot price. Historically, this has made it
an
attractive market for forward sales by gold producers and contributed
to an
active and relatively liquid gold derivatives market.
Gold trading historically has taken place in an exclusive
membership club apart from open trading practices in exchanges in the
modern
financial marketplace. In the gold market, a market-making gold dealer
quotes a
price for the buyer or seller who does not have the benefit of
immediate direct
comparison with prices offered by other market participants, which is a
market
dynamic buyers or sellers normally find on an exchange floor.
Gold Derivatives and
ETFs
Gold market-making dealers, working closely with central
bank gold desks, exercise near monopolistic control of gold prices on
behalf of
central banks. OTC counterparty default risk is bilateral and not
assumed by exhanges
that stand behind transactions on their trading
floors by regulating the performance and
credit-worthiness of
exchange members of good standing. In
recent decades, the spectacular growth of the largely self-regulated
market for
gold derivatives and gold exchange traded funds (ETFs) has resulted in
increased systemic risk in the OTC gold market.
The global financial crisis that began in mid 2007 has
provided impetus to move the self-regulated trading of OTC derivative
contracts
to Central Counterparties (CCPs), rather than the bilateral clearing
that has been
the practice to date. Financial regulatory reform proposals to mitigate
the
falling-domino chain effects of systemic risk associated with OTC
derivative
trading by large complex financial institutions (LCFIs) require various
degrees
of offloading of standardized OTC derivatives. This means either the
users of
derivative contracts will have to provide and hold more collateral
against
contracts traded bilaterally, or margin will have to be posted to CCPs
to cover
potential losses from counterparty defaults.
January 14, 2011
Next: Weak Political
Response to Ineffective Financial Regulation
|
|
|
|