L'iceberg dei derivati... sta cominciando a mostrare la sua ombra... ;)

[Cantor]

Leggete un po' questo, di persona sicuramente competente!

Finanza e risparmio

Seduti sul vulcano degli Hedge funds
Enrico Cisnetto, "Il Messaggero" Domenica 04 Dicembre 2005


Il record che ha raggiunto in questi giorni la quotazione dell’oro, bene rifugio per eccellenza, ci dice che la finanza globale è seduta sopra il ciglio di un vulcano.

Grazie all’informatizzazione dei sistemi di investimento si è creata, nei primi anni ’80, una situazione in cui il mondo finanziario è diventato sempre più indipendente dalla politica e dalle banche centrali. Il “campo da gioco” del capitale non sono più state le grandi Borse, ma i cosiddetti “mercati virtuali”. Quelli in cui si sono sviluppati i derivati (cioè titoli il cui valore deriva dal prezzo di mercato di un titolo sottostante, strumento utile per la copertura del rischio d’impresa sui cambi e sulle materie prime). Qui investono il private equity, gli hedge funds e il venture capital: fondi di “grande rischio” partecipati da grandi investitori privati e istituzioni finanziarie. E nei derivati, sfruttando il cosiddetto “effetto-leva”, si punta una piccola cifra per ottenere un grande guadagno. Sempre che i prezzi si muovano nella direzione desiderata, altrimenti la perdita sarà altrettanto pesante.
Oggi la situazione è questa: il valore facciale di tutti questi strumenti di investimento si aggira intorno ai 280 mila miliardi di dollari, quasi nove volte il pil del mondo. E questo significa che la quantità di moneta auto-generatasi è molto più della ricchezza effettiva esistente derivata dalla produttività. E’ evidente che tutto ciò, in una finanza sempre più globale, è assai pericoloso per la stabilità del mondo intero. Un esempio? Il crack del 1998 del Long Term Capital Management. Ltcm, di gran lunga il più grande e affermato, raccoglieva alcune superstar di Wall Street, banchieri e due Nobel per l’economia, Robert Merton e Myron Scholes. L’hedge fund si impegnava in operazioni in derivati superiori ai mille miliardi di dollari. Finché non ha sbagliato operazione, puntando i depositi degli investitori (4,75 miliardi di dollari) per l’acquisto di futures pari a 1250 miliardi di dollari. Era una speculazione monetaria in vista di una futura convergenza tra i tassi di interesse mondiale che non si è mai verificata. Per fortuna la Federal Reserve chiese e ottenne da 13 banche americane i capitali per ripianare il debito e salvare Ltcm.
Un episodio isolato? Oggi, in una delle maggiori Borse merci mondiali (il London Metal Exchange dove si scambiano i contratti sulle materie prime minerarie), un’altra operazione sui derivati sta facendo tremare il mondo. Il direttore del Centro di Regolazione delle scorte cinese, Liu Qibing, ha accumulato contratti di vendita di rame che non possedeva per 100 mila tonnellate, sperando in un crollo dei prezzi. Una manovra ribassista di dimensioni enormi, visto che le riserve mondiali non superano le 140.000 tonnellate. Il costo del rame, invece, è continuato a salire: il governo cinese è corso ai ripari, inaugurando una serie di vendite delle sue riserve, ma se i contratti venissero a scadenza, il buco sarebbe colossale. E intanto Liu Qibing è scomparso.
Come si vede, il sistema non trae giovamento dalle lezioni. Esistono ancora fondi con meccanismi di indebitamento e rischi molto elevati: se azzeccano gli investimenti, guadagnano loro. Se sbagliano, paghiamo tutti. Con una leva si può sollevare il mondo. Ma lo si può anche mandare in default.

Su un articolo postato da Fabio i Cinesi dicono di avere in mano 1,3M tonnellate di rame
21 dicembre è vicino vedremo che succede.

Saluti
Cantor

 

[Cantor]

Su un articolo postato da Fabio i Cinesi dicono di avere in mano 1,3 tonnellate di rame
21 dicembre è vicino vedremo che succede.

Saluti
Cantor

http://www.finanzaonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=632326

per essere precisi

 

[FaGal]

Regulators close in on hedge funds
Da IFLR di dicembre

The UK Financial Services Authority has put 25 hedge funds under daily scrutiny, becoming the most recent in a line of regulators to focus attention on the sector. James Rice reports


Hedge fund advisers could be forgiven for feeling like marked men. In financial centres worldwide, regulators are monitoring them with increasing scrutiny, anxious about the potential risk they claim funds could pose to the stability of financial markets. Tied to this is a suspicion that some hedge funds are not taking compliance seriously. Hedge funds counter that they are unfairly targeted, and that claims they represent a risk to the market are based more on speculation than evidence.

In an industry with assets worth over $1 trillion, the costs of malpractice could be severe. In the latest action by a watchdog, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has begun relationship management on a daily basis with the managers of 25 hedge funds it considers to have a high impact on retail consumers and financial markets. The FSA's new centre of hedge fund expertise will be in daily contact with the selected advisers, monitoring trades, identifying systemic risks and getting a flavour of the market.

"Hedge funds are now a large part of the market, with a lot of influence," says a spokesman at the FSA. "We need concrete action in engaging with the main players."

For those fund managers whose only previous contact with the regulator amounted to sending it returns, this heightened engagement might take some getting used to.
Identifying the risks

Increased reviews of hedge fund managers was one of the risk mitigation actions outlined in the FSA's discussion papers on hedge funds published in June. In those papers the FSA summarized its concerns about the sector, including market and liquidity disruption, operational risks, weaknesses in valuation methodologies, a lack of information flow, market abuse and fraud. Industry figures point to three over-riding concerns: contagion risk to financial institutions should funds fail; improper trading practices; and inadequate consumer protection.

One of the FSA's main worries is that hedge funds' increasing investment in credit derivatives could create imbalance in the market, either through a collective collapse if funds do not carry out enough stress testing, or through a sudden retreat from the credit derivative market. Banks and pension funds are also drawing much larger percentages of their revenues from hedge funds, which presents a wider systemic risk, say critics. Regulators are acting to avoid a hedge fund failure similar to that of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, which was rescued by the Federal Reserve at a cost of $3.5 billion to prevent a global financial crash. Without more transparent information flows, the FSA might be unaware that any potential crash is looming.

The FSA also says that some hedge funds "may be testing the boundaries of acceptable practice with respect to insider trading and market manipulation". The close relations between hedge fund managers and prime brokers are seen as a possible source of improper practice. The discovery in October of accounting irregularities at Refco, one of the world's largest derivatives brokers, and subsequent charges made against its former chief executive Phillip Bennett, will not have eased regulators' minds. Indeed, a hedge fund suspected of receiving preferential issues from prime brokers is now under investigation from the FSA.

The root of the matter is that the FSA wants enough transparency to allow it to fully understand what the underlying funds do and what trades occur in what sectors, which will allow it to make better-informed decisions on risk and regulatory actions. It wants to understand the market impact issues from the perspective of the managers.
Avoiding fund flight

The difficulty for the regulators is how to increase compliance and protect investors without making hedge fund managers relocate to unregulated jurisdictions. The FSA has tried to reassure funds that it is not interested in regulation for its own sake, and that existing regulation is partial and approached with a light touch, making little practical difference to the way funds operate. Hector Sants, FSA wholesale markets and institutions managing director, says: "We are mindful of the danger of regulatory arbitrage and have no desire to cause the hedge fund management industry to migrate."

Managers of some of the larger hedge funds say being relationship-managed by the regulator could give them a competitive advantage, because they can show investors that they are running a tight compliance system. Some suggest that the FSA's latest exercise is more of an indirect warning to smaller hedge funds, who often have substantial assets but little effective self-regulation.

Although the FSA's latest action represents only a slight tightening of regulation, hedge funds are afraid it might signal that the FSA will ultimately follow the US regulator's methodology. Under the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) new rules, all hedge funds advising 15 or more clients annually and managing at least $25 million in assets must register with the SEC before February 2006. Once registered, the advisers will be subject to conduct examinations, disclosure requirements and tougher compliance controls.

"The SEC rules are universally perceived [by hedge funds] as intrusive and excessive," says Simon Gleeson, a partner at Allen & Overy who worked at the FSA from 1999 to 2000 on the UK market abuse regime. "But there is a tide in regulatory affairs whereby the US regulations tend to be applied in the UK over time."

 

[FaGal]

Finding a balance

Hedge funds believe that self-regulation as it stands is effective, with enough checks and balances already in place. They argue that stricter compliance will create unjustified costs and constrict innovation. The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA), an industry association for hedge funds, declined to comment directly. But in AIMA's response to the FSA's discussion paper, the association rejected suggestions that control, compliance and risk management systems were lower in hedge funds than more regulated firms. It suggested that any regulation be assisted by "industry-led, together with internationally-coordinated, initiatives".

Pure self-regulation might be an optimistic proposition in the present climate, but the FSA does not want to strangle the hedge funds either. Jonathan Herbst, a partner in Norton Rose's financial services group, thinks that the FSA is striking a good balance, and easing concern by regulating the managers and certain prime brokers rather than the funds themselves. "There's a difficult tension between a voluntarist approach and a compulsory one," he says.

In other jurisdictions regulators tend to be more heavy-handed. European regulators are wary of hedge funds, and with the exceptions of Ireland and Luxembourg, are difficult to sell into. In a report published in September, for example, the Dutch financial regulator, the Autoriteit Financiële Markten, said that funds' lack of transparency was a key area of regulatory concern. Meanwhile, Japan's Financial Services Agency will soon publish a market assessment of hedge funds, following consultation with the Bank of Japan, the Ministry of Finance and leading figures in the alternative investment industry. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission was one of the first to regulate hedge funds, setting out its minimum disclosures required for hedge fund reports in 2002.

Regulators face the challenge of improving hedge fund regulation while allowing them to make the returns their investors expect without feeling victimized. In an investment sector wary of watchdogs after years of being unregulated, regulators will need to persuade fund managers that the free flow of information and open dialogue are essential, and that intervention will only come where market stability is at stake.

 

[FaGal]

Funds under scrutiny
US

From February 2006 hedge fund advisers with 15 or more clients each year and managing at least $25 million in assets will have to register with the SEC. The SEC will collect information on the operations of registered hedge fund advisers and conduct examinations of them, enforcing basic compliance controls and improving disclosures made to investors.
UK

In June 2005, the FSA published two discussion papers on hedge funds - one on risk and regulatory engagement, the other on consumer protection for investors in retail hedge funds. It has now established a six-person centre of hedge fund expertise, which began relationship management with the managers of 25 high-impact hedge funds on October 31.
Japan

Japan's Financial Services Agency is due to publish a market assessment of hedge funds soon, following consultation with the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Finance Ministry and other important industry players. New laws are expected to follow.
Hong Kong

In November 2002, the Securities and Futures Commission set out specific requirements on hedge fund managers' qualifications, risk management profiles, information disclosure and internal control systems of management companies.

 

[FaGal]

Sul blog dell'utente tegio trovate dei miei post sulla regolamentazione italiana e svizzera dei fondi offshore

http://masterfinance.splinder.com

A breve qualcosa anche su quella USA

 

[visch]

http://www.movisol.org/ulse345.htm

 

[ramirez]

confesso ke non ho letto tutti i post (interessanti) precedenti.
Comunque così velocemente posso dirVi:
1)Del problema Refco avevo già letto da qualke settimana
sull'economist.
2) l'economist ke ha trattato più volte il problema hedge funds
ne parla, in generale, come unA buona cosa per i mercati
3)nel mio piccolo qualke derivato su azioni lo vendo/compro
beh dal punto di vista di un investitore è una della opzioni
da prendere in considerazione anke in ottica DIFENSIVA

 

[FaGal]

US court to hear challenge to SEC hedge fund rule
today.reuters.com - December 8, 2005


WASHINGTON - A U.S. appeals court on Friday will hear arguments in a challenge to a new rule that will soon force hedge fund advisers to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC rule -- adopted amid controversy in late 2004 and over the objections of much of the $1-trillion hedge fund industry -- is scheduled to come into effect in February.

Phillip Goldstein, manager of hedge fund Opportunity Partners LP, has sued the SEC over the rule, arguing that the commission did not have authority to adopt it.

Goldstein argues further that the SEC misinterpreted a previous portion of law that had exempted hedge funds from registration. The new rule closes that loophole.

Finally, he argues that the SEC made procedural errors in adopting the rule -- a contention similar to one made in another recent lawsuit against the SEC over a rule requiring more independence among mutual fund directors.

The SEC has said in its reply in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Goldstein's arguments were wrong and that the commission's rule should be affirmed.

The hedge fund registration rule was pushed through the SEC by a 3-2 vote under former SEC Chairman William Donaldson. Former congressman Christopher Cox replaced Donaldson over the summer.

Registration means advisers who manage hedge funds -- loosely regulated capital pools that have enjoyed years of explosive growth -- must supply the SEC with basic information about themselves and submit to spot inspections.

"The rule is a good thing because there are unethical companies out there that may be cutting corners. I think it will raise the bar on industry standards. The SEC has the authority to do it," said Janaya Moscony, president of consultancy group SEC Compliance Consultants.

Goldstein, of Pleasantville, N,Y., could not be reached for comment immediately.

SEC spokesman John Nester said, "We have filed our brief and look forward to arguing our case."

 

[FaGal]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/briefs/initial051805.pdf

 

[FaGal]

New York Times
December 10, 2005
Judges Weigh Hedge Funds vs. the S.E.C.
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - A federal appeals court on Friday sharply questioned the Securities and Exchange Commission's plan to tighten oversight of hedge funds.

The outcome of the closely watched case will determine whether the agency will be able to oversee many hedge funds as the business is growing rapidly, with big investors from university endowments to pension plans pouring billions of dollars into the funds. The notable troubles of some hedge funds - most recently the collapse of Bayou, a Connecticut hedge fund, this summer - have inspired calls for greater regulation.

The outcome of a case cannot always be predicted based on questions posed by judges in oral arguments. But the dialogue on Friday involving two of the three federal appeals judges and the lawyers suggested that a majority of this panel had significant questions about the way the commission has sought to impose new oversight on a business that now accounts for an estimated 10 to 20 percent of all stock trading volume in the United States.

The lawsuit was filed by Phillip Goldstein, a hedge fund adviser from Pleasantville, N.Y.; Opportunity Partners, a hedge fund partnership; and its general partner, Kimball & Winthrop.

They have maintained that the commission's decision to broaden its oversight of hedge funds - sophisticated pools of assets that are not marketed and are typically open only to wealthy investors - exceeded its authority and that only Congress, where the hedge fund business has more allies than the commission, may make the changes that the agency is planning to impose.

The lawyers and judges taking part in the oral arguments focused largely on statutory interpretation rather than broad financial policy questions, and in so doing, shifted the battle to a more friendly terrain for a business that is barely regulated.

Jacob H. Stillman, the solicitor of the commission, maintained that the agency was well within its authority when it decided to make a change of its interpretation of the word "client" in the Investment Company Act of 1940 to force more than 1,000 hedge fund advisers to register with the agency and be subject to government inspections.

The law exempts from registration advisers with fewer than 15 clients, but does not explicitly define the word "client." Last year, the agency changed its definition of "client" to count the investors of a fund rather than only the fund itself, thereby sweeping virtually every hedge fund under its regulatory umbrella.

"It is not clear from the statute who the client is," Mr. Stillman said. "Because of that, it is permissible for the agency" to define the term, and to re-examine that definition in light of changes in the marketplace.

But two members of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards and Judge A. Raymond Randolph, repeatedly challenged that assertion.

"You can't come in and say we will make 'client' whoever you want it to be," Judge Edwards said impatiently and dismissively to Mr. Stillman. "We have to test your thesis, and your thesis does not hold up."

Moments later, Judge Randolph asked for the policy on the exemptions, suggesting that the commission's new interpretation was out of step with the intent of Congress. He also repeatedly pressed Mr. Stillman about the broader implications of having different definitions of the term "client" in the same law.

Mr. Stillman, a seasoned appeals court litigant, appeared unfazed by the questions and carefully guided the judges through the history and purposes of the complex regulatory regime.

The panel's third member, Judge Thomas B. Griffith, pressed an industry lawyer, Philip D. Bartz, for support of his legal argument about the proper way to interpret the word "client" and suggested that the squabbling over legislative interpretation was less important than giving the agency the tools necessary to detect financial chicanery. He also suggested that the agency and Congress should set policy, not the courts.

"What's more important," Judge Griffith asked Mr. Bartz, "the concept of client or for them to root out fraud?"

The rules, which will go into effect in February, will require advisers of hedge funds to register with the agency and will set up a significant new regulatory arrangement that will enable the agency to examine many funds that now operate outside of any government oversight.

A bitterly divided commission adopted them last year after the agency's chairman, William H. Donaldson, and its two Democratic members concluded that it was untenable for the rapidly growing industry to have little oversight, particularly since the collapse of one large hedge fund could pose large problems for the markets and financial system.

But the agency's two other Republican members, who remain on the commission, as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, have said that the new regulations are unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.

The agency's new chairman, Christopher Cox, said recently that he would not seek to overturn the policy initiatives of his predecessor, including the new hedge fund rules, even though Mr. Cox had a strong deregulatory bent as an influential member of Congress.

"Another thing that won't change under my chairmanship is the commission's recent rule-making," Mr. Cox said in a speech last month before the Securities Industry Association. "The confirmation of a new chairman ought not to be a signal to reopen and contest every prior commission enactment."

He said the new rule "antedates my chairmanship."

"It's scheduled to go into effect in February 2006 - and it will," he added. "It is my conviction that consistency and clarity in rule-making and enforcement are essential."

A spokesman for the agency, John J. Nestor, said that of the 9,000 investment advisers already registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 47 percent manage hedge funds either directly or indirectly through affiliates. He said that officials estimate an additional 1,100 would be required to register by the time the new rule takes effect in February.

The agency is expecting many of the registration forms to be filed this month, and Mr. Nestor said that it would be using an inspection force of about 420 people, now being trained.

 

[WorldLove]

Catastrofe Rame China in arrivo....

Shanghai copper futures break psychological important RMB 40,000per ton mark
Shanghai. December 12. INTERFAX-CHINA - Copper futures prices broke the
psychological important RMB 40,000 (USD 5,000) a ton mark during trading
in Shanghai Monday, despite government efforts to lower the price.
"Copper futures prices broke the psychological important level because
of the surge in cash prices in Shanghai, and also because of strong
metals prices overseas," Zhang Xuefeng, futures chief director at
Luoyang Copper Group Co. Ltd, told Interfax Monday.
Copper for delivery in December, the closest contract, stopped at RMB
40,420 (USD 5,053) a ton at Monday's close, while copper for delivery in
February 2006, the heaviest contract in position, ended RMB 40,140 (USD
5,018) a ton.

After passing the RMB 40,000 (USD 5,000) mark last Thursday, the cash
per-ton-price for copper climbed to an all-time high of RMB 40,350 (USD
5,044) during trading Monday at the Shanghai Changjiang Market, directly
fueling the increase in prices for copper contracts for delivery in mid-
December.

In addition, the three-month copper futures on the London Metals
Exchange (LME), the world's largest base metals trading center, reached
USD 4466.5 a ton last week due to a labor strike at Chilean FCAB Rail
Corp., which provides services for two of the world's largest copper
producers Codelco and Escondida.
However, Zhang said Chinese copper consumption was expected to be weaker
starting December, which will provide less support for the cash market
next quarter.

"Copper smelters are scheduled to cut their consumption from now on
because they are writing up their annual fiscal reports, and also
because the employees are preparing to celebrate the Chinese Lunar New
Year," Zhang said.

Zhang said the seasonal consumption drop may be one reason China's
stockpiling agency failed to sell more than 80% of copper auctioned last
week, and had not announced more public auctions. China's State Reserve
Bureau (SRB) sold only 3,761.704 tons out of 20,000 tons of copper at an
average auction price of RMB 3,8921.43 (USD 4,865) a ton at a fourth
public auction last Wednesday. Analysts said the higher-than-predicted
base prices for the auction was the main reason the SRB was unable to
sell more of its stockpile. In addition, the SRB only allowed copper
smelters to participated in the auction last week, rejecting
applications from traders.

"At the end of the year, copper smelters in China do not need so much
copper," Zhang said.

Copper prices may slow in growth over the remainder of this year, since
the SRB is expected to transport copper to the LME's registered
warehouses to settle its reportedly large short position.
"If the SRB pours its stockpile out onto the market, it will shake the
confidence of the bulls," Zhang said.
It is believed that a misjudgment by a trader Liu Qibing, who is working
for China's State Reserve Bureau (SRB) and put the agency into a large
short position, was the catalyst for the flood of Chinese copper
reserves that are now being auctioned on the open market in an effort to
bring down prices.

In July and August, Liu took short positions equal to about 130,000 tons
of copper at USD 3,300 a ton, expecting the price to decline; according
to the state-run newspaper China Daily. But prices continued rising,
putting the government at risk of losing hundreds of millions of dollars
when the contracts come due on December 21, the newspaper said.

http://www.interfax.com/4/112641/news.aspx

 

[WorldLove]

Copper prices rising despite China's efforts to bring them down - Macquarie

BEIJING (AFX) - Copper prices are still climbing despite efforts by China's State Reserve Bureau (SRB) to bring down prices to cover fast-approaching short positions, Macquarie Research Equities said in an investor note.

'The Shanghai cash copper price accelerated to a new high of 39,350 yuan per ton on Friday despite more auctions of stock by the SRB,' it said.

'On Dec 7, the SRB held its fourth 20,000 ton copper auction but only 4,000 tons of material were sold.'

China has denied trying to auction down the price.

The China Business News last week cited a senior industry official as saying the four copper auctions by the bureau are not aimed at lowering copper prices on the international market.

Chang Qing, vice director of the China Futures Association, was quoted by the newspaper as saying that the auctions by the SRB -- the stockpiling agency of the National Development and Reform Commission -- were targeted at cooling the overheated copper smelting sector and at guaranteeing domestic supply.

'The fact that the SRB solicited expert opinion before the auctions demonstrates that the auctions were planned, and not a hasty response to short copper positions taken by a former SRB trader Liu Qibing on the London Metal Exchange, as reported by overseas media,' Chang said in the report.

Macquarie said in the investor note that total physical deliveries by the SRB are now around 120,000 tons over the past two months.

It has been widely reported that China -- which says it has 1.3 mln tons of copper stockpiled -- is attempting to cool the price in an effort to avoid potential losses on Liu's contracts, which are believed to be due on Dec 21.

Liu's short positions reportedly total about 200,000 tons and represent potential massive losses.

(1 usd = 8.1 yuan)

andrew.pasek@xinhuafinance.com

ap/dg/dk

 

[WorldLove]

GOLD UP $5 IN TOKYO - MIDAS TECHNICAL ALERT
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Le Metropole Members,

GOLD UP $5 IN TOKYO - MIDAS TECHNICAL ALERT

The Feb Comex gold contract, which is the nearby pivotal
one now on the continuation charts, has taken out its high
of 1981 of $535 on a quarterly basis. This breakthrough is
of big picture importance. What is of note is the next significant
resistance for gold on a quarterly basis on the continuation charts is all
the way up to $612.

Frank Veneroso confirmed tonight what MIDAS and GATA have
been saying for some time. The Gold Cartel has lost control
of the gold market. This was also confirmed to us the other
day by one of the members who sat on the Board of one of
the 12 Fed banks. This Board member has loaded his own boat
(big numbers) with physical gold and expects the price to
reach $900 to $1,000 within 3 years. This, from a
conservative banker.

One of the most critical dynamics of the gold market at
the moment confirms what GATA has said all along ... and
what no one in the gold mainstream gold world will even
admit exists. There is a MASSIVE Gold Cartel short position,
one they cannot get out of. The bums are trapped. These
white-collar thugs, who have violated US anti-trust laws
for so many years, have cooked their own goose.

I sent the following today to Ted David of CNBC, which
is like dropping an email into a black hole, but we
(GATA ARMY) have to keep up the good ole college try. I
included the Russian/GR 21 stuff I have been pounding
away on for weeks ... and these notes (facts):

*Since Gold Rush 21 gold rose $95 - YET, the dollar rose
from 87 to 91 and oil fell from $68 to $60 per barrel.
Almost no one thought that possible a year ago. The key
to the gold market is surging physical market buying
overtaking the Gold Cartel's ability to suppress the price.

*For years GATA stated the price of gold could rally $100
and the dollar do nothing as The Gold Cartel lost control
of their price rigging scheme. Few, if anyone else, thought
that possible. (It has done that.)

*The Central banks have less than half the gold they say
they have. Over the last decade they have surreptitiously
lent out this missing gold in order to suppress the price.
This calculation is based on studies by three GATA
consultants.

*One of the major factors in the gold market today is the
gold short position ... more than 10,000 tonnes in a market
with a 1500 tonne yearly supply/demand deficit and only
2500 tonnes per year coming out of the mines. The shorts
are trapped. Cannot get out. There are mega-derivatives
tied to those shorts. GATA knows this because of the
Bank For International Settlement derivatives numbers.

*A Gold derivatives neutron bomb will go off. Could happen at any time.

*Price prediction: Adam Fleming, former Chairman of Harmony
Gold and now Chairman of Wits Gold, said at Gold Rush 21
that he is looking for $3,000 to $5,000 per ounce. I concur.

 

[FaGal]

New York Times
December 10, 2005
Judges Weigh Hedge Funds vs. the S.E.C.
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - A federal appeals court on Friday sharply questioned the Securities and Exchange Commission's plan to tighten oversight of hedge funds.

The outcome of the closely watched case will determine whether the agency will be able to oversee many hedge funds as the business is growing rapidly, with big investors from university endowments to pension plans pouring billions of dollars into the funds. The notable troubles of some hedge funds - most recently the collapse of Bayou, a Connecticut hedge fund, this summer - have inspired calls for greater regulation.

The outcome of a case cannot always be predicted based on questions posed by judges in oral arguments. But the dialogue on Friday involving two of the three federal appeals judges and the lawyers suggested that a majority of this panel had significant questions about the way the commission has sought to impose new oversight on a business that now accounts for an estimated 10 to 20 percent of all stock trading volume in the United States.

The lawsuit was filed by Phillip Goldstein, a hedge fund adviser from Pleasantville, N.Y.; Opportunity Partners, a hedge fund partnership; and its general partner, Kimball & Winthrop.

They have maintained that the commission's decision to broaden its oversight of hedge funds - sophisticated pools of assets that are not marketed and are typically open only to wealthy investors - exceeded its authority and that only Congress, where the hedge fund business has more allies than the commission, may make the changes that the agency is planning to impose.

The lawyers and judges taking part in the oral arguments focused largely on statutory interpretation rather than broad financial policy questions, and in so doing, shifted the battle to a more friendly terrain for a business that is barely regulated.

Jacob H. Stillman, the solicitor of the commission, maintained that the agency was well within its authority when it decided to make a change of its interpretation of the word "client" in the Investment Company Act of 1940 to force more than 1,000 hedge fund advisers to register with the agency and be subject to government inspections.

The law exempts from registration advisers with fewer than 15 clients, but does not explicitly define the word "client." Last year, the agency changed its definition of "client" to count the investors of a fund rather than only the fund itself, thereby sweeping virtually every hedge fund under its regulatory umbrella.

"It is not clear from the statute who the client is," Mr. Stillman said. "Because of that, it is permissible for the agency" to define the term, and to re-examine that definition in light of changes in the marketplace.

But two members of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards and Judge A. Raymond Randolph, repeatedly challenged that assertion.

"You can't come in and say we will make 'client' whoever you want it to be," Judge Edwards said impatiently and dismissively to Mr. Stillman. "We have to test your thesis, and your thesis does not hold up."

Moments later, Judge Randolph asked for the policy on the exemptions, suggesting that the commission's new interpretation was out of step with the intent of Congress. He also repeatedly pressed Mr. Stillman about the broader implications of having different definitions of the term "client" in the same law.

Mr. Stillman, a seasoned appeals court litigant, appeared unfazed by the questions and carefully guided the judges through the history and purposes of the complex regulatory regime.

The panel's third member, Judge Thomas B. Griffith, pressed an industry lawyer, Philip D. Bartz, for support of his legal argument about the proper way to interpret the word "client" and suggested that the squabbling over legislative interpretation was less important than giving the agency the tools necessary to detect financial chicanery. He also suggested that the agency and Congress should set policy, not the courts.

"What's more important," Judge Griffith asked Mr. Bartz, "the concept of client or for them to root out fraud?"

The rules, which will go into effect in February, will require advisers of hedge funds to register with the agency and will set up a significant new regulatory arrangement that will enable the agency to examine many funds that now operate outside of any government oversight.

A bitterly divided commission adopted them last year after the agency's chairman, William H. Donaldson, and its two Democratic members concluded that it was untenable for the rapidly growing industry to have little oversight, particularly since the collapse of one large hedge fund could pose large problems for the markets and financial system.

But the agency's two other Republican members, who remain on the commission, as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, have said that the new regulations are unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.

The agency's new chairman, Christopher Cox, said recently that he would not seek to overturn the policy initiatives of his predecessor, including the new hedge fund rules, even though Mr. Cox had a strong deregulatory bent as an influential member of Congress.

"Another thing that won't change under my chairmanship is the commission's recent rule-making," Mr. Cox said in a speech last month before the Securities Industry Association. "The confirmation of a new chairman ought not to be a signal to reopen and contest every prior commission enactment."

He said the new rule "antedates my chairmanship."

"It's scheduled to go into effect in February 2006 - and it will," he added. "It is my conviction that consistency and clarity in rule-making and enforcement are essential."

A spokesman for the agency, John J. Nestor, said that of the 9,000 investment advisers already registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 47 percent manage hedge funds either directly or indirectly through affiliates. He said that officials estimate an additional 1,100 would be required to register by the time the new rule takes effect in February.

The agency is expecting many of the registration forms to be filed this month, and Mr. Nestor said that it would be using an inspection force of about 420 people, now being trained.

Judges back hedge funds in SEC case
afr.com - December 13, 2005 - Demian McLean - Bloomberg


The US Securities and Exchange Commission's plan to force hedge fund advisers to register with the agency "doesn't hold up", a US Appeals Court judge said.

Judge Harry Edwards, one of three judges hearing arguments in a lawsuit against the regulations, told SEC solicitor Jacob Stillman the agency had stretched the definition of "clients" to make the registration proposal work. Judge Raymond Randolph expressed the same concern.

While hedge funds have usually viewed themselves as the advisers' clients, the SEC wants the definition to include the funds' investors as well. That would require advisers to register with the agency, giving it more power to fight fraud in the $US1.1trillion ($1.5trillion) industry.

"You can't just come in and say, 'We're going to define client to mean whatever we want it to mean'," Judge Edwards told Mr Stillman, who is defending the agency from a challenge by hedge fund adviser Phillip Goldstein. "Your thesis doesn't hold up."

The requirement by the SEC, which accused hedge funds of $US1.1billion in fraud between 1999 and 2004, says fund advisers overseeing more than $US25million must register with the agency by February1. Mr Goldstein, manager of Opportunity Partners, filed suit to block the regulations last year. His fund had $US87million in assets as of June30.

The SEC last year told hedge fund advisers to "look through" the funds, as if they were transparent, and view investors as their ultimate clients.

"The phrase 'look through' is very revealing," Judge Randolph told Mr Stillman. "You have no doubt who the real client is, so you say, 'We're going to look through that'."

Hedge funds, private partnerships that have traditionally catered to the wealthy, say registration would be costly and intrusive.

The cost of registration and hiring compliance officers ranged from less than $US25,000 a year to more than $US500,000, depending on the hedge fund's size, said former SEC enforcement lawyer Ron Geffner, who's firm of Sadis & Goldberg represents more than 400hedge funds.

Hedge fund advisers will have to provide ownership and client information and undergo random audits and criminal background checks, as if they were advising investors directly.

Mr Stillman defended the agency's stance that both the funds and their shareholders should be viewed as "clients". "It's reasonable to view it either way, based on the underlying purpose" of protecting shareholders, he said.

"Shareholders are not clients," Judge Edwards told Mr Stillman. "You don't have the authority to act just because you exist."

The third judge, Thomas Griffith, did not indicate which way he may be leaning.

 

[FaGal]

Hedge Fund Darwinism with Don Putnam

By Emma Trincal
Staff Reporter

12/28/2005 10:43 AM EST

Source: The Street

For hedge funds and their offspring, the days of rugged individualism are numbered.

That's the thesis of a new study by Don Putnam, the investment-banking luminary who founded Putnam Lovell and spearheaded such storied acquisitions as Pimco by Allianz Group (AG:NYSE) and Zurich Scudder by Deutsche Bank (DB:NYSE) . The piece, "Adapt or Die Trying: Darwinism and Intelligent Design in the Hedge Fund Industry," depicts a future in which rapid consolidation squeezes out smaller money managers and funds of funds, leaving a landscape dominated by huge, multi-strategy advisers.

The ideas are getting a lot of notice, particularly among the ostensible victims, some of whom believe Putnam is a less-than-impartial judge.

"Look at his agenda: It's his best interest to cry fire, so he can recommend those mergers," says one fund-of-funds manager who read the white paper. (Earlier this year, Putnam created Grail Partners, a Boston-based merchant bank that facilitated the purchase of the fund-of-funds GAM by UBS.)

But Putnam says it's not so. "I've done so many transactions. When I tell you that very few funds of funds are going to survive, you'd better believe me," he says. "Would you, for your elderly parent, pick a doctor who believes in euthanasia?"

In a nutshell, Putnam's study says only a handful of funds of funds will survive the next five years. He also believes that hedge funds that specialize in one strategy are doomed and that most wealthy investors will start looking for retail boutiques -- finding them in Europe. It isn't all doom and gloom: Putnam believes that pension allocations to hedge fund assets will triple through 2010 and that IPOs will flourish.

Still, Putnam's key thesis is that funds of funds, with their double layer of fees, their lack of transparency and their lower returns, undeperform hedge funds and will eventually be replaced by multi-strategy shops.

"In a fund of funds, a manager takes funds from his clients, allocates them across 10 hedge funds, wires the capital to the managers and signs 10 limited partnership agreements with them," says Patrick Hughes, a managing member at Guggenheim Partners, an investment firm whose Alternative Asset Management division was just purchased this week by Bank of Ireland for $184 million. "Every month, he waits for a call from his managers, aggregates the results in a spreadsheet and informs his investors." That does not add much value to the business.

"Banks have already purchased funds of funds or will start them themselves," Putnam says.

To make things worse, investors in funds of funds are often clueless about their positions, as they just get performance numbers. "Investors feel very uncomfortable investing in funds of funds where they lose control of the assets and invest in black boxes," says Kevin Dolan, head of Bank of Ireland's asset management division, who arranged the acquisition of Guggenheim Partners' alternative arm, a business that he finds attractive, as it is not a classic fund of funds.

Funds of funds are also under fire because investors are becoming reluctant to pay fees to their managers on top of the fees paid to the underlying hedge funds.

For diversification purposes, it makes more sense to go with a hedge fund manager that offers several strategies and one layer of fees, says Putnam. Those multi-strategy hedge funds will benefit from the fee pressure and will grow faster than other players, he argues.

Multi-strategy hedge funds will also thrive because single strategy "trader" funds do not work, although the biggest ones started that way, says Putnam. The market won't allow one particular strategy to work forever. The best example is convertible arbitrage: It had a great run for five or six years but has lately been stagnant.

The most successful big hedge funds are those that have brought new teams and added more strategies to their platform. "The Clinton Group started as a mortgage-backed securities shop, and now they have five different teams. All big hedge firms did that. Even Tiger at some point had seven or eight teams of people doing different things," Putnam notes.

So can funds of funds survive? Perhaps, if they're able to diversify into a multi-strategy format with only one layer of fees. Guggenheim offers another model. Its $2.8 billion alternative division is a hybrid between a fund of funds and a bank's proprietary desk.

Founded by proprietary desk traders who once oversaw trading themselves, the firm outsources trading to hedge funds but manages the risk internally. It can do so by setting up so-called "managed accounts" with each hedge fund; this basically means that the money remains in house and that Guggenheim can deliver transparency and statements to its clients. "It's a brilliant transaction," says Putnam, who worked on the initial phase of the deal.

Another surviving method is to join banks -- a reverse brain-drain in which talent heads back to the Street.

Firms may sell themselves to either a bank or the public. Chances are that the IPO option will prevail, as it allows a firm to preserve its team and strategy, though that's not necessarily true when the buyer is a bank. A successful example, Putnam says, is the U.K.-based hedge fund RAB Capital, which went public a couple of years ago.

Another survival technique is to pick and choose between a retail model and an institutional model. "It will be hard to serve two masters in the platform," Putnam says. That is because institutions tend to prefer quantitative strategies and lower fees and will accept more moderate returns, provided that the risk-adjusted performance is right. High-net-worth investors tend to trust traders, not computers, and they are ready to pay more for higher returns.

Interestingly, high-net-worth hedge funds flourish in Europe, where the private banking tradition has been established for decades.

"High-net-worth investors may have to move their money overseas because there may be more choices and better performance there," Putnam says.

 

[FaGal]

Funds: Is the sky falling? Not yet, but diversify

By Chet Currier Bloomberg News
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2005

Source IHT


LOS ANGELES You want reasons to worry about the economy and the financial markets in 2006? I'll give you half a dozen.

Bubbles in various real estate markets around the world, some of which may be popping at this very moment.

Jumpy energy markets, accompanied by a chorus of voices asking, "Are we running out of oil?"

Strains on the budget of the U.S. government, and on balance sheets of U.S. households, both bedeviled by what looks like chronic spending beyond their means.

The threat of an avian flu pandemic, heightened by recent word from a UN official that the world is "losing the battle" against the virus in poultry.

Tottering pension systems and other effects of insufficient personal savings.

China.

"At present, the biggest risks are the economic meltdown scenarios, the most dangerous of which could include a period of extended and substantial deflation," says the December issue of the No-Load Fund Analyst, a newsletter produced by the fund management firm Liman/Gregory. "We view this risk as real but remote enough so that we are not aggressively hedging against it."

So goes life for the 21st-century investor, dwelling always on the edge of disaster. Risks come in bigger-than-life dimensions. To steal a line from the television comedy "Seinfeld," they're real, and they're spectacular.

The question for mutual fund investors is not whether these hazards exist but what to do about them. Denying their existence isn't an appealing option. Neither, at the other extreme, is letting them frighten you into paralyzed indecision.

The mission, then, is to muddle through somehow in the middle. Fortunately, there are strategies available to help us.

First among these is diversification. Heard for the millionth time in investment discussions, the word can sound like an airy abstraction. So let's talk specifics.

No matter what calamities do or don't befall us, stock and bond prices and interest rates can do only three things: rise, fall or stay about the same.

Using mutual funds and/or their up-and-coming competition, exchange-traded funds, investors can set up an asset allocation plan intended to take all these possibilities into account. Funds afford a crucial measure of diversification by investing across a range of individual securities.

Optimists can go heavy on stock funds, maybe even on aggressive growth-stock funds. Pessimists can go heavy on bonds or money markets. If that's not cautious enough for you, there are other options, like gold. Twenty-one precious-metals mutual funds tracked by Bloomberg have treated their faithful to an average annual gain of 30 percent over the past five years.

On the negative side, gold isn't cheap, having almost doubled in price since 2001. Sooner or later this investor haven could encounter some stormy times of its own. But hey, that's just one more risk to be managed.

There is no such thing as a perfect hedge. Sometimes diversified investors must face simultaneous trouble in a variety of markets. On the other hand, pleasant surprises are possible as well.

Note the friendly fate that awaited investors over the past year and a half who had hedged their interest rate bets by splitting their money between bond and money market funds. Returns on money funds surged from less than 1 percent to almost 4 percent, in some cases, as the Federal Reserve raised short-term interest rates.

But at the same time, bond prices did not fall as one might have expected as interest rates rose. Longer-term rates have held steady since mid-2004. From June 30, 2004, through last Wednesday, a representative bond fund, the Vanguard Long-Term Bond Index Fund, posted a healthy 8.3 percent annualized return, according to Bloomberg data.

No matter how well investors inform themselves, nobody can nail down all the long-term implications of a subject like China's rise as an economic and political force. So investing in a world populated by such imponderables comes down to a matter of risk management.

There is the threat that the rise of China will lead at some point to serious problems - fast-growing economies are always susceptible to growing pains. There is also the chance that it will keep opening new avenues to prosperity.

Diversified investors aim to take account of both possibilities. They may be especially well positioned if, as so commonly happens, what ultimately develops is a messy mixture of good and bad.

 

[FaGal]

Judges back hedge funds in SEC case
afr.com - December 13, 2005 - Demian McLean - Bloomberg


The US Securities and Exchange Commission's plan to force hedge fund advisers to register with the agency "doesn't hold up", a US Appeals Court judge said.

Judge Harry Edwards, one of three judges hearing arguments in a lawsuit against the regulations, told SEC solicitor Jacob Stillman the agency had stretched the definition of "clients" to make the registration proposal work. Judge Raymond Randolph expressed the same concern.

While hedge funds have usually viewed themselves as the advisers' clients, the SEC wants the definition to include the funds' investors as well. That would require advisers to register with the agency, giving it more power to fight fraud in the $US1.1trillion ($1.5trillion) industry.

"You can't just come in and say, 'We're going to define client to mean whatever we want it to mean'," Judge Edwards told Mr Stillman, who is defending the agency from a challenge by hedge fund adviser Phillip Goldstein. "Your thesis doesn't hold up."

The requirement by the SEC, which accused hedge funds of $US1.1billion in fraud between 1999 and 2004, says fund advisers overseeing more than $US25million must register with the agency by February1. Mr Goldstein, manager of Opportunity Partners, filed suit to block the regulations last year. His fund had $US87million in assets as of June30.

The SEC last year told hedge fund advisers to "look through" the funds, as if they were transparent, and view investors as their ultimate clients.

"The phrase 'look through' is very revealing," Judge Randolph told Mr Stillman. "You have no doubt who the real client is, so you say, 'We're going to look through that'."

Hedge funds, private partnerships that have traditionally catered to the wealthy, say registration would be costly and intrusive.

The cost of registration and hiring compliance officers ranged from less than $US25,000 a year to more than $US500,000, depending on the hedge fund's size, said former SEC enforcement lawyer Ron Geffner, who's firm of Sadis & Goldberg represents more than 400hedge funds.

Hedge fund advisers will have to provide ownership and client information and undergo random audits and criminal background checks, as if they were advising investors directly.

Mr Stillman defended the agency's stance that both the funds and their shareholders should be viewed as "clients". "It's reasonable to view it either way, based on the underlying purpose" of protecting shareholders, he said.

"Shareholders are not clients," Judge Edwards told Mr Stillman. "You don't have the authority to act just because you exist."

The third judge, Thomas Griffith, did not indicate which way he may be leaning.

Suit Tests SEC Rule on Hedge Funds
www.latimes.com - By Walter Hamilton, Times Staff Writer - January 2, 2006

A money manager leads an effort to curb the agency's oversight of the trillion-dollar business.


NEW YORK — Phillip Goldstein is an unlikely torchbearer for the swashbuckling hedge-fund industry.

He was a New York civil engineer for 25 years before launching his fund from his basement in Brooklyn, and he drives a Toyota Camry.

"Before that, I had a Corolla," Goldstein said.

But the 60-year-old Goldstein is leading a closely watched effort to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from greatly expanding regulation of the trillion-dollar hedge-fund business.

He is suing to overturn a new rule that would force hedge funds managing more than $25 million to be registered with the agency by Feb. 1 and undergo periodic audits. He appeared to gain traction last month when a federal appeals panel peppered SEC attorneys with tough questions about the legal justification for the rule.

The SEC says it must get a handle on the freewheeling investment pools that are mushrooming in popularity among pension funds, endowments and wealthy individuals.

The agency points to a spate of recent hedge-fund frauds, as well as the collective force the funds have on financial markets.

"Sometimes we learn about someone managing $1 billion when we read about them in the newspaper," said Robert Plaze, associate director of the SEC's investment management division. "We're talking about a trillion-dollar industry whose activities have a broad impact on the markets and investors."

Opponents counter that the rule would do nothing to combat fraud but would raise investor costs and sap some of the nimbleness that has made hedge funds successful.

"They are a big part of what's keeping the economy growing and you don't want to hobble that," said John Berlau, an economic-policy fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

Big-picture issues aside, Goldstein's case may be decided on narrow legal grounds.

He contends that the SEC lacks authority to extend its regulatory reach, and is intentionally misinterpreting a 1940 law that has, until now, largely exempted hedge funds from oversight.

The three federal appellate-court judges who heard the case in Washington on Dec. 9 focused on that issue. A ruling is expected this month.

"It is clearly a means to get at their end, which is to regulate hedge funds," Goldstein said. "And that offends me. It's intellectually dishonest."

There's little doubt that hedge funds have become a dominant presence in global securities markets and are taking a larger profile in the economy as a whole.

Hedge funds are known for taking large risks in pursuit of market-beating returns and, thanks to the staid performance of equity markets, institutions and wealthy individuals are clamoring to get in.

More than 8,000 hedge funds manage $1 trillion, accounting for as much as one-fifth of U.S. stock-trading volume. They're an increasing force in such areas as arranging mergers and lending money to companies.

About 40% of hedge-fund managers already are registered with the SEC, either voluntarily or because of other requirements.

However, some fund managers are going out of their way to avoid the agency. Funds must be registered if they allow investors to redeem their holdings within two years. Therefore, many funds' lock-ups have been extended to two years instead of one.

The SEC rule generated significant controversy when the commission approved it by a 3-to-2 vote in late 2004.

Two Republican commissioners excoriated then-Chairman William H. Donaldson for backing the plan.

Donaldson's successor, former Rep. Christopher Cox, a Newport Beach Republican, surprised Wall Street by promising to let the rule stand.

But the plan has also divided consumer activists.

Tyson Slocum, director of energy research at Public Citizen, says oversight is needed because of the funds' enormous economic effect.

In the energy sector, for example, some of the surge in oil and gas prices is because of speculative hedge-fund trading, he said.

"This is a very modest proposal, and the fact that the industry and its sympathizers are predicting so much gloom and doom is pretty crazy," Slocum said. "This is not heavy-handed regulation."

But other consumer advocates question whether the SEC should devote limited resources to funds catering to the wealthy.

The SEC is "there to protect investors," said Mercer Bullard, a University of Mississippi law professor. "They're not there to protect sophisticated investors."

Goldstein doubts his investors will benefit from the rule.

"I don't think it's going to do my investors any good, and it's going to be costly," he said.

During an interview in his kitchen in suburban Westchester County, Goldstein — dressed in khakis, a green sweater and old sneakers — hardly fits the image of a hedge-fund manager, much less one with the temerity to take on the SEC.

Goldstein specializes in value investing, often buying stakes in closed-end mutual funds or troubled companies and agitating for changes to boost stock values.

He left Brooklyn for Pleasantville eight years ago but boasts about how he still clings to frugality.

"I still save returnable bottles," he said. "I've got a big bag of them in my garage."

With prodding from a partner, Goldstein began his first fund, Opportunity Partners, in December 1992 with 10 investors and $700,000.

He's never had a losing year, he said, and averages 16% annual returns. He oversees more than $250 million.

Goldstein graduated from USC, and many of his investors live in the Southland.

At the core of Goldstein's case is his belief that only Congress can extend regulation of hedge funds.

"It offends me when agencies act like they're the king," he said.

Although he's received moral support and a bit of financial help, no one has publicly joined Goldstein's effort.

"Most people are afraid to sue the SEC," he said. "They're afraid of retribution."

But Goldstein says he's not worried.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, and I haven't, you shouldn't have anything to fear by speaking out," he said.

 

[Cantor]

ai capito!!!

RISCHIO DERIVATI 1 Febbraio 2006
IN BORSA

di Morya Longo

Secondo uno studio dell'Aiaf le prime 22 societa' quotate a Piazza Affari hanno in bilancio 85 miliardi di strumenti di copertura. Per 15 imprese il fair value e' negativo. Resta il mistero sull'ammontare detenuto dalle piccole e medie aziende.
(WSI) – Non hanno "ingolfato" solo i bilanci di molte piccole aziende italiane. I derivati sono iper-utilizzati anche (e soprattutto) dai grandi gruppi industriali quotati a Piazza Affari: le 22 maggiori società del listino milanese hanno infatti in bilancio vari strumenti derivati (su cambi, tassi e quant'altro) per un valore nominale complessivo di 85 miliardi di euro. Questa cifra emerge per la prima volta in Italia grazie a uno studio realizzato da Financial Innovations in collaborazione con l'Aiaf. E, sebbene sia una cifra limitata a sole 22 blue chip quotate in Borsa, non può lasciare indifferenti: 85 miliardi di valore nominale sono molti per sole 22 aziende che insieme capitalizzano in Borsa 242 miliardi e che vantano un attivo totale di 334 miliardi. E, soprattutto, sono molti se si considera che i derivati in mano a 15 di queste 22 società mostrano un fair value negativo. Tradotto: 15 gruppi sui 22 analizzati registrano una perdita potenziale su questi strumenti.
La ricerca. I derivati hanno un'importante funzione: quella di "coprire" i bilanci delle aziende dai rischi valutari, di tassi e così via. Se un'impresa è molto esposta negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, utilizza i derivati per "annullare" il rischio che il dollaro perda quota contro l'euro. Che le aziende italiane utilizzassero questi strumenti era noto e ovvio. Non bisogna dunque demonizzarlo.

Quello che fino a oggi non si sapeva, però, è quanto le grandi imprese quotate in Borsa fossero esposte sui derivati. Solo ora, con l'introduzione dei principi contabili Ias, queste informazioni sono disponibili nei bilanci. È così che Financial Innovations, in collaborazione con l'Aiaf, ha iniziato ad analizzare le principali società di Piazza Affari prendendo come punto di partenza le semestrali o le ultime trimestrali. Così ha realizzato una ricerca che sarà presentata domani a Milano ma che «Il Sole-24 Ore» è in grado di anticipare. In realtà una panoramica completa sarà possibile solo quando saranno pronti i bilanci 2005, ma già ora è stata possibile una prima analisi approssimativa. Ma molto significativa.

Derivati a tutto gas. Il primo dato che emerge evidente è quello numerico: le grandi società italiane utilizzano i derivati in gran quantità per coprirsi dai rischi. Derivati di tutti i tipi: su tassi, cambi, materie prime, merci e così via. Per tre società su 22, il valore di questi strumenti rappresenta addirittura più del 50% del totale dell'attivo patrimoniale. Questo rappresenta un rischio? «Il derivato, in sé, non è né un bene né un male, ma un'opportunità - spiega Gianpaolo Trasi, presidente Aiaf -. Il rischio di un uso non appropriato, però, c'è sempre». Le 22 blue chip affermano tutte di utilizzare questi strumenti per coprirsi dai rischi e non per speculare. Solo tre società (Luxottica, Telecom Italia Media e Sias) non ne hanno in bilancio: Luxottica ha dichiarato al «Sole-24 Ore» di usare altri modi per coprirsi dai rischi. Se l'utilizzo dichiarato è sano, non si può dire che questi strumenti stiano per ora dando soddisfazioni alle aziende. Ben 15 gruppi hanno infatti una perdita potenziale (cioè un fair value negativo). In tre casi (Autostrade, Beni Stabili e Seat) il fair value è negativo per un ammontare addirittura superiore all'utile netto, come si vede in tabella. Stanno invece realizzando potenziali guadagni soprattutto Aem, Edison ed Enel.

Questi dati pongono un quesito: in futuro potrebbero esserci problemi per alcune di queste società? «In teoria no - spiega Emanuele Facile, amministratore delegato di Financial Innovations -. Se il derivato viene utilizzato per coprire un rischio, la perdita accusata su questo strumento viene bilanciata da un utile realizzato sull'oggetto coperto». Il punto, insomma, è sempre lo stesso: questi strumenti devono essere maneggiati correttamente. E, quando sono in mano a grandi gruppi con elevata esperienza finanziaria, è facile immaginare che sia così.

L'indagine parlamentare. Il problema è quando i derivati vengono venduti dalle banche alle piccole aziende, non in grado di capirli. Per questo un paio di anni fa, sull'onda di questo "allarme" Pmi, la Commissione Finanze della Camera avviò un'indagine conoscitiva sul fenomeno-derivati voluta dall'allora presidente Giorgio La Malfa. Da allora la Commissione (che nel frattempo ha cambiato presidente) ha raccolto molto materiale. Ma, alla fine, l'indagine si è arenata. Da quando La Malfa ha lasciato la presidenza della Commissione - spiegano fonti parlamentari - l'interesse sulla questione è calato: alla fine non è stato neppure redatto un documento conclusivo dell'indagine. Ora la legislatura volge al termine. E, sperando che non ci siano in futuro altri "allarmi", sul tema cala il sipario.

Copyright © Il Sole 24 Ore per Wall Street Italia, Inc. Riproduzione vietata. All rights reserved

 

[FaGal]

RISCHIO DERIVATI 1 Febbraio 2006
IN BORSA

di Morya Longo

Secondo uno studio dell'Aiaf le prime 22 societa' quotate a Piazza Affari hanno in bilancio 85 miliardi di strumenti di copertura. Per 15 imprese il fair value e' negativo. Resta il mistero sull'ammontare detenuto dalle piccole e medie aziende.
(WSI) – Non hanno "ingolfato" solo i bilanci di molte piccole aziende italiane. I derivati sono iper-utilizzati anche (e soprattutto) dai grandi gruppi industriali quotati a Piazza Affari: le 22 maggiori società del listino milanese hanno infatti in bilancio vari strumenti derivati (su cambi, tassi e quant'altro) per un valore nominale complessivo di 85 miliardi di euro. Questa cifra emerge per la prima volta in Italia grazie a uno studio realizzato da Financial Innovations in collaborazione con l'Aiaf. E, sebbene sia una cifra limitata a sole 22 blue chip quotate in Borsa, non può lasciare indifferenti: 85 miliardi di valore nominale sono molti per sole 22 aziende che insieme capitalizzano in Borsa 242 miliardi e che vantano un attivo totale di 334 miliardi. E, soprattutto, sono molti se si considera che i derivati in mano a 15 di queste 22 società mostrano un fair value negativo. Tradotto: 15 gruppi sui 22 analizzati registrano una perdita potenziale su questi strumenti.
La ricerca. I derivati hanno un'importante funzione: quella di "coprire" i bilanci delle aziende dai rischi valutari, di tassi e così via. Se un'impresa è molto esposta negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, utilizza i derivati per "annullare" il rischio che il dollaro perda quota contro l'euro. Che le aziende italiane utilizzassero questi strumenti era noto e ovvio. Non bisogna dunque demonizzarlo.

Quello che fino a oggi non si sapeva, però, è quanto le grandi imprese quotate in Borsa fossero esposte sui derivati. Solo ora, con l'introduzione dei principi contabili Ias, queste informazioni sono disponibili nei bilanci. È così che Financial Innovations, in collaborazione con l'Aiaf, ha iniziato ad analizzare le principali società di Piazza Affari prendendo come punto di partenza le semestrali o le ultime trimestrali. Così ha realizzato una ricerca che sarà presentata domani a Milano ma che «Il Sole-24 Ore» è in grado di anticipare. In realtà una panoramica completa sarà possibile solo quando saranno pronti i bilanci 2005, ma già ora è stata possibile una prima analisi approssimativa. Ma molto significativa.

Derivati a tutto gas. Il primo dato che emerge evidente è quello numerico: le grandi società italiane utilizzano i derivati in gran quantità per coprirsi dai rischi. Derivati di tutti i tipi: su tassi, cambi, materie prime, merci e così via. Per tre società su 22, il valore di questi strumenti rappresenta addirittura più del 50% del totale dell'attivo patrimoniale. Questo rappresenta un rischio? «Il derivato, in sé, non è né un bene né un male, ma un'opportunità - spiega Gianpaolo Trasi, presidente Aiaf -. Il rischio di un uso non appropriato, però, c'è sempre». Le 22 blue chip affermano tutte di utilizzare questi strumenti per coprirsi dai rischi e non per speculare. Solo tre società (Luxottica, Telecom Italia Media e Sias) non ne hanno in bilancio: Luxottica ha dichiarato al «Sole-24 Ore» di usare altri modi per coprirsi dai rischi. Se l'utilizzo dichiarato è sano, non si può dire che questi strumenti stiano per ora dando soddisfazioni alle aziende. Ben 15 gruppi hanno infatti una perdita potenziale (cioè un fair value negativo). In tre casi (Autostrade, Beni Stabili e Seat) il fair value è negativo per un ammontare addirittura superiore all'utile netto, come si vede in tabella. Stanno invece realizzando potenziali guadagni soprattutto Aem, Edison ed Enel.

Questi dati pongono un quesito: in futuro potrebbero esserci problemi per alcune di queste società? «In teoria no - spiega Emanuele Facile, amministratore delegato di Financial Innovations -. Se il derivato viene utilizzato per coprire un rischio, la perdita accusata su questo strumento viene bilanciata da un utile realizzato sull'oggetto coperto». Il punto, insomma, è sempre lo stesso: questi strumenti devono essere maneggiati correttamente. E, quando sono in mano a grandi gruppi con elevata esperienza finanziaria, è facile immaginare che sia così.

L'indagine parlamentare. Il problema è quando i derivati vengono venduti dalle banche alle piccole aziende, non in grado di capirli. Per questo un paio di anni fa, sull'onda di questo "allarme" Pmi, la Commissione Finanze della Camera avviò un'indagine conoscitiva sul fenomeno-derivati voluta dall'allora presidente Giorgio La Malfa. Da allora la Commissione (che nel frattempo ha cambiato presidente) ha raccolto molto materiale. Ma, alla fine, l'indagine si è arenata. Da quando La Malfa ha lasciato la presidenza della Commissione - spiegano fonti parlamentari - l'interesse sulla questione è calato: alla fine non è stato neppure redatto un documento conclusivo dell'indagine. Ora la legislatura volge al termine. E, sperando che non ci siano in futuro altri "allarmi", sul tema cala il sipario.

Copyright © Il Sole 24 Ore per Wall Street Italia, Inc. Riproduzione vietata. All rights reserved

Ogni tanto arriva qualche articolo interessante. Ma ad essere onesto, il sole 24 ore ogni tanto ha seppur nascosto qualche articolo raziocinante