FT : Crypto investment products hit by record outflows at start of year

Crypto investment products hit by record outflows at start of year
Traders pulled an average of $61mn from digital asset vehicles each week in January

Cryptocurrency investment products suffered record outflows in January, as sliding token prices and a broader flight from risky assets reversed the fortunes of a sector that had frenzied interest last year.

Vehicles such as the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which gives investors exposure to crypto assets without holding the tokens directly, attracted billions of dollars in 2021, as asset managers such as ProShares, VanEck and WisdomTree raced to launch products and capture a share of the market.

But the tide of cash slipped into reverse in January for the first time since last summer, according to data from CryptoCompare, following a sharp decline in crypto prices that saw bitcoin tumble from a peak of nearly $69,000 in November to less than $40,000 in the early days of 2022.

Investors pulled an average of $61mn from digital asset vehicles each week in January, marking the quickest pace of withdrawals in at least a year, according to CryptoCompare, which tracks 50 of the largest digital asset investment vehicles such as trusts and exchange traded products.


The $25bn Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which does not allow withdrawals, found more sellers than buyers for its shares in January, sending the discount between the share price and the value of the trust’s assets to record levels of around minus 25 per cent.

Average daily trading volumes for these products also tumbled to their lowest level since July.

The decline came during a month when crypto prices have closely tracked declines in equities, particularly US tech stocks, as investors unloaded assets seen as speculative and higher risk.

Michael Sonnenshein, chief executive of Grayscale Investments, said institutional investors sold off digital asset holdings alongside growth stocks, partly in anticipation of interest rate rises from the US Federal Reserve.

“It’s important to note that there’s still significant investor demand for digital asset investment products, but institutions seemingly reacted to the Fed by offloading their positions,” he added.

The increased presence of big professional investors in crypto markets has led to more alignment between crypto and tech stocks, according to analysts, because institutions treat both assets as riskier investments with higher growth potential and tend to sell them at the same time.

“Crypto has definitely correlated more to risk assets than was expected. In the last month, it has acted more like a tech stock than anything else,” said Greg Taylor, chief investment officer of Purpose Investments, which manages several crypto exchange traded funds with combined assets of more than $1bn.

“January was a big risk-off month,” he added.

The protracted outflows following a price drop suggest investors are still reluctant to “buy the dip” in crypto assets. But Taylor said there are buyers in the market. “The ‘buy the dip’ mentality is still alive and well in crypto. People are looking at this as more of an opportunity than anything else,” he said.

WWD : Nike Vs. StockX: A Metaverse Lawsuit

Nike Vs. StockX: A Metaverse Lawsuit
The sneaker giant said the marketplace’s new Vault NFTs are inappropriately using the Nike brand.

Nike Inc.’s competitive streak is alive and well in the metaverse.
The sportswear giant sued StockX in Manhattan federal court, charging that the online marketplace inappropriately used the Nike trademark as it launched into the world of NFTs, or non-fungible tokens.
The suit brings the age-old fashion trademark battle to a new and hotly contested playing field.
While the metaverse is still an idea only partway to reality, companies are eager to claim their territory.
Last year, Nike bought the blockchain-centric metaverse-ready start-up Rtfkt, which made a splash by selling more than $3 million worth of digital sneakers in less than seven minutes through a collaboration with the 18-year-old artist Fewocious.

John Donahoe, Nike president and chief executive officer, said at the time that the deal “accelerates Nike’s digital transformation and allows us to serve athletes and creators at the intersection of sport, creativity, gaming and culture.”

In its suit, Nike said it told its own employees on Jan. 18 that it was forming “Nike Virtual Studios, a new division that will operate as an independent studio to further develop Nike’s business around virtual products and partner with its core business to deliver best-in-class Web3, metaverse and blockchain-based experiences.”

And this month, Nike and Rtfkt plan to release a number of virtual products.

But StockX, in a way, beat them to the punch.

The same day that Nike started talking internally about its Virtual Studios, StockX launched its Vault NFTs, which the marketplace’s CEO Scott Cutler described in a statement as “an experience where our customers can invest in NFTs tied to physical products and trade them instantly with lower fees.”

“We believe that the physical items that trade on our platform are part of a new alternative asset class that can be uniquely associated with NFTs,” Cutler said. “The buyer of a StockX Vault NFT will also own the corresponding physical item including the opportunity to take possession of it at any time.”

Nike argued in its suit that the fine print on StockX’s Vault is more nuanced and that the marketplace is going too far and encroaching on its brand.

“StockX has chosen to compete in the NFT market not by taking the time to develop its own intellectual property rights, but rather by blatantly free-riding, almost exclusively, on the back of Nike’s famous trademarks and associated goodwill,” the suit argued. “StockX is ‘minting’ NFTs that prominently use Nike’s trademarks, marketing those NFTs using Nike’s goodwill, and selling those NFTs at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting consumers who believe or are likely to believe that those ‘investible digital assets’ (as StockX calls them) are, in fact, authorized by Nike when they are not.”

The suit points out that StockX retains the right to “unilaterally redeem a Vault NFT for a so-called ‘Experiential Component,’ and take away the NFT, completely depriving the Vault NFT owner of possession of the shoes that are supposedly connected to the NFT.”

It’s a situation that comes with a strange kind of math — that might only make sense online and with an overwhelming faith in market forces. Regardless, big-time profits are also clearly in the balance.

Nike points out that StockX has made a Vault NFT of the 2022 version of the Nike Dunk Low — Retro White Black, which, as of Wednesday, was trading at an average price of $809 while the physical pair of shoes will sell on nike.com for $100.

The sneaker giant pointed to a comment from a TikTok user describing StockX’s Vault NFTs as “just a stupid scam for Nike to make money.”

“Unless stopped, StockX’s Vault NFTs and StockX’s use of Nike’s Asserted Marks will continue to confuse consumers in the marketplace and dilute Nike’s famous marks by blurring and tarnishment,” Nike said.

StockX’s early move could also make it harder for Nike to get its own piece of the metaverse action.

“[NFTs] are an exciting way for brands to interact with their consumers in and out of the ‘metaverse,’ and diverse commercial applications of NFTs have emerged throughout the past two years,” Nike said in its suit. “Far more than a fleeting trend, NFTs are part of the future of commerce.

“Unfortunately, novel product offerings, burgeoning technologies, and gold-rush markets tend to create opportunities for third parties to capitalize on the goodwill of reputable brands and create confusion in the marketplace,” Nike said.

A spokesperson for StockX said the company does not comment on legal matters.

WSJ : Peloton Draws Interest From Potential Suitors Including Amazon

Peloton Draws Interest From Potential Suitors Including Amazon
The maker of stationary bikes faces pressure from activist investor as share price sags

Peloton Interactive Inc. PTON 1.44% is drawing interest from potential suitors including Amazon.com Inc., AMZN 13.54% according to people familiar with the matter, as the stationary-bike maker’s stock slumps and an activist urges it to explore a sale.

Amazon has been speaking to advisers about a potential deal, some of the people said. There’s no guarantee the e-commerce giant will follow through with an offer or that Peloton, which is working with its own advisers, would be receptive.

Other potential suitors are circling, these people said, but no deal is imminent and there may not be one at all.

Should there be a transaction, it could be significant, given Peloton’s market value of around $8 billion—down sharply from its high around a year ago of some $50 billion.

While Peloton was once a pandemic darling as homebound customers ordered its pricey exercise equipment that pairs with virtual classes, its stock closed Friday at $24.60, below its September 2019 IPO price of $29, following a slowdown in its once-torrid growth.

FT : US investigates potential short selling abuses

US investigates potential short selling abuses
Department of Justice sends subpoenas seeking information on more than two-dozen firms

US criminal authorities are gathering information on contacts among dozens of short selling hedge funds and research outfits as they investigate possible trading abuses, according to a firm with first-hand knowledge of the probe.

The Department of Justice has sent subpoenas asking for information about a list of more than two dozen firms to a smaller group of market participants. Among other things, they are asking for calendar information and communications.

The list of names includes some of the best-known firms that publish negative research and funds that seek to profit when individual share prices fall. Among them are Muddy Waters, Melvin Capital, Hindenburg Research and Citron Research. Spokespeople for the firms either declined to comment or did not return phone calls.

The DoJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which brings civil market manipulation cases, appear to be looking at whether the firms are co-ordinating or acting in a way that violates securities laws. The DoJ and SEC declined to comment.

The investigation is still in its early stages and may never lead to any action, legal experts said. Subpoenas went out in the autumn but many of the funds and research outfits on the list said they have not been contacted by authorities and have no reason to believe they are the focus of any investigation.

Short selling is deeply unpopular with some retail traders, who excoriate firms that publish negative research and investors who bet share prices will fall. Lawmakers in Congress held hearings on the subject last year amid the frenzy over meme stocks such as GameStop.

Professional market participants defend the practice, saying it ensures that stocks are priced fairly. They note that the allegations raised in some negative research reports have sometimes been followed up by official watchdogs with criminal cases against the target companies.

The chief executive of electric truckmaker Nikola is awaiting trial on allegations first raised by short sellers Hindenburg. Trevor Milton has pleaded not guilty to making false claims about the company’s vehicles.

The probe, which was first reported by Bloomberg, has led to disquiet in an industry that has grown up around short selling. Participants fear authorities have targeted the entire sector. “Everyone has little titbits of things they’ve heard, or is scratching their heads about what on earth it is about,” said one market participant.

Market abuse investigations typically start with relatively broad brush information requests. Those that lead to charges eventually home in on more specific allegations involving a smaller group of targets.

FT : US investigates potential short selling abuses

US investigates potential short selling abuses
Department of Justice sends subpoenas seeking information on more than two-dozen firms


Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

US criminal authorities are gathering information on contacts among dozens of short selling hedge funds and research outfits as they investigate possible trading abuses, according to a firm with first-hand knowledge of the probe.

The Department of Justice has sent subpoenas asking for information about a list of more than two dozen firms to a smaller group of market participants. Among other things, they are asking for calendar information and communications.

The list of names includes some of the best-known firms that publish negative research and funds that seek to profit when individual share prices fall. Among them are Muddy Waters, Melvin Capital, Hindenburg Research and Citron Research. Spokespeople for the firms either declined to comment or did not return phone calls.

The DoJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which brings civil market manipulation cases, appear to be looking at whether the firms are co-ordinating or acting in a way that violates securities laws. The DoJ and SEC declined to comment.

The investigation is still in its early stages and may never lead to any action, legal experts said. Subpoenas went out in the autumn but many of the funds and research outfits on the list said they have not been contacted by authorities and have no reason to believe they are the focus of any investigation.

Short selling is deeply unpopular with some retail traders, who excoriate firms that publish negative research and investors who bet share prices will fall. Lawmakers in Congress held hearings on the subject last year amid the frenzy over meme stocks such as GameStop.

Professional market participants defend the practice, saying it ensures that stocks are priced fairly. They note that the allegations raised in some negative research reports have sometimes been followed up by official watchdogs with criminal cases against the target companies.

The chief executive of electric truckmaker Nikola is awaiting trial on allegations first raised by short sellers Hindenburg. Trevor Milton has pleaded not guilty to making false claims about the company’s vehicles.

The probe, which was first reported by Bloomberg, has led to disquiet in an industry that has grown up around short selling. Participants fear authorities have targeted the entire sector. “Everyone has little titbits of things they’ve heard, or is scratching their heads about what on earth it is about,” said one market participant.

Market abuse investigations typically start with relatively broad brush information requests. Those that lead to charges eventually home in on more specific allegations involving a smaller group of targets.

FT : How Oaktree captured Evergrande’s castle

How Oaktree captured Evergrande’s castle
Howard Marks’ $161bn fund has control of two prize assets after defaults by world’s most indebted developer

On a sprawling undeveloped wetland in northern Hong Kong, one of America’s most formidable distressed debt investors last week upended China’s biggest ever restructuring by capturing “the Castle”.

Oaktree Capital, one of the oldest specialists in chasing companies for unpaid debts, seized a vast plot of land that symbolises the folly of Chinese property developer Evergrande’s meteoric ambitions before it collapsed under its $300bn debt load.

The developer’s chair had for a decade planned to build his own Palace of Versailles-style mansion on the site — earning it the code name Project Castle — but in the end, Evergrande was unceremoniously stripped of the asset, after defaulting on $600mn it had borrowed from Oaktree.

Yet while the land grab stunned other foreign creditors to Evergrande, few — if any — were aware that Oaktree had already quietly seized another of the developer’s projects across the border in mainland China.

Despite being headquartered 7,000 miles away in Los Angeles, Oaktree had for months been discreetly pulling the strings on a sprawling tourist resort near Shanghai designed to look like the Italian city of Venice, after Evergrande defaulted on a second $400mn loan.


It was just a “routine transaction”, Oaktree founder and co-chairman Howard Marks told the Financial Times.

“I don’t think it’s audacious,” he said. “To induce us to make the loan, the company provided us security. And with lots of collaboration and discussion, we are exercising our rights to that security.”

Oaktree would be “remiss” if it failed to seize the assets, he added. “It’s our clients who have the claim on those buildings.”

For many, the bravura involved in pulling off these land seizures exemplifies the attributes that have turned Oaktree into a $161bn powerhouse of debt investing. While most of Evergrande’s foreign creditors are likely to recover just pennies on the dollar on their $20bn of bonds, Oaktree could bank a windfall of more than $200mn if it is able to sell the assets it now controls.

“These are not your average lenders,” said one person close to the asset seizures. “These guys specialise in lending when they know a company is going into default and know they will take over the asset. It’s gone exactly the way they expected.”

But for others, the group’s decision to lend $1bn to a teetering Chinese property developer also highlights the shrinking opportunities in distressed investment — with fewer corporate defaults in developed markets awash with cheap money from central banks — and the big risk appetite needed to chase them.

The chief investment officer of another large US distressed debt investor told the FT that his company has a simple rule regarding China: “We don’t lend there.”

But Marks, who is 75, has a different view: “When everybody else says China is uninvestable, that means the competition for Oaktree to make investments declines. We get better opportunities and more of them.”

Having last year closed the largest distressed investment vehicle of its kind — its $16bn “opportunities” fund — Oaktree has deployed cash in emerging markets around the world, including bailing out the Chinese owners of an Italian football club, helping a Chilean airline emerge from bankruptcy and propping up the heavily indebted business empire of an Indian commodities tycoon.

These varied global investments are a far cry from the US-focused loans Oaktree specialised in when Marks opened its doors in 1995 with a strategy of investing in “good companies with bad balance sheets”.

Over the ensuing decades, Marks has cemented his status as an erudite and avuncular debt specialist, setting out his investment strategies in a wildly popular series of memos whose regular readers include Warren Buffett. At the same time, his business has not shied away from bare-knuckle fights with delinquent companies or rival creditors.

“Howard Marks has this cuddly image,” said one rival, “but they do some pretty medieval stuff.”

Drinking the blood of its enemies
In the earliest days of his career, Marks learned the value of investing where others feared to tread.

At Citigroup and then Trust Company of the West, he was an early buyer of the high-risk “junk bonds” being sold by Michael Milken, the man who largely built that market in the 1980s and whose spectacular downfall culminated in a jail sentence for securities fraud in 1990.

In 1995, Marks set up Oaktree Capital Management with TCW colleague and former lawyer Bruce Karsh. While Marks became the public face of the company, Karsh worked behind the scenes and used his legal expertise to figure out how to take control of companies that had defaulted on loans.

Marks recalls: “People would say: you buy the debt of companies that are bankrupt? You’re crazy!”

Yet even as the market for distressed investing became more crowded, Oaktree distinguished itself with its take-no-prisoners approach.

A clash with $481bn private equity group Apollo over the bankruptcy of casino group Caesars led to Marks falling out with its founder Leon Black — a longtime friend and fellow Milken acolyte. During Caesars’ fraught final restructuring negotiations, one observer memorably declared: “Oaktree is here to drink the blood of Apollo.”

Oaktree went public in 2012 but remained listed for less than a decade, selling itself to Canadian infrastructure group Brookfield at a near $8bn valuation in 2019.

Investing in Asia is not new for Oaktree, which first began dabbling in the region three years after its launch. But it was after the global financial crisis that its eastward expansion began in earnest.

With falling numbers of distressed companies in the US and Europe, investors such as Oaktree were desperate for new opportunities.


In 2019, betting on finding opportunities in China and India — which were largely untapped by global credit funds — Marks relocated one of Oaktree’s two most senior portfolio managers, Pedro Urquidi, from London to Hong Kong. A year later, the company opened a wholly owned unit in mainland China — the first foreign distressed debt investor to do so.

It made headlines in India last year after lending $1bn to a Mauritian investment company controlled by Anil Agarwal, one of the country’s richest men, propping up his debt-laden business empire that has interests ranging from oil to aluminium.

While the Evergrande loans are Oaktree’s latest distressed debt asset in China, last year it lent to a Luxembourg company that owns Chinese retailer Suning’s stake in Italian football club Inter Milan.

The $275mn loan helped Suning cover the club’s liquidity needs after the pandemic ravaged its finances, but has strict terms allowing Oaktree to call a default if, for example, Inter is disqualified from participating in certain competitions.

Battle with Beijing
Seizing two of Evergrande’s crown jewels at a time when President Xi Jinping has vowed to tame China’s booming property market in his push for “common prosperity” puts Oaktree in a politically tricky position with Beijing.

For China’s government, the real estate sector poses financial, social and systemic risks. A decades-long borrowing-to-build binge has resulted in 90mn empty apartments and total outstanding debts of $5tn — a third of China’s gross domestic product.

Oaktree now finds itself caught up in a government crackdown on property developers that has limited their ability to borrow and led to a slump in house prices. It will have to sell the Evergrande assets in a market where valuations are in flux and where Beijing has prioritised the financial interests of homeowners over builders.

If Oaktree sells the sites, it stands to recoup its $1bn investment plus interest in excess of 20 per cent, according to a person close to the details. This could bring bad publicity at a time when construction workers, homeowners and retail investors are all suffering from the fallout of the developer debt crisis.

In the case of the “Venice” mainland project, the legal strength of foreign investor claims on domestic Chinese assets has been unclear in the past.

However, Marks said he was certain Oaktree’s creditor rights would be respected by Beijing. “Things are progressing as they are supposed to,” he said. “We are working with the company and everybody, including everybody in China, says the law will be followed.”

“I personally believe China wants to be a member of the world financial community. And I think that desire will inform its actions,” he said.

“I hope I’m not being Pollyanna . . . but so far, there’s been no evidence to the contrary that we cannot count on the rule of law.”

Oaktree controls the Evergrande developments through a cascade of corporate entities that stretches from China and Hong Kong to Singapore and British Virgin Islands, which allowed it to take control of the land without money changing hands on China’s mainland.

So far, it has faced no challenge from Beijing in its takeover of the projects. It has restarted construction of the Venice site and has begun selling apartments.

Its actions could even be in alignment with Xi’s own policies, which have forced China’s wealthiest tycoons to redistribute their fortunes: in 2017, before its current problems, Evergrande’s founder and chair Hui Ka Yan was the country’s richest man.

“You don’t do that without some sort of green light from the authorities in China,” the rival credit manager said. “You need air cover to pull off a move like that.”

A person with knowledge of the matter even described Beijing as “quite happy with the situation”.

Whether or not Oaktree prevails where other debt investors have feared to go, its bold foray into mainland China is in perfect keeping with its founder’s investment philosophy.

It is a principle that has guided his entire career, Marks said: “Great investments are often made when you’re willing to do something no one else is.”

>>> US Close -0.06% S&P +0.52% Nasdaq +1.58% Russell +0.57% VIX 23.22 -4.64%

Closing Stock Market Summary

The S&P 500 gained 0.5% on Friday in a session featuring earnings relief from Amazon.com (AMZN 3152.79, +375.88, +13.5%) and Snap (SNAP 38.75, +14.25, +58.2%), a surprising January employment report, rising Treasury yields, and uncomfortably high oil prices ($92.30/bbl, +2.08, +2.3%).

The Russell 2000 (+0.6%) kept pace with the benchmark index while the Nasdaq Composite (+1.6%) outperformed and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (-0.1%) closed lower. The market was contending with dueling trading narratives throughout the day. 

The first trading narrative was that the bullish earnings reactions in Amazon and Snap suggested that Meta Platform's (FB 237.09, -0.67, -0.3%) earnings disappointment was more a company-specific issue. AMZN shares rose 13.5%, and SNAP shares rose nearly 60.0%. 

Amazon carried the S&P 500 consumer discretionary sector (+3.7%) to the top of the sector leaderboard. The financials (+1.7%) and energy (+1.6%) sectors followed suit, while the materials (-1.7%), consumer staples (-1.2%), and industrials (-1.1%) sectors were among six sectors that closed lower.

The second trading narrative was that the January employment report, which included surprisingly strong jobs growth and higher-than-expected wage gains, would force the Fed to be even more aggressive with rate hikes. That could explain the mixed sector performances, as well as the 0.1% decline in the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index. 

Specifying the jobs data, nonfarm payrolls increased by 467,000 (consensus 180,000), and private sector payrolls increased by 444,000 (consensus 160,000), which caught many people off guard given the disappointing ADP Employment Change report earlier in the week. December payrolls growth saw sizable upwards revisions. 

In addition, the labor force participation rate increased to 62.2% from 61.9% in December, and average hourly earnings increased 0.7% (consensus 0.5%). The unemployment rate was 4.0% (consensus 3.9%), versus 3.9% in December.

Accordingly, the 2-yr yield rose 13 basis points to 1.32%, and the 10-yr yield rose ten basis points to 1.93%. The U.S. Dollar Index increased 0.1% to 95.44. Regarding the Fed's policy meeting in March, the CME FedWatch Tool increased the probability for a 50-basis-point rate hike in that meeting to 36.6% from 14.3% yesterday.

In other earnings news, Pinterest (PINS 27.25, +2.74, +11.2%) was another company that provided better-than-feared earnings results, while Ford Motor (F 17.96, -1.93, -9.7%) and Clorox (CLX 141.41, -23.93, -14.5%) disappointed shareholders with a pair of EPS misses. 

Reviewing the Employment Situation report in more depth: 

  • January payrolls were not only strong, they were accompanied by large upward revisions to the payrolls data for December and November. The January employment report was also accompanied by a big pickup in the year-over-year change in average hourly earnings and a nice uptick in the labor force participation rate.
    • January nonfarm payrolls increased by 467,000 (consensus 180,000). December nonfarm payrolls revised to 510,000 from 199,000.
    • January private sector payrolls increased by 444,000 ( consensus 160,000). December private sector payrolls revised to 503,000 from 211,000.
    • January unemployment rate was 4.0% ( consensus 3.9%), versus 3.9% in December.
    • January average hourly earnings increased 0.7% (consensus 0.5%) versus a downwardly revised 0.5% increase (from 0.6%) in December.
    • The average workweek in January was 34.5 hours (consensus 34.7), versus 34.7 hours in December.
    • The labor force participation rate increased to 62.2% from 61.9% in December.
    • The employment-population ratio rose to 59.7% from 59.5% in December.
      • The key takeaway from the report is that it will inflame concerns about the Fed being behind the curve in fighting inflation.

Looking ahead, investors will receive Consumer Credit for December on Monday.

  • Dow Jones Industrial Average -3.4% YTD
  • S&P 500 -5.6% YTD
  • Nasdaq Composite -9.9% YTD
  • Russell 2000 -10.8% YTD