FT : US put off derivatives rules for a decade before Archegos blew up

US put off derivatives rules for a decade before Archegos blew up
Regulation of swaps used by Bill Hwang was pushed back once again by Covid

Rules written in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to limit the potential for a blow-up like Archegos Capital have still not been fully implemented, throwing a spotlight on regulators in a fiasco that has shocked Wall Street and raised questions on Capitol Hill.

Crucial parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, an 848-page law that was meant to shore up big banks and temper excessive risk taking in the derivatives market, have been delayed again and again.

Critics are now arguing that had regulators implemented the rules faster, the implosion of Bill Hwang’s family office and the multibillion-dollar losses it caused two banks could have been limited.

In particular, rules that would have governed the disclosure of Archegos’s derivatives trades are still not in force, and neither are requirements for players like Hwang to post initial margin, payments meant to cover potential trading losses. Hwang was able to place more than $50bn of bets on the share prices of a handful of US and Chinese companies, and could not pay his counterparties when they started going against him.

Diane Jaffee, a portfolio manager at asset manager TCW, said that regulators had implemented Dodd-Frank at an “anaemic” pace. The ability of an unknown family office like Archegos to run up such outsize risks “is like the last hurrah . . . before regulations come in,” she said.

Equity total return swaps like those used by Archegos are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been far slower to write its rules than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the main derivatives regulator.

SEC rules are due to finally come into force on November 1. Had they already done so, the SEC would have had access to data on Archegos’s trades, including the size of each transaction and who the family office had traded with — rules already established in other parts of the derivatives market regulated by the CFTC.

“It is a dereliction of duty by the SEC not to have a properly regulated swaps market 13 years after they were at the core of causing and spreading the 2008 crash,” said Dennis Kelleher, president of the advocacy group Better Markets.

The opacity of Archegos’s positions has proven central to the incident, given many of its trading counterparties did not know it had taken similar positions with other banks across Wall Street. It was only when Hwang called Archegos’ many counterparties together for a meeting in late March that it became clear to each bank how large and concentrated the Archegos positions were, people familiar with the meeting have said.

“The SEC is 10 years late on implementing rules that would have provided more transparency into what was happening,” said an executive focused on government regulation at a large hedge fund. “The SEC completely dropped the ball.”

The SEC declined to comment.

Margin requirements were delayed
The SEC has also not implemented rules on margin requirements for derivatives trades conducted away from exchanges and clearing houses, which would affect the broker dealers it regulates.

Broad global rules demanding that asset managers set aside more cash to cover their swaps deals are defined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and International Organization of Securities Commissions (Iosco), the umbrella group for global markets watchdogs. Local regulators are given some leeway to adapt the rules to their markets.

In the US, that job is split among a host of regulators. Federal banking regulators have already introduced margin requirements for large banks trading with each other. However, as Covid-19 struck last year, global regulators agreed to push back the implementation of the rules that covered smaller financial firms trading derivatives from September 2020 to September 2022.

That decision meant a group like Archegos — which held derivatives positions worth more than $50bn, according to people familiar with the trades — was not required by any US regulators to post margin when it first initiated a trade.

Had the delay not been agreed, Archegos would have likely tripped above the designated size threshold last September, requiring it to post margin by Basel and Iosco standards after the value of its notional derivatives exposure eclipsed $8bn. The rules would require enough cash to cover 10 days of possible losses, based on the historic performance of the shares.

“The rules were designed to deal with these risks but they were designed on a schedule that ends up being too late to catch this counterparty,” said a derivatives lawyer at a large international law firm.

Wider markets were insulated
Multiple derivatives lawyers noted that post-financial crisis capital rules had helped insulate wider markets, with some of the banks involved absorbing sizeable losses without the need for state intervention.

Credit Suisse suffered a $4.7bn loss, while Nomura has warned it could lose $2bn. Others, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, collectively sold more than $20bn worth of stock they held as hedges for their trades with Archegos to limit their own losses. So far, nine banks have found themselves involved in the tumult, including Deutsche Bank, UBS, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Mizuho.

The bank’s prime brokerage units that enabled Archegos’s supercharged trades have not disclosed how much margin they required when the fund first initiated its transactions. Lawyers who work with banks said they have not typically implemented regulatory minimums before they come into force, because of competitive pressures.

Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman, MUFG, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, UBS and Wells Fargo declined to comment, as did Archegos.

FT : Catch them if you can: the $14bn rise of rapid delivery services

Catch them if you can: the $14bn rise of rapid delivery services
Despite Deliveroo’s disappointing IPO, investors are pouring money into ultrafast ‘dark store’ disrupters that have reshaped online grocery delivery during the pandemic

Dominique Locher, a veteran of online grocery services in Europe, realised the potential of a rapid delivery app at a board meeting of a Turkish supermarket chain in 2018.

As the directors gathered, some were offered coffee by staff; Locher pulled out his smartphone and ordered a can of Coca-Cola and some pistachios from Getir, an up-and-coming grocery delivery app based in Istanbul. Seven minutes later, Locher recalls, the Coke was on the boardroom table. His fellow directors were still waiting for their coffee.

Sold on the concept that ultrafast delivery services would revolutionise everyday shopping, Locher went on to invest in Jiffy, which launched in London in early April, with plans to open 20 warehouses across the UK this year.

“All the corner stores, all the smaller supermarkets, they were basically immune to the online supermarkets,” Locher says, because services like Ocado are designed around a large weekly shop. “This well protected castle has now been ripped open.”


Jiffy is just one in a growing crowd of rapid delivery apps that have become beneficiaries of a lockdown-fuelled funding bonanza. Investors have ploughed almost $14bn into on-demand grocery delivery services globally since the beginning of the pandemic, according to PitchBook Data, with more funding arriving during the first three months of 2021 than the whole of last year.

The long-familiar concept of a doorstep delivery service, whose origins might be found in the humble milk float, has been turbocharged by a combination of the pandemic and Silicon Valley’s hype machine.

“One huge benefit during the past year is all this forced adoption [due to lockdowns],” says PitchBook’s Alex Frederick. “It gave them [the delivery groups] a ton of consumer data to improve their products, and so you’re seeing these companies raise all this capital, to better serve what their customers want.”

Apps such as DoorDash and Deliveroo, focused on restaurants and takeaway meals, have proven consumer appetite for deliveries that are ordered online and arrive in as little as 30 minutes. But the new generation of start-ups eyeing the far greater market of groceries — estimated at $1tn in the US and more than €2tn in Europe — promise to deliver a basket of essentials in just 10 minutes.

For instance, Berlin-based Gorillas charges Londoners £1.80 to deliver anything from a 30p apple to a £10 case of cider, from frozen pizza to raw rib-eye steaks — with no minimum order value. Getir, whose name means “bring it” in Turkish, boasts that it can deliver more than 1,000 products “from detergent to dog food, crisps to condoms” and at the moment charges no delivery fee on orders above £10.

Customers range from frazzled parents needing emergency nappies to busy young professionals who do not want to plan their shopping days in advance. Then there are simply sofa dwellers with late-night munchies, like the two then-college students who in 2013 founded GoPuff, which pioneered the convenience-store delivery concept in the US.

These apps’ rapid delivery speed is accomplished through a combination of small localised warehouses, an army of couriers, a limited selection of household staples — and buckets of cash.

In March alone, Getir raised $300m, just two months after closing a $128m financing; Gorillas received $290m nine months after launching; Philadelphia-based GoPuff doubled its valuation to $8.9bn in the space of six months as it hauled in $1.15bn; and Spanish delivery app Glovo raised €450m.

“During Covid, everything changed,” says Glovo chief executive Oscar Pierre, who co-founded the company in Barcelona in 2015. Soaring demand from locked-down consumers has demonstrated the potential of instant online delivery to both investors and other retailers, he says. “There is now a very big appetite for groceries.”

Ophelia Brown, an investor at London-based venture firm Blossom Capital, says these are “unprecedented times for the amount of capital that goes into early-stage companies”, with the grocery trend being one of the most prominent examples. Some delivery start-ups were receiving significant funding with only “minimal signs of traction”, she adds. “It’s challenging to say what effect this amount of capital going into a space all at once will do because I don’t think we’ve seen anything quite like it.”

Even after Deliveroo’s disastrous stock market debut on March 31 — when its shares closed 26 per cent below its opening valuation of £7.6bn — investors say they remain confident in this latest twist on food delivery apps. “I don’t think investors will have cold feet,” says Locher. “The market is huge.”

Brown says that it would be “misguided” for investors to be put off grocery apps by Deliveroo’s initial public offering, which she blamed on “the shortcomings of the UK IPO market” rather than the appeal of food delivery services. “It would be like not investing in food after Ocado’s failed IPO,” she adds; the UK-based online grocer has seen the value of its stock increase tenfold since it listed in 2010.

'Faster than you’
If Ocado proved that there was a market for a regular weekly delivery, its would-be challengers are going after a more spontaneous — or perhaps lazy — shopper. The lure of near-instantaneous delivery is, in the slogan of Gorillas, that it’s “faster than you” — couriers can arrive in less time than it would take most people to pop out to their corner shop.

It is also great marketing, says Alberto Menolascina, a former Deliveroo executive who co-founded the London-based delivery app Dija last year. “It produces that ‘wow’ moment that [makes] people start talking about you,” he says. “It’s the disruption you create when you do something shocking . . . You don’t create electricity by incrementally improving the candle.”

In recent months, investors have been fighting to get in early to rapid delivery companies, many of them with little or no operating history before the pandemic began. Brown’s Blossom Capital, which has also backed fast-growing online payments company Checkout.com, joined Dija’s £20m fundraising last year before the company had even been incorporated, partly on the strength of its founders’ background at Deliveroo and other logistics ventures.

“This is a huge market to go after that hasn’t had any innovation for a long time,” she says, “since Ocado, basically.”

If there is broad agreement about the business opportunity, opinions differ about how to get the job done and how to make money.

Instacart, which pioneered online grocery deliveries in the US when it was founded in 2012, sends hundreds of thousands of gig workers into supermarkets across North America, to pick customers’ orders directly from the shelves. It then splits the revenues with its supermarket partners. Investors seem convinced its model is working: it was recently valued at $39bn, making it one of Silicon Valley’s most highly valued private companies.

The newcomers believe they can improve on Instacart, in both customer service and efficiency, by diverging from its “asset light” approach.

GoPuff claims its vertically integrated model — where it sources and owns its inventory, controlling both warehouse and delivery logistics — has achieved profitability in markets where it has operated for more than 18 months, though declined to give any further details. It plans to continue expanding across the US and eventually internationally, building on the 300 warehouses, or “dark stores” — so-called because they are closed to the public — it already has in America. Each is between 8,000 and 12,000 square feet.

The GoPuff approach has inspired many of the mushrooming number of European delivery start-ups. Many have even taken the integrated model a step further by taking on couriers and pickers as employees — albeit often on zero-hours contracts — to ensure enough people are always on standby to deliver to tight deadlines.

“We are Instacart and the supermarket [all] at the same time,” says Dija’s Menolascina. “We can tap into the whole pool of margin and return that margin to the consumer to be very aggressive on prices.”

Meanwhile, DoorDash, looking to capitalise on its position as the US market leader for restaurant delivery, is operating a hybrid model. Its gig workers pick up convenience items from existing stores, such as 7-Eleven, and its own network of about 25 “DashMart” dark stores.

Fuad Hannon, the DoorDash executive in charge of the company’s effort, says its existing network of gig workers, who deliver from restaurants, means it could quickly spin off its convenience store offering without needing to set up warehouses first. “You've got this liquidity of ‘dashers’ who are doing dashes all across the country,” Hannon says. “We think that’s allowed us to be successful, [regardless] of where the real estate is.”

GoPuff is sensitive to the suggestion that it let an early lead in the convenience sector slip, as some independent data indicates. It argues that ultimately its model will give it the upper hand when it comes to achieving faster delivery speeds. “[DoorDash] can scale faster because they can do partnerships with stores,” says Yakir Gola, GoPuff’s co-founder and co-chief executive. “But as a consumer, in order to get what GoPuff sells, you’d need to go to multiple different stores. That’s not ‘on demand’ any more, it’s going to take too long.”

Both companies are seeking to gain market share from Instacart, but the online grocer insists it has no desire to break away from its store partners. “No delivery or logistics company is going to take the place of the retailers that have earned the loyalty and trust of customers,” says Nilam Ganenthiran, Instacart’s president.

Yet Instacart’s retail partners are growing nervous about the scale of the online grocer, according to ecommerce consultant Brittain Ladd. “Instacart is now worth more than nearly every single grocery customer they serve,” he says. “What’s the fear? It’s that this little chimpanzee has grown up to be a big gorilla.”

In Europe, Deliveroo has struck Instacart-style partnerships with supermarkets including Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Aldi, while Delivery Hero rolled out hundreds of its own dark stores or “DMarts” last year. Having previously been hesitant to enter the sector, Just Eat Takeaway has undertaken various trials with grocers, according to Andrew Kenny, its UK managing director, and is now “beginning to look a lot harder” at the opportunity.

As well as the size of the potential market, two key indicators have driven investor appeal in rapid delivery apps: customer behaviour and the profitability of the business model.

“The type of growth I have seen there, I have seen nowhere before,” says Christophe Maire, whose Berlin-based Atlantic Labs, which previously backed SoundCloud and GetYourGuide, invested in Gorillas last year. He says the company has “negative churn”, meaning people who start using the app tend to stick with it and increase their use over time.

Kagan Sumer, founder of Gorillas, says groceries are “much more profitable” than restaurant food. Order values are typically between 20 and 40 per cent higher and compared with dinnertime spikes, demand for groceries is more even from mid-afternoon into the late evening. “One warehouse can make €1m a month [in revenues],” Sumer says.


Welcome to the ‘dark store’
Whether they are called warehouses, dark stores or even “micro fulfilment centres”, finding the right local base is a vital ingredient for success. Railway arches, light industrial parks or even high-street stores vacated by traditional retailers during the pandemic are all popular spots. Inside, the store layout is optimised for speed.

But while the overheads are low, there are other factors to consider. Gorillas pumps hardcore techno music through their facilities to keep pickers’ energy levels high. Dozens of couriers can be waiting outside for the next delivery. As a result, local residents have begun to push back on planning applications for some centres.

For Pierre, whose company Glovo has been delivering a range of food, flowers and pharmaceuticals across about 20 markets for several years, logistical challenges such as planning disputes are just one reason why he believes his new competitors are often “too optimistic” about making the business model work.

“It’s not easy . . . we have worked a lot to make the unit economics profitable,” he says. “The margin you make on the products ends up paying the rent, the pickers and the delivery people.”

Making money requires increasing how much people spend — in London, at least £20 is usually necessary for an operator to be profitable on any given order — and optimising how pickers work inside the compact warehouses.

But even as Glovo plans to launch 100 new dark stores this year across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Pierre is cautious about the “huge hype” surrounding rapid delivery apps, especially in London.

“I think the same thing is going to happen as with the Groupons of the world and a few years ago with [electric] scooters,” he says, referring to previous investor frenzies. Once the dust settles, only a couple of operators will survive in each city.

Michael Moritz, a partner at Sequoia Capital — an investor in Instacart and Getir — is even more blunt about the competition: “Many of the youngest crop of companies are going to get a brutal education.”

FT : Ark ETFs cross-holding and other linkages raise concerns

Ark ETFs cross-holding and other linkages raise concerns
New Space Exploration and Innovation ETF is largest shareholder in sister 3D Printing fund

Ark Invest’s keenly awaited Space Exploration and Innovation (ARKX) exchange traded fund has already made its mark — in part by pushing up the price of its sister 3D Printing ETF (PRNT).

ARKX, which has raked in $583m since its March 30 launch in one of the fastest ETF take-offs on record, has emerged as far and away the largest shareholder in PRNT.

As of late last week, ARKX owned 5.8 per cent of PRNT, far more than the next 20 shareholders combined, raising concerns among some analysts. PRNT, a passive ETF, is the second-largest holding in ARKX with a 6 per cent weighting.

“[The ETFs] are propping one another up. It’s a little bit cheeky,” said Kenneth Lamont, senior fund analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar.

“There is something a little bit strange in it, especially considering the liquidity issues around thematic funds. You are really adding another layer of complexity.”

Peter Sleep, senior portfolio manager at 7 Investment Management and a big ETF investor, said the cross-holding “makes everybody uncomfortable and I think it’s not right. The optics are not great.”

By raising demand for PRNT’s investee companies, the cross-holding will have played a part in the 5.2 per cent jump in PRNT’s share price since ARKX’s launch.

One concern is any potential contagion between the two ETFs in the event of significant outflows from either. If there is a meaningful selling of ARKX, the fund’s stake in PRNT would be ratcheted down pro rata, fuelling the selling of PRNT’s underlying holdings and pushing down their price. The losses for both funds could potentially spur further outflows.

Similarly, significant outflows from the $610m PRNT ETF would be likely to feed through to investors in ARKX.

These linkages are strengthened by other interconnections. ARKX’s largest position, for example, is an 8.6 per cent holding in Trimble, a Californian technology company, which is also, at 4.9 per cent, one of PRNT’s largest positions.

“If one of [the ETFs] has to sell out quickly, clearly that will have an impact. Their destinies are conjoined to some degree,” said Lamont.

“Any time there is a large individual owner of an ETF there’s a liquidity risk or a risk that money moves out faster,” said Todd Rosenbluth, head of ETF and mutual fund research at CFRA Research.

Despite this, Sleep believed contagion fears were “a stretch”, given that the underlying market “is deep enough”.

ARKX investors are not being double charged on the PRNT stake but Lamont said Ark should provide a clear explanation of the investment rationale behind the cross-holding.

“Is there some reason why you would invest in this [ETF] rather than someone else’s? You have to show that you are not favouring your own fund.

“It certainly muddies the water. It’s not a red flag, but a flag to call in for a pit stop to say: OK, what is happening here?”

A small number of ETFs have been structured as fund of funds that invest in other ETFs. For example, the sole holdings of the First Trust Dorsey Wright Focus 5 ETF (FV), for example, are stakes in five sector or industry-specific First Trust ETFs.

Rosenbluth said it was “rare” for an ETF to own a stake in another such vehicle but there was a history of newly launched ETFs doing so. A new global emerging markets fund might buy the iShares MSCI India ETF (INDA) as a way of getting instant exposure to that country.

“It can be a challenge to be fully invested in all of the securities you intend to hold [immediately] because you are often dealing with a small asset base and buying odd lots,” said Rosenbluth, although he acknowledged this should be less of a problem for a fund of ARKX’s size.

“It’s conceivable that [chief executive and lead portfolio manager Cathie] Wood sells the PRNT ETF and buys the underlying stocks once ARKX has matured a bit more and there us a more stable asset base,” he added.

Nate Geraci, president of The ETF Store, an advisory firm, agreed, saying “it looks like at this point they are utilising [the position] as a place holder for exposure to 3D printing. I would expect them to sell out of that position over time.”

Sleep was less charitable, though, saying that the PRNT stake “suggests to me that the Space ETF doesn’t have enough companies to invest in”.

“It’s a bit self-serving, as if space and 3D printing were analogous,” he said, adding that if Wood was happy for ARKX to invest in the latter, why not also ExxonMobil, as spaceships need rocket fuel, and aluminium companies, given their need for the metal?

Rosenbluth was more forgiving of the management team that has turned Ark into an investment phenomenon with $50bn under management in its ETFs, a more than tenfold rise since the start of last year.

“There is not a direct line between space exploration and Deere or Netflix [either],” he said, referring to the agricultural machinery manufacturer and streaming service that also feature in ARKX’s portfolio.

“Thematic investing is often in the eye of the beholder or manager. Wood and her team have used their creative licence to find companies that can benefit from this long-term trend.”

Ark declined to comment.

FT : Euskaltel/MasMovil: little consolidation gain in Spain

Euskaltel/MasMovil: little consolidation gain in Spain
The merger is unlikely to boost returns for long-suffering telecoms investors

Anyone hoping for significant consolidation in the Spanish telecoms sector was disappointed by MasMovil’s approach for Euskaltel last month. Joining the country’s fourth and fifth-largest networks together is unlikely to boost returns for long-suffering investors in the sector.

The market would have preferred Vodafone to have combined its Spanish operations with those of Orange Spain, or MasMovil. The €11.17 per share bid valued the regional Basque operator at a smallish €3.4bn including net debt.

Shareholders in Telefónica communicated disappointment by dropping the incumbent Spanish operator’s shares down 4 per cent in response. Reduced competition for mobile subscribers and bigger shareholder payouts will have to wait.

Euskaltel adds about 3 per cent of the retail market but most of this is from broadband. Sticky revenues justify a price 10 times this year’s ebitda, above what private equity buyers paid for MasMovil lin 2020.

Last year, Euskaltel launched aggressive sales of broadband and mobile packages nationally under the Virgin group logo. These additional customers support expectations of revenue growth of 8 per cent this year. That will strengthen MasMovil’s own rapid broadband growth, built off fibre assets acquired from Orange, a divestment required by watchdogs when Orange bought Jazztel in 2015. Low cost deals lured away subscribers from incumbent Telefónica.

Share price performances have diverged since then. Strong relative growth and plans to spin off a stake in its broadband business has boosted Euskaltel shares by 26 per cent from the summer of 2019 up to the end-March MasMovil bid. Telefónica shares have shed 60 per cent over that time. Telefónica has stated it hopes revenue growth will return by 2022.

A combination of MasMovil and Euskaltel will not make that target any easier to achieve. Spain’s four mobile network operators are intact and MasMovil remains the challenger. Hints that tariff discounting had moderated at the end of last year led to expectations for a more rational market. That call remains on hold.

WSJ : Supply-Chain Software Provider Blue Yonder Weighs IPO

Supply-Chain Software Provider Blue Yonder Weighs IPO
Filing comes as global disruptions bring greater attention, investment to suppliers of logistics-technology tools

Software company Blue Yonder is planning to go public, the latest technology provider to look at a public stock offering as pandemic-driven upheaval in supply chains draws more interest to tools that help companies manage the flow of goods.

Blue Yonder Holding Inc. said Friday it has confidentially filed paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed initial public offering. The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based supply-chain software provider said the number of shares and the price range for the potential offering haven’t been determined.

Japanese electronics maker Panasonic Corp. last year took a 20% stake in Blue Yonder, deepening the companies’ relationship as they jointly develop digital technology for managing logistics, retail and manufacturing operations.

Data research group Garner ranked Blue Yonder last year as the world’s third-largest provider in the supply-chain-management software market, based on 2019 revenue, behind SAP SE and Oracle Corp.

Blue Yonder’s potential IPO comes as investors are pushing millions of dollars into logistics-technology companies that help manage operations including sourcing, shipping and tracking amid a series of supply-chain disruptions around the world. The attention to such tools grew as companies scrambled to retool production at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has continued as port congestion, commodities shortages, transport capacity squeezes and other shocks have hit business.

Blue Yonder customers with shipments snared when the Ever Given container ship blocked the Suez Canal last month, for example, used the company’s software to assess inventory levels and help with contingency plans such as air transport to get goods around the bottleneck.

Chicago-based project44, which helps track the flow of goods in transit, is weighing a potential public stock offering in the next 18 to 24 months. Supply-chain software provider E2open went public earlier this year through a deal with a special-purpose acquisition company. The transaction closed in February and the merged company, E2open Parent Holdings Inc., is now trading on the New York Stock Exchange.