NYP : Airbnb exec resigned over concerns company shared too much data with China

Airbnb exec resigned over concerns company shared too much data with China

The former chief trust officer of Airbnb was so concerned about how much user data the internet behemoth was sharing with China, he resigned from his post last year after just six months on the job.

Sean Joyce, Airbnb’s former chief trust officer — also a former deputy director with the FBI — reportedly resigned last year over concerns about how much user data the company was sharing with China.

Joyce was hired as the company’s first chief trust officer in May of 2019 to help protect users’ safety on the platform — but he abruptly resigned from his executive position after just six months on the job “over concerns about how the massive rental platform shares data on millions of its users with Chinese authorities,” sources told The Wall Street Journal.

“Joyce grew alarmed during his tenure that the company wasn’t being fully transparent about the data it shares with the ruling Chinese Communist Party government, including for Americans traveling in the country,” sources said, according to the paper. “He also was concerned about what he viewed as Airbnb’s willingness to consider more expansive data requests from China.”

Airbnb, which filed to go public this week and, in that filing, admitted its “ability to continue doing business in China is a risk factor for its brand and profitability,” claims it has always been transparent about its information sharing with Chinese authorities.

However, Joyce felt most people didn’t know how much data was being shared which included, according the WSJ, “phone numbers, email addresses and messages between users and the company.”

“We are committed to being transparent with our community, and clearly disclose our data policies to all of our hosts and guests by displaying a clear message to users when they are on the platform and through multiple other notifications,” Nick Papas, a spokesman for Airbnb, told the paper.

When reached for comment, Joyce told the WSJ “he had a ‘difference in values’ with Airbnb” and declined any further comment.

According to the paper, Chinese officials asked for more data in the summer of last year — specifically requesting “real-time data” which would alert them to when someone first books a property. This alarmed Joyce, who “worried such data-sharing would enable Chinese government surveillance and put members of minority ethnic groups such as repressed Muslim-majority Uighurs at risk.”

Joyce raised the alarm with Chief Executive Brian Chesky and co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, who leads Airbnb’s China unit, to which Blecharczyk reportedly said, “We’re not here to promote American values” — prompting Joyce to resign.

(ZH) Airbnb exec resigned over concerns company shared too much data with China

Airbnb exec resigned over concerns company shared too much data with China

The former chief trust officer of Airbnb was so concerned about how much user data the internet behemoth was sharing with China, he resigned from his post last year after just six months on the job.

Sean Joyce, Airbnb’s former chief trust officer — also a former deputy director with the FBI — reportedly resigned last year over concerns about how much user data the company was sharing with China.

Joyce was hired as the company’s first chief trust officer in May of 2019 to help protect users’ safety on the platform — but he abruptly resigned from his executive position after just six months on the job “over concerns about how the massive rental platform shares data on millions of its users with Chinese authorities,” sources told The Wall Street Journal.

“Joyce grew alarmed during his tenure that the company wasn’t being fully transparent about the data it shares with the ruling Chinese Communist Party government, including for Americans traveling in the country,” sources said, according to the paper. “He also was concerned about what he viewed as Airbnb’s willingness to consider more expansive data requests from China.”

Airbnb, which filed to go public this week and, in that filing, admitted its “ability to continue doing business in China is a risk factor for its brand and profitability,” claims it has always been transparent about its information sharing with Chinese authorities.

However, Joyce felt most people didn’t know how much data was being shared which included, according the WSJ, “phone numbers, email addresses and messages between users and the company.”

“We are committed to being transparent with our community, and clearly disclose our data policies to all of our hosts and guests by displaying a clear message to users when they are on the platform and through multiple other notifications,” Nick Papas, a spokesman for Airbnb, told the paper.

When reached for comment, Joyce told the WSJ “he had a ‘difference in values’ with Airbnb” and declined any further comment.

According to the paper, Chinese officials asked for more data in the summer of last year — specifically requesting “real-time data” which would alert them to when someone first books a property. This alarmed Joyce, who “worried such data-sharing would enable Chinese government surveillance and put members of minority ethnic groups such as repressed Muslim-majority Uighurs at risk.”

Joyce raised the alarm with Chief Executive Brian Chesky and co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, who leads Airbnb’s China unit, to which Blecharczyk reportedly said, “We’re not here to promote American values” — prompting Joyce to resign.

(ZH) Struggling Retailers Owe $52 Billion In Overdue Rents

Struggling Retailers Owe $52 Billion In Overdue Rents

The virus pandemic - with its temporary and permanent store closures, strict social distancing requirements, e-commerce boom, and supply chain disruption - since March has fueled uncertainty among US retailers as many find themselves in a $52 billion hole.
Bloomberg, citing new data via CoStar Group Inc., outlines how restaurants, gyms, and other businesses have accumulated insurmountable rent payments that have been deferred for months. This has resulted in landlords demanding outstanding balances be immediately paid, could drive some retailers into bankruptcy.
"You're going to have big bubbles that are going to be hitting next year or even in the fourth quarter," said Andy Graiser, co-president of A&G Real Estate Partners, an advisory firm. "I'm not sure if they are going to be able to make those payments in addition to their existing rent."
The problem with overdue rents, totaling $52 billion as of November, is that retail sales growth in October slumped and is expected to wane into year-end.

Furthermore, coronavirus cases are exponentially increasing in almost every US state. Local governments across the country are reimposing strict social distancing measures that will stymie retail sales and increase the threat of a double dip recession.
CoStar reveals the amount of rent collected from retailers rose from 54% at the end of April to 86% this month. Only 79% of rent due this month for malls was collected.
"It's going to take a period of years, not months, to get through this," said Michael Hirschfeld, vice chairman at JLL, a real estate services firm.
From Signet Jewelers Ltd. to Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. to Bed Bath and Beyond, Bloomberg lists the major retailers who have deferred rent payments. Their unpaid rents total in the tens of millions of dollars per company - the question, with slumping retail sales and a virus pandemic that continues to rage - how will these retailers ever pay back past rents?

Signet Jewelers Ltd., for one, deferred about $78 million of its rent payments, according to a September quarterly filing. In its most recent quarterly filing, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. said it's held back $50.6 million in rent payments and is in negotiations with landlords, while Francesca's Holdings Corp. has said it owed $14.6 million in deferred rents and related costs as of Aug. 1. The women's clothing chain has since said it plans to shutter about 140 locations by the end of January and that it's in danger of financial collapse.
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc., meanwhile, said that it's received default notices from some landlords after it stopped making full payments in April. Chief Financial Officer Lynn Schweinfurth told investors on a Nov. 5 call that the restaurant chain had negotiated amendments for about half of its leases by the end of its third quarter and continues in talks for the rest.
Many of these unpaid bills won't go away, but are instead being pushed into next year. Signet said it plans to pay back its overdue rent by the middle of next year, while Francesca's plans to repay the amount over the course of next year, it said in a quarterly filing in September, and is asking landlords for more concessions.
Representatives for Bed Bath and Beyond, Francesca's, and Red Robin didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. A representative for Signet didn't have a comment beyond recent filings. -Bloomberg
Earlier this month, deferred rents and a tidal wave of tenants exiting leases helped two mall REITs, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and CBL & Associates Properties file for Chapter 11 protection - together the two REITs account for 87 million square feet of real estate across the US.
Even though collections are improving at high-quality malls - mall giant Simon Property Group Inc. only collected 85% of rents in the third quarter, up from 72% in the previous quarter. Brookfield Property Partners LP said it collected 75% of rents from mall tenants over the same quarter.
Jay Indyke, a lawyer who chairs Cooley LLP's restructuring practice, said landlords and lenders are willing to make accommodations out of court to resolve overdue rent payments because of the recent news of a promising vaccine.
"There are certainly some players that are willing to at least convert some of their debt to equity," Indyk said.
While the brick and mortar retail "apocalypse" was already a problem for the US economy ahead of the virus pandemic thanks to the destructive forces of Amazon and the e-commerce boom, the pandemic continues to complicate the outlook for retailers that may extend the bankruptcy wave well into 2021.

SCMP : Foreign investors in China’s Greater Bay Area could benefit from proposal

Foreign investors in China’s Greater Bay Area could benefit from proposal to use Hong Kong laws
  • Hong Kong businesses in Shenzhen and Guangzhou may be able to choose Hong Kong as the applicable jurisdiction in commercial deals and arbitration of disputes
  • Beijing is attempting to maintain Hong Kong’s function as a bridge global investors into mainland China

Hong Kong has proposed a legal change that would boost the city’s role in settling business disputes in the Greater Bay Area, a move that could protect the city’s function as a gateway for foreign investment in mainland China.
Last month, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah floated the idea that Hong Kong businesses in Shenzhen and Guangzhou be able to choose Hong Kong as the applicable jurisdiction in commercial deals and use the city for any potential arbitration of disputes.

The proposal was published Ta Kung Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper that is backed by the mainland Chinese government, showing the likelihood of support from Beijing.

The proposal, if approved by Beijing, will change a long-standing legal practice in China that mainland entities funded by Hong Kong money must use Chinese arbitrary panels or courts if disputes arise with local partners, which can be painful for Hong Kong and international investors who are not familiar with the mainland legal system.

The change could offer relief to businesses such as Brilliant Circle Holdings International. The Hong Kong-listed company had a dispute with a former executive and both sides agreed in their contract that the deal would be governed by Hong Kong law.

The case was brought before the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration for a ruling in 2017, but after three hearings in 2018, the tribunal has postponed its ruling 11 times – with the latest deadline at the end of 2020, according to a statement by Brilliant Circle.

Hong Kong maintains a Common Law system and an independent judiciary, both of which are more trusted by local and foreign investors to settle disputes.

“If we had choice, we would choose to arbitrate in a Hong Kong court,” said Zheng Jinghui, a vice-president of Brilliant Circle.

“For all foreign companies with operations in the Greater Bay Area, it’s desirable to have an arbitration tribunal that can make rulings and resolve disputes in a more efficient way than ordinary local courts. As such, the proposal by the secretary for justice is extremely important.

“Under Hong Kong law, the date of rendering the award must be no later than three months from the date of the close of the arbitration or of the relevant phase. Our case just takes too long.”

The Shenzhen court and the former executive both declined to comment when contacted about the case.
The proposal comes at a time when the Chinese government is trying to more closely integrate Hong Kong’s economy with the mainland.

While China has imposed a strict national security law on the city, Beijing is also attempting to maintain the city’s function as a bridge global investors into mainland China.

But for now, Hong Kong investors who invest in China through a mainland entity or company still have to solve disputes in mainland courts, said Thomas So, a partner at international law firm Mayer Brown, who specialises in dispute resolution.

“The purpose of the new idea proposed by the secretary for justice is to ask for special treatment that will allow Hong Kong investors in the Greater Bay Area a choice on the resolution forum to be in Hong Kong,” said So, who represents banks, developers and corporate clients on equity disputes.

“It will be welcomed by Hong Kong companies and entrepreneurs as they are more familiar with the legal system and the practice in the city.”

The proposed law amendments will also benefit the legal services sector in Hong Kong, he added.

On the mainland side, China has shown a willingness to give Hong Kong law, and Hong Kong lawyers, a bigger role to play in the fields of business and commerce.

China’s State Council last month issued a provisional regulation that allows lawyers from Hong Kong and Macau to provide legal services in neighbouring Guangdong province.

The Qianhai free-trade zone in Shenzhen has also started to make arbitrary rulings in accordance with Hong Kong law, although the case of Brilliant Circle shows there are still gaps between Shenzhen and Hong Kong.

“Hong Kong law and arbitrators have better credibility for foreign and Hong Kong investors,” said Luo Aiping, a partner with Beijing Yingke (Guangzhou) Law Firm.

“If Hong Kong and foreign investors are given the option to choose Hong Kong law and courts for dispute resolution, most would,” Luo said.

FT : Henkel’s chief on guarding family spirit in a global group

Henkel’s chief on guarding family spirit in a global group
As the pandemic struck, CEO Carsten Knobel was planning for the long term and reassured employees their jobs were safe

For Carsten Knobel, history is all important. 

When talking about the future of the Persil and Loctite maker, the chief executive of the Henkel frequently refers to the company’s long heritage.

Mr Knobel loves to talk about Henkel’s social and collaborative culture, as well as the family spirit that he says has been in the corporate DNA for 144 years. Time and again, he also emphasises the consumer goods group’s longstanding sense of social responsibility for each and every employee. 

“There have never been mass lay-offs in the history of Henkel,” says Mr Knobel, quickly adding that it was his “clear aspiration” that this unbroken record remains in place during the Covid-19 crisis and Henkel’s continuing restructuring. 

Even without the worst public health and economic crisis in modern history, Mr Knobel’s job would be challenging. Henkel’s former chief financial officer, who joined the company in 1995 after studying chemistry and business administration, rose to the top at the start of 2020 after a series of profit and revenue warnings. They triggered the premature departure of his predecessor Hans Van Bylen, another Henkel lifer. 

Mr Knobel vehemently rejects the notion that Henkel was in crisis when he took over, arguing that it was still highly profitable and financially sound. “But the performance fell short of our expectations and change was needed.” 

The 51-year-old had not even finished his first hundred days at the helm of Henkel when the pandemic struck. Some business areas, such as the one serving professional barber shops, suffered sudden year-on-year revenue drops of 80 per cent. 

“That was a total shock,” recalls Mr Knobel. “Never before had we seen such dramatic declines.” 

Yet at that point, he took a number of bold decisions. One was not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors, who had favoured short-term profits over long-term strategic necessities.

Hence Mr Knobel didn’t tamper with a new strategy that he announced just weeks ahead of the pandemic, refraining from cutting budgets for investment and marketing and pushing on with the plan to divest underperforming brands.

 “I was convinced early on that the coronavirus situation will be over at some point,” he says. “If we avoid myopic decisions which have negative consequences in the long run, Henkel can emerge stronger from the crisis.” 

Hammering home that point to Henkel’s 52,000 employees, he issued a job guarantee to everyone in early May and even committed not to furlough a single worker. “We wanted to send a clear signal to our employees and to convey a sense of security.” 

A related decision was to weather the crisis without relying on government-backed emergency loans, and to say so in public. “We paid out €800m in dividends in 2020. For me, tapping government help at the same time had just not felt right.” 

That optimism was vindicated by rebounding sales across all three business units in the third quarter.

With €20bn of annual revenue and a stock market valuation nearly twice that size, the Düsseldorf-based company may be one of Europe’s biggest consumer goods groups — but in some ways, Henkel has more in common with a medium-sized, unlisted family company than a multinational.

Up to this day, the majority of voting stock is controlled by the scions of the company founder, and 51-year-old chairwoman Simone Bagel-Trah is a great-great-granddaughter of Fritz Henkel. Moreover, the company is incorporated as a partnership limited by shares, which gives non-family investors less control. 

“It is extremely important for us to have an anchor shareholder with a long-term view,” Mr Knobel says. But he also adds that, at the end of the day, the Henkel family also has been “a rationale owner”.

Striking the right balance between being a socially responsible family firm and the demands of a listed, profit-minded multinational has sometimes been like a tightrope walk.

From 2008, Mr Knobel’s pre-predecessor Kasper Rorsted ruthlessly focused the company on efficiency by cutting overhead costs and streamlining production processes.

As a consequence, the operating profit margin rose by 50 per cent and annual payouts to shareholders more than tripled. While some employees in Germany bemoaned the “demise of the Henkel spirit”, shareholders were delighted as Henkel’s market capitalisation more than tripled. 

Yet shortly after Mr Rorsted left Henkel in 2016 to join sportswear maker Adidas as chief executive, the consumer goods group started to lose its lustre. In its beauty care unit, Henkel was slow to react to the rising popularity of natural and eco-friendly cosmetics and the adhesive division was hit by the slowdown in the automotive industry.

Mr Van Bylen repeatedly promised to rekindle growth, but after a series of disappointments he left prematurely at the end of 2019. 

The fact that the company then turned to CFO Mr Knobel to turn things round raised eyebrows among some analysts. Wasn’t he just another insider like Mr Van Bylen, who was responsible for the group’s problems? “Those concerns were understandable, and I did ask myself if I was the right person for the job,” says Mr Knobel.

He concluded that his role as CFO had been entirely different to the new one as CEO and that he would be able to adjust to the fresh demands. “In my previous jobs, I have proved that I am capable of changing myself,” he says, pointing to more than half a dozen roles he held at the company. “Hence I was confident that I could do the same again.” 

Moreover, he argues that he had been acutely aware of things that needed to change: more teamwork among senior executives, faster decision-making and maybe even a bit more corporate waste: “In the past, Henkel had become too focused on efficiency,” he says, adding that some investments may have been neglected a bit. 

So, in early March, Mr Knobel promised to spend an additional €350m on advertising and improving Henkel’s IT. He also pledged to make Henkel greener, vowing to make all packaging recyclable by 2025, and to push more eco-friendly products. 

All this, he promises, will drive annual sales growth up to between 2 and 4 per cent, compared with just 1.2 per cent over the past two years. “Those targets are not easy to achieve but will require significant change,” Mr Knobel says. 

One option that is not on the cards is breaking up Henkel’s conglomerate structure, he says, arguing that the pandemic had just proved the benefits of a broad portfolio.

But what does he tell investment bankers arguing that pure play companies which are focused on one market tend to fetch higher valuations on the stock market? “I don’t need any investment bankers [for this],” he retorts, arguing it was the management’s task to continuously monitor Henkel’s portfolio of brands. “And that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

FT : Investors fret over future of Fed crisis lending

Investors fret over future of Fed crisis lending
Markets concerned response to potential virus surge will be curtailed due to Treasury rift with central bank

Jay Powell and Steven Mnuchin had plenty of reasons to argue over the past three years, from Donald Trump’s personal attacks on the chairman of the Federal Reserve, to trade tensions and the president’s handling of the pandemic.

But it was not until the past week that a rift between America’s top two economic policymakers boiled over, after the Treasury secretary pulled the plug on a portion of the central bank’s crisis lending facilities with about two months left in office, against Mr Powell’s wishes.

The move by Mr Mnuchin jeopardised a very effective partnership with Mr Powell that was crucial to securing a hefty US policy response to the coronavirus crisis early on. The central bank made no secret of the fact that it wanted to preserve the credit facilities being axed by the Treasury secretary as a key weapon in its arsenal to keep markets healthy during the pandemic. 

“There have always been tensions between the Treasury and the Fed but there has always been a strenuous attempt to keep them private,” said David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center for Fiscal and Monetary Policy, a Washington think-tank. “This seems extremely dangerous . . . like telling the firehouse we’re cutting off the water between now and inauguration, and hope we don’t have any fire,” he said. 

If the economic recovery proceeds without backsliding due to a new surge in infections and lack of fiscal support, the worries about the impact of Mr Mnuchin’s decision may end up being moot.

But if financial markets were to experience new turmoil in the coming months, the Fed might struggle to limit the damage to investors in corporate debt, municipal and state debt, and asset-backed securities, whose markets were propped up by the lapsing facilities. And the fallout could be broader, given the nearly $40tn US equity market has been buoyed by the Fed’s intervention as well.

“This is a policy error, there’s no question around that,” said Ed Al-Hussainy, an analyst with Columbia Threadneedle. “These are facilities that provided an emergency backstop [and] as far as we know the emergency is not over. It is prematurely thinning out the Fed’s toolkit.”



The greatest solace for markets may be that the Treasury did agree to a three-month renewal of Fed credit facilities set up to support short-term funding markets, like commercial paper and money market mutual funds, which experienced great trouble back in March.

But the loss of the schemes terminated by Mr Mnuchin could be significant, even if their usage had been low until now. Of particular concern will be the end of two facilities created to buy corporate debt, including some junk bonds, and one to give access to credit to state and local governments at a time when they are increasingly cash-strapped with no federal aid money coming their way. 

Markets were relatively listless on Friday after the spat between Messrs Powell and Mnuchin spilled into the open, with portions of the Treasury yield curve flattening. Investors said there was some expectation the Fed could be prompted into greater bond buying — particularly in longer-dated 10- or 30-year bonds — to help compensate for the decision by the Treasury.

Stocks slipped and spreads on junk bonds, which measure the premium investors demand to own the risky debt over haven Treasuries, widened marginally to end the week. 

Bryan Whalen, a portfolio manager with TCW, said that regardless of the limited use of the programmes, their existence had been enough to instil confidence in markets in March, and that alone made them a “home run”.

“The bonds that were bought or loans that were made in and of itself, weren’t meaningful,” he said. “But collectively when you look at the list of programmes, and not just the funds that were allocated from the Treasury and Fed but the amount of sectors they were touching collectively it meant so much.”



Among the schemes, the Main Street Lending Program was perhaps the most derided, given its small outlays. Many companies and lawmakers had urged the Fed and Treasury to ease the terms of the facilities to boost demand and use up its $600bn capacity, but take-up remained paltry as some struggling businesses — including commercial real estate groups and retailers — thought it was not generous enough. Century 21, the famed New York City department store, filed for bankruptcy after failing to meet the facilities’ standards.

But while the MSLP may not be missed — the corporate and municipal debt facilities were more market-sensitive and it could be more risky to let them lapse. 

The question plaguing investors is how quickly the programmes could be restarted if markets dive again. The Treasury department, whether under Mr Mnuchin until January 20 or his successor in the administration of Joe Biden after that, could tap the Exchange Stabilization Fund without congressional approval to revive the facilities, but they would have smaller capacity than they did this year. Getting Congress to sign off on greater funding could be difficult with many Senate Republicans opposed to their renewal. 

“Politically the hurdle rate for invoking [these facilities] next time is much higher,” Mr Al-Hussainy said. “There will be people in Congress who correctly say these programmes disproportionately benefited large corporations.”

 Mr Powell could have escalated the dispute with Mr Mnuchin further this week by refusing to send the unused funds from the facilities back to the Treasury department, in effect stopping them from expiring. But instead, in a letter on Friday afternoon that could spare him a fierce political battle with the outgoing Trump administration, he said he would abide by Mr Mnuchin’s decision — and applauded their work together on the facilities in the first place.

“Our efforts helped to prevent severe disruptions in the financial system and unlocked trillions of dollars of private lending to households, businesses, and municipalities at a moment when the economy needed it most,” the Fed chair said.

FT : Mink/fur prices: cull of the wild

Mink/fur prices: cull of the wild
17m mammals in Denmark at risk over fears of a coronavirus mutation

Pity the American mink. The otter-like creatures are preyed on by coyotes, wolves and, above all, humans, who progressed from trapping the animals to farming them for their fur. Now 17m of the semiaquatic mammals face a nationwide cull in Denmark over fears of a coronavirus mutation — assuming, that is, Danish legislators work out how they can do so legally.

The Scandinavian country accounts for roughly half the 35m mink farmed in Europe in 2018, according to latest available data collated by animal activist group Humane Society International. That still ranks it behind China, which leads the pack worldwide with 20m.

Even before the Danes’ botched cull, the allure of mink was waning. The fur was a staple of bygone glamour days — it adorned 200 pairs of earmuffs ordered by actress Elizabeth Taylor as Christmas gifts. Mink has fallen out of fashion. Animal rights activists have ensured fur wearers are now more often the object of scorn than envy. Luxury designers from Gucci to Prada, sensing that fur had shifted from social cachet to social gaffe, stripped their rails of the real stuff. Faux fur became cool.

Of course, the memo never went truly global. Diehard fans remain in Russia and China. Chinese retailers like Fangfangjia Fur — an online store catering to “urban fashionable ladies who have personal unique taste” — continue to snap up pelts at auction.


Still, Chinese production is running at a third of the peak rates of 2014. As with many things, coronavirus is accelerating trends rather than ripping them apart. The botched cull has forced co-operative auctioneer Kopenhagen Fur to bring down the gavel on itself; it expects to wind up over the next few years. Its smaller peer Toronto-based North American Fur Auction ran into trouble last year, before coronavirus, when a principal lender pulled the plug. NAFA was forced to file for Chapter 11 style restructuring a year ago. 

Data on Kopenhagen’s sales paints a picture of dwindling demand. Average pelt prices are less than half the levels of February 2014; recent auctions have seen as much as 40-odd per cent of pelts go unsold. Some farmers report that current prices do not even cover the cost of production. Sooner or later, the only American mink left in western Europe will be feral, mounting a last stand against resurgent wild otters.

WSJ : Speedy Overhaul of Fannie and Freddie Is Hardly Easy

Speedy Overhaul of Fannie and Freddie Is Hardly Easy
It would be a herculean task to make meaningful progress on the housing giants before the end of the Trump administration

It may be possible for current officials to take some big steps setting Fannie Mae FNMA 25.67% and Freddie Mac FMCC 28.98% on a path to exiting government control before President-elect Joe Biden takes office. But like anything having to do with the housing giants, it won’t be simple.

The completion of a new capital rule for Fannie and Freddie in November creates one complexity. Under the new requirement, at their combined size Fannie and Freddie would need to collectively have about $280 billion in equity capital—on the order of $250 billion more than they currently do.


This means some kind of workaround to bridge the capital gap for the time being may be needed. According to the new capital rule, that could take the form of a temporary consent agreement if the government were to end conservatorship. The terms of such a decree might have big consequences for Fannie and Freddie’s business, and for potential future investors.

Then there’s the question of what would be involved if the Treasury Department restructured its senior preferred stake in Fannie and Freddie, a step before the firms raise or retain additional capital. Treasury may seek to be compensated for providing a continued backstop to the firms by charging them a commitment fee. Still, any move that would amount to a significant alteration of the federal government’s balance sheet would surely attract interest at agencies beyond Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

How holders of Fannie and Freddie securitizations known as agency debt would react to new arrangements is a source of debate. Some argue that markets would be satisfied by some kind of commitment-fee funded arrangement, while others argue it is a big risk to move forward without supporting legislation by Congress guaranteeing the debt.

Don’t forget about the Supreme Court, either. It is set to soon hear arguments not only on whether FHFA Director Mark Calabria is removable by the president at any time, but also on some shareholders’ longstanding claims against the government for sweeping Fannie and Freddie’s profits.

The stakes for investors of all kinds in this process are also unusually high right now. How the firms do business under any new arrangement would be of huge interest at a delicate time in the U.S. economy. Consider the firestorm and home-lender stock swoon that was ignited in August by the FHFA’s proposed fee to help offset Fannie and Freddie’s pandemic obligations. FHFA responded by pushing back the move to December, and exempting certain loans. That was a baby step compared with the kind of changes that might ultimately result from Fannie and Freddie’s transformation.

It would be understandable for Mr. Calabria and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to not want to leave so much work unfinished on housing finance reform. But while aggressive steps are possible, a more measured approach may be more likely.

WSJ : Love and Money—and How They’re Connected

Love and Money—and How They’re Connected
Our relationships with people are often reflected in our relationship to money. For good and ill.

What is your relationship style? Are you indulgent? Controlling? Nonchalant? Obsessive? Guarded? Reckless? Chances are you have the same approach when it comes to money.

Psychological, behavioral and neuroscience research indicates that how stable and secure you feel in your interpersonal relationships tends to mirror how stable and secure you feel about your finances. So it’s worth examining your close ties, both past and present, to understand how they may influence your spending, saving and investing habits—for good or ill.

This doesn’t necessarily involve hours on a psychoanalyst’s couch, but it does require some honest self-reflection about your relationship history (starting with mom and dad) and the role money inevitably played. While money can’t buy you love, money is tangled up with love in your subconscious. Indeed, getting and losing money activates the same pleasure and pain centers in the brain, respectively, as falling in love and having your heart broken.

The security continuum
When trying to understand this complicated interplay, a good place to start is to look at your relationship with money through the lens of attachment theory, which holds we all have an interpersonal attachment style that is on a continuum from secure to insecure. Most of humanity tilts somewhat toward the insecure side and exhibits behaviors ranging from anxious (think of a Labrador retriever that can’t get enough of you) to avoidant (think of a cat that behaves as if it can do very well without you).

“If you are needy of love, the more anxious type, you use money as a means to be loved and be appreciated and have people around you,” says Mario Mikulincer, a professor of psychology who studies human attachment at the Interdisciplinary Center, a research college in Herzliya, Israel.

You may fall in the anxious category if you often pick up the check, give expensive gifts, regularly buy new cars and wear pricey clothes. Maybe you’re the person others treat as an ATM, bumming a few dollars or asking for larger sums because you have a hard time saying no. You may also be a “herd” or impulsive type of investor, putting money in and pulling it out of investments according to swings in the market.

The more avoidant types, on the other hand, are more staid, saving money so they won’t have to rely on others or can exert power over them. This might be you if your generosity has strings attached—like maybe offering to pay for a vacation with friends or family, but you get to decide where and when you go and what you do while on the trip.

“People with avoidant attachments may develop resentment or contempt for those who take their money,” says Dr. Mikulincer, which only reinforces their emotional distance. When it comes to investments, they tend to keep their own counsel, not entirely trusting financial advisers, much less prevailing market sentiment.

Where it begins
Of course, not everyone fits neatly into these categories. Many people exhibit characteristics of both. Your attachment style and how you are with money are uniquely determined by your upbringing, experiences and cultural influences. Depending on your background, you may come to associate intimacy—and money by proxy—with safety, peril, protection, secrecy, control, prestige, power, weakness, virtue, vice, acceptance or rejection. These often dysfunctional associations are typically established early in life and are hard to shake, likely because you don’t even know you have them.

“The way we’re raised is all we know,” says Daniel Crosby, psychologist and chief behavioral officer at Brinker Capital Investments in Berwyn, Pa. “Just like the fish doesn’t know it’s wet, we don’t know we have a specific money attachment style.”

Maybe you were raised by a single mother who sacrificed to pay for the things you needed, which you internalized. As an adult, you may have a hard time spending money on yourself. Your misplaced guilt may lead you to hide receipts from your spouse and even lie to friends that the clothes or shoes you’re wearing aren’t new.

“What we’re talking about is your individual financial psychology,” says Brad Klontz, associate professor of practice at Creighton University Heider College of Business in Omaha, Neb. “It’s often shaped by financial flashpoint early experiences about money, which directly lead to your later behavior.”

Dr. Klontz, a psychologist and a certified financial planner, developed the Klontz Money Script Inventory-II, or KMSI-II, which attempts to classify people’s emotional attachments to money. The assessment asks the degree to which you agree or disagree with 32 statements about money to discern your prevailing money script, or underlying belief system that drives your financial behavior.

His inventory, which is available online, can provide you with a broad brush stroke of your money mind-set. But to really understand the interpersonal attachments and experiences that shaped your beliefs and the continuing impact, psychotherapists and financial coaches encourage people to ask themselves more expansive questions:

• “What did your parents directly and indirectly teach you about money?”

• “What were your most joyful and most painful experiences with money?”

• “Tell me about the last time you and your romantic partner talked about money.”

Another effective method is to imagine you are talking to money. What would you say? What would money say to you? Who from your life does money sound like? Not surprisingly, money often sounds like an influential childhood attachment figure like a parent, grandparent, neighbor, best friend or mentor. This pivotal person in your life may have been withholding or extravagant with their affection and their money—again, they tend to be intertwined—thereby affecting how you feel, think and behave in relation to others and your finances.

“The answers to these kinds of questions demonstrate how people’s beliefs and behaviors form at an early age and create a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy,” says Megan McCoy, professor of practice in personal financial planning at Kansas State University. “It’s so ingrained that they don’t even realize other people think about money differently.”

Too private
And how could they when, within families and as a culture, it’s taboo to talk about money?

Surveys indicate we talk more freely about our sexual relationships than about our relationships with money. Shame about how much (or how little) money you have and how well (or poorly) you manage it only makes money distortions more powerful and potentially damaging. The antidote, as with any distortion, is to bring them to light.

“At one point in my life, I thought money was the root of badness,” says Dr. McCoy, who is also a licensed marriage and family therapist, as well as a certified financial planner. She describes herself as “recovering” from a dysfunctional relationship with money.

“As a little girl, I was very preoccupied with being good,” she says. “The church message about giving and sacrificing resonated with me and somehow got tied to money.”

She also had a brother who was really good at math, and her little child brain decided math was his thing and her thing was reading. So she became insecure about numbers. “Let’s just say I grew up to be incredibly unhealthy in my finances,” Dr. McCoy says, referring to her habit of never looking at her bank statements. It took therapy and marrying someone who was her money opposite—overly vigilant about his finances—to change her (and his) thinking and have a healthier approach to their finances.

People with anxious and avoidant attachment styles tend to attract each other, so it makes sense that people also tend to marry their money opposites. Dave Lowell, a financial coach in Layton, Utah, sees it all the time. His specialty is money distortions and how they play out in marital relationships. Formerly an investment adviser, Mr. Lowell was troubled by how many clients had spent their lifetimes making terrible financial decisions.

“They knew that they shouldn’t carry credit-card debt or use savings to pay the mortgage on a house they couldn’t afford,” he says. “It wasn’t a knowledge thing, it was an emotional thing.” Now he focuses on helping millennial couples get to the bottom of their mismatched, and often warped, money beliefs so they can be more at ease with their finances, and with each other.

Mr. Lowell charges a flat fee for his services. Mining people’s tender emotional issues while simultaneously trying to sell them investment products is considered by many in the psychotherapeutic and financial advising community as a serious ethical breach. So be wary of anyone working on commission who wants to delve into your psyche.

Mr. Lowell’s process is to ask couples to separately fill out a questionnaire, which asks about their past significant relationships and memorable money experiences that might be influencing their behavior today.

“I have them think about it, spend time in it and explore something from an angle they probably haven’t before,” he says. Then they reconvene to discuss any “aha” moments. The exercise helps people understand not only themselves but also where their spouse is coming from. Even the most confounding financial behaviors become logical with a little historical context.

That’s not to say these epiphanies are entirely curative. People still backslide during times of stress, like, oh say, a global pandemic. Those who are anxious in their interpersonal relationships may overspend on Amazon because the deliveries feel like love arriving in a cardboard box. More avoidant types may become so obsessed with not spending money, it gets expensive—like hiring a cut-rate plumber whose shoddy work floods the house with raw sewage.

But Mr. Lowell says that’s all part of the process. “We talk about why they did what they did, recenter and get back on track,” he says.

As a backstop, though, he tries to automate as much of his clients’ financial lives as possible, like automatic paycheck deductions for retirement accounts and monthly-fund transfers to accounts reserved for goals like a house down payment, as well as designated “fun” accounts for those who find it difficult to allow themselves to enjoy what they’ve earned. Such defaults make it easier for clients to be healthy rather than unhealthy in their finances.

“It’s really just having the conversation of why they were behaving that way with money, and letting them consciously choose a different path,” says Mr. Lowell. “There are still struggles, of course, but it firmly puts them in the right mind-set to make progress.”

FT : Janus Henderson under pressure as Trian eyes consolidation

Janus Henderson under pressure as Trian eyes consolidation
The $358bn manager is struggling to prove its worth following its 2017 merger — but would another deal help?

When Janus Capital and Henderson Global Investors agreed a deal in 2016, it was touted as being transformative for the two struggling midsized asset managers.

Andrew Formica, one of the architects of the all-stock merger and former co-chief executive of the enlarged company, said the move would create a “a new breed of active manager” with global heft, allowing it to withstand the relentless pressures on traditional stockpickers.

Fast forward to four years later and Janus Henderson may be about to be pushed towards doing another deal to allow it to survive. The London-based fund group has been targeted by Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners, which bought a 10 per cent stake in it last month and called for a fresh round of consolidation among underperforming asset managers.

The activist investor’s targeting of Janus Henderson, which oversees $358bn in assets, reflects shareholder dissatisfaction with the company since its tie-up.

“Janus Henderson hasn’t flourished over the past three years,” says Will Riley, who holds a position in the group in his Guinness Global Money Managers fund.

The group has been hit by higher-than-average investor outflows, losing $68.8bn since the start of 2018. This has hit revenues and affected its share price, which has declined almost 14 per cent since the transaction completed in May 2017. The share price fall stood at about 30 per cent before Trian disclosed its stake.

Janus Henderson’s woes are testament to just how brutal the headwinds facing active managers have become, as well as exemplifying the risks inherent in megamergers.

As consolidation in asset management gains momentum once again, Janus Henderson’s experience points to the thorny choices ahead for active managers, as they consider how to scale up while not destabilising their workforce and clients.


The Janus Henderson tie-up was hailed as a way of allowing two managers with limited geographic overlap to compete on the global stage. The idea was to help London-based Henderson, which ex-CEO Mr Formica grew by buying up undervalued investment boutiques in the aftermath of the financial crisis, to break into America while boosting Janus’s profile in Europe.

These results, however, have not yet come through. According to Morningstar, the organic average growth rate of the combined company has lagged that of its US listed asset manager peers between 2015 and 2019, and it is forecast to continue to struggle over the next four years.

Janus Henderson chief executive Dick Weil, who took sole charge of the group in 2018 after leading Janus into the deal, is the first to acknowledge the company’s slow pace of progress. Speaking to media at a conference this week, Mr Weil said that he was confident that Janus Henderson is on track to establish a global presence “that neither independent firm could have afforded separately”. But he added that this process was taking a “frustratingly long amount of time”.

CFRA Research analyst Cathy Seifert says that Janus Henderson has been hindered by its position as a mainly active investment house at a time when the investor flight into index-tracking funds has gathered pace.

“The merger was designed to gain scale and diversification but what it did not address was the secular trend towards passive investing, which has accelerated in the last four years,” Ms Seifert says.

But Janus Henderson has also been hit by specific issues linked to its integration, such as tensions sparked by cultural differences between the two companies.

One former employee points to the contrast between the chummy, relationship-based culture of Mr Formica’s Henderson and the more structured, practical way of doing things at Janus under the leadership of Mr Weil, a former lawyer.

“On the Henderson side there was a very loyal core group of people who had worked together for a long time. Blending an organisation like that with a US firm, which has a more direct way of communicating, was challenging,” the person says.

The divisions were not helped by the merged company’s unusual geographic structure — it is headquartered in London, with dual listings in New York and Australia, and an investment hub in Denver — and its initial co-CEO structure.

Another ex-employee points to the company’s failure to appoint fresh blood to its board — it has appointed only one director unaffiliated with either faction since the merger — as a source of its cultural divisions.

Against this tumultuous backdrop, Janus Henderson has lost a number of high-profile investment staff. The departures have included a number of teams, such as the six-strong high-yield bond and emerging market equities teams.

Meanwhile, several Janus Henderson funds have experienced dire performance, further unnerving clients. Intech, the company’s quantitative investment division, has been particularly hard hit: as at the end of 2019, 84 per cent of the assets run by the unit lagged behind their benchmarks on a five-year basis.


But Mr Weil is upbeat about the merged group’s prospects. At the conference this week, he rejected suggestions of a divided company, describing the group as “genuinely global and not dominated by one culture or the other”.

The chief executive also distanced himself from suggestions that Janus Henderson needs to join forces with a competitor. “There is a lot a good reason and foundation for being sceptical about mergers,” he said. Most deals do not go “anywhere near as well as planned”, he added, pointing to the Janus-Henderson tie-up as an exception to this trend.

It is not yet clear what Trian’s plans are for Janus Henderson or whether it will succeed. The asset manager was only made aware of Trian’s stake the day before it was officially disclosed and has not granted board seats to Trian, as Invesco did earlier this month. Trian declined to comment.

Shareholder Mr Riley believes that the company has the potential to turn itself round on its own. He wants to see it focus on cutting its cost base by 5-10 per cent and repurchasing stock to boost its share price.

He intends to continue holding Janus Henderson based on what he sees as encouraging fund performance potential — according to Credit Suisse, about 55 per cent of the manager’s assets have top Morningstar ratings, compared with an industry average of 32 per cent — combined with its low valuation and 5.7 per cent dividend yield.

Should M&A be called for, Mr Riley says that it would make more sense for Janus Henderson to be acquired by a larger rival, as these deals tend to be less disruptive than mergers of equals, where it is unclear who is in charge.

Ms Seifert agrees that there is reason for optimism at Janus Henderson. “If it can stem investor outflows, its headwinds could become a tailwind,” she says.

However, the fact that the company still languishes among the fund industry’s “squeezed middle” means it is “not inconceivable” that it will seek a partner in future to boost its assets and gain exposure to more passive strategies, she predicts.