WSJ : Energy-Focused Hedge Fund Brenham Capital to Close

Energy-Focused Hedge Fund Brenham Capital to Close
Fund lost 8.5% in October, was down 14.7% this year

Dallas-based hedge fund Brenham Capital is closing, a casualty of what founder John Labanowski called “some truly bizarre stock action.”

Brenham made bets on small and midcap energy stocks. Brent, the global benchmark, entered a bear market this month—defined as a 20% drop from a recent peak. Energy investors have also been whipsawed by volatility outside the oil market.

“Arriving at this decision was gut-wrenching but I believe it is the right thing to do,” Mr. Labanowski said in a letter sent to clients and seen by The Wall Street Journal. “Brenham’s investment strategy isn’t working in this environment and I’m no longer willing to risk investor capital in such a setting.”

He added, “I continue to witness some truly bizarre stock action in the energy sector that is hard for me to make sense of and I’m not sure when this situation will improve.”

The fund lost 8.5% in October, according to a client document. The fund has lost money for the past two years, down 14.7% this year through October and 10.5% last year, according to the document. It was a steep turnaround for the fund, which previously had posted double-digit yearly gains since its 2012 launch, according to the document.

As losses mounted, some investors pulled money, which Mr. Labanowski described as distracting.

“I’m surprised by how difficult it has been for me personally to maintain a clear head during this process,” he wrote in the letter. “My attempts to stabilize the business have required a tremendous amount of time and energy and it is difficult to maintain the thoughtful approach to portfolio management that is needed in order to effectively steer through this volatile market.”

The fund managed $1.2 billion at its peak in December 2016, said Dawn Blankenship, the firm’s director of investor relations.

The firm’s director of research, Stephen Thomas, plans to start another fund with Brenham team members, she added.

Barron's : This Oil Fund Is Down Much Less Than Oil Itself. Here’s Why.

This Oil Fund Is Down Much Less Than Oil Itself. Here’s Why.

Shopping for oil funds on hopes of a coming bounce could prove tricky for oil investors. Case in point: United States Oil, the biggest fund that aims to deliver exposure to oil on a daily basis by holding West Texas Intermediate crude futures.
United States Oil (USO) has tracked WTI crude prices perfectly in the last month, moving in step with futures prices. But its longer-term performance tells a different story. The fund has declined just over 6% during the past 12 months, while WTI crude has fallen about 12%.
The reason? United States Oil doesn’t buy physical oil, but instead buys futures contracts that have an expiration date. As a result, the fund must sell the contracts it owns when they are about to expire, and use the proceeds to buy longer-dated oil futures. That process can result in losses if the new futures are worth more than the old--a situation known as contango--or a gain if the old are worth more than the new--a state known as backwardation. The latter was the case earlier this year, and so the fund profited from selling near-dated futures high and buying longer-dated futures low. Those gains accrue to fund performance over time, which explains how it outperformed WTI over the last year.
So while the fund was a good choice for a direct play on the crude rally earlier this year—the oil-futures curve providing a bit of a boost— the fund will have to be monitored more closely now that oil is taking a beating.

That’s because the WTI futures curve moved into contango in October and has been there ever since, says Michael Tran, a commodity strategist at RBC Capital Markets. “The significant surge in U.S. production over a short period of time, in addition to a ramp-up in production from OPEC and non-OPEC countries took what appeared to be a tight market into oversupply. And that moved the curve from backwardation into contango,” Tran tells Barron’s.
The good news: “The oil market is in a very mild contango,” says John Hyland, who helped launch United States Oil and currently the global head of ETFs at Bitwise Asset Management, a crypto-currency firm. “[The fund’s] net asset value will very closely track the movement in WTI both daily, which it always does, but also over weeks or maybe months as there is no drag of contango or push from backwardation to cause the [net-asset value] to diverge from WTI now.”

However, if the oil markets move strongly into contango, and that contango persists, United States Oil could be forced to buy high and sell low as it rolls its futures holdings forward—not great for performance.
Of course, that futures curve could flip the script back to backwardation, Tran says, if for example OPEC decides to make significant cuts next month. What’s the likelihood of that? “We as a team think that OPEC will go for shock factor, make cuts that are large enough to stem the bleed price-wise,” he says.
That could make United States Oil seem less like a drag too.

Manager Mag. : punitive duty on German cars? Juncker has "good news" for Trump


punitive duty on German cars? Juncker has "good news" for Trump

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker does not believe that US President Donald Trump will soon impose special tariffs on car imports from Europe. He has recently stated with satisfaction that nothing has changed in the relationship between the US and the EU since the standstill agreement agreed in July, Juncker said on Friday at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. He assumes that on the sidelines of the summit meeting, he will find an opportunity to reaffirm the commitments made on both sides.

Juncker also pointed out that he has good news for Trump. The United States has recently increased its liquefied gas exports to the EU by 52 percent. The US soya exports to the EU had even increased by 100 percent. "It clearly shows that we are sticking to our commitments," said Juncker.

US soybean exports doubled, liquefied gas exports increased by 52 percent

The US trade dispute has erupted with the introduction of US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, leading to the introduction of EU tariffs on US products.

The agreement reached between Trump and Juncker in July provides for conciliation that both sides start discussions on the abolition of tariffs on industrial goods and impose for the time being no new special duties. The EU also promised to improve the conditions for liquefied natural gas imports and to work to promote transatlantic soybean trade. In soybean trade, however, the current growth is mainly due to the comparatively low prices for US soybeans.

In the EU, it has been feared for some weeks now that Trump could soon terminate the deal by introducing high additional levies on car imports.

la / dpa / Reuters

Recode : The federal government is cracking down on DJ Khaled and Floyd Mayweath

The federal government is cracking down on DJ Khaled and Floyd Mayweather for telling fans to invest in cryptocurrencies
The SEC’s moves come at a time when there’s a lot of doomsaying about the cryptocurrency economy.

The 2017 rush of investors into cryptocurrencies hooked several celebrities, too, who you’d sometimes find hawking particular digital coins on platforms like Instagram or Twitter.
But what wasn’t disclosed was that several of those influencers were being paid in order to offer these seemingly full-throated endorsements.
The SEC on Thursday brought its first charges against two of the celebrities — DJ Khaled and boxer Floyd Mayweather — for backing several initial coin offerings and encouraging their fans to participate, but not disclosing the side payments. Both Khaled and Mayweather settled the charges and are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
The SEC’s slap is particularly telling for a few reasons: It comes at a time when the U.S. government is still wrestling with how exactly to regulate the world of cryptocurrency. Is it like a stock? Like a dollar? It comes at a time when other branches of the federal government, like the Federal Trade Commission, are similarly pressing celebrities to disclose any sponsored content on Instagram.
And more broadly, it comes at a time when there’s a lot of doomsaying about the cryptocurrency economy, which rocketed to historic highs about a year ago but has fallen hard since — and especially so this month. The SEC’s crackdown — the first of its kind, it says — doesn’t do anything to brighten the mood.
Whether or not there are mom-and-pop investors who felt hoodwinked by some of their favorite celebrities, neither Khaled nor Mayweather offered an apology or admitted any wrongdoing for their promotional gambits. Both said they would not promote any securities, not just initial coin offerings, for a few years, according to the SEC.
Here are a couple representative posts from the last few months. Mayweather sounds genuinely excited about the projects — until you learn that he was being paid to post them.

WSJ : The NFL Owner Who Got Chewed Up by English Soccer

The NFL Owner Who Got Chewed Up by English Soccer
Billionaire Randy Lerner bought the storied Aston Villa club in 2006, aiming to restore it to glory and make some easy money. After a decade and over $250 million in expenses, he was gone. Here’s what happened.

Randy Lerner didn’t know much about English soccer in the summer of 2006. But he knew an investment opportunity when he saw one.

Lerner was the billionaire chairman of credit-card giant MBNA, the crown jewel in a business empire passed down to him by his father, Al Lerner, which also included the National Football League’s Cleveland Browns. Financially, the Browns were a small part of the portfolio. But Randy had come to enjoy the trappings of owning a pro sports team—above all, the intoxicating effect of filling a stadium, flying the flag for a city, and knowing that you were the one making it happen.

Which is how a trip to London in search of an investing opportunity in the U.K. wound up with Lerner adding a second sports team to his portfolio. On Aug. 25, 2006, he agreed to pay $118 million to take control of Aston Villa, the biggest soccer club in Britain’s second-largest city of Birmingham, becoming one of the first overseas investors to buy into the English Premier League.

In the decade that followed, Lerner would be joined by Russian oligarchs, Emirati sheikhs, American tycoons and Asian Tiger titans, all lured by the global popularity and growing riches of English soccer. Since the Premier League was formed in 1992 by a handful of owners hoping to cash in on television rights, its 20 clubs have increased their combined value by nearly 15,000%, from around $100 million in 1992 to $15 billion today.

All of which can make it sound as though raking in money in English soccer is as easy as kicking a ball into an empty net.

Randy Lerner didn’t know much about English soccer in the summer of 2006. But he knew an investment opportunity when he saw one.

Lerner was the billionaire chairman of credit-card giant MBNA, the crown jewel in a business empire passed down to him by his father, Al Lerner, which also included the National Football League’s Cleveland Browns. Financially, the Browns were a small part of the portfolio. But Randy had come to enjoy the trappings of owning a pro sports team—above all, the intoxicating effect of filling a stadium, flying the flag for a city, and knowing that you were the one making it happen.

Which is how a trip to London in search of an investing opportunity in the U.K. wound up with Lerner adding a second sports team to his portfolio. On Aug. 25, 2006, he agreed to pay $118 million to take control of Aston Villa, the biggest soccer club in Britain’s second-largest city of Birmingham, becoming one of the first overseas investors to buy into the English Premier League.

In the decade that followed, Lerner would be joined by Russian oligarchs, Emirati sheikhs, American tycoons and Asian Tiger titans, all lured by the global popularity and growing riches of English soccer. Since the Premier League was formed in 1992 by a handful of owners hoping to cash in on television rights, its 20 clubs have increased their combined value by nearly 15,000%, from around $100 million in 1992 to $15 billion today.

All of which can make it sound as though raking in money in English soccer is as easy as kicking a ball into an empty net.

In that sense, he was nothing like the other American sports owners who would snap up Premier League teams in the years to come. While the likes of John W. Henry, a hedge-fund billionaire who has won four World Series rings as owner of the Boston Red Sox, or real-estate mogul Stan Kroenke crossed the Atlantic with designs on bringing some good old-fashioned American innovation to English soccer, Lerner wasn’t looking to create a revolution.

In fact, the last thing Lerner wanted to do was Americanize Aston Villa. He was clear-eyed enough to recognize that he was an interloper in England.

Sensitive to how fans would view him, he deliberately kept audio and video interviews to a minimum. Lerner had a better sense than most Americans of British attitudes toward foreigners—he’d studied at Clare College, Cambridge, and kept a home in the chic London neighborhood of Chelsea. And he knew English soccer fans got skittish around Americans stepping out of private jets into their local clubs with pockets full of greenbacks and Yankee accents. What could a real-estate and financial-services billionaire possibly want with a team in the old heart of the West Midlands?

But Lerner believed. So much so that he got a tattoo of the Villa logo, a lion rampant, on his ankle.

When he couldn’t be in Birmingham to attend matches in person, Lerner would break his self-imposed television ban and tune in from the States, plugging in the only set in his home before kickoff and unplugging it again at full time.

There would be grand gestures, too, moves that flew in the face of the Premier League’s cash-hungry ethos. For two seasons, Lerner eschewed a major jersey sponsorship, worth several million pounds a year, preferring to support a worthy cause. Instead of shilling for beer or airlines or offshore casinos, Lerner gave the real estate on the front of Villa’s shirt to a children’s hospice foundation.

“I have no problem being remembered as a sentimental putz,” he says now.

But Lerner soon came to understand there was no quicker way to a Premier League fan base’s heart than spending money on players.

In Martin O’Neill, he found a coach who was more than happy to do that for him. A testy Northern Irishman who wore tracksuits in the dugout, grabbed his players by the collar to yell at them in training, and cultivated an expertise in crime and criminology (as a player, he occasionally traveled with homicide case files to pore over in hotels), O’Neill had been coaching in the top tier for a decade.

In the first four seasons of spending lavishly, Villa splashed out £130 million, or roughly $165 million, to acquire players, placing the club among the most extravagant in world soccer. And that was only in transfer fees paid to other clubs—those players’ astronomical salaries were a separate expense. But the strategy did yield some success. After an 11th-place finish in the 2006–07 campaign, Villa finished in the top six for three straight seasons.

The only problem was that the Premier League equation for success—spend money, improve the team, never see that money again—went against every one of Lerner’s investing instincts. At the time, most clubs were happy to break even. This was not how his father had become a billionaire. And it was certainly not how Randy was going to stay one.

It dawned on him during those free-spending years that buying a Premier League club effectively meant buying it twice. The sticker price on NFL teams might be higher on average, but once you’ve bought one, there is almost no further spending except for free-agent players—operational costs are more or less covered by the league’s revenue sharing and stadiums are paid for by the cities. In soccer, however, paying the list price on a club guarantees only that your checkbook will stay open.

Disenchanted, Lerner gradually withdrew from his pet project. The people who populated English soccer simply were not his sort. When he tightened the purse strings in 2010, O’Neill stormed out of the club. Lerner decided to let others run Villa for him.

Things that used to amuse him about this experience—hearing the roar inside Villa Park, an away trip to tiny Scunthorpe—lost their allure. Even when Villa reached the 2015 FA Cup final against Arsenal, Lerner couldn’t wait to get out of Wembley Stadium. The awkwardness of enduring small talk with Prince William, nominally a Villa fan, while Arsenal pummeled his team was too much for him.

With no continuity in the dugout, the club that had so recently become accustomed to top-six finishes was suddenly thrust into annual relegation battles. Things fell apart for good in the spring of 2016, with a defeat at Manchester United that guaranteed Villa’s demotion to the second tier.

In the space of a decade, Lerner’s custody had taken the club from rubbing elbows with the Premier League elite to being kicked out of the party altogether. And he had spent more than a quarter billion dollars for the privilege.

Lerner had had enough, and made no secret of his desire to sell the club. And in May 2016, Tony Xia, a Harvard-, MIT-, and Oxford-groomed billionaire from China, paid around £60 million to acquire the club and end Lerner’s ordeal.

The total of Villa’s annual operating losses over the 10 years of Lerner ownership came to more than $260 million. He had sold the underachieving Browns in 2012 for a reported $1 billion. Because Lerner’s personal assets were so spread out—and because of the U.S. tax code—he was able to offset many of those Villa losses against profits elsewhere. But the surrender stung.

Today, the tattoo is still on his ankle. The TV stays unplugged. Yet, despite the bitter ending, Lerner feels he left on more or less his own terms after deciding to withdraw and cut his losses.

“It would be very easy to say the Premier League chewed me up and spat me out. But I like to think I put my finger down its throat, and said, ‘Now puke me up.’ ”

(ZH) The Pain Trade is a Melt Up

The Pain Trade is a Melt Up

One of the absolutely biggest investment themes over past months has been the crowded trades implosion. The aggregate investor has been caught wrong in all market directions, both down and up. Leading into October people were short vol and long equities. We all know how this went down.
In late October we got the bounce, which was actually terrible for hedge fund performance, mainly the momentum chasers, who had turned bearish in their momentum models.
Ironically, most of these hedge funds gather assets, collect high fees and trade max risks, instead of focusing producing returns. The entire model is flawed and built around the fallacy of being fully invested, irrespective if they are losing or making money. If they utilize say only 50% of the invested money, but still charge 2% fixed fee, this fee is then actually much higher on the invested amount and no investor wants to pay 4% fixed fees (not to talk about reducing risk exposure to say 10% of capital which would translate into a 20% fixed fee).
Instead of focusing on the p/l, the aggregate hedge fund focuses on maxing out risk and trying to be correct about market direction. This is according to us totally wrong, more on the topic of risk and p/l management here.
Below is the chart of SPX (orange) versus the CTA index (representing top model funds). Note how the CTA index moved in tandem with the SPX since June. The aggregate fund was clearly long the equity market. Note how the CTA index fell when markets sold off in October. Lately the CTA index has underperformed when markets have bounced higher, indicating the models have turned bearish the market. This could, ceteris paribus, magnify a possible squeeze higher. The crowded pain trade continues.


As we all know, VIX positioning was extremely short leading into the October sell off. Note how this extreme net short VIX has now turned into rather long VIX positioning (white). Do also note that major spikes in VIX longs have market local lows in the SPX over past years. The “smart” crowd seems not only short equities, but also long volatility. This could prove a lethal combination should markets calm down/go up from here.

Below is a chart of SPX (orange) and the CBOE put call ratio (white). Note that spikes in the put call ratio often mark local lows in the SPX index, that has been followed by gains for the SPX.
Given the fact “smart” hedge(ed) funds seem all bearish, long volatility and have loaded up on puts relative to calls, the pain trade looks to be a bounce higher in equities.
Source: charts by Bloomberg

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to disappointing earnings/guidance
:

  • PAGS -12.9%, GME -11.8%, ASYS -10.2%, ZUO -9%, YEXT -8.9%, LH -4.8%, PVH -4.3%

Other news:

  • VSLR -15.3% (prices secondary offering of 8 mln shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $5.50 per share)
  • SFM -10.5% (announces departure of CEO Amin Maredia, effective December 30)
  • MAR -5.8% (announces Starwood guest reservation database security incident)
  • DVAX -5.2% (Dynavax informed by collaborator AstraZeneca that initial high-level results from a Phase 2a study indicate AZD1419 did not meet primary endpoint)
  • ABR -3.4% (prices offering of 8.7 mln shares of common stock)
  • ARWR -2.8% (files for 3,260,869 share common stock shelf offering by selling stockholder)
  • IQV -1.5% (announces launch of secondary public offering of 6.0 mln shares of common stock by selling stockholders; intends to repurchase from the underwriter 2,000,000 shares)

Analyst comments:

  • CREE -2.9% (downgraded to Underweight from Neutral at JP Morgan)
  • GS -2% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA/Merrill)
  • WAT -1.5% (downgraded to Sell from Neutral at Goldman)

>>> US Gapping up

Gapping up
In reaction to strong earnings/guidance
:

  • AMBA +15.1%, WDAY +8.7%, VMW +5.9%, SPLK +3.2%, HPQ +2.1%, DVMT +1.9%, T +1.2%, PANW +0.5%

Other news:

  • CCRC +4.7% (indicated higher after confirming it has engaged advisors to review and evaluate previously announced $16/share acquisition proposal)
  • HIMX +3.6% (announces that its Chairman Dr. Biing-Seng Wu intends to use his personal funds to purchase up to approximately $5 mln of the Company's American Depositary Shares in the open market)
  • SRRA +3.5% (reported preclinical efficacy for immunotherapy combination with its Chk1 inhibitor SRA737)
  • EDIT +1% (FDA has accepted the Investigational New Drug application for EDIT-101)

Analyst comments:

  • WWE +2.7% (upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at JP Morgan)
  • COUP +2.3% (upgraded to Buy from Hold at Loop Capital)
  • MYGN +2.1% (upgraded to Neutral from Sell at Goldman)
  • CUB +1.6% (upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at JP Morgan)
  • CRSP +1.5% (initiated with a Buy at Needham)
  • UAA +1.3% (upgraded to Market Perform from Underperform at Wells Fargo)
  • ABT +1.1% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman)
  • COOP +0.8% (initiated with Buy at BTIG)

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

Gapping up:

  • AMBA +14.7%, VMW +9.1%, WDAY +8.7%, CCRC +4.7%, SPLK +4.3%, SRRA +3.5%, DVMT +1.9%, ORI +1.8%, EXAS +1.8%, SFUN +1.2%, PANW +1.1%, COOP +0.8%, HPQ +0.8%, CVRR +0.6%, T +0.6%

Gapping down:

  • PAGS -12.3%, VSLR -11.9%, GME -11.3%, ASYS -10.2%, ZUO -9%, YEXT -8.8%, PVH -6.8%, MAR -5.4%, SFM -5%, LH -4.8%, ABR -4.3%, DVAX -3%, ARWR -2.8%, TNXP -1.6%, IQV -0.8%

FT : Why my generation is the last of the hedonists

Why my generation is the last of the hedonists
For millennials, sex, drugs and alcohol are increasingly unpopular. Are they finding their dopamine hits online instead?

More celebrated examples include space travel, Ulysses, anaesthetic and the vote but, all the same, a night out is a miracle of civilisation. No other species generates the surplus resources to wallow in sensory pleasure at will. Even ours got there a millisecond ago in historical time.

If we sometimes forget the recency of mass-market hedonism, perhaps we overrate its future, too. Consider the well-documented abstention of the young: America’s millennial homebodies, the near-third of British 16- to 24-year-olds who refuse alcohol, their avoidance of illicit drugs, the “sexual recession”. Thus did the shuttered nightclub become this decade’s video-rental chain in receivership.

As children of the crash, the New Spartans are taken for economic trauma victims, conscious that each pound spent on transient joys is not spent on the vicious struggle for work and housing. If this exaggerates their material plight, it does at least imply an eventual comeback for hedonism. Economies are cyclical.

The thought cheers, but without quite erasing fears of something larger at work. The first generation to come of age after the crash is also the first cohort of genuine digital natives. Often defined as all those under 18 on December 31 1999, “millennials” are, in truth, two distinct groups: we who were well into our conscious lives before we got our first squawking dial-up connection and those who imbibed the internet as mother’s milk.

At the risk of speaking for millions, the first group tends to an instrumental view of tech: it is there to arrange personal gatherings, and improve the time in between. The emergent suspicion is that, for younger millennials, digital contact with others is socialising.

If this were a change in fashion or habit, it would be reversible. The dread, as voiced by Sean Parker, among others, is a deeper re-wiring of the brain so that it registers the same stimulus from remote interaction as from drugs and physical intimacies. Hence the generational decline in both. If this is going on, it is not just hard to reverse, it is liable to accelerate. Imagine the millennials’ children.

The point is not to stoke a moral panic so much as put forward a thesis. There is a fair chance that mine will be the last generation of hedonists, at least in the familiar sense of that term. The 1980s is the last time a person could be born in the west without being a psychological creature of the internet. In their definition of a good time, then, a child of that decade might resemble a 1960s louche or Jazz Age flapper more than someone born just the other side of 1990.

If so, the decline of clubs — nine years into a general economic expansion, remember, and amid near-full employment — is likelier to be secular than cyclical.

History has thrown up these ruptures before: generations divided along the knife’s edge of a new invention. Think of the difference in teenagers just before and just after the advent of the pill. The world did not cave in. Nor is it clear that Generation Sensible is losing out. The internet’s “social-validation feedback loop” (Parker’s phrase) seems insidious to we who grew up without it. But teetotal Instagrammers will wonder if alcohol is any smarter a way of flooding human dopamine receptors. As for the decline in sex, teenage pregnancies have been falling in England and Wales for a decade.

It just adds up to the harmless if jarring spectacle of the old out-carousing the young. The ease with which I befriend my seniors could speak to a formidable Macron-in-the-classroom maturity on my part. The data suggest something nearer the opposite: I socialise with older people because they are liable to socialise.

The opening to this column, in fact, was prompted by a Generation X-er. “I know it’s absurd to say that human development has been driving towards a night at Frenchie,” he said, over wine at the London restaurant. “But human development has been driving towards a night at Frenchie.” His generation’s hedonism trickled down to mine, and perhaps no further.