>>> Weekly Update

Weekly Market Update: Markets Choppy Ahead of FOMC Next Wednesday

Volatility continued this week as the markets pondered the timing of the next Fed rate hike. The week started off with Fed Governor Brainard making the dovish case for Fed policy, which helped reverse the risk off sentiment that built up last week amid a barrage of hawkish commentary from Brainard's colleagues. A big miss on US Advanced Retail Sales data on Thursday lent support to the dovish view that the Fed will be on hold next week. But a hotter than expected US CPI reading on Friday caused markets to once again reassess expectations for Fed policy as progress toward the inflation target could bring the next hike sooner. Meanwhile, the BOE kept its policy unchanged this week, as expected, but said it could cut rates again if the baseline forecast set in August is realized. The renewed contrast between US policy tightening and European easing led to the dollar strengthening substantially on Friday, particularly against the pound sterling. WTI crude futures slid throughout the week, dropping three bucks to around $43/bbl. Two major M&A deals in the agriculture sector, an earnings miss by Oracle and increased guidance from Intel provided the buzz in the corporate sector. The tech sector was also bolstered by a surge in Apple shares driven by strong pre-orders for iPhone 7 at Sprint and T-Mobile. Equities were volatile but ended little changed: for the week the DJIA gained 0.2%, the S&P500 added 0.5%, and the Nasdaq was jumped 2.3%.

Agrium and Potash began a week replete with large-scale M&A activity by announcing a $26B merger of equals on Monday morning. The all-stock combination would partner Potash's crop nutrient production capacity with the farm retail network of Agrium to form an integrated crop inputs platform. In another agricultural mega-merger announcement, Germany's Bayer agreed to acquire Monsanto with an improved $128/share cash offer after months of back-and-forth. With a total value of $66B, the deal would be the largest all-cash deal on record, a fact which has not gone unnoticed by regulators; Iowa Republican Senator Grassley has already noted a Bayer-Monsanto merger would likely cause concerns for US farmers. In another sign of a rebound in oil sector M&A, Anadarko announced the acquisition of Freeport McMoran's deepwater Gulf of Mexico assets for $2B, adding approximately 80K net BOE per day to Anadarko's production, who aims to use the added revenue from the offshore wells to accelerate its onshore development plans. And late in the week, Gilead registered a $5B notes offering, leading investors to believe some future acquisition plans could soon be set into motion.

In the only major corporate earnings release this week, Oracle reported a miss on both profit and revenue in Q1, noting continued growth in its burgeoning cloud business but a slowdown in traditional new software licenses. The tech giant raised its SaaS/PaaS FY revenue growth outlook, but guided its overall revenue below street consensus, sending shares lower. Intel, on the other hand, raised its Q3 revenue guidance Friday, citing replenished PC supply chain inventory and some signs of improving PC demand. Off-road vehicle manufacturer Polaris cut its FY profit guidance on effects from the RZR Turbo product recall that have become more expensive than previously anticipated.

MON 9/12
AGU.CA: To combine in merger of equals with Potash; To form new parent company in all-stock deal with EV of $36B
(US) Fed Gov Brainard (FOMC voter, dove): urges continued prudence in removing accommodation; more concerned about undershooting inflation

TUES 9/13
(DE) GERMANY AUG FINAL CPI M/M: 0.0% V 0.0%E; Y/Y: 0.4% V 0.4%E
IEA Monthly Report: Cuts 2016 global oil demand forecast by 100K bpd and by 200K in 2017
(UK) AUG CPI M/M: 0.3% V 0.4%E; Y/Y: 0.6% V 0.7%E; CPI CORE Y/Y: 1.3% V 1.4%E (annual pace matches 21-month high)
(UK) AUG PPI INPUT M/M: 0.2% V 0.6%E; Y/Y: 7.6% V 8.1%E
(DE) GERMANY SEPT ZEW CURRENT SITUATION SURVEY: 55.1 V 56.0E; EXPECTATIONS SURVEY: 0.5 V 2.5E
AAPL: T-Mobile says iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus sales in pre orders were up 4x compared to the next most popular iPhone
(JP) BOJ to consider moving deeper into negative rates; may drop timing on reaching 2% inflation target - Nikkei

WED 9/14
RMS.FR: Reports H1 Net €545M v €546Me, Op €827M v €818.5Me, Rev €2.44B v €2.44B prelim
(UK) JULY AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 3M/Y: 2.3% V 2.1%E; WEEKLY EARNINGS 3M/Y (EX BONUS): 2.1% V 2.2%E
(UK) AUG JOBLESS CLAIMS CHANGE: +2.4K V +1.8KE; CLAIMANT COUNT RATE: 2.2% V 2.2%E
(UK) JULY ILO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 3M/3M: 4.9% V 4.9%E
(US) AUG IMPORT PRICE INDEX M/M: -0.2% V -0.1%E; Y/Y: -2.2% V -2.2%E
(AU) AUSTRALIA AUG EMPLOYMENT CHANGE: -3.9K (first decline in 6 months) V +15.0KE; UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: 5.6% (3-year low) V 5.7%E

THURS 9/15
(CH) SNB LEAVES SIGHT DEPOSIT INTEREST RATE UNCHANGED AT -0.75%; AS EXPECTED
(UK) AUG RETAIL SALES (EX-AUTO FUEL) M/M: -0.3% V-0.7%E; Y/Y: 5.9% V 4.8%E
(UK) AUG RETAIL SALES (INCLUDING AUTO FUEL) M/M: -0.2%V -0.4%E; Y/Y: 6.2%V 5.4%E
(EU) EURO ZONE AUG CPI M/M: 0.1% V 0.1%E; Y/Y: 0.2% V 0.2%E; CPI CORE Y/Y: 0.8% V 0.8%E
(UK) BANK OF ENGLAND (BOE) LEAVES INTEREST RATES UNCHANGED AT 0.25%; AS EXPECTED
(UK) BOE SEPT MINUTES: VOTED 9-0 TO LEAVE INTEREST RATES UNCHANGED AT 0.25%
(US) AUG ADVANCE RETAIL SALES M/M: -0.3% V -0.1%E; RETAIL SALES EX AUTO M/M: -0.1% V +0.2%E
(US) AUG PPI FINAL DEMAND M/M: 0.0% V +0.1%E; Y/Y: 0.0% V +0.1%E
(US) SEPT PHILADELPHIA FED BUSINESS OUTLOOK: 12.8 V 1.0E (Highest since Feb 2015)
ORCL: Reports Q1 $0.55 v $0.58e, R$8.60B v $8.72Be
(US) NORTH AMERICA AUG SEMI BOOK/BILL RATIO: 1.03 V 1.05 prior

FRI 9/16
(RU) RUSSIA CENTRAL BANK (CBR) CUTS 1-WEEK AUCTION RATE BY 50BPS TO 10.00%; AS EXPECTED
(US) AUG CPI M/M: 0.2% V 0.1%E; CPI EX FOOD AND ENERGY M/M: 0.3% V 0.2%E
INTC: Raises Q3 R$15.3-15.9B v $14.8Be (prior R$14.4-15.4B); cites replenished PC supply chain inventory and improving PC demand
(US) SEPT PRELIMINARY UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CONFIDENCE: 89.8 V 90.6E
(US) Fed reports Q2 Financial Accounts: Household Change in Net Worth: $1.075T v $0.837T prior; Total household net worth: $89.1T v $88.1T q/q

>>> US Close Dow -0.49% S&P-0.38% Nasdaq-0.10% Russell -0.18%

Closing Market Summary: Stocks End Volatile Week on a Lower Note

The stock market ended a volatile week on a lower note as participants responded to a downturn in European banking names and a hotter-than-expected reading of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for August. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (-0.5%) settled behind the S&P 500 (-0.4%) and the Nasdaq Composite (-0.1%). For the week, the S&P 500 gained 0.5% while the Nasdaq surged 2.3%. 

European markets led to the downside as financials paced the retreat. Deutsche Bank (DB 13.37, -1.39) was under pressure after the U.S. Department of Justice proposed that the bank pay $14 billion in order to settle civil claims associated with the residential mortgage-backed securities crisis. Deutsche Bank has since announced that it is negotiating with the Justice Department to have the penalty reduced.

The future path of interest rate normalization was also in focus as investors assessed another round of inflation data for August. Total CPI increased 0.2% (consensus +0.1%) in August while core CPI, which excludes food and energy, jumped 0.3% (consensus +0.2%). On a year-over-year basis, CPI has increased 1.1% while core CPI is up 2.3%. The report signaled that inflation is firming, which underpinned a similar observation in yesterday's in-line core PPI reading.

Fed funds futures ticked higher following the inflation data, however, rate hike expectations remain tempered for next week's policy meeting. The implied probability of an interest rate hike at the September meeting increased to 15.0% from 12.0% in the prior session. Meanwhile, the implied probability of an interest rate hike at the December meeting rose to 52.9% from yesterday's 47.4% likelihood. The U.S. Dollar Index (96.06, +0.77, +0.81%) and short term Treasury yields also gained on the news.

The S&P 500 (-0.4%) remained pressured throughout the session as participants continued to assess a resurgence in volatility ahead of central bank policy meetings next week. Other factors impacting today's trade included a downturn in crude oil futures and another mixed performance from the Treasury complex. The energy (-0.9%) and financial (-0.9%) sectors ended with the largest losses while health care (+0.1%) and utilities (+0.9%) finished with the only gains.

In the financial sector (-0.9%), money center banks underperformed as Citigroup (C 46.41, -0.67) and Wells Fargo (WFC 45.43, -0.72) declined 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively. Wells Fargo was under pressure after being downgraded to "Underweight" from "Neutral" at Atlantic Equities. The stock declined 6.8% this week amid concerns regarding its sales practices. The broader space fell 1.3% this week, leading only energy (-0.9%; week-to-date: -2.9%) over that time.

The commodity-sensitive energy sector (-0.9%) was under pressure as crude oil extended its recent losing streak. The energy component ended the day lower by 1.9% ($43.04/bbl; -$0.81), extending its weekly loss to 6.2%. In the sector, Dow components Exxon Mobil (XOM 84.03, -1.05) and Chevron (CVX 97.84, -1.66) each finished behind the price-weighted index. The broader sector has declined 1.7% so far in September.

The technology sector (-0.3%) finished ahead of the broader market as the group pulled back from a larger weekly gain. Apple (AAPL 114.92, -0.65) finished lower by 0.6%, narrowing its weekly gain to 11.4%. Meanwhile, Oracle (ORCL 38.92, -1.94) fell 4.8% after missing bottom-line estimates for the quarter and issuing disappointing second-quarter guidance.

In the health care space (+0.1%), health care plan providers outperformed as Anthem (ANTM 125.52, +1.18) and CIGNA (CI 131.99, +3.35) gained 1.0% and 2.6%, respectively. The names outperformed following reports that the Department of Justice has dropped a claim in the lawsuit to block their potential merger. Separately, Abbott Labs (ABT 41.87, +0.75) gained 1.8% after Johnson & Johnson (JNJ 118.25, -0.38) agreed to acquire Abbott's Medical Optics division for $4.325 billion in cash.

Treasuries ended on a mixed note with the short end of the curve demonstrating relative weakness. The yield on the 2-yr note rose four basis points to 0.77% while the yield on the 10-yr note finished flat at 1.69%. The spread between the 2-yr and 10-yr note expanded to 92 basis points from 89 basis points last Friday.

Today's participation was above the recent average as more than two billion shares changed hands on the NYSE floor.

Today's economic data included CPI for August and the Michigan Sentiment Index for September: 

  • Total CPI increased 0.2% in August (consensus +0.1%) while core CPI, which excludes food and energy, increased 0.3% (consensus +0.2%).
    • On a year-over-year basis, CPI is up 1.1% (vs. +0.8% in July), while core CPI is up 2.3% (vs. +2.2% in July).
    • Consumer inflation is firming (as is producer price inflation) and there is some data-based rationalization in the core CPI rate for the Fed to raise the fed funds rate.
    • However, the Fed keys in on the PCE Price Index as its primary inflation gauge and that index -- both total and core -- still shows consumer inflation below the Fed's 2 percent objective.
  • The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey for September was unchanged from the final August reading, holding at 89.8.

Monday's economic data will be limited to the NAHB Housing Market Index (consensus 59), which will cross the wires at 10:00 ET. 

  • Russell 2000: +7.8% YTD
  • S&P 500: +4.7% YTD
  • Nasdaq: +4.7% YTD
  • Dow Jones: +4.0% YTD

>>> BFM Business : Discussion on goin again between Orange Bouyg

twitter



Selon Orange, Bouygues, SFR et Free rediscuteraient mariage

Le PDG d'Orange Stéphane Richard a déclaré mardi à des investisseurs que les discussions avaient repris en vue d'une consolidation. Mais SFR et Bouygues démentent.

Handelsblatt : Consumers, the Last Hope?


Germany’s economy is slowing. The Handelsblatt Research Institute predicts a decline to 1.1 percent in 2017, an election year. Consumers may be the only thing holding Europe's largest economy above water.

The German economy is always good for a surprise. In the first half of 2016, Europe’s largest economy experienced its strongest growth in five years – and that despite a noticeable cooling of the world economy.
Economic researchers were surprised by 0.7 percent growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) in the first quarter, compared to the first quarter of 2015. But the economy also grew more strongly than expected in the second quarter, at 0.4 percent.
Those surprises have prompted the Handelsblatt Research Institute to raise its economic forecast for this year by 0.2 percentage points to 1.7 percent growth. But that doesn’t mean they’re any more optimistic about the years that follow.
Sadly, the German economy, ever-reliant on exports to drive its growth, can’t remain immune to the global slowdown forever.
The HRI predicts a weakening in German GDP growth to 1.1 percent for 2017. It blamed weak foreign trade for the skepticism over next year.
“This shows that globalization and world trade are stagnating. We can hope that this is only a pause,” said HRI President Bert Rürup. “And, of course, this globalization pause affects Germany, in particular, a globalization winner with its export-oriented business model.”
Those forecasts make HRI more mildly pessimistic than other economic research institutes in Germany, such as the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research (RWI), the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) and the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).

All of those institutions have raised their projections for this year to 1.9 percent, and while they predict a slowdown in 2017, HRI’s forecast places it at the skeptical end of forecasters here, too, along with the DIW.
As goes trade, so goes the German economy: The main reason for the strong growth in the first half of the year was a surprisingly positive external balance, or the difference between exports and imports. It rose, albeit not because of a strong rise in exports, but because imports stagnated.
The foreign trade figures issued by the German Federal Office of Statistics for July offered a bleak picture for the second half. Exports fell by 10 percent year-over-year, the biggest decline since the global recession in the winter of 2008/2009, and imports were down 6.5 percent.
That doesn’t bode well, and risks to foreign trade have only increased in the past few months.
Britain’s vote to leave the European Union will have negative consequences. Exporters are worried about the upcoming referendum in Italy and the risk of protectionist steps by the United States if Donald Trump wins the presidential election.
All of this is why the HRI assumes that GDP growth will slow considerably in 2017. There is also the fact that Germany will have three fewer working days in 2017 than in 2016.
Thanks to strong wage development, domestic consumption has also become an important pillar of the economy, but this is only likely to cushion some of the blow from weaker exports.
The flattening growth momentum and the rising number of refugees with the right of residence are becoming a stress test for the German job market. Some 900,000 people are currently participating in professional integration and qualification programs, but many are unlikely to find a job afterwards.
At the same time, employment growth is slowing down. This is why the HRI predicts an annual average of 2.9 million unemployed people in 2017. That would still be an increase of 150,000 over 2016 but not as strong as in past years.
While Germany has been growing more solidly in the last few years than many of its European peers, there are many that feel Europe’s largest economy hasn’t taken full advantage of the environment around it.
“One could ask the question why the German economy isn’t growing more strongly,” said Mr. Rürup. “The combination of low interest rates, a return to population growth, strong wage and pension increases, citizens eager to consume and an unexpected construction boom ought to lead to more than 2 percent growth.”
So why hasn’t’ there been more growth? Much of this leads back to companies: Increasing production in the long term would require expanding production potential, which in turn would require companies to invest more of their savings by expanding their operations.
Investments are based on strong business expectations. But that is precisely the problem. Brazil, Russia and the OPEC countries are suffering from low commodity prices. China’s growth is slowing down, and populists around the world are preaching protectionism. All of this is toxic to world trade – and therefore toxic to German exporters.
This is why the HRI expects investment in new equipment to continue to lose steam. Only construction is expected to have a positive impact on the development of investments, but even this boom is in jeopardy.
A law enacted in March on lending standards in residential housing construction tightened the requirements for borrowers. With some banks, this has already led to a decline in lending for residential housing by almost 10 percent.
That really only leaves one avenue for Germany’s economy to keep growing: Consumption.
This is where the underlying conditions could hardly be better. Pensions and wages are rising more than they have in a long time, there is record employment and interest rates are extremely low.
Nevertheless, Germany is still not seeing a boom in consumption. The HRI expects decent but not overly spectacular growth in private consumption by 1.6 percent this year and 1.1 percent in 2017.
Like other economic institutes, the HRI also expects a significant rise in the inflation rate – from an annual average of 0.6 percent in 2016 to 1.7 percent in 2017. This brings the European Central Bank’s inflation target of just under 2 percent within reach, which could make it difficult to continue justifying the ECB’s ultra-relaxed monetary policy, though it remains to be seen whether other euro-zone countries see a similar uptick in prices.
Government finances should also remain sound – which isn’t too hard given that investors have actually been paying Berlin to borrow money of late. The HRI expects a budget surplus in relation to GDP of 1.0 percent in 2016 and 0.3 percent in 2017. Mr. Rürup however counseled politicians against spending all the money too quickly.
“It would be smart if lawmakers would dispense with election gifts and invest the money in our aging infrastructure or, even better, in the digital infrastructure,” said Mr. Rürup. That could place Germany on a higher growth path for the long term.

(TechCrunch) The end of the automotive supply chain


Over the next 10 years, the differentiating source of supply and value in the automotive industry will not be car parts or engines. Instead, it will be a network of software developers.

The autonomous car will be here before we know it. Tesla autonomous technology has already amassed 100 million-plus miles. Legacy car manufacturer General Motors joined the action by acquiring self-driving startup Cruise. Apple has plans to release its own car by 2019, while Uber is planning to launch autonomous rides in Pittsburgh.

When autonomous vehicles become available at scale, the car will transform from just a mode of transportation into a new-age entertainment hub, with captive consumers surrounded by its technology for an average of at least five hours a week.

The automotive industry has been building cars for more than 100 years. The next 100 years will look radically different. Consumers will care less about the physical performance of the car and more about the software and experience of the car. Ring a bell?

Enter the development platform for autonomous cars. This will be the smartphone wars 2.0. The market opportunity is at least as big, if not far bigger.

As we saw with the introduction of the iPhone and Google’s Android, existing dominant players BlackBerry and Nokia were laid to waste. Steven Elop, the CEO of Nokia at the time, had a famous quote, which I referenced in my book Modern Monopolies: “The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems.” So too with cars.

Around the time the iPhone was first introduced, Nokia owned 50 percent of the smartphone market, RIM 8.3 percent and Motorola 6.6 percent. Why did none of them build a development platform to draw in millions of software developers to build apps on top of their phones and operating system? That’s the billion-dollar question.

Let’s hope automobile manufacturers realize the tremendous threat and opportunity in front of them. Which one will step up and be the automobile version of the iPhone? In platforms, there’s typically room for only one or two dominant players. Who will own the next 50 years of the automotive industry?

The next five years will determine the next 50 years of the automobile industry

While bringing autonomous cars to consumers is an important task today, ultimately it will be table stakes, as any smart exec should expect that every new car will have autonomous capabilities to drive itself within the next five to 10 years. We’re already seeing this on a small scale with features like automatic accident-prevention breaking. Once consumers become familiar with the benefits (and relative safety) of autonomous cars, there will be no going back.

The more exciting challenge is not in manufacturing an autonomous car, but rather in building a platform that connects software developers with consumers and passengers in these vehicles of the future. Automobile manufacturers must embrace business model innovation and diversify to become a platform companies, lest they face the same fate as Nokia and BlackBerry before them.

Unfortunately, for the auto manufacturers, there will only be two winners. No one wants to be Windows Phone — but inevitably, more than a few of today’s major players will be. The auto companies that are first to successfully launch a development platform for autonomous cars will have a distinct advantage.

Difficulties for traditional enterprises to embrace platform innovation

Traditional enterprises usually innovate in increments. If they were to embrace true disruption, they would embrace business model innovation. Platform business models are fundamentally different than existing linear models that drive today’s auto manufacturers.

Platform businesses take many years to reach a point of critical mass, and have a great deal of risk and expense associated with making them successful. However, if they are successful, platforms enjoy winner-take-all dynamics and strong network effects that create a key defensive moat to keep competitors out.

A lot of C-suite executives have their hands tied by external shareholders expecting quarterly performance. Building a platform business is like starting a new company, and it takes a long time for it to reach a point of maturity that satisfies investor expectations.

Amazon is a great example of a platform company that has been able to manage investor expectations to tolerate many years of losses with the hope that Amazon’s strong network effects will eventually result in market dominance and shareholder earnings.

Automotive companies should take a page out of Amazon’s playbook and position themselves for the next 10 years of investment. Though they may not see it yet, this move is necessary for their survival. But it also offers enormous upside: the chance to win the platform wars that are bound to revolutionize and challenge traditional approaches in the industry.

Somewhat ironically, former BlackBerry co-CEO Jim Balsillie once said that this transition from linear to platform business is “where tech companies go to die.” Unfortunately for him, in the case of BlackBerry, he was right. Apple and Google have shown that this need not be the case. But time is of the essence. Executives and shareholders should be clamoring for today’s automotive companies to embark on their platform journey as early as possible, lest they miss chance to win the battle for the future of the automobile.

The future of cars is very clear. Now we’ll see who gets there first. Game on.

NY Post : Tiffany & Co’s shares soar amid management shakeup rumors

Tiffany & Co. is rising high and shining bright like a diamond this week amid management changes and rumors.

Shares of the luxury jewelry purveyor closed up 3.3 percent, to $72.66, on Thursday. The stock has climbed nearly 10 percent since Monday on heavier-than-usual volume.

It has been a mixed year for the jewelry shops. Although the company has maintained its full-year forecast, last month it reported that sales were down 7 percent through the first half of the year.

The stock’s recent ascent began when Tiffany announced on Tuesday that Mark Erceg joined the company as its new chief financial officer. Erceg had been CFO of Canadian Pacific Railway.

Erceg’s appointment sparked rumors that Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square may take a stake in Tiffany. Ackman served on Canadian Pacific’s board until he resigned last week.

NYT : At BlackRock, a Wall Street Rock Star’s $5 Trillion Comeback

Over the last 10 years, Laurence D. Fink has transformed BlackRock from a bond shop catering to pension funds and insurance companies into an asset-gathering machine that uses advanced technology to reimagine how investors buy, sell and assess risks. CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
LOS ANGELES — Laurence D. Fink, the leader and founder of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, had come home.
A Bruin to the bone — class of 1974 — he had a story to tell the 5,000 giddy graduates packed into the cavernous basketball arena at the University of California, Los Angeles. Once upon a time he was a rock star on Wall Street. He had big hair and flashed turquoise jewelry, and making money had never seemed so easy.
Until it wasn’t.
“I screwed up,” Mr. Fink declared, recalling the $100 million he blew thanks to failed mortgage trades in 1986. “And it was bad.”
For the graduating millennials, the morality tale resonated not least because it came from a U.C.L.A. grad who had ascended, fallen from and again scaled Wall Street’s treacherous peaks. But it was his description of why he stumbled that truly explained his evolution from down-on-his-luck bond trader to master of a firm that has its eye on a sum about equal to the $16 trillion United States economy.
“I had become complacent — too sure of what I thought I knew,” Mr. Fink said. “I believed I had figured out the market. But I was wrong because while I wasn’t watching, the world had changed.”
Over the last decade, no other financial firm has gone further in challenging the classic Wall Street moneymaking model for investment banks and traditional mutual fund companies: Hire — and handsomely pay — hotshots to make big bets with other people’s money.
The future of finance, Mr. Fink has argued, lies with rules-based, data-driven investment styles such as exchange-traded funds, which track a variety of stock and bond indexes or adhere to a set of financial rules. The idea is that such an approach eliminates at least some of the potential for human error, while lowering costs.
It is this notion of using technology to root out investment risks that lies at the heart of BlackRock’s investing strategy. Putting this into practice is the firm’s risk-mitigation platform, Aladdin, which enjoys a ubiquity within the firm — it tracks everything from bond trades to head count — that evokes HAL 9000, the sentient computer in the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Some employees even use Aladdin as a verb, as in, “Has the new portfolio manager been Aladdinized yet?”
Directing the Flow
On Wall Street, prestige and influence have always been functions of a firm’s ability to capture a large amount of what investors call flow — the trillions of dollars in securities that are bought and sold on a given day worldwide. Before the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs’s reputation was made because the choice transactions ran through its bankers and traders. The same could be said of the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors under Steven A. Cohen, who rose to fame (and also became the target of regulators) on his ability to trade off this cascade.
But in today’s world of violent price swings and cash-starved markets, those with near infinite buying power — central banks, sovereign wealth funds and the largest money manager in the land — have become the new arbiters of flow. “We have never seen a paradigm shift like this,” said Anthony J. Perrotta Jr., an analyst with the Tabb Group, which analyzes the structure of financial markets. “It is not about the flow of securities anymore, it is about the flow of information and indications of interest.”
BlackRock’s strategy was forged, and ultimately empowered, by two market calamities over the last three decades. The first, of course, was Mr. Fink’s experience at First Boston in 1986, when he bet big on mortgages without assessing how the securities would trade in a period of extreme stress.
But BlackRock became the behemoth it is today only after the events of 2008. That is when a souped-up, toxic variety of the securitized mortgages that Mr. Fink helped design years earlier at First Boston imploded — setting off a chain of bank failures and the deepest global economic downturn since the Great Depression. Chastened investment banks were forced to exit these businesses under pressure from regulators.
And in stepped BlackRock. Its assets under management swelled as investors — starved for higher returns — piled into the company’s E.T.F.s, which tracked the highflying markets.
“The balance of power is now with firms like BlackRock because they have the ‘bid,’” said Mr. Perrotta of Tabb, using Wall Street argot to describe the buying power of large asset managers.
The power shift was on display this spring, when Mr. Fink took the stage at an investor conference alongside John Cryan, recently charged with reviving the sagging fortunes of Deutsche Bank, one of the global investment firms that was minting money before the markets collapsed in 2008. While the event was billed as a cozy exchange of ideas between two Wall Street heavy-hitters, it played out instead as a series of slightly peevish questions posed by Mr. Cryan to Mr. Fink.
“You are effectively becoming the supplier of liquidity of last resort — beyond the central banks,” Mr. Cryan said to Mr. Fink.
The assertion bordered on the impudent — suggesting that BlackRock and its $5 trillion stash of assets had become the new guarantor of stability because of its ability to buy and sell stocks and bonds in times of duress. Investment banks, which previously aspired to this duty, have been complaining for years that the financial system has become riskier because BlackRock and similar firms cannot perform such a market-making function.
But to say as much to Mr. Fink directly — and in a room full of investors, no less — was highly unusual. Mr. Fink was clearly irritated by the query. “Well that is not our role — we won’t play that role,” he replied stiffly.
Continue reading the main story


It was not the most convincing of replies.
‘I Am Aladdin’
Over the last 10 years, Mr. Fink has transformed BlackRock from a bond shop catering to pension funds and insurance companies into an asset-gathering machine that uses advanced technology to reimagine how investors buy, sell and assess the risks of a wide variety of securities. Via its $1 trillion-plus in exchange-traded funds, BlackRock has been instrumental in creating newly liquid markets in high-yield and corporate bonds — a direct attack on the business model of banks like Deutsche Bank.

And through its big data-mining risk platform, Aladdin, or Asset Liability and Debt and Derivatives Investment Network, BlackRock says it has developed the market’s most highly evolved framework for stress-testing how securities will respond to certain situations — such as a sudden rise in interest rates or what happens in the event of a political surprise, like Donald J. Trump being elected president.
Staffed by 2,300 of BlackRock’s 13,000 employees, Aladdin promises to help firms trade, analyze and keep a compliant eye on the assets they manage. In an era of severe regulatory scrutiny, the service has become quite popular. Seventy-five firms — including Deutsche Bank’s asset management unit and Freddie Mac — managing a total of $10 trillion, now use it.
For a man who, in his speeches, consistently spends more time talking about technology and risk analytics than the vagaries of the capital markets, Mr. Fink is no techie. Like many Wall Street titans of his vintage, the 63-year-old Mr. Fink rarely sends emails. An infrequent texter, he does most of his communicating by phone, in meetings or over a plate of spicy pasta at his go-toItalian restaurant in Midtown Manhattan.
Mr. Fink maintains a grueling schedule, mixing regular bicoastal trips in the United States with frequent client jaunts to China and the Middle East. “This job requires an enormous commitment,” he said. “The pace is relentless. There will be a day when I wake up one day and say I just can’t do it anymore.”
That day remains well in the future, he says. Still, with BlackRock’s growth in size and sway, the issue of who, if anyone, from within the firm is qualified to succeed Mr. Fink has become an existential question for the company’s board of directors.
The problem is typical when replacing a founder: Mr. Fink has increased assets to $5 trillion from zero, and the imprint of his domineering personality has become so profound that virtually anyone will suffer to some degree in comparison, considering his track record.
After all, in 1983, he structured one of the first collateral mortgage obligations, and along with Lewis Ranieri at Salomon Brothers made it possible for large investors to enter the market for mortgages. A quarter of a century later, Mr. Fink recognized that the time was right for E.T.F.s and — in the depths of the financial crisis — bought Barclays’s iShares business, a deal analysts consider one of the shrewdest in recent Wall Street memory.
And beyond a soaring stock price, there are few better ways for a financial chief to command the respect of his peers than to slip through the grasp of regulators. So when Mr. Fink and his high-powered lobbyists in Washington were able to make the case, after the 2008 financial crisis, that major fund companies like BlackRock posed no risks to the markets because of their size, it only added to his aura.
There is a moment in Don DeLillo’s “Cosmopolis,” his meditation on the alienating effects of money and machines, when the protagonist financier offers a bit of advice to a colleague. There’s only one thing worth pursuing professionally and intellectually, he says: the interaction between technology and capital — its inseparability.
That, more or less, is what Mr. Fink told Dexter Senft, his computer expert at First Boston in 1982. “We are bringing the computer onto the trading floor, Dexter,” Mr. Fink recalls saying at the time. “If we can do this, it will change our business forever.”
Not only would Mr. Fink and his bond wizards be able to sell billions of dollars of new securities, giving birth to today’s market for asset backed mortgages, they could also analyze how these securities would trade in certain situations.
The immense losses at First Boston in 1986 taught a lesson that eventually shaped BlackRock. Mr. Fink realized that his clients on the “buy side” (the fund managers, insurance companies and pension funds shopping for investments) had become dependent on the ability of the “sell side” (the Wall Street investment banks) to analyze mortgages. That was because few buy-side clients had invested in computers and technology to the level First Boston had.
Most money management firms highlight their investment returns first, and risk controls second. BlackRock has taken a reverse approach: It believes that risk analysis, such as gauging how a security will trade if interest rates go up or down, improves investment results.
That is where Aladdin comes in. Aladdin is a network of code, trades, chat, algorithms and predictive models that on any given day can highlight vulnerabilities and opportunities connected to the $15 trillion the firm tracks — $10 trillion of which belongs to outside firms that pay BlackRock a fee to have access to the platform.
Aladdin fills the monitors of most BlackRock employees. One portfolio manager even went so far as to hang a nearly cinema-size screen on his office wall in order to get the full Aladdin experience. And at the company’s investor day in June, Mr. Fink and other top executives mentioned Aladdin 82 times — more than any other business line — even though the platform represents just 5 percent of the $11.3 billion in revenues BlackRock took in last year.
Or consider a recent marketing video that shows Mr. Fink and other top executives gazing at the camera and intoning one after the other, “I am Aladdin.”
Moment in the Sun
From Mr. Fink’s early days on Wall Street, his ambition has been stoked by a sense that he has not been receiving the proper credit for his achievements. At First Boston, even though he was among the earliest to popularize trading in mortgage securities, his peers including Mr. Ranieri and others drew more public attention as innovators and moneymakers.
As a successful, albeit mostly anonymous, bond manager at BlackRock in the 1990s and 2000s, he saw acclaim, pay and influence go to the chief executives of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. That began changing only in 2009, when he bought Barclays’s E.T.F. business. Last year he was among a small circle of Wall Street executives to attend the state dinner at the White House for the Chinese president, Xi Jinping.
A part of Mr. Fink — a fervent Democrat today — believes he would make a pretty good Treasury secretary, say people who have discussed politics with him. Although he recently persuaded Cheryl Mills, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers, to join the board of BlackRock, the view is fairly strongly held that if Mrs. Clinton becomes president, there is little chance that she will tap a Wall Street insider for the Treasury job.
Photo
The future of finance, Mr. Fink has argued, lies with rules-based, data-driven investment styles.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
With BlackRock’s stock having more than doubled since 2011, far outpacing the likes of Goldman and JPMorgan and trading close to its record high, it seems that the market has come around to Mr. Fink’s financial worldview: that a low cost, systematic style of investing will, over time, grow faster than the costlier “active investing” model in which individuals, not algorithms, make stock, bond and asset allocation decisions.
And the numbers in that regard are arresting. Through July, E.T.F.s and traditional index funds made up 30 percent of total mutual fund assets, according to the Investment Company Institute, a ratio that has doubled in just under 10 years.
Of course, with close to $1.5 trillion in actively managed funds, Mr. Fink is not ready to write off a segment of the industry that even after years of outflows clocks in at $11 trillion. And he underlines the importance of being able to offer the best of both active and passive investing styles to BlackRock clients.
But inside the firm and out, there is little doubt that he is betting the ranch on E.T.F.s and similarly themed investments choices. These include so-called factor strategies, in which a bet is made on a certain investment outcome — like value stocks outpacing growth stocks, or a basket of low-volatility equities beating the broader indexes.
In San Francisco, a team of equity investors deploys data analysis to study the language that a chief executive uses during an earnings call. Does he seem unusually bearish this quarter, compared with last? If so, maybe the stock is a sell.
“We have more information than anyone,” Mr. Fink said.
A Not-So-Short List
Some analysts, in fact, argue that BlackRock should be valued as a technology company, as opposed to an asset manager.
Mark Wiedman, 45, a BlackRock executive who is on the short list to succeed Mr. Fink, believes that bond E.T.F.s, in particular, are creating a liquid market where a new generation of bond investors can freely buy and sell.
For years, he and Mr. Fink have been pitching insurance companies and pension funds to stop buying individual bonds (from the likes of Deutsche Bank) and instead choose a BlackRock bond E.T.F. Now it’s happening.
“I think of E.T.F.s as technology,” Mr. Wiedman said, as he leaned back in a swivel chair in his office. “It is a product that bundles up a bunch of securities, puts them on a screen and makes them easier to trade.”
Like many top executives here, Mr. Wiedman can get a bit manic when discussing the subject: Midway through an interview, he felt the need to somewhat violently undo his tie and cast it aside.
Regulators are less enthusiastic. Global watchdogs like the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund have described these bountiful flows into and out of BlackRock bond E.T.F.s as a liquidity illusion. Which means, according to Ken Monaghan, an investor in high-yielding corporate bonds, that easy-to-trade E.T.F.s have lured “tourist” investors — people seduced by the rich yields, but who may not be able to stomach a sustained market reversal.
And if they all leave at once, watch out.
“E.T.F.s do not create liquidity,” said Mr. Monaghan, of the global fund manager Amundi Smith Breeden. “These new investors are not permanent.”
Aside from Mr. Wiedman of BlackRock, the short list to succeed Mr. Fink includes Robert S. Kapito, 59, a founding partner and current president of the firm who is seen as the top choice if a handover occurs sooner rather than later. Other candidates are Rob Goldstein, the 42-year-old chief operating officer and driving force behind Aladdin’s growth; Mark McCombe, 50, a former HSBC executive who looks after the firm’s big clients; Rich Kushel, 50, who oversees multi-asset investment strategies for clients; and Gary Shedlin, 52, the chief financial officer. There is also Mark Wiseman, a new hire who joined the firm this month to oversee its equity business.
It is a long list, and purposely so. For Mr. Fink, recommending a successor to his board is probably the weightiest decision he will make as BlackRock chief. He has taken pains to not tip his hand. “I want to make sure that the day after I leave, the firm is better off without me,” he said.
This spring, Mr. Fink called together more than 100 of the firm’s most senior executives for two days of meetings in Barcelona, Spain. BlackRock was approaching its 30th anniversary and Mr. Fink was in a nostalgic mood. Yet there was an edge to his remarks.
Yes, BlackRock was thriving because of its focus on low-risk, low-cost funds and the all-seeing wonders of Aladdin. But now was not the time to coast.
“We cannot let someone brand us as a vampire squid,” warned Mr. Fink, referring to a defining article in Rolling Stone magazine that so described Goldman Sachs.
Nor was this a time to sit fat and happy on a big pile of assets and let the fees role in, an indirect slap at actively managed giants such as Franklin Templeton and Pimco, where assets under management have recently been declining.
Never before, he said, had the fund management industry been so competitive and changing. “If you think you know everything about our business, you are kidding yourself,” he said. “The biggest question we have to answer is: ‘Are we developing the right leaders?’”
And then, looking out over the striving BlackRock executives gathered before him, he put it to them directly. “Are you,” he asked, “prepared to be one of those leaders?”

FINK’S UPWARD TRAJECTORY
In over two decades at BlackRock, Laurence D. Fink has watched the firm grow to manage $5 trillion.
  • 1983
    Laurence D. Fink presides over one of the first collateralized mortgage obligation deals on Wall Street — a $1 billion offering by Freddie Mac.
  • 1986
    Mr. Fink loses $100 million in a mortgage bet gone bad.
  • 1988
    Mr. Fink and seven other executives start an investment group focused on buying bonds under the umbrella of the private equity firm Blackstone.
  • 1992
    The firm adopts the name BlackRock and oversees $17 billion.
  • 1994
    General Electric contracts BlackRock’s Aladdin risk platform to wind down the brokerage firm Kidder, Peabody & Company.
  • 1999
    BlackRock goes public with $165 billion in assets under management.
  • 2003
    Mr. Fink, a New York Stock Exchange board member, is embroiled in a dispute over the pay of Richard A. Grasso, the exchange’s chief.
  • 2006
    BlackRock acquires Merrill Lynch’s investment management division, gaining a large equity business. Assets under management are $1.1 trillion.
  • 2007
    Mr. Fink is nearly named chief executive of Merrill Lynch.
  • 2009
    Treasury hires BlackRock to analyze toxic securities.
  • BlackRock acquires Barclays Global Investors and its exchange-traded funds. BlackRock manages E.T.F.s with $495 billion of the E.T.F. market’s overall $777 billion. BlackRock’s total assets under management swell to $3.3 trillion.
  • 2013
    BlackRock’s E.T.F.s reach $752 billion. The overall E.T.F. market is $1.6 trillion. BlackRock’s total assets under management are $4 trillion.
  • 2016
    In August, BlackRock stock hits a new high. Its E.T.F.s are worth $1.1 trillion, while the overall E.T.F. market grows to $2.3 trillion. BlackRock’s total assets under management reach $5 trillion.

(GS): Goldilocks and the Bears - note attached

Latest GOAL note.

 

Negative macro surprises and the global bond sell-off since n last week have driven a reversal of the ‘Goldilocks’ summer rally. Risk parity and balanced funds suffered in particular, with a sharp increase in equity/bond correlations. We think bond yields will increase more until year-end, and downgrade bonds to Underweight on a 3-month horizon (in line with 12-month). However, while rate volatility could pick up in the near term, we expect the most pressure in the back end and continued anchoring of the front end by central banks next week.

 

We remain defensive in our asset allocation and Overweight cash (3m) due to elevated valuations across assets and the risk of shocks. However, we upgrade equities back to Neutral on a 3m basis due to support from still low rates and optimism on fiscal easing stabilising LT growth expectations. We continue to expect ‘fat and flat’ returns but our equity strategists now forecast less negative returns. Risks are still skewed to the downside in the near term, in our view, owing to more bullish positioning and the fading ‘Goldilocks’ backdrop. However, we see a lack of catalysts for a material drawdown. We move S&P 500 (3m & 12m) and STOXX Europe 600 (3m) to Underweight within equities. Japan is Neutral 3m, Overweight 12m. Asia is our preferred equity region – we are Overweight MSCI Asia ex Japan for both 3m and 12m.

 

We still prefer credit to equity due to better asymmetry of returns. More positive asymmetry for equities would require a better growth/rates mix, with rates volatility easing.We have a stable growth outlook until year-end and macro volatility has been low. With central banks anchoring rates and a pick-up in macro data, we would expect equities to stabilise. The sensitivity to US 10-year yields across assets is close to the highest level since the 1990s. And risky assets tend to benefit from higher rates as long as they come alongside better growth; the correlation of risky assets with US breakeven inflation is more positive than with real yields. But, elevated rate volatility often results in a negative correlation of equities with higher yields initially.