>>> US Early Premarket Gappers

Early premarket gappers


Gapping up: NEOT +82.9%, SRT +15.7%, AMAT +8.6%, AHS +8.1%, ANET +5.7%, AMBC +4.1%, INWK +4.1%, STS +4%, BJRI +3.4%, NVLS +3.3%, CENX +3.3%, ICON +3%, AUY +2.6%, COMM +2.5%, ASML +1.8%, EPE +1.5%, ARMH +1.2%, QCOM +1.1%, GSK +0.6%

Gapping down: TRUE -26.3%, TRN -18.1%, AFOP -14.1%, IMH -10.2%, JWN -8.3%, SXC -7.4%, VFC -6.9%, GBX -6.3%, AEG -5.4%, SAM -5.1%, CRMT -3.8%, AU -3.6%, FLS -3.6%, FCX -3.5%, HMY -3.4%, EQIX -3.2%, FLR -3.1%, ATW -2.9%, SDRL -2.8%, RIO -2.4%, GFI -2.2%, UAN -2.2%, OLLI -2.1%, SUNE -2%, RDS.A -1.9%, TWTR -1.8%, RIG -1.7%, CS -1.6%, MDRX -1.6%, DE -1.3%, NOK -1.3%, LXK -1.2%, AZN -1.2%, ABX -1.1%, MDCA -1.1%, CAT -0.9%, KEYS -0.9%, NEM -0.8%, ARII -0.8%, XBKS -0.7%, ED -0.5%

>>> Deere beats by $0.10, misses on revs; guides Q2 revs just above consensus; l

Deere beats by $0.10, misses on revs; guides Q2 revs just above consensus; lowers FY16 guidance (80.33)

  • Reports Q1 (Jan) earnings of $0.80 per share, $0.10 better than the Capital IQ Consensus of $0.70; revenues fell 14.9% year/year to $4.77 bln vs the $4.86 bln Capital IQ Consensus. Sales included price realization of 2 percent and an unfavorable currency-translation effect of 4 percent. Equipment net sales in the United States and Canada decreased 18 percent. Outside the U.S. and Canada, net sales were down 9 percent, with unfavorable currency-translation effects of 11 percent.
    • Deere's equipment operations reported operating profit of $214 million for the quarter, compared with $414 million in 2015. The decline for the quarter was due primarily to lower shipment volumes, the unfavorable effects of foreign-currency exchange and the impact of a less favorable product mix.
  • Results decline on weakness in global markets for farm and construction equipment -- all businesses remain profitable.
  • Co issues upside guidance for Q2, sees Q2 revs of -8% to ~$6.81 bln vs. $6.66 bln Capital IQ Consensus Estimate.
  • Co issues downside guidance for FY16, lowers FY16 revs to -10% to ~$23.2 bln (from -7%) vs. $23.56 bln Capital IQ Consensus; lowers net income to $1.3 bln from $1.4 bln.
  • Peers: CNHI, AGCO, TWI, CAT.

(GS) China Musings: More room for the tactical recovery; still a challenging st




Key points:

·         After falling 20% from the start of the year to a low in Feb, China (MSCI China) has rebounded 8% in the past 4 trading days, paring its ytd loss to 13% (MXAPJ: -8%). We think the relief/tactical rally may extend, underpinned by a near-term stabilization of key macro factors (China growth, the Rmb, and oil), and an improving risk/reward profile in the equity market given the extent to which risks are being priced.

·         While the tactical case has improved, we believe turning strategically positive on China is premature due to various structural and liquidity headwinds, and policy constraints. We stay Market-weight on China in a regional context.

·         As such, we advocate a targeted implementation strategy to trade the recovery rally. Ideas include: (1) Most-shorted stocks with reasonable fundamentals; (2) select ADRs for strategic growth, valuation, and positioning/catalyst reasons; and, (3) options strategies in an uncertain and low-conviction world.

Macro: A near-term stabilization of key macro factors

·         China growth: Reported January macro data have been mixed so far - the trade numbers came in below expectations, PMIs showed conflicting signals, but the monetary data (new loans, TSF) surprised strongly on the upside. Our read is that underlying demand may still be weak (imports down 19% yoy) now but green shoots are emerging: new loans growth may slow in Feb due to seasonal normalization but the recent surge, including a significant rise in mid/long-term loans (63% yoy, 25% 3ma yoy), potentially points to continued growth or even acceleration in infrastructure investment and a resilient real estate market (mortgage loans), notably in higher-tier cities where inventory months have dropped to about 11 months from the peak of 18 months in Oct 2014.

·         The RMB: The topic of Rmb continues to feature prominently in our recent client interactions. The strengthening of the CNY since Feb (although still down 0.4% vs. the USD ytd) and the narrowing gaps between CNY and CNH have certainly helped sentiment. Bearish positions on CNH, proxied by the CNH open interest on HKEx, have dropped possibly due to concerns about PBoC’s intervention and a tighter CNH liquidity pool, and the concerns are being reinforced by the recent interview by Governor Zhou, which carried a hawkish tone against sharp devaluation. The CNH volatility profile has been reset, implying a spike is unlikely in the short term if the central bank is committed to upholding its credibility. On top of these factors, we expect the Fed to stay on hold in its March meeting, which may alleviate downward pressures on the CNY in the near term.

·         Oil prices: Our commodity strategists expect oil prices to remain volatile and oscillate between $20/bbl and $40/bbl in the near term. They believe the market would not be surprised by spikes to the downside even into the teens as a trendless oil market with significant volatility is now a consensus view with the market positioned as such (particularly given that realized oil volatility has surged to 100%). This suggests that most of the negative impacts from declining oil prices are likely behind us at this point. Fundamentally, our economists estimate that every US$10/bbl fall of oil prices could lift China's GDP by 0.1% as China is a net importer of oil, oil demand (volume) is still rising at 6% pace yoy, and falling oil prices should bode well for the trade balance. Direct impact on equities should be manageable as oil/gas companies now represent 3.4% and 6% of the market's earnings and market cap, although second-order impacts are more dynamic and harder to gauge.

Markets: An improving risk/reward profile

·         Context: At the low end of a 'fat' trading range. We have been flagging this trading pattern for quite some time and we still think it helps to frame the potential risk/reward tradeoff in a historical context. In short, HSCEI has dropped 40% since 2010 (MXCN: -22%), but has been operating in a big trading range with 14 noticeable/tradable up and down moves (7 each) during the past 5 years, averaging around 30% in magnitude and 4 months in duration. While technical indicators show that the market is no longer oversold (RSI at 49), cap-weighted valuations are still at the low end of the ranges (more on this below), and the latest snapback is only 30% of the average historical rallies by magnitude.

·         Earnings have come down but are not collapsing. Earnings downgrades have shown no signs of abating (17% in past 12 months), driven by the soft underlying activity growth, 40% down in oil prices in the past year, and partly due to the intensifying CNY depreciation expectations (offshore equities are quoted in HKD or USD). However, stripping out the oil and FX factors, 2016 Rmb-dominated earnings have dropped merely 1% ytd.

·         Valuations are inexpensive: 2 weeks ago, we examined what is being discounted in equity valuations using different valuation approaches. We still stand by our view that a great deal of macro and sector-specific risk is already being reflected in equity valuations, and select long-term value is emerging if global recession/China hard-landing is not one's base case. Exhibit 6 compares current market valuations vs. the troughs in 2008 and 2011 on a number of popular valuation metrics. Specifically, on a median stock basis (to address the fact that large-cap banks are trading at low headline valuations given the embedded NPL risks), MSCI and HSCEI constituents' forward P/E and trailing P/B are close to or even below the stressed levels during the EU sovereign crisis and GFC.

·         Positioning appears light and sentiment stays cautious. Mutual fund positioning data shows that global, GEM, and Asia funds are Underweight HK/China by 149bps, 206bps, and 318bps relative to their respective benchmarks (cum ADRs); HK/China focused funds have seen US$23bn of net redemption ytd (based on EPFR survey which is only a small subset of the full universe); short interest is still close to all-time highs; and the 8% rebound appears triggered more by short-covering than real money buying given how the most-shorted stocks in HK have traded.

 

Upcoming events/catalysts: Neutral to slightly positive

 

1.    G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting will be held on Feb 26 and 27 where we may get statements about closer collaboration among global central banks;

2.    Details on the 13th Five-Year Plan will be unveiled in the upcoming National People's Congress (NPC) meeting in early March, and local government budgets will be approved at the same time;

3.    Jan-Feb combined activity data (IP, FAI, retail sales) will not be reported until early March and we think any potentially forceful policy responses (to slowing growth) are more likely to be rolled out after this;

4.    The Fed meeting will be on March 15-16 where our economists expect the Fed to stay pat. Also in March, our economists expect further monetary easing to be announced in the ECB meeting although they think the hurdle to additional easing by the BoJ could be high;

5.    At the market level, FY15 earnings season will kick off in early March for H shares and we expect an in-line result given lower consensus expectations and a relatively healthy 1Q-3Q earnings run-rate of 79% vs. full-year consensus;

6.    On May 31, MSCI will implement the second batch of inclusion for 14 ADRs, which may usher in meaningful passive and active allocations to these names.

Implementation ideas

The abovementioned arguments suggest that some of the necessary conditions for a recovery trade are in place and the risk/reward of going tactically long (or paring shorts) looks sensible. But given the fluidity of global macro factors along the axes of global growth, central banks' policy, oil, and the Rmb, we believe investors need to be specific when expressing this short-term view. We like the following ideas.

·         Heavily shorted stocks with reasonable fundamentals: We screen for a list of HK- and US-listed, Buy-rated stocks with the highest short-interest to market cap/turnover ratios in Exhibit 8 for potentially more short-covering-driven upside.

·         'New China': ADRs: We think the theme of 'New China', which consists of mainly technology, healthcare, and select consumer companies, remains the most exciting, and strategically compelling, story in the Chinese stock markets. Particularly, we favor Chinese ADRs because: a) they (proxied by the MXOCN index) have corrected in similar magnitude as the 'Old China'-dominated HSCEI index (both -15% ytd) which faces various structural challenges; b) valuations have retreated: 24.8x P/E (-0.5.s.d), PEG at 0.7X (HSCEI also at 0.7X); c) the May inclusion is a visible catalyst, and the current price setup is reminiscent of the 3Q pullback and 4Q recovery ahead of the first-tranche inclusion in Dec 2015; d) our positioning analysis shows that GEM funds are currently underweight China tech sector by 100bps relative to the benchmark, and will be underweight by over 300bps when the May inclusion kicks in; and, e) the recent resurgence of ADR privatization deals should provide a fertile hunting ground for event-driven investors and is arguably sentiment-boosting for the rest of the universe.

·         Options: China ADR call-spreads, HSCEI short-dated calls: We believe buying optionality via outright calls or call-spreads makes sense given their asymmetric exposure (limited downside risk) against a backdrop where macro/policy uncertainty is high, investors' conviction level is low, and sentiment shifts could be rapid. We highlight 2 ideas: 1) We like call-spreads on our China ADR basket (GSCBADR4) which contains 14 China ADRs which were included in MSCI in last December. We recommend 4-month (June expiry to capture the ADR catalyst in May) 110-125% call-spreads on GSCBADR4 for indicatively 3.4% premium which offers a max payout of 4.4X; 2) For HSCEI, we prefer buying short-dated outright calls. While short-dated implied vol on HSCEI has risen meaningfully with 1-mo ATM implied vol trading at 36v (vs. 22v at the start of the year), it’s still trading below realized vol and short-dated call-wing skew doesn’t offer any meaningful cost savings. HSCEI 1-month expiry 8500 strike calls indicatively cost 2.2%. The structure breaks even at 6.2% from current levels and could offer potential returns of 330% on premium invested if HSCEI reverts to its ytd highs.

Option Risks: Buyers of 8500 strike calls risk losing entire premium if HSCEI stays below 8500 by expiry while buyers of 110-125% call-spreads on China ADRs risk capped upside if the basket rallies more than 25% by expiry or risk losing premium if it stays below 10% by expiry.

Strategic case unchanged; Stay Market-weight

The tactical case has improved, but we believe turning strategically positive on China is premature. Key reasons are:

·         China is still going through a ‘bumpy growth deceleration’ process which keeps corporate earnings under pressure, especially for stocks in the 'Old China' space. Our EPS growth of 2% and 7% for 16E/17E for MSCI China is in line with/ 5pp below I/B/E/S consensus;

·         Our base case still calls for the Rmb to moderately weaken vs. the USD by 7% by the end of this year (although only slight depreciation vs. the CFETS basket), and the Fed to raise rates 3 times this year. As such, pressures relating to the ‘impossible trinity’ suggest that capital outflow remains a challenge and may continue to weigh on investor sentiment;

·         Structural reforms, especially those which are more consequential to equity returns (e.g. SOE reforms, capital markets liberalization), have been progressing slowly. Macro-wise, the surge in new loans/TSF may boost cyclical growth but make macro deleveraging down the road potentially more difficult and painful;

·         We believe we are still at the early stage of the NPL cycle (our banks team forecasts NPLs potentially reaching 9%) and it may take 5-6 years for banks to absorb potential losses, thereby constraining strategic upside for Chinese banks, which account for 43% of the HSCEI index cap;

·         China A has performed better than most expected since returning from the Chinese New Year holidays (+3.8%, but still down 18% ytd) but we think concerns about leverage and liquidity risks, notably the stock collateralized loans (Rmb1.1tn loans, 4% facing margin call risk, assuming LTV ratio at 35%), could resurface when market momentum moderates.

All in all, we stay Market-weight on Chinese equities, and reiterate our end-16 target of 58.5 for MSCI China, implying 13% potential upside from current levels.

 




This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity disclosures can be accessed on our website.

(Makor) Gameloft - Very Preliminary First Blush Thoughts

Following the acquisition of a stake in excess of 30%, Vivendi announced an unsolicited mandatory takeover tender offer for Gameloft yesterday evening. Vivendi are offering €6 for all remaining Gameloft shares. This morning the Gameloft board issued a press release calling the offer “hostile” and they have convened a meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss Vivendi’s offer next week.

Vivendi also have a c.14.9% stake in Ubisoft. Yesterday, Ubisoft presented plans to grow substantially over the next 3 years as it looks to fend off a potential takeover by Vivendi. Ubisoft is owned by one of Mr Guillemot (owner of Gameloft)’s four brothers.

If the Gameloft board are not receptive to an offer, there are several “takeover defences” that could be available to them. In 2014, France implemented a range of new measures known as the “Florange Law” in France. Under this law, Gameloft could have the possibility to issue a “poison pill” which has been used to great success in the US as the poison pill will dilute the hostile shareholder’s existing shareholding. Gameloft could also perhaps seek a “white knight” bidder although it remains unclear at this point who (if any) could act as a white knight.

We will look at Gameloft’s Articles of Association in further detail to determine the board composition and if Vivendi can gain a majority of Gameloft’s board in order to push its Offer through if the current Gameloft board prove resistant.

Handelsblatt : U.S. Lawsuit Alleges Daimler Used Cheat Software in 14 Mercedes M


A U.S. lawfirm is suing Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler, alleging the luxury automaker used cheat software to rig emissions values on 14 models of cars and SUVs that use the company’s patented BlueTEC low-emission diesel technology.

The suit, filed on February 18 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that Stuttgart-based Daimler employed similar software tricks as its German rival Volkswagen to falsify emissions results on diesel engines to trick U.S. regulators.

Daimler shares plunged as much as 3.6 percent at their opening on Friday in Frankfurt and were currently trading down 2 percent at €63.18.

“It appears that Mercedes has been caught in a similar scheme as Volkswagen and programmed these BlueTEC vehicles to pollute, all the while reaping profits from those who have fallen victim to its aggressive and deceptive eco-conscious branding,” said Steve Berman, the managing partner of Hagens Berman, a class-action law firm.

Daimler, in a statement, said the allegations were unfounded.

Mr. Berman in 1998 was the special assistant district attorney who represented 13 U.S. states that eventually obtained $206 billion (€184 billion) from tobacco maker Philip Morris in the largest ever civil settlement. The case, which relied on testimony of whistleblowers, led to advertising and marketing restrictions on U.S. tobacco makers.

The lawsuit against Mercedes was filed five months after VW admitted it had manipulated emissions values with software and other technology on about 11 million diesel cars worldwide.

The scandal has thrown Volkswagen, Germany’s largest listed company, into an existential crisis and exposed the automaker to billions in potential fines, penalties and associated costs. The suit against Stuttgart-based Daimler, if borne out, threatens to further damages the reputation of German business and its low-emissions diesel technology, which it has used to remain competitive in Europe and abroad.

In Volkswagen’s so-called Dieselgate scandal, VW, Audi, Porsche, Seat and Skoda diesel cars have been identified that emit higher levels of nitrogen oxide than allowed during actual road tests. VW’s market value has plunged by more than €16 billion, or $17.8 billion, since the scandal emerged last September.

The lawsuit against Daimler alleges that Mercedes too is violating U.S. environmental regulations. The suit said that higher emissions levels than advertised were observed in the following Mercedes diesel models: ML 320, R320, S-Class, ML 350, E-Class, GLK Class, GL 320, GL Class, GLE Class, E320, ML Class, Sprinter, S350 and the R Class.

“Real world testing has recently revealed that these vehicles emit dangerous oxides of nitrogen (NOx) at a level more than 65 times higher than the United States Environmental Protection Agency permits,” the lawsuit alleged. “The Mercedes “Clean Diesel” turns out to be far from ‘clean,’” according to the lawsuit.

Daimler, headquartered in Stuttgart, was not immediately available to comment when contacted by Handelsblatt Global Edition on Friday morning. A Mercedes spokesman told French news agency AFP the allegations were unfounded and the automaker would defend itself.

U.S. law firm Hagens Berman filed the class action suit on behalf of Ulyana Lynevych, the owner of Mercedes ML 350 SUV.

A class action suit filed by Mr. Berman, the firm’s managing partner, prompted negotiations that led Toyota to eventually pay buyers $1.6 billion in 2013 for models that accelerated unintentionally.

In the Mercedes case, Mr. Berman is asking Daimler to start a recall or a free replacement program and offer compensation for the lost value of affected Mercedes cars.

(Manager Magazin) billion provisions of VW insufficient

billion provisions of VW insufficient http://bit.ly/1oOAuP0

The diesel scandal is likely to be for Volkswagen in the US more expensive than previously expected. The accrued by the car company in the last year 6.7 billion euros would therefore likely to be insufficient, the manager magazine reported in its latest edition (publication date: February 19), citing the business community.
The VW-tip negotiated for months in vain with American environmental authorities on a solution for those affected by the exhaust manipulation 600,000 vehicles. An agreement is not expected before the end of March, reports top managers. The cost of the expected callbacks, buybacks and compensation measures would most probably significantly higher than originally thought.

Volkswagen had admitted in September that the company has sold in the United States hundreds of thousands of cars with engine control manipulated. The software ensures that certain models meet the limit values ​​for emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides to the test. In normal driving conditions, the emissions are, however, well above the allowable values ​​in the United States.
US Environmental Protection Agency is to insist on long-distance test for new VW solution

Worldwide, even up to 11 million Group vehicles are equipped with the offending software. Mainly because of the uncertainty about the cost of the problems in the US Volkswagen had already postponed the originally planned for early March publication of the balance sheet.

therefore Negotiations WOULD CHOOSE currently mainly in the length because the American Environmental Protection Agency insisted on a long-distance test for a proposed VW technical solution manager magazin reported on. VW have developed in collaboration with a supplier catalysts for exhaust gas purification of the oldest affected engine generation, according to Wolfsburg. However, the EPA wants to ensure that the repaired diesel vehicles not after a few years back poisoned the air. Mitte These bench tests were completed at the earliest until the end of March - and before giving the authority no Okay for an overall deal.

Volkswagen !!!!

10:02:28 RTRS - VOLKSWAGEN'S VOWG_p.DE COSTS FOR RECALLS, BUYBACKS, COMPENSATION OF CAR OWNERS LIKELY TO SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEED PREVIOUS ESTIMATES - MANAGER MAGAZIN VOWG.DE VOWG_p.DE

>>> Vivendi - Kepler & Barcap

Barcap : 
2015A results were below at EBITA but better at EPS thanks to taxes (somewhat

one-off in nature). These results are a sideshow however to 2016E where

management was supposed to give us some indications on Canal+’s big

restructuring. Apart from a potential distribution deal with beIN Sports (subject to

regulatory approval) and new set-top boxes, we still unfortunately have few clues

about the Canal+ restructuring. 2016E could “lead to a significant decline in the

operating results” but we do not know the magnitude. Arguably, we have more

visibility on 2019E where management agreed with c. €700m of EBITA (we forecast

c. €600m). In conclusion, Vivendi is a stock with little visibility where management

states that growth will be stronger in 2017E/18E. The lack of visibility deserves a

discount in our view but Vivendi currently trades at 11x 2017E EV/EBITDA, a 10%

premium to the sector on 10x. We feel this is too generous but the dividend yield

(11% including announced extraordinary) and the buyback below €20 provides

downside protection. This is why we are Equal Weight. We lower our sum-of-the

parts to €19.00 owing to less value in quoted stakes and lower Canal+ valuation

Kepler

UMG was strong and Canal weak. Restructuring was stepped up at Canal.

UMG strong and Canal weak

Q4 earnings were something of a mixed bag, coming in ahead of forecast at UMG (EUR334m EBITA vs EUR305m forecast), but below-forecast at trouble Canal Plus (EUR96m loss vs. EUR45m loss forecast). The beat at UMG was driven by strong revenue growth (4% LFL vs 0% forecast), similar to what we saw from peers Sony and WMG in Q4 and only marginally boosted by one-off settlements. Excluding restructuring (EUR85m vs EUR28m in Q4 2014), Canal Plus's EBITA actually improved YOY by 20% in a quarter that traditionally generates losses due to seasonality.

Warns on Canal in 2016 as turnaround investments step up

The guidance, though, reflected the well-known difficulties at Canal Plus, with a heavy year of investment in content/technology, and an exclusive deal with BeIN Sports (details still unclear as it is being reviewed by the competition authority but it seems Canal will retain BeIN subscription revenues in return for payment of a minimum guarantee), designed to turn around the pay-TV business in France by 2018. The target is to improve EBITA versus 2015 underlying by more than EUR250m. How much will be reinvested and how big the hit to 2016 EBITA will be remains unclear. For now, we lower our 2016 EBITA forecast for Canal Plus by EUR100m.

We lower our EPS forecast by -8.6%, and remain buyers

For UMG, the guidance calls for for moderate growth in EBITA in 2016 and for an acceleration in growth in 2017 and thereafter as streaming (whose revenue growth accelerated in H2 from 35% to 50% following the Apple Music launch) continues to ramp up. On the back of this, and a stronger-than-expected end to 2015 , we raise our UMG forecasts by 5%. Overall, we lower our 2016 EPS forecasts by -8.6%. Though there is continued uncertainty over where Canal Plus's earnings may bottom, the difficulties in the domestic pay-TV business cannot come as a surprise. Turning it around is no easy matter in a market that is shifting towards on-demand, but we believe margins could settle in the 10-15% range at least after restructuring (vs 6.5% 2016E and peak of 14.6% in 2010), so we would use any weakness today as a buying opportunity. The last restructuring in 2006 saw margins drop from 6% to 2% before returning to 9% and 12% in the following two years. Vivendi also launched a bid for Gameloft at EUR6 per share (a meagre 10% premium, costing up to an additional EUR360m), possibly to put pressure on the Guillemot family to cede control of Ubisoft.

 

FT : Citadel slims down as torrid markets deliver losses

Citadel slims down as torrid markets deliver losses

Citadel has fired a number of analysts and fund managers from one of its main equity units after losses this year, underscoring how torrid markets are tripping up even the savviest hedge funds.
Kenneth Griffin’s Chicago-based hedge fund manages $25bn across its strategies, but Surveyor Capital, one of three equity “long-short” strategies, has fared badly this year, prompting the money manager to sack more than a dozen analysts and portfolio managers, according to people familiar with the matter.

Surveyor invests across seven industry sectors including entertainment, energy, healthcare and technology, according to the company’s website. Citadel just replaced the head of the unit on January 27, tapping Todd Barker to replace the departing Jon Venetos.
Citadel said: “Surveyor has been a very successful business over time, and we have strong leadership and a great team in place.”
The news was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Mr Griffin founded the hedge fund in 1990 after trading convertible bonds from his Harvard dorm room, and its success has made him a billionaire and one of the industry’s best-known figures. Its multi-strategy structure means each unit has its own team, its own profits and losses, and leads back to a central command like spokes on a wheel.
Citadel’s outlook for this area of investing was rosy as recently as last fall, with the company trumpeting its new San Francisco-based Ravelin Capital as part of an expansion of the equities platform.
Last month Citadel was named “hedge fund of the year” by Risk Magazine, after returning 14 per cent in 2015. But in 2016 its main fund has lost 6.5 per cent, according to a person familiar with the matter.
“There is a common fallacy that we’re in the risk-minimisation business. We are in the risk-taking business,” Mr Griffin told the magazine earlier this year. “Both sides of the equation drive our performance. Our expected return, on one side, is about our offensive stance, balanced, on the other side, with the necessity to preserve our capital from catastrophic losses.”
This year has got off to a tumultuous start for hedge funds. Hedge Fund Research’s Global Index has fallen 4.4 per cent through February 10.
The popularity of multi-strategy models has created copycats hoping to replicate their successes. Some funds such as Israel Englander’s Millennium Management are closed to new investors, so the money from those seeking that strategy has spilled over into other groups.
Those often have similar parameters for risk-taking, modelled on the success of Millennium and Citadel, so that in part has shepherded more managers into the same securities — potentially leading to wider problems if one fund buckles.

FT : Threats to hedge fund managers’ ‘secret sauce’

Threats to hedge fund managers’ ‘secret sauce’

Hedge fund managers are arguably the celebrity chefs of the money management industry. They are best able to whip up returns that make investors drool. But financial engineers are unpicking their secret sauce and finding new ways to sell it by the bottle.
The biggest trend in the money management industry is the shift towards passive investment.
About $3tn is now in index-tracking and exchange traded funds that only seek to replicate the returns of a broad market, such as the S&P 500, the Barclays Aggregate bond index or the FTSE 100. The basic return of a market is known as “beta” in financial jargon.
In contrast, hedge fund managers attempt to deliver “alpha”, the returns over and above the market itself, through a staggering array and diversity of strategies, ranging from betting on global currency movements to surfing on the corporate acquisitions boom.
The promise of this alpha is what induces investors to pay extra for the services of the alternative asset management industry.

But analysts at banks and investment houses have over the years examined the returns of money managers, crunching them with computers and unpicking various “factors” that drive returns. Now some say they have reverse engineered many popular high-octane hedge fund strategies, and can replicate them more cheaply.
“We are now realising that a lot of what we thought was alpha is actually an alternative form of beta,” says Yazann Romahi, the head of JPMorgan Asset Management’s quantitative investment arm. “This will transform the hedge fund industry.”
JPMorgan Asset Management estimates that the “alternative beta” industry’s assets have grown from about $2bn in 2010 to roughly $50bn today.
M&A arbitrage is a good example of a highly specialised hedge fund strategy that the “quants” now say they can mimic. “Arbs” place bets on whether corporate acquisitions will fail or succeed. When a company makes an offer for a rival, it will typically offer a premium price — but there is always a danger that the deal collapses, so the shares typically trade slightly below the offer price.
Skilled arb funds — typically stuffed with corporate lawyers, antitrust experts and former investment bankers — buy the shares of targets when they think the deal will go through, and short the ones where they think the deal will fizzle. The risk is in practice binary, and the better the fund, the more accurate its predictions.
Enough deals go through that even average M&A arbitrageurs should make money over time, as they capture what Mr Romahi calls the “deal failure risk premium”.
But quants now think they can do even better than simply systematically buying acquisition targets, by studying history for what deals go through and which fail, and automatically weighing their bets accordingly.
For instance, Yin Luo, the chief quant at Deutsche Bank, says the single biggest determinant of whether a deal completed is its age. In other words, the longer it drags on the less likely it is to go through.
But he has identified a multitude of factors that affect the M&A strategy’s success rate, using the same statistical techniques that doctors use to determine how long a cancer patient has to live.

As is often the case with quants, they are confident that their mathematical approach produces better results than human intuition. The traditional M&A arbitrageurs are “good but often not very accurate. Our model has actually proven more accurate than the arbitrage funds”, Mr Luo says.
M&A arbitrage is just one of many popular hedge fund strategies whose secrets quants say they are now deciphering. Others include global macro — betting on the ebb and flow of international interest rates and currencies — and even activist strategies pursued by the likes of Dan Loeb’s Third Point, Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square and Carl Icahn.
The implication for the industry could be significant. Mr Romahi says the data show that some hedge fund managers only generate “enough alpha to pay themselves”, and expects the growth of cheaper to run exchange traded funds to beat down fees in the hedge fund industry over the coming years. “The hedge fund industry is bifurcating, between the ones that are truly active and those that merely generate alternative beta,” he says.
Of course, there is always a danger that even with the right recipe, an inferior chef will struggle to replicate the dish of a master.
While the quants have crunched their numbers through supercomputers their models for what works are based virtually entirely on “backtesting” against historical data. The financial crisis showed how a slavish adherence to modelling can spectacularly blow up in real-life markets, either immediately or eventually.
“I have very little regard for these hedge fund replicators,” says Robert Frey, chief investment officer at FQS, a fund-of-hedge funds and a quantitative finance professor at Stony Brook University. “They all fail miserably when the market regime shifts.”
Nonetheless, the view that the epochal shift from active to passive investment will also shake up the hedge fund industry is gaining adherents.
“We’re at the very early stages, but you can see how the active versus passive story will have a separate arc into alternatives,” says Jeffrey Knight, head of asset allocation at Columbia Threadneedle.