The Petrus Indicator (and Others)

1 min
read
November 18, 2019
Print Friendly and PDF
Print Friendly and PDF
Back

After the GFC I was on an investment panel and we were asked what Central Banks should look out for as an early warning of another bubble before it bursts. I suggested slightly tongue in cheek that they employ the services of a financial headhunter and monitor where the ‘economic rents’ were rising sharpest, ie where the salaries and bonuses demanded were rising fastest, since this would indicate where supply and demand were most out of balance and thus, most likely where balance sheets were being geared up to inflate a bubble. Japanese Warrant salesman in the early 1990s, followed by junk bond traders, then tech analysts and Bankers in the late 1990s and Mortgage Backed Securities and credit derivative traders and salesman in the mid noughties.

Of course there are always the hedge funds and the traders who sit in front of a lot of leverage in the fixed income markets, but these represent an attractive (for them) compensation strategy rather than any potential systemic risk. The latter of course often contribute heavily to another of my tongue in cheek indicators, the Petrus Monitor. A clear indicator of where the compensation to input ratio is most out of line tends to be the parties that pay tens of thousands of pounds for a single bottle of wine, usually a Grand Cru Bordeux in a high end restaurant. I called it the Petrus Indicator after the original (for me) incident back in 2002 when a group from Barclays Capital (bond traders) splashed out over $60,000 on fine wines, including a 1945 and a 1947 Petrus at a London Restaurant of the same name. The fact that they tried to pass it on as expenses meant that most of them were subsequently fired, including one Dayanandra Kumar, who was in fact teetotal, further highlighting to me the symbolism of the extravagance.

Today of course, some of the biggest buyers of high end wines in high end restaurants are coming from the Private Equity industry, including a recent tale of some Australian PE managers spending several hundred thousand dollars on a wine fuelled ‘celebration’ dinner.

Another indicator would be the use of the terminology ‘rock star’, as in Rock Star investor, and as such we should be nervous of scenes like those at the recent WebSummit in Lisbon, where over 70,000 tech start up types mingle with the VC and the PE industry in a world where companies are now expecting to remain private in perpetuity. As Felix Salmon points out the rockstar allure of private money is such that VCs report 75% of their liquidity this year has come from selling to PE investors, who in turn sell on to other PE investors. The WeWork debacle may have announced that In Real Life, the extravagant valuations dreamt up by the Investment Bankers count for little, but in the closed bubble of Private Finance, no one seems to care. There is simply too much money swilling around, driven by the Alice in Wonderland regulatory logic that says because Private Equity, Private Credit and Leveraged Loans are less volatile than quoted Equity that they are therefore less risky and thus by implication prudent long term asset liability managers like Pension Funds and Insurance companies should allocate more capital to them.

At the top of the chain, the Venture capital industry has around $120bn in cash at hand according to PitchBook, which is up around 20% from last year, while downstream the fact that the amount of dry powder in PE funds is estimated by Preqin to be around $2.44tn should of course be the biggest warning indicator of all.

Continue Reading

Market Thinking April 2024

The rally in asset markets in Q4 has evolved into a new bull market for equities, but not for bonds, which remain in a bear phase, facing problems with both demand and supply. As such the greatest short term uncertainty and medium term risk for asset prices remains another mishap in the fixed income markets, similar to the funding crisis of last September or the distressed selling feedback loop of SVB last March. US monetary authorities are monitoring this closely. Meanwhile, politics is likely to cloud the narrative over the next few quarters with the prospect of some changes to both energy policy and foreign policy having knock on implications for markets/

Gold and Goldilocks

Bond markets are changing their views on Fed policy based on the high frequency data, seemingly unaware that the major variable the Fed is watching is the bond markets themselves. After the funding panic of last September and the regional bank wobble last March, the twin architects of US monetary policy (the Fed is now joined by the Treasury) are focussing on Bond Market stability as their primary aim. Politicians meanwhile, having seen how the bond markets ended the administration of UK Premier Liz Truss in September 2022 are keenly aware that it is not just "the Economy stupid", but the Economy and the markets that they need to manage the narrative for both voters and markets. They all need a form of Goldilocks - either good or bad, but not so good or so bad as to trigger either the markets to sell off or the authorities to react. Investors, meanwhile, conscious of the precarious balancing act Goldilocks requires, are increasingly looking at Gold.

You're now leaving the Market Thinking website

Please note that you are about to leave the website of Market Thinking and be redirected to Toscafund Hong Kong. For further information, please contact Toscafund Hong Kong.

ACCEPT