Archive for June, 2007

‘PFIC’ means potential taxes on foreign investments

Saturday, June 30th, 2007

‘PFIC’ means potential taxes on foreign investments
18/06/2002Source: Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault. William J Corcoran, Michael J Sutton

US private equity funds and foreign private equity funds with US investors frequently invest in portfolio companies organised outside the United States. Among the many challenges faced by funds investing in foreign corporations, the US passive foreign investment company (PFIC) tax rules can have a significant impact on investment returns. William J Corcoran, Michael J Sutton of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault offer some guidance.

Overview of the PFIC rules

The PFIC rules are designed to discourage US investors from deferring tax on investment income by holding passive investments through non-US companies that do not distribute their earnings currently. In order to accomplish this objective, the rules impose a significant additional tax burden on gains and certain dividends derived from investments in a PFIC. The PFIC rules were drafted very broadly; as interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service, they can apply not only to passive investment entities but also to substantial operating companies and high growth technology companies.

A foreign corporation will be classified as a PFIC if, during any taxable year, 75 per cent or more of its gross income is passive income, or 50 per cent or more of its assets are held for the production of passive income. Passive income generally includes interest, dividends, certain rents and royalties, and gains from the sale of investment property. For purposes of this test, a corporation must include its share of the income and assets of any corporate subsidiary of which it owns at least 25 per cent (by value) of the outstanding stock.

Warning signs of PFIC Status

Companies with the characteristics described below raise special issues under the PFIC rules. Sometimes these companies will not be PFICs, but the characteristics are signposts of the need for special attention to PFIC risks.

Start-up companies: A company without significant operating income may be a PFIC (even though it was organized to conduct a substantial business) because its only gross income during the start-up phase is interest from the temporary investment of surplus cash. Although the Internal Revenue Code provides a limited exception from PFIC treatment for start-up companies, this exception generally is only available if a company is a PFIC in a single year and other conditions are satisfied.

Companies with a substantial temporary increase in liquidity: A temporary change in a company’s mix of assets can cause it to become a PFIC even though it is predominantly an operating company. For example, a company may become a PFIC if a securities offering generates substantial proceeds (in proportion to the company’s existing assets) that are not applied immediately to acquire operating assets.

Holding companies with substantial minority investments: In general, if a corporation owns shares representing less than 25 per cent of the value of another corporation, the first corporation will not be entitled to look through to the assets and income of the other corporation for purposes of applying the PFIC tests. Instead, dividends received from the less than 25 per cent-owned corporation generally will constitute passive income, and its shares will represent passive assets.

Consequences of PFIC Status

Tax and interest charge: A US investor in a PFIC (including a US partner in a partnership that owns shares in a PFIC) is required to pay a special additional tax on gains realised from the sale of shares of the PFIC and on dividends from the PFIC that constitute ‘excess distributions.’ An excess distribution includes a distribution received in any year that exceeds 125 per cent of the average distributions for the three preceding years (or, if shorter, the US investor’s holding period). Unless certain exceptions apply, a US investor in a PFIC also may be subject to tax on an otherwise tax-free transfer of the PFIC’s stock.

The special additional tax on the PFIC is computed as follows: The gain from the sale of the PFIC shares (or other excess distributions from the PFIC) must be allocated over a US investor’s holding period as if the US investor had actually received the gain or distribution ratably over that time. The US investor then is required to compute its tax liability (using the maximum ordinary income tax rates) as if it had underpaid its taxes in the relevant years, and is required to pay interest on the deemed underpayment at the rate applicable to such underpayments. In addition, if a foreign corporation satisfies a PFIC test in one year of a US investor’s holding period, the US investor will be subject to the special PFIC tax for each subsequent year regardless of whether the foreign corporation is still a PFIC.

Measures to avoid tax and interest charge

Qualified electing fund: A US investor will not be subject to the tax and interest charge rules described above if it makes a timely election to treat the PFIC as a qualified electing fund (QEF). If this election is made, the US investor must report, and pay tax on, its pro rata share of the PFIC’s ordinary earnings and net capital gains annually, without regard to whether those earnings have been distributed as dividends. The QEF rules require that the US investor therefore must be able to calculate, in accordance with US tax principles, its share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of the PFIC. Such principles differ in certain respects from US generally accepted accounting principles, and in the case of a substantial operating company it may be impractical to prepare the required computations, or it may be possible only at a significant accounting cost.

A QEF election, when available, will be most effective if it is made by a US investor for the first taxable year in which it held shares in the PFIC. Otherwise, the PFIC will be treated as an ‘unpedigreed’ QEF, and the tax and interest charge rules described above will continue to apply to a portion of the gain from the sale of shares (or other excess distribution) of the PFIC. Moreover, because a QEF election cannot be made with respect to options, warrants or other rights to purchase shares in a PFIC, shares acquired pursuant to the exercise of such rights may also be treated as ‘unpedigreed’ shares in a QEF. Where the shares in the PFIC are owned by a US private equity fund or other US partnership, the QEF election is made by the partnership, and not by its partners (who would be subject to the PFIC taxes).

Mark-to-market election: A US investor may also avoid the PFIC tax and interest charge by making a mark-to-market election with respect to its PFIC shares. If this election is made, the investor is taxed annually on the increase in value of the PFIC shares. This election generally is available only to US investors in foreign companies that are regularly traded on a US stock exchange (or on certain approved non-US stock exchanges), and thus is of limited use to private equity funds that principally hold shares in privately-held companies.

Conclusion

As the above discussion indicates, a fund manager’s discovery after the fact that a portfolio company is a PFIC can be an unpleasant and costly surprise. If a company’s PFIC status can be identified at the outset, however, a fund manager can usually take steps (such as a QEF election) to manage the resulting tax liability.

http://www.altassets.com/casefor/countries/2002/nz3254.php

Derivatives: Financial Products Report

Saturday, June 30th, 2007

Derivatives: Financial Products Report

Derivatives: Financial Products Report analyzes the tax, accounting and regulatory issues in the rapidly changing world of financial instruments, strategies and structured products. With coverage of rules and announcements from the IRS, the SEC, FASB, as well as from key court decisions, the Report gives investors and their advisors the tools needed to plan the most profitable investment strategies.


Details
Financial products and corporate tax shelters are the latest to fall under intense IRS scrutiny, and financial derivatives are often a key component of both. Given the complexity and financial risks involved in these transactions, coupled with uncertain tax consequences, Derivatives gives you all the information you need to ensure that your transactions can withstand the scrutiny. Information gleaned from Derivatives is also of critical importance to financial engineers charged with designing instruments.

Advertise in this Journal


Saturday, June 30th, 2007

How to Set Up Your Own Hedge Fund by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Como Crear su Propio Hedge Fund by Hannah M. Terhune, Eva Porras, Argilio Rodriguez and Garrett Fisher (2006)

Due Diligence, Disclosure, and Fund Managers by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Offshore Hedge Funds: Focus on Master/Feeders by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Temas Sobre Impuestos de Sociedades Colectivas para Hedge Funds en Paraiso Fiscal by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Gestion de los Hedge Funds de Forex by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Forex-Trader to Forex-Fund Manager: The Path to Success by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Do’s and Don’ts for Crafting Hedge Fund Peformance Allocations by Roger D. Lorence and Hannah M. Terhune. Derivatives: Financial Products Report (an RIA publication) (September 2005)

Introducing Brokers and Hedge Funds by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Establish a Marketable Track Record with an Incubator Fund by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Must I Register as a Commodity Pool Operator? by Hannah M. Terhune (2006)

Practical Strategies For Section 475(f) Elections by Roger D. Lorence and Hannah M. Terhune. Derivatives Financial Products Report (WG&L/RIA,a Thompson Company) (March 2005)

Trading Foreign Index Contracts? Know the Tax Rules Before You Trade by Hannah M. Terhune and Roger D. Lorence. Stocks, Futures and Options (June 2005)

Advising Clients on Internet Server Co-Location Agreements, Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 15, 2004)

Structuring and Financing International Operations Using Hybrid Entities and Tax-Efficient Financing. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Jan. 15, 2004)

Hedge Fund Compensation Arrangements. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (Dec. 2003)

U.S. Inbound Investment – The Portfolio Interest Exemption. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Dec. 15, 2003)

Business Acquisitions: Key Tax Planning Issues. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (Sept. 2003)

Foreign Futures Planning: The 60/40 Question. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 30, 2003)

Key Tax Aspects of International M&A – Planning Scenarios Involving Tax Acquisitions. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 15, 2003)

Update on Spanish Holding Companies. Practical European Tax Strategies (Aug. 2003)

Reducing Operational and Exit Taxes On Closely-Held Businesses. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (August 2003)

Coming Ashore – Establishing U.S. Operations: Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (July 31, 2003)

Financing U.S. Business Operations Using Cross-Border Income Trust: Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (July 15, 2003)

Methods of Compensating the Executive – An Overview of Various Tax Features: Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (May 2003)

Managing Offshore Hedge Funds – A View from the Beach: Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (June 15, 2003)

A Practical Defense of the Family Limited Partnership: Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (May 2003)

Offshore Hedge Funds – Master/Feeder Compliance Issues: Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (May 15, 2003)

Tax-Free Asset Acquisitions – More Strategies for S-Corporations: Sourcing Income to Preserve the Use of Credits and Carryovers: Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (April 15, 2003)

Self-Employment Tax Planning – LLC to S-Corporation Conversions: Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (March 2003)

Outbounding Income from Intellectual Property, Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 15, 2003)

Taxable Stock Purchases: More Planning Strategies for S-Corporations, Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (Feb. 2003)

Business Globalization: Selecting the Proper Offshore Entity, Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Feb. 15, 2003)

Taxable Acquisitions: Financing Asset Acquisitions When an S-Corporation is Involved. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (January 2003)

International Joint Venture Partnerships: Foreign or Domestic, Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (January 15, 2003)

Corporate-Level Penalty Taxes on S-Corporations – Transaction Costs in Mergers, Acquisitions and Buy-Outs. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (December 2002)

Taxation of Foreign Partnership Income: Issues to Consider in Reviewing Foreign Operating Structures. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Dec. 31, 2002)

The Future of European-Based Business Operations: A Look at the Tax Aspects of the Societas Europaea. Practical European Tax Strategies (November 2002)

Tax Planning for Multiple Corporations: Domestication of Foreign Corporations. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2002)

Acquisition Techniques Using Partnerships or LLCs – Planning Strategies to Defer Taxable Gain. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2002)

Tax Planning for Multiple Corporations: Canadian and Mexican Contiguous Country Companies. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2002)

Acquisition Techniques Using Partnerships or LLCs – Planning Strategies to Defer Taxable Gain. Practical U.S./Domestic Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2002)

Tax Planning for Multiple Corporations: Canadian and Mexican Contiguous Country Companies. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2002)

Domestic and International Tax Planning for Multiple Corporations. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 15, 2002)

Tax Benefits of Spanish Holding Companies: A Planning Opportunity for U.S. Companies. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Aug. 31, 2002)

Shifting Intangible Income to an Offshore Company Part II: Sale or License? Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 15, 2001)

Shifting Intangible Income to an Offshore Company “Round Tripping” and the Risk of Bringing §956 into Play. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Aug. 15, 2001)

Update on Filing Requirements for Transfers of Property Offshore. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (July 15, 2001)

Want a Multinational Corporation In Your Backyard? Strategic Tax Planning for Countries Without a Clue. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (June 15, 2001)

Planning Notes for U.S. Businesses Operating Overseas: U.S. Outbound Tax Issues. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (May 31, 2001)

U.S. Strategic Tax Planning and Other Modern Day X Files An FSA to Remember. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (May 15, 2001)

More on International Tax Planning for Highly Compensated Individuals Combining Individual Leasing Programs, Deferred Compensation and Rabbi Trusts. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (April 30, 2001)

International Tax Planning for Highly Compensated Individuals Taking Advantage of Special Treatment for “Rabbi Trusts.” Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (April 15, 2001)

More on Dealing with Passive Foreign Investment Companies Using Inter-Company Loans, Handling Start-Up Costs and Other Matters. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 31, 2001)

Dealing with Passive Foreign Investment Companies How the System Works and Strategies to Avoid PFIC Status. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 15, 2001)

Swiss Corporate Ventures, Inc. – Advantages of Establishing a Holding Company in Switzerland. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Feb. 28, 2001)

Cost-Sharing Rules under IRS Attack, Part IV. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Feb. 15, 2001)

International Tax 101. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Jan. 31, 2001)

International Tax 101: More Cliff Notes to Cross-Border Business. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Jan. 15, 2001)

Cost-Sharing Strategies Under Attack, Part III IRS Challenges to Cost-Sharing Arrangements. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Dec. 15, 2000)

Cost-Sharing Strategies Under Attack, Part II, Transfer Pricing Rules and Cost-Sharing Arrangements. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Nov. 30, 2000)

Cost-Sharing Strategies Under Attack How Transfer Pricing Rules Affect Cost-Sharing Arrangements. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Nov. 15, 2000)

Dutch Tax Treats Use Them or Lose Them. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Oct. 15, 2000)

Going Global? Go Home – Unless You’re Prepared for the U.S. Tax Consequences. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 30, 2000)

Commissionaire Use in Austria: Focus on a Commissionaire-Friendly Jurisdiction. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Sept. 15, 2000)

Commissionaire Operations in Switzerland. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Aug. 15, 2000)

Using Stripped Subsidiaries for Foreign Country Sales Another Alternative to the Traditional Buy-Sell Model. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (July 31, 2000)

Understanding the IRS Multinational Tax Audit. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (July 15, 2000)

Handling the IRS Corporate Tax Audit: In Defense of the U.S. Tax Director. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (June 30, 2000)

Avoiding Taxable Income by Managing CFC Guarantees of U.S. Parent Company Debt. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (June 15, 2000)

Tax Measures to Hedge Against the U.S. Equity Devolution. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (May 31, 2000)

Bringing Home the Bacon: Planning Strategies for Offshore Income, Part III. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (April 30, 2000)

Commissionaire Use in France: Vetting the VAT. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (April 15, 2000)

Bringing Home the Bacon: Planning Strategies for Offshore Income, Part II. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 31, 2000)

Bringing Home the Bacon: Planning Strategies for Offshore Income, Part I. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (March 15, 2000)

Commissionaire Use in Spain. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Feb. 28, 2000)

Commissionaire Use in Belgium. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Feb. 15, 2000)

Crafting the Cross-Border Contract: Foreign Taxes and the U.S. Foreign Tax Credit. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Jan. 31, 2000)

Crafting the Cross-Border Contract: Structuring a Services Agreement. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Jan. 15, 2000)

Crafting the Cross-Border Contract: Drafting to Obtain Sales or Business Profits Treatment. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Dec. 15, 1999)

Crafting the Cross-Border Contract: Unbundling Show-How from Know-How. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Nov. 30, 1999)

Integrating Commissionaire Operations with Just-in-Time Inventory Controls. Practical U.S./International Tax Strategies (Nov. 30, 1999)

http://www.forexwithus.info/articles.html

Saturday, June 30th, 2007

A Hamptons for Hedge Funds

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

 

Article Tools Sponsored By

Published: July 1, 2007

WILLIAM E. GRAYSON, the president of EGM Capital, a hedge fund firm in San Francisco, has never set foot on the Cayman Islands, but he knows that sun-baked Caribbean haven quite well. That’s because he set up one of his funds in the Caymans, where lucrative tax breaks and fabled financial secrecy have made this British territory a magnet for hedge fund managers.

Skip to next paragraph

Podcast

Weekend Business

Weekend Business

This week: The launch of the Apple Iphone, China’s trade problems, Susan Decker taking over Yahoo and riding the bond wave.

    Article Tools Sponsored By

    Published: July 1, 2007

    WILLIAM E. GRAYSON, the president of EGM Capital, a hedge fund firm in San Francisco, has never set foot on the Cayman Islands, but he knows that sun-baked Caribbean haven quite well. That’s because he set up one of his funds in the Caymans, where lucrative tax breaks and fabled financial secrecy have made this British territory a magnet for hedge fund managers.

    Skip to next paragraph

    Podcast

    Weekend Business

    Weekend Business

    This week: The launch of the Apple Iphone, China’s trade problems, Susan Decker taking over Yahoo and riding the bond wave.

      The Merk Hard Currency Fund provides you with exposure to a basket of hard currencies from countries with sound monetary policies. This strategy seeks to take advantage of the dollar’s decline relative to these currencies, may help to diversify your portfolio, and potentially decreases downside risk against a decline in the dollar. The Merk Hard Currency Fund indirectly provides access to these currencies, while seeking to mitigate stock market, credit and interest risks incurred by alternative means of access, such as the typical international equity or bond fund.The performance numbers below are for the period ending June 29, 2007.

      On June 29, 2007, net income of $0.06276 per share was distributed to investors.

        Current   As of 3/31/2007
        Year-To-Date 1 year Since inception
      5/10/2005
      annualized
        1 year Since inception
      5/10/2005
      annualized
      MERKX +5.01% +9.94% +6.52%   +11.45% +5.68%
      inverse of
      USDX
      +2.14% +4.86% +1.41%   +8.25% +0.95%

      Performance data represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than original cost. As stated in the current prospectus, the Fund’s gross operating expense ratio is 1.31%. The Fund’s adviser has agreed contractually to waive a portion of its fee and/or reimburse expenses such that the total operating expense ratio does not exceed 1.30%.

      The U.S. Dollar Index® (USDX) is a trade-weighted geometric average of six currencies; the New York Board of Trade® defines the Dollar Index; for specifications, please click here. The Dollar Index rises when the dollar increases in relation to the currencies the index tracks. The inverse of the Dollar Index will rise as the dollar weakens. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

      About Us

      The Merk Hard Currency Fund is managed by Merk Investments, an investment advisory firm that invests with discipline and long-term focus while adapting to changing environments.Axel Merk, president of Merk Investments, makes all investment decisions for the Merk Hard Currency Fund. Mr. Merk founded Merk Investments AG in Switzerland in 1994; in 2001, he relocated the business to the US where all investment advisory activities are conducted by Merk Investments LLC, a SEC-registered investment adviser.

      Mr. Merk holds a BA in Economics (magna cum laude) and MSc in Computer Science from Brown University, Rhode Island. Mr. Merk has extensive experience and expertise in how the global financial imbalances, as evidenced by an enormous trade deficit, affect the markets. He has published many articles describing complex economic phenomena in understandable terms and he is a sought after expert presenter and moderator at conferences. Mr. Merk is a regular guest on CNBC, and frequently quoted in Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and other financial publications.

      In addition to 20 years of practical investment experience, Mr. Merk has a strong foundation in both economic analysis and computer modeling. His research in the early 1990s focused on the use of computer-aided models in financial decision making; he is a published author in “Adaptive Intelligent Systems” * and has been awarded a prize for excellence in economics. **

      Mr. Merk focused on fundamental analysis of US technology firms in the early to mid 1990s, he diversified to other industries to manage volatility in his investments. In the second half of the 1990s, Mr. Merk received an early warning of the building bubble when he recognized that more and more companies were trading in tandem, causing the diversification offered through investing in other industries to diminish. As a result, he broadened his investments internationally. As the bubble burst and Greenspan and the Administration preserved US consumer spending through record low interest rates and tax cuts, imbalances in the global financial markets reached levels that Mr. Merk deemed unsustainable. Merk Investments has since pursued a macro-economic approach to investing, with substantial gold and hard currency exposure.

      Merk Investments is making the Merk Hard Currency Fund available to retail investors to allow them to diversify their portfolios and, through the fund, invest in a basket of hard currencies.

      > Press Releases
      > In the News
      > Credits and Acknowledgments
      > Speaking & Conference Calendar

       

      * Merk, A., and Antony, R., 1992, DeTerminator: A Decision Support System and Tool-kit Using the ProFuSE Method, in S.W.I.F.T., ed., Adaptive Intelligent Systems, pp. 207-228, Elsevier Science Publishers.
      ** Class of 1873 Prize for Excellence in Economics awarded in 1991 by Brown University.

Foreign Exchange Summit - July 17 - 18, 2007 Chicago, IL

Saturday, June 30th, 2007

Foreign Exchange Summit
Finding Alpha in FX
July 17 - 18, 2007 · Crowne Plaza Chicago Metro, Chicago, IL

Confirmed Speakers Include:

* Russell LaScala, Managing Director, FX Sales, DEUTSCHE BANK
* Jens Nordvig, Senior Global Markets Economist, GOLDMAN SACHS
* Axel Merk, President and Portfolio Manager, MERK HARD CURRENCY FUND
* Michael Rosenberg, Consultant, Bloomberg; Partner, GTS-MRRA
* Greg Anderson, Director of FX Strategy, ABN AMRO
* John Rothfield, Principal, Senior Currency Strategist, BANK OF AMERICA
* Takao Sakoh, President, SAKOH FX ADVISORY INC.
* John Balder, Senior Portfolio Manager, STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS
* H. Courtney McLaughlin, Managing Director, Global Markets Solutions Group, CREDIT SUISSE
* Erik Postnieks, Chief Executive Officer, WOOSTER ASSET MANAGEMENT
* Jonathan Butterfield, Executive Vice President, CLS-BANK
* Peter Marber, Global Head of GEM Fixed Income and Currencies, HSBC HALBIS PARTNERS
* Naomi Fink, Director, Foreign Exchange Strategy, BNP PARIBAS
* Tom Quinn, Chief Operating Officer, GAIN CAPITAL
* Rene Hartner, CEO and General Partner, ARTOS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
* Win Thin, President, MANDALAY ADVISORS
* Paul Aston, Principal, Global Foreign Exchange, BANK OF AMERICA
* Jens Nystedt, Chief Strategist for Emerging Markets, GLG PARTNERS
* Yusuf Iqbal, Associate, Global Markets Solutions Group, CREDIT SUISSE
* Ernest Jaffarian, Founder and Managing Director, EFFICIENT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
* James Sanders, Chief Compliance Officer, FOREX CAPITAL MARKETS
* Ruth Mackaman, Vice President Foreign Exchange, e-FX Marketing and Product Development, BROWN BROTHERS AND HARRIMAN
* John FitzGibbon, Investment Analyst, LIGHTHOUSE PARTNERS, LLC
* Phil Weisberg, Chief Executive Officer, FXALL
* Ryan Schiff, Global Head of FX, FIMAT GROUP

Key Topics Include:

* Outlook of Key Drivers in FX Markets
* Market Volatility and Liquidity Fragmentation
* Investment Products and Strategies for Effective Currency Trading
* Algorithmic Trading and Enhanced Technology
* Impact of Hedge Funds on FX Markets

* Debate: Consolidation or Fragmentation of Trading Platforms
* Proliferation of Electronic Platforms
* Emerging Markets and Opportunities in Emerging Currencies
* FX as an Asset Class and Portfolio Diversification
* Regulations and Compliance in the FX Space

Attend this Event and Discover the Following:

* Understand the impact of macroeconomic conditions on global FX markets
* Maximize alpha from currency trading
* Hedge risks in FX markets
* Identify competitive advantage in emerging markets

* Benefit from a comparison of trading platforms
* Evaluate returns from currency overlays
* Network with leading experts in the field of FX and currency trading

http://www.iqpc.com/cgi-bin
templates/genevent.html?topic=230&event=13122&

When hedge funds implode

Saturday, June 30th, 2007

Jun 27, 2007

When hedge funds implode
By Axel Merk

The US trade deficit with the rest of the world leapfrogged in recent days. Aside from goods and services, the United States is now importing “consensus-based crisis management” from Japan.

Out of fear that a cleanup of bad loans would trigger widespread defaults, Japanese banks got themselves deeper and deeper into trouble by hushing up the problems. We are talking about the crisis at Bear Sterns’ subprime hedge fund. The crisis shows that major adjustments on how the market prices risks are overdue;

this may have negative implications for stocks, bonds, and commodities, as well as the US dollar.

Bear Sterns is a leading provider of services to hedge funds; it is also one of the largest originators of subprime-backed collateralized debt obligations. CDOs are what their name implies: a security backed by collateral. CDOs are created when mortgages with various risk profiles are grouped into different tranches or segments. Among others, Bear Sterns would create a CDO in a bundle according to a client’s specifications. Indeed, Bear Sterns would work with a rating agency, such as Moody’s, to obtain the desired rating (a practice likely to face more scrutiny as some allege that Moody’s no longer acts as an independent rating agency, but as a syndicator in the offering).

The explosive demand in this sector has attracted ever more creative structures. Investors should have grown concerned when dealmakers started suggesting that one can create a higher-grade security by grouping together a couple of lower-grade securities; it is rare that 1 + 1 = 3. As these instruments have grown more complex, the clients buying these instruments often do not have a full understanding of what they buy.

How do you make a best-seller better? You introduce leverage. Not only can leverage be introduced in the credit derivatives that define some of these securities, but brokers eager to attract hedge-fund business may also accept CDOs as collateral to lend money. The hedge fund now attracting so much attention is Bear Sterns’ High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund, launched only 10 months ago. It shall be noted that Bear Sterns did not put much of its own money into the fund, but supplied many of the CDOs. A total of US$600 million in invested capital was boosted with borrowings of about $6 billion.

The collateral provided by the fund had the highest ratings by Moody’s. However, a high rating does not ensure that the CDOs are liquid, ie, that they can be sold off on short notice. This became painfully clear as bets of the fund were creating heavy losses and some lenders asked for more collateral for the loans extended. In the industry this is called a margin call. Bear Sterns told other lenders, including Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan and Citigroup, that the fund was unable to provide more collateral. On a side note, it is rather grotesque that Merrill, JPMorgan and Citigroup are among the larger investors in a fund managed by Bear Sterns. The company put little of its own money into the fund.

In the brokerage industry, when a margin call is not met (when the borrower cannot provide sufficient collateral), the broker may seize the collateral and liquidate open positions. While a forced sale of the collateral may be painful for the borrower, it protects the system as a whole. Such forced sales happen all the time in the futures market, where positions are “marked to market” every day to evaluate the profitability and risk of open positions.

But the CDO market is not a regulated futures market; there is no daily market price that would allow one to assess the value of the collateral. The primary methods used to value CDOs are called “mark to market” and “mark to model”. In the more conservative “mark to market” approach, independent parties are asked to value the securities; as the name implies, the “mark to model” approach is more aggressive and uses a computed, theoretical value.

But because these instruments are sold in privately negotiated transactions, rather than a regulated and liquid market, neither valuation method is suitable in case of a forced liquidation. In the case of Bear Sterns’ fund, Merrill Lynch sent bid sheets to numerous parties, soliciting prices for their holdings; as everyone knew that Merrill wanted to get rid of the securities at any price to cut its losses, it is fair to assume that the prices offered were significantly below the value assumed for the collateral.

As Merrill went public with its plan to auction off the collateral, others tried to rescue the fund. There was talk that Citigroup would inject $500 million and Bear Sterns might inject $1 billion. And the Blackstone Group was very interested in supplying much-needed capital. Blackstone’s offer required the brokers to abstain from further margin calls for 12 months. Such restrictions may be common in the private-equity world that Blackstone is active in, but was not acceptable to Merrill.

As the rescue plan fell through, Merrill stated that it would go ahead with its auction yet again. In the meantime, JPMorgan was front-running Merrill by trying to unload collateral it