Goodbye Bond King, we hardly knew ye
Bill Gross, the erstwhile ‘Bond King,’ has announced his retirement. Over the course of four decades, Gross made his name actively trading bonds and started doing that before those bonds were really even considered things that were actively traded. He co-founded Pimco, then moved to Janus in late 2014 in an abrupt and somewhat drama-filled chapter of market history.
While buckets of ink have been spilt on Gross’s career and legacy, I want to point out two things. The first is that, as the title suggests, there’s still a lot we don’t know about the Bond King’s strategy. While investing in bonds might seem like a straightforward activity, it’s no secret that Pimco augmented its performance with a host of derivatives and ‘overlays.’
See for instance, Zoltan Pozsar’s work on the topic in early 2015, which I wrote up in a column for the Financial Times around the same time:
Reach for returns takes funds into the shadows
… The extent to which low interest rates have driven mutual funds and other asset managers to become entwined with shadow banking is laid bare in a new research paper by Zoltan Pozsar, former senior adviser at the US Treasury.
This shadow banking system has long been described as a network of non-bank financial intermediaries, but it is perhaps better characterised as a reference to a particular set of financial activities.
Classic examples of such activities include financial institutions borrowing money by pawning their assets through ‘repo’ agreements or securities lending transactions, as well as using derivatives.
Traditional notions of shadow banking usually centre on the idea of repo being used to fund the balance sheets of broker-dealers and banks. When entities like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns became locked out of the repo market in 2008 they suddenly found themselves starved of financing, triggering an avalanche of stress across the financial system.
Regulators have spent the years since the financial crisis trying to clamp down on shadow banking as they attempt to improve the overall safety of the financial system. Since such activities are rarely associated with traditional mutual funds that invest in bonds and other assets on behalf of large investors such as pension funds and insurers, such funds have rarely been mentioned in conjunction with shadow banking.
Mr Pozsar’s research suggests that is a mistake. For example, a cursory look at the balance sheet of Pimco’s flagship Total Return Fund shows a bevy of derivatives including futures, forwards and swaps. Moreover, its repo borrowings at the end of the first quarter of 2014 stood at $1.12bn. The fund’s subsequent annual report shows repo borrowings for the period averaged $5.73bn — more than five times the amount reported at quarter-end.
Such window dressing is usually associated with big investment banks that cut back on their leverage ahead of quarter ends as they seek to flatter their funding profiles and impress their investors.
Its presence on Pimco’s balance sheet is symptomatic of a long-term trend that has seen mutual funds evolve from staid, largely “long-only” managers into very different beasts. In addition to accumulating billions of dollars’ worth of fixed income securities in recent years, the funds have reached for an alternative financial toolkit of derivatives, securities lending and other forms of leverage, to help boost returns.
Gross was also famously vocal when it came to espousing a short-volatility strategy in mid-2014. Doing so wasn’t necessarily wrong, as Gross noted it was “part and parcel” of an overall investment strategy that rested on sluggish U.S. growth and low interest rates, but it nevertheless raised eyebrows among his peers and competitors who viewed the new crop of buy-side volatility-sellers as tourists in a somewhat dangerous market.
The second point is that the sheer size of Gross’s creation — Pimco — has at times had massive effects on the wider market. “Big West Coast player” means just one thing for many in fixed income, and Pimco was said by plenty of observers to have frequently thrown around its gorilla-esque weight to get favourable pricing and allocation on new bond deals. Conversely, however, the sheer size of the Total Return Fund (which from memory peaked at almost $300 billion), was also said by market participants to pose challenges for its managers, the idea being the fund had grown so large it effectively struggled to beat its benchmarks.
That size could also have more deleterious effects. Few people seem to remember now, for instance, that when Gross left Pimco, it coincided with a noticeable sell-off in inflation-linked bonds and junk-rated paper. Or that the flash crash in U.S. Treasuries in October 2014 was rumoured to have been sparked by a sudden liquidation of interest rate positions favoured by Gross. There are still so many interesting open-ended questions posited by Bill Gross’s adventures in Bond Land, and from that perspective I’m somewhat sorry to see him go.
Anyway, for those interested in mulling these questions more, here’s some previous work — much of it done with the FT’s fantastic Mike Mackenzie:
Gross exit from Pimco tests bond market – September, 2014
Pimco upheaval rattles bond market – September, 2014
Wall St sheds light on Bill Gross reign after Pimco departure – October, 2014
Bonds: Anatomy of a market meltdown – November 2014
Caught on the wrong side of the ‘vol’ trade – December, 2014
Reach for returns takes funds into the shadows – February, 2015
