Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dereg 1361 days ago
This is demonstrably untrue and yet you proffer it as fact. The pensions benefit from rates rising, because higher rates decrease their liabilities more than it decrements the value of their bonds. The pensions have, as a result, entered swap positions go hedge themselves against rates falling. The only issue is that the sudden drop in the gilt has created a feedback loop in the gilt sell off.

There is a reason why explanations of what went on are so complicated… It’s because pension math is extremely boring. However, you cannot understand the situation, even intuitively, without going into the nitty-gritty to try to learn the plumbing.

Your mistruth is incredibly corrosive to discussion on this site. @dang please keep an eye out.

Edit: I’m reading through the comments here and virtually everyone has it wrong. The pensions made what should have been a good decision to hedge their liabilities. They made a bad decision in terms of forecasting their liquidity needs in a high-stress rate scenario.

Don't look at the word "margin call" and assume they did something wrong. Simplistically, if you're getting called on a hedge, you're probably making money, just less of it. On a position like this, the fund faces a "margin call" every day. It's called variation margin, and all that means is the position's PNL is settled on a cash basis, daily. You may be thinking of a margin call in terms of a retail investor naked shorting a stock that has subsequently tripled in value. It's nothing like that. Variation margin "calls" are part of the structure of the instrument.

I've consulted pensions. Saying that pension fund managers did this to "pay themself large bonuses" is laughable – pension fund managers aren't compensated like other areas of finance so the incentive is always to be more risk averse because they want to keep their jobs.

Edit edit: I don’t mean to say these pension mgrs don’t deserve criticism. It’s just that what I see is so off mark.

4 comments

I agree with the spirit of this post, but I think you are going a bit too far in the other direction by stating that "the pensions would have been fine without the policy". From Matt Levine's article today, it was a more dangerous situation than you are making it out to be:

> "At some point this morning I was worried this was the beginning of the end," said a senior London-based banker, adding that at one point on Wednesday morning there were no buyers of long-dated UK gilts. "It was not quite a Lehman moment. But it got close." ...

> "If there was no intervention today, gilt yields could have gone up to 7-8 per cent from 4.5 per cent this morning and in that situation around 90 per cent of UK pension funds would have run out of collateral," said Kerrin Rosenberg, Cardano Investment chief executive. "They would have been wiped out."

Agree, I edited it out. I was so annoyed that I went too far with that statement. While they wouldn’t necessarily have been wiped out, they would have needed to make a LOT of calls.
On financial topics there are many emotions thrown around based on very little understanding. Unfortunately my upvotes to comments like this can only affect so little.
Why do they need to hedge against rates falling? The value of a mixed portfolio of stocks and bonds will also move with changes in rates.
> Why do they need to hedge against rates falling? The value of a mixed portfolio of stocks and bonds will also move with changes in rates.

Because the value of their present liability goes up more than the value of their bond assets, meaning they become more underfunded.

Why should you trust me on this? I've consulted pensions in the past.

To be fair, that may give you insight into the technicalities of the machinations, but with you having profited from and contributed to the financial system -that ordinary people have spent the past decade paying for the venality, stupidity and corruption of - that when you dismiss as corrosive with calls to mods to suppress counter-narratives, your investment doesn't necessarily mean we should trust you.

this isn't a "counter narrative" any more than "bill gates put microchips in my vaccine" is a "counter narrative". and i'm not being an asshole here, this is just a factual misstatement of LDI and what transactions are taking place. maybe the peak of the dunning-kruger curve shouldn't be sitting at the top of the thread for the first thing people read? i think asking @dang to at least pin a better explanation is fair.
I mostly agree with your take on the facts. But I don't think you need to call for moderation quite so much. People are wrong on the internet all the time.
yeah true and i'm not asking for anyone to remove stuff, nothing wrong with being wrong (though i wish this person did it less confidently). when i commented though this was the top comment on the thread (still #2) and i was more hoping dang could pin a better explanation to the top. reading something egregiously wrong that's written very confidently first thing can screw up a thread imo.
I've upvoted you for wit and self-belief anyway.