Goldman’s updated activity indicator sees Chinese growth at roughly 5 per cent, way off the official figure of 6.9 per cent. Awkward.
© The Financial Times Ltd 2016 FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Estimates of how much cash China has flung at its stock market, in the hope that some sticks, vary.
As the FT says, the “government has not disclosed either the amount of rescue funds it has allocated to the coalition of state financial institutions — known as the “national team” — or how much of this total has already been invested.”
But all estimates tend to settle, roughly, on different quantities of “lots”.
First up then, a Goldman note out on Wednesday which estimates that said ‘national team’ “has potentially spent Rmb860-900bn [some $144bn] to support the stock market in June-July 2015… equivalent to 1.6%/2.2% of total market cap/free float market cap”:
$80 oil, $70 oil, $60 oil, $50 oil and counting… If you suspect the structure of the oil market has fundamentally changed, you may be on to something.
There was a time when all you needed to balance oversupply in the oil market was the ability, and the will, to store oil when no-one else wanted to.
That ability, undoubtedly, was linked to capital access. For a bank, it meant being able to pass the cost of storing surplus stock over to commodity-oriented passive investors and institutions happy to fund the exposure. For a trading intermediary, that generally meant having good relations with a bank which could provide the capital and financing to store oil, something the bank would do (for a fee) because of its ability to access institutional capital markets and its reluctance to physically store oil itself. Read more
Q. How do you tell the $65bn sovereign wealth fund of a notoriously erratic government that it might lose all its money on trades you arranged for them?
A. Very carefully.
______________ Read more
Earlier this month Goldman Sachs put out a note arguing that whilst their overall view was still bearish, the oil price sell-off thus far had been too much too soon.
The spot market fundamentals, they noted, were in balance — meaning that if anything was driving a “change” in demand it was curve repositioning, mostly by overly anxious speculators who had decided an exit was warranted despite the balanced fundamentals.
This, however, is no longer Goldman’s view. Read more
The risks here are major embarrassment to the ChX, HMRC, the LBS, you and me, not least if GS withdraw from the Code
‘ChX’ = Read more