Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

An ode to Canada's banks: Ahead in the Finance Olympics

Canadian banks have been getting some unaccustomed accolades around the globe this year. In fact, some of the last remaining AAA-rated banks in the world (as judged by credit rating agency Moody’s) are Canadian, surpassing many Swiss banks. Through their conservatism, and other banks falling away like flies, Canada’s Big Five have also quickly moved up the rankings of the world’s largest. This collective success is certainly a positive development for Canada’s role in the business world, even if only in terms of prestige, but my true affection for our Houses of Loonies has grown from a particular personal experience. Perhaps it's fitting that my warm feelings originated in the romantic City of Lights...

The story started well enough: friendly chit-chat with a gregarious banker curious to hear all about Canada, my reasons for moving to Paris last year and intrigued by my good, yet non-Québecois, french pronunciation. Though, that’s after I finally got to see someone. You see, in France, one can’t just walk into any bank branch to open an account; one needs a prior appointment, generally made a few days in advance for good measure. In fact, one can literally never just walk into a branch, one must press a doorbell and wait to be allowed in after being scrutinised via security camera.

The problems started almost 2 weeks later. My patience, allowing for a few intervening statutory holidays, had turned into concern. I had still not received my bank card and PIN. To my surprise, I received a call from my banker friend himself. No pleasantries this time, however. His stern voice was warning me that I should wire funds or make a deposit to pay for my overdraft. My overdraft?!?

You can see where this story is going. But first, some background: Unlike in Canada, when one is mailed a bank card in France, the PIN -- mailed separately, but with a nice bank logo on the envelope (no doubt to advertise the sensitive nature of its contents) -- is all one needs to start making purchases or bank withdrawals. There is also no such concept as “calling to activate” a debit or credit card.

Here’s another fun tidbit: I had explicitly refused all overdraft protection when opening my account. So, I asked Monsieur Banker, "how is it possible that my balance is currently negative nearly 4000 Euros?" The explanation is quite simple. In France, unlike here, transactions are generally not verified centrally at the point of sale, nor even at an ABM! This is a golden secret to all you potential fraudsters out there: if you manage to get a hold of a bank card and PIN in France, you have until midnight, Cinderella-style, to have as much fun as you want. And fun, my impostor did have: a fancy restaurant meal, a 3500 Euro impulse purchase at Gucci, a nightclub tab and a night at a hotel.

Up to then, I did not fault the bank. It was just an education in the defects of France’s outdated financial system (and perhaps the postal system). But that changed soon after I rushed to the bank that morning. No appointment necessary this time; I was expected. To my astonishment, Monsieur Banker and his supervisor from "upstairs" acted incredulous. “But this has never happened before!” Give me a break, with this start of the art, lack-of-security system, I was the first? I was made to write a hand-written letter on the spot outlining my objection, en français, to the aforementioned charges to my account. Then, informed that to initiate any internal bank investigation process I’d need to return with an official record of a complaint submission, I headed out to hunt for my local "antenna" of police.

It was somewhat surreal waiting in line at the police station, in a foreign country, having never needed to deal with the police ever in my life before, for an issue in which, really, it was the bank that was stolen from, not me; I had never even touched this ill-fated card.

Fast forward 1 week: another phone call from the bank. My request to increase my ABM withdrawal limit was declined pending a deposit to settle my current negative balance. Of course, I never made any such request! This will be our next lesson in French banking: when calling a bank, the only security questions one is asked are one’s name, birth date, and city of birth. You know, the sort of thing most people (not me) post on Facebook. And that’s assuming one is calling the central bank customer service line. If one is direct-dialling one’s local branch and happens to fall upon the banker one usually deals with, then it could only be name and bank account number for basic inquiries. In my case, apparently the fraudster had a non-Parisian accent as well, enough to fool Monsieur Banker to think he was really talking to me. Scary. This is not just an old-fashioned system, this is a comedy of errors!

A slow moving comedy.

The following 5 weeks were quiet except for my weekly inquiries or their odd request for a copy of my recent Canadian bank statements. The branch manager at my Canadian bank volunteered to append a glowing reference letter stating how I had been a valued client for almost two decades, the whole package faxed overseas in under an hour.

The fraudulent charges were finally reversed, minus a few unexplained 10 Euro service charges. Oh, and did I mention that I had, by then, been paying regular service fees for two months (7.75 Euros per month for the most basic of chequing accounts), for an account that I had not been able to use yet -- no replacement card was allowed until the bank made a final decision on my account. If this sounds like the bank was treating me like a suspect in this whole affair, it’s because that is indeed the case. I don’t know what happened internally, but I know that the police never investigated the matter. All I do know is that one week after my account was refunded I received a very formal letter, sent by registered express mail, from my bank branch. No expense was spared to make sure I received this piece of paper (unlike my bank card or PIN) which informed me that they did not find it “suitable” to keep my account and that I should close it by the end of the month.

One has to laugh at the absurdity of it all.

The next time you walk into your local bank branch, even if greeted by a small queue, I hope you’ll pause to reflect on how civilized our banking system is. Perhaps even, like me, you’ll get the uncontrollable urge to smile. They are corporations and we may not have a direct vote in how they are run, but we are virtually all their clients. That’s more than we can say for successful Olympic athletes, which seem to instil odd feelings of pride in many of us, especially when they perform better their foreign counterparts. Perhaps our banks are just another reason why our country is great, at least compared to France and Switzerland.


Link: Banking in Canada (Wikipedia)

Thursday, March 12, 2009

An update on OptionMonster.com and NYSE: DUK

Shortly after my last post, I was contacted by Mike Yamamoto, the managing editor of OptionMonster.com. He promised to personally look into the discrepancies that I had pointed out. Within a few hours, the headline on the CNBC web site blog post was corrected, and today the incorrect stock chart for Duke Energy in the OptionMonster.com article was pulled down. Apparently, both were uncorrelated, completely separate errors. The CNBC post headline error (stating “bearish” instead of “bullish”, though the final corrected headline described the option activity as “extremely unusual”) was a simple human error by a staffer at CNBC. As for the erroneous DUK chart (which hid the fact of how historically cheap the DUK stock price had reached), I heard today from Mike that the source data, coming from TradeMonster.com, had an "errant data point" that probably "threw things off". In all, I was impressed with the speed and conscientious nature of the response provided by Mike who kept me informed as he looked into things.

On a related note, since my last post I decided to make my own speculative play on NYSE: DUK. Earlier this week, I opened a position using a bullish options strategy.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Is OptionMonster.com trying to manipulate Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK)?

OK, it’s time to let the cat out of the bag; I’m a part-time, highly speculative investor. It’s more of a hobby really, as I don’t allocate much capital to these investments. I read constantly, but do research only when my interest is piqued -- and trade even more sparingly.

One company that caught my attention this past week was Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK). This energy company (primarily in the business of delivering electricity) has seen it’s stock battered lately. In this all-around pessimistic economic climate, that’s no surprise. However, lately, in the last month, the slide has been even more dramatic, for no apparent reason. This is no AIG or GM, and there’s no high-risk leveraging in sight; this is an actual profitable company, with a dividend to boot.

I have no position in this company, and I wouldn’t have noticed it if it were not for a huge amount of April 12.50 call option buying this past Thursday (unhedged bets that the stock price, now around $12, will be higher than $12.50 by April 17th). Perhaps it’s that someone knows something (good news coming perhaps, as energy and electricity grid upgrades were on the list of Obama stimulus plan priorities), or perhaps it’s just an optimistic bunch of speculators who think this stock is oversold and is due for a quick rebound.

Regardless, that’s not so much the point. I’m taking the time to write this not because I’m trying to spread investment advice, rather to raise some curious observations on the reporting of DUK. OptionMonster.com (a company and web site run by the, now quasi-famous, two Najarian brothers who make frequent appearances on CNBC, in particular the TV channel’s “Fast Money” show) highlighted the anomaly in trading in DUK options early on Friday, however the chart Jon Najarian posted in the article was clearly not correct; it shows DUK stock hitting a multi-year bottom below $8 in early 2003. The last time DUK stock was below $8 was in the mid-1980’s. The stock did indeed hit a multi-year trough in 2003, on March 10, but it was at $12.32 – a price higher than the current stock price. (In case you’re interested, the last time the stock was at levels seen this week, you’d have to go back to 1989.) If you don’t believe me, just go chart it yourself.

Initially, I naturally thought that this was just a simple error on the part of OptionMonster.com. Now, I’m not so sure. Especially after seeing this blog post by Jon Najarian on the CNBC web site with the headline: “Options Traders 'Extremely' Bearish on Duke Energy”. Obviously this much call option buying (when not counter-balanced by put option volume) is bullish, not bearish. Another error? A simple typo, a coincidence, or is something else going on? To his credit, Najarian did describe the situation correctly in the blog post, speculating that it’s possible that some traders might think that this stock has hit bottom (thus, implying a bullish bet has been made). But, it’s the blog post title that gets indexed, it’s also what people scan when reading through headlines. Is it possible that the OptionMonster.com boys are trying to hold back investors from pilling into DUK so that they can have the time to lock in their own upside bets?

But, like I said, it could just be a coincidence: two erroneous slips on the same stock by a man who's reporting is usually spot on…