“What is to give light must endure burning.” – Viktor Frankl
“The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy.” – Carl von Clausewitz
UPDATE 11/21/2019 (bottom of post)
Why is it coming out now, apparently months after the talks took place, that Blackstone inquired about buying a stake in Citadel?
There are a few reasons we can think of for monetizing coveted equity – or, at least showing enough leg to solicit an updated “mark” on the assets – but, the most likely one has been the same for years: Ken wants to become an investment bank.
Ok, so what does Citadel need to become an investment bank that it doesn’t already have?
Well, given leadership – and, occasional dominance – in listed equity-linked markets by Citadel, the next beachhead for investment banks-in-training is fixed income. And, Citadel-like prowess in fixed income may require lots of technology and smart folk, but the one thing it definitely needs is balance sheet.
The next question, then, is: Do you build a balance sheet or buy a balance sheet?
Now, the charts below – some of which are making their debut here on the Feed – provide solid evidence (even though Citadel does a damn good job of complicating the act of re-assembly) that Citadel has been consistently quite successful in building their own balance sheet. In the first of these charts, below, Alphacution presents the lineage of Citadel Securities’ total assets for the period beginning 2003 and ending 2018, wherein the latest figure clocks in at a respectable ~$75 billion (when including Citadel Clearing). As a comparison, the broker-dealer arms for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan each boasted total assets north of $400 billion for 2018, however with only $32.4 billion and $52.4 billion of those larger figures allocated to equities, respectively, Citadel is much closer to being in the league on the equity-linked side.
We can also see, in the next two charts, the shift in product and asset class segmentation for Citadel Securities, LLC and Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited. In the past few years, starting with an out-of-the-blue spike in interest rate derivatives for the European entity (starting in 2015) and a similarly unique spike in debt securities on the balance sheet for the US entity (starting in 2017), Citadel has been positioning as if they were making a strong move into fixed income.
So, if Citadel is doing such a bang up job growing its own balance sheet – and using that to build out their global franchise in fixed income, why deviate from the strategy by flirting with outside money?
The answer to that question is timing.
Chances are – at the time of these talks just a few months ago – Mr. Powell and the Fed were sharing guidance of additional interest rate increases. And, with rising rates (particularly from such still-depressed post-GFC levels) comes beefier opportunities in fixed income and interest rate derivative trading. With that expectation, Ken needed to build balance sheet faster than he could grow it organically. Hence, a little leg and a little dance with Blackstone.
When Mr. Powell got thumped to head the other direction on rates, Ken put his leg back in the holster and ended the flirtations with Blackstone…
All in, it’s a fascinating dynamic to keep an eye on…
UPDATE (10/18/2019): Alphacution was interviewed for a recent story in Crain’s Chicago related to this topic, “Why Ken Griffin Could Be Shopping Around a Piece of His Business” (October 18, 2019). And, I agree with Citadel COO Gerald Beeson. Citadel is doing a very good job growing its own balance sheet.
There are two amendments and one correction that we need to make here to improve the analysis.
The amendments are related to the comments made above about “out-of-the-blue” spikes in interest rate derivatives, in the case of Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited, and debt securities, in the case of Citadel Securities, LLC. According to Zia Ahmed, Managing Director, Corporate Communications for Citadel Securities, both of these moves into fixed income cash and derivatives were well-telegraphed in the media prior to the expansion into those products, and therefore, should not have been perceived as a surprise when those moves showed up in regulatory disclosures.
I have no problem making these amendments. In fact, I encourage the communication if there is data or other evidence that might give reason for more accurate or even other reasonable perspectives. Alphacution will express strong opinion. However, our goal is for those opinions to be based on the most complete and accurate data and evidence.
And, since we are mainly reading the data we model – and not scouring the media landscape to incorporate those narratives into our interpretations of that data – we can occasionally deviate from a more accurate interpretation, simply out of blindness. Mr. Ahmed pointed this out, and I am happy to add these thoughts.
The correction is related to the balance sheet exhibit we included above. Citadel’s position is that Citadel Clearing, LLC should not have been included to arrive at our total assets figure of ~$75 billion for 2018 (when combining total assets of Citadel Clearing and Citadel Securities).
Now, this new structure where the prior combined entities have been separated (as of 2015) is unique among our modeling to date, but appears to be somewhat like that of Merrill Lynch, wherein there are two entities, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith – MLPF&S (which we wrote about recently here) and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp.
Though these two Merrill entities are not cleaved – like Citadel’s – in the middle of the available dataset, the structure appears to be similar on the surface (see below):
Furthermore, since Alphacution has not modeled the other leading broker-dealers – bulge bracket or otherwise – in such a way as to be able to estimate how much clearing-related assets may be within their balance sheets, we have no way at this time to make “apples-to-apples” comparisons among the various key players in the space – which is our ultimate goal.
So, for now, our readers should appreciate that Citadel Securities’ total assets, as of 2018, are at least $35 billion, but not ~$75 billion, as originally stated above. As for Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited, which we have not fully modeled to this degree, their current assets for 2018 were $2.7 billion.
One more thing:
The initial catalyst for the bank-owned broker dealer modeling was Deutsche Bank, given their announcement to pull back from, if not terminate, their US equities brokerage business. That catalyst resulted in “Remembering Deutsche Bank: A Market Macro-Structure Canary?” – and started us thinking about other sell-side players who might be on this same fence with equities, and therefore, who else might be undergoing similar considerations as DB.
So, we dove deeper into that analysis – all the while wondering, based on our initial ranking of the top 100 players in US listed market structure, when the leaders on the buy-side might grow to the point of having a showdown with some of the players on the sell-side. Here’s an early view of what that showdown looks like, so far:
Until next time…
Support the Feed!
Note: Business credit cards and bank accounts can be used via our PayPal payment portal.
Alphacution is in the intelligence business.
For those of you who are eager to derive greater value from this work and apply that intelligence to your own business interests, Alphacution is offering unaffiliated individual subscription options priced at $275 per year or $25 per month, cancellable at any time. Both of these options include a rebate on purchases of deeper, more substantive reports and case studies.
In other words, the entire value of an individual subscription paid up to the point of purchasing a single report will be deducted from the purchase of that report. (Rebates not to exceed the maximum value of an annual subscription.)
Enterprise subscription packages for individuals affiliated with trading firms and custom content/service engagement options are available upon request at email@example.com.
Now, for those of you who don’t expect to take advantage of the offers outlined above but want to continue to enjoy the insights, intelligence and occassional entertainment that remain openly available on the Feed, I want to make this specific plea:
Free doesn’t mean there are no costs. In fact, in this case, there have been extraordinary costs in the accumulation of experience and sight, meticulous curation and assembly of data, and creative visualization of and storytelling around our findings.
So, if you value quality content – here or anywhere else – then you need to find a way to support that content at some level simply because you want it to continue to exist. Our post, In Support of Digital Content – which was adapted from other notable digital era content developers – makes a more expansive case for this perspective.
Bottom line: Your efforts to support via one-time or recurring contributions will help guard against this content needing to move from the currently preferred audience-driven model (for its level of independence) to a sponsorship-driven model (which can be found on most other industry media outlets).
So, if none of the subscription options suit you, one-time and recurring support contributions can be made at any level here:
Of course, as always: If you value this work, please continue to “like it,” share it, comment on it – or discuss amongst your colleagues – and then send us firstname.lastname@example.org.
As our “feedback loop” becomes more vibrant – given input from clients and other members of our network, especially around new questions to be answered – the value of this work will accelerate.
Don’t be shy…
Unsubscribe from prior subscriptions without further obligation, at any time, here: