2009-05-29

Porsche: the car maker turned to hedge fund now in financial trouble

While 2008 was a great year for Porsche as reported in the following two posts, it looks like the massive leverage and risk that they took on speculative positions (mostly call options on Volkswagen) is now bringing them big trouble. As I previously noted, Porsche is not a car maker in my opinion anymore, since speculation on the stock market seems to generate more profit for the company than the actual sales of cars. And as you will see down the article, they seem to have done quite a bit of risky speculative trades, like writing put options (selling puts) to raise cash to buy call options! And then, they have about 10 billion of "other liabilities" they won't comment about...
May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche SE, struggling to combine with Volkswagen AG, is in danger of losing some of the 17.3 billion euros ($24.3 billion) in profits recorded from holding VW options because it may not have the money to exercise them.

Porsche bought options and Volkswagen stock for more than three years and controls more than 70 percent of Europe’s biggest automaker. Now, Stuttgart, Germany-based Porsche may be unable to raise the money needed to cash in the options, according to research by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie. and FAIResearch GmbH & Co.

The 78-year-old maker of the 911 sports car piled up more than 9 billion euros in debt and hasn’t been able to raise the financing even after the options contracts surged in value along with the sevenfold gain in VW shares since 2005, according to the analysts [...].

“The smartest guys in the room are running out of options,” Max Warburton, a London-based analyst at Bernstein, said in an e-mailed message May 19. “We no longer believe Porsche is in a position to control the VW share price and are increasingly convinced that the VW ordinary shares will collapse.” [...]

Since 2007, Porsche has reported profits from VW options of 17.3 billion euros, according to its financial statements. The gains were booked as VW shares jumped 648 percent from 33.35 euros at the start of 2005, the year Porsche started buying its stake, to 249.45 euros at the end of January 2009.

The bulk of the earnings are on paper, said Gaube, the spokesman. As VW shares rose, so did the value of the options. Porsche has added the amount by which the options increased to its income statement, according to the company. Under so-called mark-to-market accounting rules, the profit would be reversed on the income statement as a loss if the options’ value fell, Gaube said. [...]

Porsche received a credit line from Volkswagen that expires in September, Bamler, the Porsche spokesman, said yesterday. He wouldn’t provide the size of the loan. [...]

Porsche Supervisory Board Chairman Wolfgang Porsche is struggling to raise money to buy more Volkswagen equity, according to Bernstein and FAIResearch. [...]

Porsche’s latest financial report shows 9.64 billion euros in “other liabilities,” without giving more details. Gaube, the spokesman, declined to comment on them.

Hans-Peter Wodniok, an analyst at FAIResearch in Frankfurt, and Warburton at Bernstein said some of the liabilities are probably puts on VW shares that Porsche issued and sold to finance the purchase of the calls.

Christian Breitsprecher, an analyst at Sal. Oppenheim in Frankfurt, said Porsche’s challenges may mount should it let the calls expire. That may spur banks that underwrote the calls to sell VW common shares they bought as insurance, lowering the stock.

“You just walk away from the calls,” said Breitsprecher. “It only becomes a problem when you’ve also written puts.”
Related posts:

David Einhorn buys more gold as well

Yet another star hedge fund manager is increasing his holdings in gold. This time is David Einhorn which I had already reported about back in March: David Einhorn is buying gold to bet against central banks. And yet another report from MarketFolly which is doing a great job at following hedge fund managers and reading their SEC fillings.

Among the increased positions:
SPDR Gold Trust (GLD): Increased by 14%Among the top 15 Holdings (by % of portfolio)
  • 1: SPDR Gold Trust (GLD): 13.6% of portfolio
  • 6: Gold Miners ETF (GDX): 4.8% of portfolio
Is gold starting to take off? Or is it that this trade is getting really crowded and it's going to be time to get off? Difficult to know on the short term. But for the long term, I am sticking to gold and waiting for a dip to increase the position. In the meantime, I have increased my holdings of silver via the SLV ETF.

Eric Mindich's Eton Park Buys More Gold and Silver

As previously reported in March, Eric Mindich's gold allocation was already quite big. Now MarketFolly reports that Eric Mindich has been increasing his gold allocations and building a silver one:
Some New Positions initiated in the last quarter:
  • Harmony Gold Mining (HMY)
  • SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) Puts
Some Increased Positions:
  • SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) Calls: Increased by 266%
  • Silver ETF (SLV): Increased by 129%
  • SPDR Gold Trust (GLD): Increased by 31%
Among the top 15 Holdings (by % of portfolio)
  • 1: SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) Calls: 15.9% of portfolio
  • 2: SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) Puts: 7.2% of portfolio
  • 5: SPDR Gold Trust (GLD): 5.3% of portfolio
Interestingly, he increased his long position in GLD, bought more calls on GLD, but also started buying puts, which means that he expects volatility on gold to rise or to would like to insure himself against a temporary dip in the price of gold.

2009-05-28

Japanese opposition doesn't want USD denominated US government bonds

This is an interesting piece of news published more than two weeks ago or so on the BBC web site and that I have just been told about:
Japan's opposition party says it would refuse to buy American government bonds denominated in US dollars, if elected.

The chief finance spokesman of the Democratic Party of Japan, Masaharu Nakagawa, told the BBC he was worried about the future value of the dollar.

Japan has been a major buyer of US government bonds, helping the US finance its Federal budget deficits.

But, he added, it would continue to buy bonds only if they were denominated in yen - the so-called samurai bonds.
It's odd enough for me not to have seen it mentioned anywhere else to take it with a grain of salt. If that info would be real and the Japenese really moved toward refusing USD denominated treasuries, it would start getting really troublesome for the US (though it would help them in the long run, forcing them to reduce spending and increase production and also prevent them from exporting so much inflation).

John Paulson massively increases his gold position

We already knew that John Paulson had a long gold position when he took an 11% stake in AngloGold Ashanti but according to MarketFolly who studied John Paulson & Cie SEC fillings, the hedge fund has about half of all their assets in gold and gold related stocks:

Some New Positions by the end of March 2009:
  • SPDR Gold Trust (GLD)
  • Gold Fields (GFI)
  • Gold Miners ETF (GDX)
  • Anglogold Ashanti (AU)
(by % of portfolio):
  • SPDR Gold Trust (GLD): 30.37% of portfolio (position: 1)
  • Gold Miners ETF (GDX): 6.81% of portfolio (position: 5)
  • Kinross Gold (KGC): 5.87% of portfolio (position: 6)
  • Gold Fields (GFI): 2.21% of portfolio (position: 11)
Here's MarketFolly's commentary:
The first major move that everyone will be talking about is Paulson's big entrance into gold. His position in the Gold Trust (GLD) is brand new and is brought up to a whopping 30% of his portfolio. Now, there are indeed a few caveats with this move: Paulson & Co have said themselves that they have done so as a hedge, as they now own well over 8% of this exchange traded fund (ETF). Their hedge funds have a share class that is denominated in gold (instead of in US dollars or Euros). Still though, that's quite a large hedge to have. Not to mention, Paulson also has a copious amount of gold miners now littered throughout his equity portfolio. Previously, we had posted up when he started his large stake in Anglogold Ashanti. Now though, he has boosted his stake in Kinross Gold (KGC) and he has also started new positions in Gold Fields (GFI) and the Gold Miner ETF (GDX). Gold is clearly the name of the game for Paulson at present. And, such a massive position in gold and gold miners has to be for more than merely a hedge.
Obviously, it's good news for all the gold holders to have someone with such a the track record as John Paulson on their side.

It's also very interesting to see that they now have a gold denominated share class!

Also as of interest: John Paulson Starting Real Estate Recovery Fund

Related post:

2009-05-25

Which Gold Tracker? [Updated]

This is a very interesting article about the various gold trackers available (ETFs but also ETNs, ETCs, etc.) and is definitely worth reading if you already have invested or are planning to invest in gold.

Disclosure: I am currently invested GBS and GLD as well as physical bullions and coins (held in a safe abroad). I also held a line in DBP which is not mentioned in this article but I sold it recently to increase my position in SLV. DBP was futures based and the fact sheet is available as PDF here: DBFunds DBP fact sheet as PDF.

The article is published on Index Universe and is written by Paul Amery:
ETF, ETC, T-ETC, ETN Or Certificate?

Exchange-traded product names seem designed to confuse, particularly so when it comes to commodities.

The UCITS rules for collective investment schemes, which apply to European Union member states, require a minimum level of diversification. Therefore, within the EU, a legal entity tracking a single commodity cannot be set up as a fund, and cannot be called an ETF. For that reason, the gold trackers offered by EU-based firms such as ETF Securities, Lyxor, Source and Xetra-Gold are all technically undated, noninterest-bearing debt securities and are called, variously, ETCs, ETNs, T-ETCs and certificates. So far in this comparatively young market, there's no uniformity in naming conventions, or in legal structures.

All four of the above gold trackers are collateralised-but not necessarily by bullion itself (see below).

In Switzerland-a non-EU member-the regulator allows a fund to track a single commodity. For that reason, the gold trackers offered by Swiss banks ZKB and Julius Baer are called ETFs.

Physical Backing?

The big dividing line in the collateralisation of the tracker products is between those that hold physical metal as backing, and those that are backed by some other financial instruments (for example, government bonds).

In the former category (those backed by bullion) are ETF Securities' Gold Bullion Securities (LSE: GBS.L) and Physical Gold ETC (LSE: PHAU.L); ZKB's Gold ETF (SWX: ZGLD); Julius Baer's Gold ETF (SWX: JBGOUX); and Xetra-Gold (XETRA: DE000A0S9GB0).

Gold trackers collateralised by other assets, typically government bonds, include Lyxor's Gold ETN (LSE: LTNG.L), Source's just-launched Gold T-ETC (XETRA: SGLD.DE) and ETF Securities' Gold (LSE: BULL.L), Leveraged Gold (LSE: LBUL.L) and Short Gold (LSE: SBUL.L) ETCs.

Assets under management for the different trackers show that the vast majority of investors' funds have been directed to those offering exposure to the physical metal.

The bullion-backed gold products hold most of their gold in "allocated" form-meaning that the gold is held under a custody agreement, in a bank vault, as numbered bars. The gold trackers may hold a small amount of unallocated bullion to help manage creations and redemptions.

ETF Securities updates a list of the bars held to back its GBS and Physical Gold ETCs on its Web site daily. The Swiss gold ETF issuers provide this information less regularly-typically quarterly, or on request. Xetra-Gold does not give details of the physical gold held to back its bond.

The ultimate safety of custodial arrangements for bullion is a subject prone to cause heated debate amongst gold bugs. Some observers have pointed to the Swiss gold ETF providers' appointment of their own parent banks as custodians as a violation of the principle that this role should be fulfilled by a third party. The Swiss tend to counter that gold held in other countries may not be safe at all, given the US government's compulsory purchase of private gold holdings in 1934, and the possibility of a repeat during a time of economic crisis.

The World Gold Council's view on this question is that the 1934 confiscation was linked to the constraints imposed on governments at that time by gold standard membership and that, in the current situation, where there is no policy link to gold, there is no rationale for governments to confiscate the metal, as there is no artificial mechanism causing gold to limit their policy options.

Still, recent investor inflows have strongly favoured the Swiss vehicles, implying that concerns about gold's custodial location remain. The ZKB gold ETF has tripled in size since the end of August 2008 (just before the Lehman default), overtaking Gold Bullion Securities as the largest European gold tracker. Hugo Stalder of ZKB told Index Universe that there has been a significant increase in investor interest from non-Swiss-based investors in recent months. Gold Bullion Securities has grown by around 20%, and the ETFS Physical Gold ETC by around 50% over the same period since end-August. The Julius Baer Gold ETF has raised around US$1 billion in assets since its launch in October.

Physical Redemption

An important additional reassurance to owners of the physically-backed gold trackers is the ability to convert holdings into the actual metal.

All five of the trackers in the top half of the above table offer this feature. ETF Securities' two physical gold ETCs require an owner to have an account with the wholesale London Bullion Market to take physical delivery. Both ZKB's gold ETF and Julius Baer's "A" class gold ETF permit physical redemption, subject to a commission of 0.2% and a 1% redemption fee. Xetra-Gold has a sliding scale of charges, including for the delivery of retail-sized trades.

Hugo Stalder of ZKB said that, while almost every interested investor asks about the physical redemption mechanism for his firm's ETF, those who have so far made use of it can be counted on two hands.

What's Being Tracked?

All five of the bullion-backed products and Lyxor's gold ETN track the spot gold price; in other words, the price for immediate (48-hour) delivery. The ETF Securities nonbullion-backed ETCs and the Source Gold T-ETC track gold indices based on futures prices.

As gold tends to trade in modest contango (i.e., forward prices are higher than the spot price), a tracker following futures prices will suffer a slight negative roll yield as it trades from one contract into the next, though this will be offset by interest earned on uninvested cash.

But, other things being equal, it's reasonable to expect some price divergence over time between gold ETFs/ETCs/ETNs tracking the spot price and those tracking indices based on futures.
For more information, read the full article on the link provided above.

[Update:] You might also want to read this other article from Paul Amery about the Structural Risk of ETFs which introduction is quoted below:

In addition to the market risks that any ETF investor incurs, what structural risks remain? In other words, what could go wrong as a result of the financial failure of the links in the ETF management chain?

The collateralised nature of ETFs means that they remain relatively safe by comparison with many other investment vehicles, where investors retain full counterparty exposure to a bank or other issuer (this applies to most retail structured products, for example, or to bank deposits over and above any government-insured limit). However, there are five potential structural risks that any ETF investor should be aware of.

These are:

  1. The failure of the ETF manager/promoter
  2. The failure of the swap provider in a swap-based ETF
  3. Securities lending losses resulting from a borrower default
  4. Custodial bank failure
  5. Non-recognition of segregated liability in an umbrella fund structure

Geithner set to shortchange taxpayers by $10 billion

Yet again, I'm amazed by the work accomplished by Bloomberg. They are doing true investigative journalism and not just news reporting by spreading the information they are handed by the officials and other representatives...

Anyway, here's the deal: Geithner is undervaluing the warrants the US Gov holds in banks and accepting to sell them with a massive 80% discount to fair valuation. According to Bloomberg, if this goes on until all the warrants are sold back to the originator, the tax-payer will lose $10 billion. These losses to the tax-payers are obviously gains for banks and this hence nothing but yet another wealth transfer from the people to the banks.

Just to be able to have comparison ground: a $10 billion gift to the banks is also the price of 50,000 houses priced at $200,000 or 500,000 cars priced at $20,000.

This is what I have been calling the reverse Robin Hood scheme in the following posts:
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Banks negotiating to reclaim stock warrants they granted in return for Troubled Asset Relief Program money may shortchange taxpayers by almost $10 billion if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s first sale sets the pace, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

While 17 financial institutions have repaid TARP funds, two have come to terms with the U.S. on the value of the rights to buy stock that taxpayers received for the risk of recapitalizing the industry. The first was Old National Bancorp in Evansville, Indiana, which gave the Treasury Department $1.2 million last week for warrants that may have been worth $5.81 million, according to the data.

If Geithner makes the same deal for all companies in the rescue program, lenders may walk away with 80 percent of the profits taxpayers might have claimed. [...]

Under the Old National warrants formula, Bank of America Corp. would save $2.03 billion, followed by Wells Fargo & Co. at $1.48 billion and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $1.46 billion. Morgan Stanley’s benefit would be $983 million, Citigroup Inc.’s would come in at $965 million and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. would have $693 million, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg.

For the 20 largest TARP recipients, the total savings would be $9.985 billion, the data show.[...]

On May 11, the day the U.S. announced the sale, the stock’s option-implied volatility, derived from market prices of stock options that are traded daily, was 61 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The risk-free rate of return, or the yield of government debt, was 3.47 percent that day.

Based on that volatility and that rate, the Black-Scholes options valuation tool appraised one Old National warrant at $7.18. The bank paid the U.S. $1.48 for each.

“We were able to reach a deal that was good for our shareholders and Treasury felt was good for taxpayers,” said Old National Chief Executive Officer Bob Jones.

The second TARP recipient to reclaim stock-purchase rights was Iberiabank Corp., a Lafayette, Louisiana-based lender with $5.6 billion in assets that took $90 million in TARP assistance.

Iberiabank paid $1.2 million to buy 138,490 warrants at $8.66 a share, according to a May 20 filing. They may have been worth $19.78 each, or a total of $2.74 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and modeled by Black-Scholes.

[...] A risk management device, Black-Scholes was developed in 1973 by Fischer Black and Myron Scholes to estimate the fair market value of stock-option contracts. Williams, the Treasury spokesman, declined to say whether Black-Scholes is one of the two models the department employs.[...]

Buffett received 43.5 million warrants valued by Black- Scholes at $3.6 billion, or $82.18 each, on the date of the transaction, data compiled by Bloomberg shows. Taxpayers injected twice as much into Goldman Sachs and got 12.2 million warrants worth $882 million, or $72.33 each.

Fed's Kohn wants to print yet another $1 trillion

Yet another Keynesian fool tries to explain how good the results of the Fed are and how printing money simply creates wealth... If that were true, they should just print $1 trillion and hand it to each US citizen. This would put an end the Greater Depression.

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said the U.S. economy may get a $1 trillion boost in coming years from the central bank’s purchases of government and mortgage debt, along with $175 billion in extra tax revenue.

[...] “The preliminary evidence suggests that our program so far has worked,” Kohn, 66, said yesterday in a speech during a panel discussion at a conference on monetary and fiscal policy at Princeton University in New Jersey. He cited reductions in longer-term interest rates.
[My comment: What is the success criteria used?]

The Fed is in the process of buying $300 billion of long- term Treasuries through September, as authorized at the March meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee. Policy makers also at the time more than doubled planned purchases of mortgage- backed securities to $1.25 trillion this year and boosted federal agency debt purchases to $200 billion from $100 billion.[...]

Purchases may increase nominal gross domestic product as much as $1 trillion “over the next several years,” Kohn said in a footnote to his remarks.

Other Fed interventions to aid bond dealers, mutual funds and credit markets also “have been successful in supporting economic growth” by lowering rates and “preventing fire sales of assets,” Kohn said.
[My comment: Most assets are still sold for far less a value than just a year ago, the remaining part of the assets are not sold anymore to avoid the fire sales prices, and are now called illiquid assets and toxic assets. Again, what success criteria is Kohn using?]

Kohn, in his speech, said he’s “very much looking forward to” having the central bank “return to more normal modes of operation” as the economy rebounds.
[My comment: When? Is he seeing the economy rebound? Or just the markets?]

While the purchases expose the Fed and taxpayers to potential losses, Kohn said several considerations make such an outcome unlikely. The Fed won’t need to sell some of the Treasury and agency debt because it will mature, and the central bank can fund the purchases at low cost. Also, the purchases boost the economy and tax receipts, he said.
[My comment: How? Why? The only reason can be that the GDP deflator used to calculate the GDP is deeply biased and undervalues the real rate of inflation]

Still, Kohn said “any calculation of the effect of our asset purchases on the economy is highly uncertain.”
[My comment: So why do them? Is there any chance the impact might be a deeper whole?]

Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman who is a Princeton economics professor, said Kohn’s estimate of the effect on GDP from the mortgage-bond purchases is “believable.”
[My comment: Princeton professors are not better than Harvard ones, if you remember Mankiw's foolish remarks]

Kohn said closer cooperation between the Fed and “fiscal authorities” is an “inevitable aspect of effective policy initiatives to meet our macroeconomic objectives in the current financial and economic crises.” He reiterated that the central bank is working with the Obama administration to seek additional powers for the Fed to tighten credit.
[My comment: So much for the independence of the Fed. The Fed is failing at every level you look...]

Plosser, by contrast, said in a May 21 speech that “when a nation’s treasury or finance ministry and its central bank work too closely together, there is a clear risk that the government’s spending will end up being financed by the central bank’s power to create money and that the public will become confused as to their respective roles.”
[My comment: true]

“History shows us that you can get very bad economic outcomes with rapidly rising inflation,” said Plosser, 60, the Philadelphia Fed’s president since 2006.
[My comment: true]

Cerberus err... GMAC Receives $7.5 Billion in Federal Funds

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- GMAC LLC received $7.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury to expand auto lending at Chrysler LLC and was cleared to sell government-backed debt for the first time.

The investment includes $4 billion for GMAC to originate loans to Chrysler buyers and sellers, the Treasury said yesterday in a statement. The remaining $3.5 billion will help Detroit-based GMAC meet capital needs that resulted from the government stress tests. The Treasury said it expects to hold a 35.4 percent common equity interest in the company.

The second capital infusion brings the government’s investment in GMAC to $13.5 billion. It signals the Obama administration’s commitment to secure financing for customers and dealers of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler, two of the country’s three biggest automakers. [...]
[My comment: It signals the Obama's administration commitment to bail out at any cost their friends in Cerberus Capital Management, with USD-barer money]

[...] Separately, GMAC can now sell $7.4 billion in debt backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the company said in a statement. GMAC also said it received an exemption from the Federal Reserve to allow its bank to originate a limited amount of GM-related retail and wholesale assets.
[My comment: we are back in the far west: no rules, no laws. Government bodies (FDIC and the Fed) allow anything to happen, as long as money is transferred from the USD barer to the private hand of the banksters]

Previously unable to sell debt because of a junk rating, GMAC was permitted to convert into a bank holding company in December to tap the Treasury’s rescue fund and attract more retail deposits. [...]
[My comment: we are back in the far west: no rules, no laws. Government bodies (the Fed) allow anything to happen, as long as money is transferred from the USD barer to the private hand of the banksters]

[...] GMAC’s bonds have jumped 83 percent since the Chrysler deal was signed on optimism the government won’t let the company fail. [...]
[My comment: It signals the Obama's administration commitment to bail out at any cost their friends in Cerberus Capital Management, with USD-barer money]

[...] Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, said that continuously pumping money into the automakers and finance companies is delaying recovery in the industry and has been a bad investment for U.S. taxpayers.
[My comment: It signals the Obama's administration commitment to bail out at any cost their friends in Cerberus Capital Management, with USD-barer money]
Some background information is required to understand what is going on here. The central point is a private equity firm named Cerberus and comes from Wikipedia:
  • Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by 49-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.
  • On October 19, 2006, John W. Snow, President George W. Bush's second United States Secretary of the Treasury, was named chairman of Cerberus.
  • In 2007, Cerberus and about 100 other investors purchased an 80% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion, promising to bolster the auto maker’s performance by operating as an independent company. In 2008, the plan collapsed [...]
  • On March 30, 2009, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management will lose its equity stake and ownership in Chrysler as a condition of the Treasury Department’s bailout deal, but Cerberus will maintain a controlling stake in Chrysler’s financing arm, Chrysler Financial.
  • Chrysler Financial refused to take $750 million in TARP government bailout aid because executives didn't want to abide by executive-pay limits, and because the firm doesn't necessarily need the money.[8]
  • Cerberus acquired 51 percent of GMAC, General Motors' finance arm, in 2006 for $7.4 billion.
  • The company had previously said it may fail in its quest to become a bank holding company because it lacks adequate capital.[15]
  • On December 29, 2008, the U.S. Treasury gave GMAC $5 billion from its $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
  • In January 2009, the Federal Reserve granted GMAC bank holding company status, so it could get access to the bailout money.[17]
So it looks like the well connected and incompetent people of Cerberus managed to get whatever they wanted from the corrupt and incompetent people of the US government. And there will be probably more money to come down the road

2009-05-22

"The US economy just need a high dose of inflation", say Keynesian economists

As crazy and foolish as it may sounds, most economists who are listened to just want the Fed to print the way out of the Greater Depression. And of course, all these economists are Keynesian fools. Unfortunately, they are in prestigious organisations, such as the Federal Reserve, the IMF, Harvard business school, etc. Of course, inflation is not going to resolve the problem. The only benefit the US can make by inflating, is that they are stealing from all the other countries who hold US dollars. That's really the one and single thing that can "help" them. Otherwise, printing/debasing doesn't change the deal. It's just a transfer of wealth from one location to another. It's as if Ferrari said something like "Oh, our car cannot meet the 280km/h, so let's just change the definition of the meter and debase it by 20%". Makes sense? Obviously not, the car won't be faster, it's still going to go at the same speed...

On top of that, these brilliant economists want the people to borrow more and spend more. Unfortunately, they seem to be missing an important point: the crisis started because that same people borrowed up to their eye balls and had a negative rate of saving (which means that instead of saving more, they actually spent the savings they had!) up to the point where they were not able to pay back their debt anymore...
(Bloomberg) -- What the U.S. economy may need is a dose of good old-fashioned inflation. So say economists including Gregory Mankiw, former White House adviser, and Kenneth Rogoff, who was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. They argue that a looser rein on inflation would make it easier for debt-strapped consumers and governments to meet their obligations. It might also help the economy by encouraging Americans to spend now rather than later when prices go up.

“I’m advocating 6 percent inflation for at least a couple of years,” says Rogoff, 56, who’s now a professor at Harvard University. “It would ameliorate the debt bomb and help us work through the deleveraging process.”

For the moment, the Fed’s focus is on preventing deflation [...]

“We are currently being very aggressive because we are trying to avoid” deflation, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told an Atlanta Fed conference on May 11.

Even after all the Fed has done to stimulate the economy, some economists argue that it needs to do more and deliberately aim for much faster inflation that would also lift wages.
[...]
Given the Fed’s inability to cut rates further, Mankiw says the central bank should pledge to produce “significant” inflation. That would put the real, inflation-adjusted interest rate -- the cost of borrowing minus the rate of inflation -- deep into negative territory, even though the nominal rate would still be zero.

If Americans were convinced of the Fed’s commitment, they’d buy and borrow more now, he says.

Mankiw, currently a Harvard professor, declines to put a number on what inflation rate the Fed should shoot for, saying that the central bank has computer models that would be useful for determining that.
[...]
Faster inflation might be preferable to increased unemployment, or to further budget stimulus packages that push up the national debt, says Mankiw, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush.
[...]
Some investors are already worried that Bernanke will go too far. “We’re on the path of longer-term, higher inflation,” says Axel Merk, president of Merk Investments LLC in Palo Alto, California. “It’s good for debtors but it’s bad for creditors. It’s dangerous and irresponsible.”

UK refuses to release stress tests results

Isn't that just perfect? Who can believe any bank for which the stress cannot be disclosed because of market instability is solvent? It simply means that those bank are on the verge of falling and cannot leave without stealth government and BoE funding. Just remember that Gordon Brown passed a bill allowing the BoE to not disclose their liquidity assistance...

Notice also that Bloomberg is doing quite a fantastic job, trying to force the information to come out. I am also taking good note of the inconsistency in the FSA's replies which just confirms that they are also corrupt, like the SEC.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.K. refused to release the results of stress tests conducted on British banks, two weeks after the Federal Reserve said similar reviews showed 10 U.S. lenders needed to raise a total of $74.6 billion.

Publishing the information may increase instability and force the government to take further action to shore up the U.K. financial system, the Treasury said in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Bloomberg News that sought the test results and criteria used to evaluate banks. U.S regulators said publishing their findings would ease concerns about lenders.

“Keeping the information under wraps will only serve to create more uncertainty in the long term,” Vince Cable, the opposition Liberal Democrats’ spokesman on treasury issues, said in an e-mailed statement. “We need a system that is as open and as transparent as that in the United States.”

The Financial Services Authority carried out stress tests on U.K. banks earlier this year to determine their ability to withstand losses amid the worst recession in 60 years. Barclays Plc is the only bank to have disclosed its results, saying it will continue to meet the regulator’s capital requirements under various credit risk, market risk and economic scenarios.

Disclosure of the results “at this time may lead to uncertainty in financial markets, either in relation to specific institutions or more generally,” the Treasury said in its response to Bloomberg. “Such instability could require further action by the authorities.”

The same request to the FSA was rejected on the grounds it would be too costly to retrieve the documents. Lesley Richardson, an FSA freedom of information officer, said the results wouldn’t be released in any case because the information was confidential.

The U.K. has committed as much as 1.4 trillion pounds ($2.2 trillion) to bolster the nation’s banking system through direct investments, asset insurance and underwriting loans. The government has nationalized Northern Rock Plc and Bradford & Bingley Plc, and taken controlling stakes Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Lloyds Banking Group Plc.
[...]
“The transparency of companies over the last few months has significantly improved so it is ironic that the one body who isn’t joining in the transparency is the regulator itself,” said Ian Gordon, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas in London.

Has it* started? — *the meltdown

The big question that I am asking myself today is: Has it finally started? And by it, I mean the total meltdown of the US paper market: the USD, the USD government's debt, USD denominated debt, and to some extent, the US stocks as well.

Indeed, for the past couple of days, the markets have dropped a bit, but contrary to what happened in October-November 2008 and Feb-March 2009, the last couple of days, the USD dropped along with the stock market and the US treasury bonds: the USD has fallen to its lowest level against the EUR since January, bonds have fallen to almost their worst levels since Jan as well, stock have declined a few percentage points and commodities, specially precious metals have rallied. And the drop of the USD has been violent enough to catch me by surprise (Disclosure: I am quite massively short the USD, as well as the US long bonds and long the precious metals):

So, has it started? Difficult to say. And I am being really careful about what I wish for. Because even if this collapse would be highly profitable for my portfolio, it would also probably mean that chaos will be spreading around the world. So let's be clear about that: I am not hoping for it to happen. I am actually quite frightened by it for dreaming that it would never happen, even if it seems more and more inevitable...

Here are some news:

Dollar Is Dirt, Treasuries Are Toast, AAA Is Gone: Mark Gilbert :
“All currencies are being debased dramatically by their central banks at extraordinary speeds and so in relative terms it appears there is no currency problem,” Lee Quaintance and Paul Brodsky of QB Asset Management said in a research note earlier this month. “In reality, however, paper money is highly vulnerable to a public catalyst that serves to acknowledge it is all merely vapor money.”
The only thing holding the current value of the US debt is the Fed printing. But as soon as they will stop, the bonds should collapse:
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Treasuries fell, pushing yields on 10-year notes up by the most in two weeks, after the Federal Reserve bought a smaller amount of debt than some investors expected and the U.S. said it will sell $162 billion of notes and bills next week to finance the budget deficit.
[...]
“The Fed buybacks are over and it’s taken the market down,” said Michael Franzese, head of government bond trading for Standard Chartered in New York. “We thought the Fed would have bought more. Supply is carrying a heavy amount of weight. Supply keeps coming and there’s no end in sight.
Even the incompetents and market cheerleaders at the Fed seem to be opening their eyes:
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve officials, who see possible signs of “stabilization” in the U.S. economy, signaled they’re not convinced those improvements will persist.

Policy makers, meeting April 28-29 in Washington, saw “significant downside risks” to the outlook for the economy, with the global financial system still “vulnerable to further shocks,” minutes of the session released yesterday said.
And of course, and unfortunately, the unemployment rate is soaring:
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- More Americans than forecast filed claims for unemployment insurance last week, and the total number of workers receiving benefits rose to a record, signs the job market continues to weaken even as the economic slump eases.
[...]
The total number of people collecting benefits rose to 6.66 million, a record reading for a 16th straight week, and a sign companies are still not hiring.
Finally, since there are a lot of concerns about Obama/Geithner/Bernanke spending and printing until they run out of paper, they are now playing their favorite game: talking up the USD, and saying one thing to just do the exact opposite.
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration is committed to reducing the federal budget deficit after concerns rose that the U.S. debt rating may eventually be threatened with a downgrade.

“It’s very important that this Congress and this president put in place policies that will bring those deficits down to a sustainable level over the medium term,” Geithner said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

The dollar, Treasuries and American stocks slumped today on concern about the U.S. government’s debt rating. Bill Gross, the co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. “eventually” will lose its AAA grade. [My Comment: even Bill Gross, who profited quite substantially from Henry Paulson's and Tim Geithner's policies seems to worry a bit?]
Even Alan Greenspan left his grave to come out and contribute to the bad news stream and try to act as if anybody cared about him. So I just won't quote him, it simply isn't worth the 2min you'd spend reading him!

2009-05-21

British Pound rises against common sense and market reality

As I wrote just about a month ago, the UK [is] on the brink of complete collapse and yet, the British Pound has been rising quite substantially against all market reality and expectations. Since I am short the GBP but the size of the position is not big enough because I didn't reject this kind of potential rebound, I am considering this as a good opportunity for shorting a bit more — which I actually did just today.

Here are some news about the UK:
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Britain may lose its AAA credit rating for the first time as government finances deteriorate in the worst recession since World War II.

Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook on Britain to “negative” from “stable” and said the nation faces a one in three chance of a ratings cut as debt approaches 100 percent of gross domestic product. The pound fell the most in four weeks versus the dollar before rebounding, the FTSE 100 Index slid 2.8 percent and the cost of insuring U.K. debt against default rose.

Britain needs to sell a record 220 billion pounds ($349 billion) of bonds in the fiscal year through March 2010 as the economy contracts and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling predicts that the budget deficit will reach 175 billion pounds, or 12.4 percent of GDP. [...]

“Somebody will have to tackle the finances in the U.K., which has not been done at present,” said David Scammell, a money manager at Schroder Investment Management Ltd. in London, where he helps oversee $158 billion in assets. “The budget that we have is just unacceptable. You need a political will to deal with this enormous problem.”
[...]
Unemployment surged to 2.2 million in March, the highest since 1996, and tax income has dropped 10 percent in the past year. The IMF expects gross domestic product to contract 4.1 percent this year, the most since World War II.
[...]
Brown needs to increase borrowing to pay for rescuing banks that have reported $121 billion in credit-related losses and writedowns since the start of 2007. The government pledged 40 billion pounds to bail out lenders and hundreds of billions of pounds in loan guarantees.
[...]
The government gave the Bank of England authority to purchase as much as 150 billion pounds of assets with newly printed money in an attempt to lower borrowing costs.

Britain’s “balance sheet is deteriorating rapidly,” Moody’s analysts led by Arnaud Mares in London wrote in a report on April 23. “The government is taking risks with public finances.”
May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Delinquencies on some U.K. non- conforming home loans exceed those by subprime borrowers in the U.S., and losses on the securities they back are accelerating, according to independent research firm CreditSights Inc.

Almost 30 percent of non-conforming mortgages made in Britain in 2005 are 90 or more days delinquent, compared with a rate of 27 percent on U.S. subprime loans made that year, analyst David Watts wrote in a report today. Non-conforming loans are similar to subprime in that they typically have low, or no, documentation requirements and may be made to borrowers with poor credit scores.

“The similarity to the U.S. is already reflected in delinquency and repossession rates and we think it will be evident in eventual losses to investors,” London-based Watts said in an interview. “They have all of the hallmarks of the U.S. deals.”

Unemployment in Britain, which rose by 244,000 to 2.2 million in the first quarter and may reach 3.1 million by the end of next year, has coincided with “a sharp rise” in delinquencies, according to the report. Bradford & Bingley Plc, the nationalized U.K. mortgage lender, said in March provisions for bad loans soared 23-fold in 2008 and forecast “further deterioration” this year and next.

There are about 30 billion pounds ($46.5 billion) of bonds outstanding that are backed by non-conforming home loans, according to the report. The rate at which delinquencies are increasing in the securities is “alarming,” Watts wrote.
[...]
“Losses are high and going higher,” said Watts. “The numbers are ugly, uglier than I expected.”

BofA CEO Ken Lewis says "Pigs can fly"

After Citi CEO Vikram Pandit, BofA CEO Ken Lewis now says that "Pigs can fly". The real question, is who can believe anything coming from Ken Lewis, once you know that when asked why he didn't wait until Monday to get Merrill at a lower price, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis stated "the strategic opportunity was so compelling it couldn't wait." This was last year the day Lehman Brothers collapsed.

At that time, I wrote that Ken Lewis was lying and it got confirmed months later by his testimony to NY Attorney General.
(Bloomberg) -- [...] Lewis also disputed the stress-testers’ estimate of a potential 5.7 percent loss rate for Bank of America’s home-loan business. The rate during the first quarter of 2009 “would have to more than double and then be sustained at that stratospheric level for seven more consecutive quarters,” Lewis said.
[My comment: can anybody believe that? Remember that BofA also baught the subprime and alt-A and CDO kings: Countrywide and Merrill Lynch!]

Lewis said he expects a “slow but sustainable economic recovery” with growth in the U.S. and Europe in the second half of this year. “The worst is most likely behind us,” he said.
[My comment: of course, he saw the crisis come and now he sees it end...]

Warren Buffett was talking his portfolio up in early May

I wrote a post in early May about Warren Buffett's comment titled "Yet more hypocrisy coming from Warren Buffett" because he was talking up Wells Fargo, and it appears he had indeed increase massively his stake in the company, before making public comments about how much he would love to buy the whole bank.

While this is nothing illegal, and maybe not even wrong, I am still a bit disturbed because I don't remember him disclosing the massive increase in his Wells Fargo allocation which I consider it being wrong morality.
(Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. added to holdings of lenders Wells Fargo & Co and U.S. Bancorp in the first quarter as the shares traded at their lowest prices in more than a decade.

Buffett’s firm, the largest shareholder in San Francisco- based Wells Fargo, increased its stake in the bank by about 4.3 percent in the first quarter to 302.6 million shares, Berkshire said in a regulatory filing yesterday disclosing its U.S. stock portfolio as of March 31. Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire increased its holding of U.S. Bancorp by about 2.2 percent.
[...]
Buffett is “putting his money where his mouth is,” said Gerald Martin, a finance professor at American University’s Kogod School of Business in Washington who has studied Berkshire’s investing history. “I don’t think he’s ever been this transparent about what he’s doing.”
[Comment: maybe because this "transparency" serves him at the moment?]

Investors can’t always be certain they have full information on Berkshire’s stock holdings because Buffett often receives U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission permission to delay disclosure to avoid copycat investing. Yesterday’s filing only lists equities traded on U.S. exchanges, valued at $40.9 billion as of March 31.
[Comment: This is truly amazing, I wasn't aware of that. Why does Berkshire, among all the companies in the world who have to follow the law and disclose their holdings, get special treatment?]
Here are the previous posts regarding Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway:

2009-05-18

Trichet not as hopeless as it seems

I wrote a few weeks ago that Trichet is following Ben Bernanke and Mervyn King toward the abyss but it seems that Trichet is not as hopeless as he wants us to believe and that he might actually be trying to resist the pressures to debase the Euro. As more details emerge, it is now confirmed that there internal clashes and tensions and more or less all the guesswork that I made in my previous post tend to be confirmed by this report from Bloomberg:
May 14 (Bloomberg) -- European Central Bank policy makers clashed over the bank’s asset-buying program and prospects for a recovery less than a week after President Jean-Claude Trichet engineered a truce.

Vice President Lucas Papademos said in Vienna today that a recovery may come sooner than previously thought. Minutes earlier, Dutch council member Nout Wellink said economists shouldn’t get too optimistic about “green shoots.” That came a day after Germany’s Axel Weber and Slovenia’s Marko Kranjec reopened a split over the size of the ECB’s bond-purchase plan.
[...]
A split on the 22-member Governing Council this year has made it difficult for Trichet to send a clear signal on how the ECB will step up its fight against Europe’s worst recession since World War II. While he won support on a plan to purchase 60 billion euros ($82 billion) in covered bonds, a compromise on the program’s focus and scope may already be unraveling.

Kranjec said in an interview yesterday the ECB is likely to spend more than 60 billion euros, a figure that Weber insisted would be a “maximum.” The debate rumbled on today across Europe, with Slovakia’s Ivan Sramko saying nothing can be excluded and Executive Board member Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Paramo saying there’s no plan to expand purchases “at the moment.”
[...]
On May 7, the ECB cut the key rate to a record-low 1 percent and Trichet said that it’s not necessarily its lowest level. He also announced the ECB’s unprecedented decision to buy covered bonds, securities backed by mortgages and public-sector loans which have suffered a slump in demand during the financial crisis. Details of the plan are to be unveiled next month.
[...]
The size of the ECB’s plan “is peanuts for an economy the size of the euro zone,” economics professor and former Bank of England policy maker Willem Buiter said at a conference in Dublin yesterday. “I expect they will announce more or that the recession in the euro zone will be longer and deeper than would otherwise be necessary.”

The Federal Reserve, Bank of England and Bank of Japan have already lowered their key rates to close to zero and are buying government and corporate debt, effectively pumping new money into their economies in a policy some economists label quantitative easing.
[...]
Executive board member Juergen Stark later weighed in on the debate, saying Trichet is the only council member whose voice counts.

“At the end of the day the president is ‘porte parole’ of the governing council,” Stark said this evening in Berlin, using a French phrase meaning spokesman. “So listen to what the president says.”

“Trichet should probably impose some order,” said Stephane Deo, chief European economist at UBS AG in London. “The deluge of conflicting messages is putting more volatility into the markets.”
[...]
Here are the previous related posts:

UK overstated retail sales growth by 56%

When a bankrupt country, in the middle of a depression far worse than everything they could have imagined led by corrupt people like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Mervyn King or their Members of Parliament, what are your choices after having done all the of the following in sequential order:
  • destroying the value of currency by more than 25% in just about a year,
  • massively understating the inflation and yet coming up with high inflation figures,
  • denying any inflation even when the manipulated data fail to show anything but high inflation,
  • pretending that deflation is what they are worried about.
You can try to fake all the other official numbers that you publish, and ask the others body of the government, like the Office of National Statistics to publish ridiculously positive numbers in a depressed environment:
(Financial Times) One of Britain’s most closely watched economic indicators has heavily overstated the quantity of high street sales over the past two years, the Office for National Statistics admitted on Friday.

Britain’s supplier of official statistics conceded that since the financial crisis began in August 2007, it has overstated the volume of retail sales growth by 56 per cent.

Many economists have been worried for some time that the published retail sales figures were too strong and have always received a furious response from the ONS.

Karen Dunnell, the national statistician, wrote to newspapers last October, insisting that “ONS retail statistics are the best available and are not inaccurate”.

She stuck to the same theme in another article, saying economists who had expressed surprise at the strength of ONS retail figures were upset because “City analysts also have a vested interest in not being proved wrong”.
[...]
Such a large difference in the one indicator that has persistently given a more positive account of Britain’s economy will cause red faces at the ONS, especially as it had insisted on the superiority of its retail data to unofficial estimates.

2009-05-13

The Golden Constant 2009 edition available

I am very happy to finally have received my copy of the new and updated revision of Roy Jastram's classic Golden Constant. After having looked everywhere for the past year, and being unable to find any copy for less than about $600 or £400, I had been anticipating this moment for a long long time.

Interestingly, I had pre-ordered it on Amazon UK for £59.95 and they are now selling it for £79.95. This is quite a gap !

If you want to grab your own copy:
It seems like the release in the US will be next month, in June.
And interestingly, Amazon UK has only 2 copies left in stock, which could mean that the book is in high demand.

Previous posts:

2009-05-12

Corruption in broad daylight at the head of the Fed

Thank you, WSJ, for bringing this to our knowledge.
It's time to abolish the corrupt instituation that is the Fed!
WSJ - The ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee called it "deeply disturbing" that Stephen Friedman, who is chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., bought Goldman shares in December and January.
[...]
Mr. Friedman was placed in an unusual position in September, when Goldman was allowed by the Fed to become a regulated bank-holding holding company to help halt its market slide. That put Mr. Friedman in violation of Fed rules that bar regional Fed bank board chairmen -- who are chosen to represent the public -- from owning bank shares or serving as directors or officers of banks. At the request of the New York Fed, the Fed in Washington granted him a waiver from the rule in January.

In December, before the waiver was granted, and again in January, after it was granted, Mr. Friedman bought additional Goldman shares.
Interestingly, they deny even doing anything wrong:
(Reuters) - Friedman and the New York Fed have both said that he had done nothing wrong.

The Friedman waiver was sought shortly after Goldman became a bank holding company. While the Fed was deciding whether or not to grant it, he bought 37,300 Goldman shares on December 17. On January 22, the day after the waiver was granted, he bought 15,300 more Goldman shares.
(Reuters) - A waiver granted by Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn that allowed the chairman of the New York Fed's board of governors to stay in his job had the full backing of the Fed's Board of governors, including Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Fed official said on Monday.
[...]
The Wall Street Journal called in an editorial on Monday for Kohn's resignation, and said he had shown a tin political ear by allowing Friedman to stay at the New York Fed.
This is just plain unbelievable... Read on (WSJ):
Stephen Friedman has appropriately resigned as chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, amid a flap over his ownership of Goldman Sachs shares. But now he and others are also claiming that Mr. Friedman did nothing wrong, so it's worth clarifying the real nature of the blunder that he and Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn committed. [...]

Fed rules bar certain directors of the 12 regional Fed banks from owning shares in companies regulated by the Fed. Mr. Friedman owned about 46,000 Goldman shares and was a Goldman director, but that violated no rules when Goldman was a broker-dealer regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. But Mr. Friedman became subject to that ban when Goldman Sachs applied to become a bank holding company last autumn.
Ok, so there's an obvious conflict of interest, but we are going to make it disappear. Mr Friedman was not the reason of the crisis, so there's no conflict of interest. Oh and by the way, while the Fed is pumping money into Goldman, along with Warren Buffet and the Taxpayer, the uninterested Mr Friedman buys more shares!

New York Fed officials then applied to the Washington Fed for a conflict-of-interest waiver, and Mr. Kohn granted it in January. The Fed's logic was that the conflict wasn't created by any action of Mr. Friedman, the financial system was in crisis, and the New York Fed needed a new president if Timothy Geithner became Treasury Secretary. So Fed officials say Mr. Kohn concluded that the benefit from the continuity of keeping Mr. Friedman outweighed the conflict of interest.

Mr. Friedman also purchased 52,600 additional Goldman shares without informing the Fed. After The Wall Street Journal reported those purchases last week, Mr. Friedman resigned on Thursday, only to claim a day later at Goldman's annual meeting that this was much ado about nothing. We don't think Mr. Friedman was working the system to get rich. He's already rich, and he has always struck us as a straight arrow.

The problem is the politics of all this. Half of the financial world already thinks Goldman runs the U.S. Treasury and Fed, however unfairly. The American public is furious about the bailouts of AIG and banks, engineered by the Fed and Treasury, that have helped the likes of Goldman Sachs. And guess who Mr. Friedman's search committee picked as Mr. Geithner's successor when he left to run Treasury? Another Goldman alum, William Dudley. Yet with all of this in the political air, Mr. Friedman tried to stay in the New York Fed post at least through the end of 2009, and Mr. Kohn granted the waiver. It's hard to imagine a more politically obtuse judgment.
[...]
Mr. Kohn and Chairman Ben Bernanke have made the Fed an arm of the Treasury over the last 18 months. [...]
At least Mr. Friedman is gone, but for all the harm he has done to the Fed's political independence, Mr. Kohn should resign too.
Even HR news sites report it as an interesting case:
until he resigned his seat on May 7 following a growing number of calls for him to step down, Stephen Friedman was a New York Federal Reserve Class C director and also served as chairman of the board. He is chairman of Stone Point Capital LLC, and a member of the board of directors of Goldman Sachs, which became a bank-holding company in order to qualify for government bailout assistance.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors granted Friedman a waiver from both the restrictions on bank-board membership and share ownership so that he could continue as a Class C director and as chairman of the New York Federal Reserve. The rational was, in part, that Goldman became a "bank-holding company" after Friedman was appointed, and a "bank-holding company" was not a "bank."

2009-05-10

Bailout Tracker and Banks Capitalization Bargaining [updated]

I just came across these very interesting pages, from CNN and the WSJ.

The first one is a bailout tracker that tracks the amounts of money handed by the government in their desperate need to keep the status quo, save their friends and sponsors in private corporations and avoid the collapse of the current failures and the raise of the competent people. According to their work, already $10.5 trillion has been committed by the US Gov and the Fed and 2.6 already wasted... errr sorry I meant invested. Definitely worth having a look at the page.
The second one is this report from the WSJ along with an interactive Flash application showing the current assets of banks. According to this report, the results from the "stress test" (that many called "cake walk") have been delayed because banks were negotiating (and finally obtaining) multi-billion reductions in their capital requirements. While this is all but surprising, the ground work done by the WSJ on their interactive work is really interesting and valuable and shows the extend of which US banks are undercapitalised and the financial system in the US still exposed to massive capital injections by the Government (and maybe by specially selected private investors who will obviously have their capital guaranteed and by the US Gov, allowing them to take no risk but get the full upside instead of the US citizens).
It's definitely worth reading the article as well. Here's the first 2 paragraphs:
The Federal Reserve significantly scaled back the size of the capital hole facing some of the nation's biggest banks shortly before concluding its stress tests, following two weeks of intense bargaining.
In addition, according to bank and government officials, the Fed used a different measurement of bank-capital levels than analysts and investors had been expecting, resulting in much smaller capital deficits.
John Hussman writes in his weekly letter:

The “stress test” procedure also conveniently excludes any potential mark-to-market losses during 2009 and 2010, as banks “were instructed to estimate forward-looking, undiscounted credit losses, that is, losses due to failure to pay obligations (‘cash flow losses') rather than discounts related to mark-to-market values.”

Now, just think of this for a minute. Even if you assume that the “risk-weighted assets” of the banks are about two-thirds of their total assets (as the stress-test does), we're still looking at $7.8 trillion in total assets at risk in these banks, and despite being on the edge of insolvency only weeks ago, we are asked to believe that they will need less than 1% of this amount – $74.6 billion – of additional capital even in a worst case scenario. How do the stress tests arrive at this conclusion?

Buffett’s Berkshire post worst loss in two decades

I have written quite a few posts regarding Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway, which are listed below. Basically, my conclusion after this quarterly loss is that it is now clear than Buffett has been trying to talk up his portfolio during the past several months in order to avoid (probably more postpone than avoid...) these kinds of massive losses — and I guess his pride must have taken a big hit. Probably as much as his reputation.

Here are the previous posts regarding Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway:
(Bloomberg) -- Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. posted its worst loss in at least two decades as the billionaire chairman worked to recover from a “major mistake” of buying ConocoPhillips shares with oil prices near their peak.

The first-quarter net loss of $1.53 billion, or $990 a share, compares with profit of $940 million, or $607, in the same period a year earlier, the Omaha, Nebraska-based firm said yesterday in a statement. Writedowns on derivatives tied to corporate-debt indexes cost the company about $1.3 billion and Berkshire took a $1.9 billion charge on oil producer ConocoPhillips, contributing to its first net loss since 2001.
[...]
Berkshire’s liability on derivatives at the finance and financial products operations widened to $15.4 billion
as of March 31 from $14.6 billion three months earlier, the company said in a regulatory filing.

The derivatives have weighed on Berkshire results for more than a year. Berkshire’s commitments, which cover possible losses on corporate debt, stock indexes and municipal bonds, prompted Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service to strip the firm of its top-level credit ratings this year.
[...]
Buffett told shareholders in his annual letter in February that the ConocoPhillips investment was a “major mistake.”

“I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred,” said Buffett, writing that he still expects an increase over time. “But so far I have been dead wrong. Even if prices should rise, moreover, the terrible timing of my purchase has cost Berkshire several billion dollars.”
[...]
Berkshire, which posted five straight declines in quarterly profit through the end of 2008, last posted a loss in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2001, on claims tied to terrorist attacks. It was the only other quarterly loss since 1986, according to data provided by Standard & Poor’s.

2009-05-08

The New Equation of the US markets

Today, we saw the markets rally yet again, on nothing but bad news. The markets are now up quite substantially since the bottom recorded on March, the 9th: Russell 2000 up about +45% and Dow Jones Industrial about +35%.

So what about this fact:
The Dow Jones Industrial closes today with a gain of +1.96%
The EUR closes today with a gain of +1.89% against the USD

So here might be the new equation of the markets:
perf(Dow Jones Industrial) - perf(EUR/USD) = 0

Talking about a bull market? Seems like investing in the Eurozone is making sense, as per my previous posts on the PER of the indices.

But I think it's interesting to note that the bond market is substantially lower than when Bernanke would like to be, and the markets finished by realizing that he was bluffing (hopefully, he was bluffing!). The 30-year Treasury (aka Long Bond) is now yielding about 4.3% which is going to drive the cost of borrowing the Obama administration a lot higher. So Ben Bernanke is now stuck. He can either kill really quickly the US dollar and reduce borrowing costs. Or he can leave the Long Bond fall, and the USD will have a slower death.

So we might pretty soon, depending on the actions of Ben Bernanke, avec new version of the equation:
perf(Dow Jones Industrial) - perf(EUR/USD) << 0

Wait & See...

2009-05-07

Pedge Fund Performance 200904

Just a quick post to relate the performance of PedgeFund for the month of April 2009. March 2009 returns are available here.

Summary:
Pedge Fund USD
April performance: +0.30% (gross, approx)

Highlights:
Nothing really stands out as it's pretty flatish. As during the previous month, the big rebound in equities has been missed in this portfolio which I am not particularly proud of, but I wasn't short neither, so no loss incurred.
  • Some gains on long equity positions
  • Some losses on gold and silver
  • Some gains on short Long-Bond
  • Some losses on short GBP/long EUR
HFR Macro Index return in April 2009 was: -0.44%
S&P 500 return in April 2009 was: +9.39%

Trichet is following Ben Bernanke and Mervyn King toward the abyss

I've been quite vocal about Trichet and the ECB since August 2008 when Trichet decided to abandon the Euro and follow Ben Bernanke's and Mervyn King's demagogic, dangerous and destructive policies. I've said it before and I'll say it one more time: Trichet should resign! (recommended read to understand my stance.)

So today Trichet reduced the repo rate of the ECB by 0.25% to 1.00% (which really doesn't have any impact and is really a symbolic act since the mid-March actions when the ECB Stealthly Approaches Zero Rates) but they also announced that they would start Quantitave Easing (which uncyphers into plain English to print money). The good news is that this might be just another symbolic gesture from Trichet in order to please politicians because he is going to print only 60 billion EUR which is a drop compared to the size of the Eurozone economy and also compared to the trillions of USD that Bernanke is printing.

[Update: I just found this report on Bloomberg, which basically confirms my analysis]
(Bloomberg) -- Jean-Claude Trichet has dragged the European Central Bank into a new era by pursuing direct asset purchases over the objections of Germany’s Bundesbank.

President Trichet today announced the ECB will buy 60 billion euros ($80 billion) of covered bonds, taking markets by surprise after Bundesbank chief Axel Weber had campaigned against such a policy.
[...]
Trichet’s policy shift, pushed by smaller nations such as Cyprus, Greece, Austria and the Netherlands, is a setback for the conservative Bundesbank, which provided the blueprint for the ECB at its inception in 1998.
[...]
“It’s a blow to his personal credibility,” said David Tinsley, an economist at National Australia Bank in London. “The Rubicon that’s been crossed is that the ECB will be accepting private credit risk on its balance sheet.”

Weber said on April 15 that “direct interventions, such as the purchase of corporate debt, shouldn’t take priority.” He pushed instead for the ECB to lengthen the maximum maturities on its loans to banks to 12 months from six months, a measure the central bank also announced today.
[...]
The ECB’s bond plan is nevertheless dwarfed by programs in other parts of the world. It is equivalent to about 0.5 percent of euro-region GDP, says Lloyds TSB Group Plc. That compares with debt-purchase programs in the U.K. and the U.S. amounting to 8 percent and 2 percent of GDP respectively.
Here are the previous related posts:

Taleb says crisis 'vastly worse' than the 1930s

I am happy to find some backing in Nassim Nicholas Taleb for the post I made already 5 months ago about the current crisis, that I dub The Greater Depression. Don't be fooled by the rebound in the markets and the positive and highly optimistic reports in all the media. The truth is: nothing is improving, and quite the opposite. The imbalances and malinvestments that we are currently facing have been building up for more than 10 years, and all the steps the governments and central banks are taking are doing nothing more but delaying and aggravating the consequences...
(Bloomberg) -- The current global crisis is “vastly worse” than the 1930s because financial systems and economies worldwide have become more interdependent, “Black Swan” author Nassim Nicholas Taleb said.

“This is the most difficult period of humanity that we’re going through today because governments have no control,” Taleb, 49, told a conference in Singapore today. “Navigating the world is much harder than in the 1930s.”


[Update] I forgot to mention that I loved the Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, two absolute must-reads from Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

2009-05-04

Yet more hypocrisy coming from Warren Buffett

I have been following Warren Buffett for a long time, as some sort of investment guru and also someone with a very high integrity and who would always say the right thing and stay transparent instead of just talking up his book. Needless to say, I have been very disappointed since the beginning of the current crisis. Looks like it's easier for Mr Buffett to show integrity and transparency when the markets go his way. "It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked.", right Mr Buffett? This also applies to yourself...

Here are the previous posts regarding Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway:
Mish as published an interesting post about Warren Buffett, yet again exposing him trying to talk up his own book. Here are some quotes:
(Bloomberg) Billionaire Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is the largest shareholder in Wells Fargo & Co., said the lender is a “fabulous” company.

“All banks aren’t alike by a long shot, and in our view Wells Fargo, among the large banks, has some advantages the others do not,” Buffett said today at Berkshire’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

Buffett, who has said he values lenders partly on their ability to acquire funds from depositors, told shareholders today that he’d “love” to buy the entire bank and is unable to do so because Berkshire wouldn’t get permission from regulators.

(Bloomberg) Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett dismissed the importance of the government’s stress tests of major U.S. financial institutions in helping him assess banks he invested in.

“I think I know their future, frankly, better than somebody that comes in to take a look,” Buffett said before the start of Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting today. “They may be using more of a checklist type approach.”

(Bloomberg) Buffett, in his most recent letter to shareholders in February, said he supported the U.S. government actions, while predicting bailouts will cause “unwelcome aftereffects” including inflation.
Mish comments:
Of course Buffet supports the bailouts. So does PIMCO and so does anyone holding corporate bonds of financial institutions in general. They stand to benefit from these taxpayer sponsored bailouts. It's as simple as that.

To not let a well capitalized company like Berkshire Hathaway to acquire a bank when banks are clearly struggling to raise more capital makes no sense. Since Buffet claims he would “love” to buy the entire bank I suggest he should be allowed to do so. Then we would get to see if he really wants it or if he is just talking his book.

One thing's for sure: It's far better for shareholders to to take the hit when this mess blows the second time than taxpayers in general. Yet, if Buffet is indeed right about the prospects of Wells Fargo, then by all means, Berkshire Hathaway shareholders should be allowed to profit from that position.

2009-05-03

What to think about the current rally?

A brief post to sum up a bit of my week-end reading. Nothing really new for the past few days...

Jim Rogers said on Bloomberg:
"The rally is awfully powerful and my experience taught me that rallies of this magnitude last longer than anyone expects, especially the skeptics."
WSJ:

"By far and away the strength has been in financials and consumer" stocks, notes Neil Hokanson, a Solana Beach, Calif., adviser. "And when we look at the underpinnings in both of those areas we don't see any reason for that level of optimism."

[...]

Financial stocks in the S&P 500 are up 76% and consumer-discretionary names, which include autos and restaurants, are up 43%.

Business Insider:

Now that stocks have rallied nearly 30% off their low, pundits agree: It's a new bull market. So be very afraid.

Market punditry is a lagging indicator, not a leading one. Pundits are excellent at describing what has happened, not what is going to happen.

Mish:
it's important to remember we are in this mess because Greenspan elected to blow another bubble rather than face what would likely have been a short-term recession of limited consequences. Instead, Greenspan elected to bail out his banking buddies who were in deep trouble with loans to dot-com companies and Latin America. The fruits of Greenspan's attempt to bail out banks were worldwide housing and credit bubbles of epic proportion that have now popped, leaving banks much worse off than before.

Compounding Greenspan's errors, the trio of Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama, like the trio of Bernanke, Paulson, and Bush before them, all seem to think the results will be better this time if we just do it again with more force.

I have news for all of them. While we may not be able to predict for certain the consequences of "Stupidity Squared" we can say for certain the result cannot possibly be any good.