Thursday, July 31, 2008

Debt Rattle, July 31 2008: Oh Boy, Oh Boy!


Uncle D. stars in Der Fuehrer’s Face 1943


Ilargi: Oh boy. Oh boy!

Say what you will, the Lords of the Crumbling Manor are moving fast. Everyone was still letting the Fannie and Freddie free money and covered bonds-related issues sink in; Well, Move Over. The Lords have come up with an infinitely bigger and potentially more harmful plan:

Now the FDIC gets access to the Fed’s discount windows. Why do I think it’s getting just plain spooky when government institutions (and that’s what the FDIC is) start to engage in emergency lending from a country’s central bank?

Yes, I know the FDIC has very little in assets; I have warned about that for ages. But come on, this just makes everything worse. The FDIC takes over banks that are insolvent, not temporarily illiquid. And the discount windows provide liquidity, short-term and -supposedly- only in emergencies. Nothing about them says solvency, for good reason.

What is Sheila Bair going to do with TAF flows? Pay off those "guaranteed" deposits when banks fail? Let’s hope and pray she does not.

And what is the next step now? Are we going to fund Social Security through these windows too? Is General Petreaus going to finance his fighter jets through them? Someone please tell me where we can expect to end up, once we’re on our way down this road.

In the past few years, whenever I’ve softly and purely hypothetically suggested that perhaps the Lords of the Manor are not trying to save the economy and the country, as is generally and unquestioningly assumed, but that in reality they’re deliberately gutting and liquidating the financial structures, people have always laughed. That, they feel with unrelenting conviction, can not be true.

Well, maybe it’s getting to be time to revisit that option once more, purely hypothetically. Every single step the Lords have taken in the last 25 years has made matters worse for the citizens. That is either an amazing string of failures or an unparalled success rate.


Fed Loans to Failed Banks Made Easier by Fannie-Freddie Rescue
The Federal Reserve will be able to lend more easily to failed banks under government control because of a provision in legislation that bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In the rescue signed into law by President George W. Bush yesterday, the Fed will no longer have to pay penalties on loans it makes to institutions taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The measure may mean more use of the central bank's balance sheet to prop up the U.S. financial system, after the Fed began lending to investment banks in March, analysts said.

The FDIC has taken over seven banks this year, with 90 on a watch-list of troubled firms as lenders are hit by the surge in credit losses. "We are pushing forward the line on what the government will backstop, and what the Federal Reserve will backstop," said Vincent Reinhart, former director of the Fed's Monetary Affairs Division who is now at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Fed officials yesterday also extended their two lending programs to Wall Street through January, after judging that markets are still "fragile." The Federal Reserve Act's Rule 10B penalizes the Fed for loans to undercapitalized institutions exceeding specific time periods. The original provision was aimed at preventing the central bank from keeping failing banks open.

The exemption in the new law, which was requested by the FDIC without objection by the Fed's Board of Governors, was aimed at making clear that once banks are taken over by the FDIC, capital rules no longer apply because they are effectively owned, operated and in liquidation by the government.

"It is more of a clarification," said FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray in Washington. "It removes any ambiguity from the current statutory language." For some, the exemption opens up the Fed to more political pressure to lend to government agencies, instead of forcing Congress, the FDIC, or the Treasury to explain to taxpayers why they need more money.

"Once the Fed starts lending to a bridge bank, or indirectly to the FDIC, where is the incentive to ever stop?" said Walker Todd, a former Cleveland Fed attorney and visiting research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Vermont.

The FDIC had $52.8 billion in its deposit-insurance fund as of March 31. The FDIC could raise more money by tapping a $40 billion credit line it has with the U.S. Treasury, increasing assessments on its members, or turning to Congress.

"Like any open depository institution, there will be short-term borrowing needs by the bridge bank," which may need to "tap the discount window," Gray said, referring to the name for the Fed's direct loans to commercial banks. "Longer-term borrowing needs would typically be met by a loan from the FDIC."

The Fed enjoys wide discretion in discount-window lending, and demands collateral, sometimes in excess of the loan's value, to insure against the risk of default. A request by the FDIC could always be rejected by the central bank. Still, the removal of the penalties may open up the Fed to more political pressure, possibly encroaching on its independence, analysts said.

"Why should they be doing it?" said Robert Eisenbeis, former Atlanta Fed research director and now chief monetary economist at hedge fund Cumberland Advisors LLC. "The whole idea" of the rules in the Federal Reserve Act is "to make it costly and difficult to support an insolvent institution."

This month, the Fed board voted unanimously to allow direct lending to government-sponsored housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "should such lending prove necessary," at the request of U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Yesterday the central bank extended until Jan. 30 the Primary Dealer Credit Facility for direct loans to securities firms and the Term Securities Lending Facility for loans of Treasuries, both begun in March.

The programs will be canceled when the Fed deems that markets "are no longer unusual and exigent," according to a statement from the central bank. The Fed will start auctions of options of as much as $50 billion in the TSLF on top of the $200 billion program, which loans Treasuries to securities firms in exchange for asset- backed securities and other collateral.

New York Fed officials plan to consult with the primary dealers of U.S. government bonds on the TSLF options program, the district bank said in a statement yesterday. The options plan is aimed at providing liquidity for two weeks or less surrounding key financing periods to be identified. Further details are planned on or before Aug. 8, the New York Fed said.




FASB Delays New Rules On Off-the-Book Vehicles
Accounting-rule makers will delay by a year proposed changes that could force banks and other financial firms to take onto their books certain off-balance-sheet vehicles that played a central role in the credit crunch.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board initially decided that the rule changes should take effect starting next year for new structures that companies may want to keep off their books, but not until 2010 for existing ones. Following calls from companies and legislators that companies needed more time, the board on Wednesday agreed to make the changes for both new and existing structures effective in 2010.

If adopted, the rule changes could have a significant impact. Citigroup Inc. alone has more than $700 billion in assets in vehicles that it may have to bring back onto its books under the changes. The proposals also have sparked concern that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have to consolidate trillions of dollars in mortgage assets, but the firms already account for these securities.

FASB Chairman Robert Herz said he was reluctant to delay the changes because many companies had abused existing standards to improperly keep vehicles off their books. The board initially tried to tighten the rules for off-balance-sheet vehicles in the wake of the Enron Corp. collapse earlier in the decade, but banks and others found ways around the rules.

Many observers believe that off-balance-sheet vehicles used by banks and others helped fuel the excesses of the housing boom. But Mr. Herz said he agreed to the delay after consulting with investors who said they would prefer a single start date for any rules change.

A delay raises the prospect that banks and others will have more time to try to beat back the proposed changes. The changes will be significant because they will make it more difficult, and in some cases more expensive, for banks and other financial firms to use off-balance-sheet vehicles to sell off, or securitize, assets.FASB must still put out a draft of the proposed rules changes and, after a period of public comment, give final approval.




U.S. Recession May Have Started at End of 2007, Revisions Show
The U.S. economy may have tipped into a recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised government figures showed.

The world's largest economy contracted at a 0.2 percent annual pace in the fourth quarter of last year compared with a previously reported 0.6 percent gain, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Growth for the period from 2005 through 2007 was also trimmed.

The revisions now reinforce measures such as employment and production that already signaled the economy was shrinking. The government also said incomes grew less than previously thought, raising the risk that consumer spending will again stumble after getting a temporary boost from the tax rebates last quarter.

"It was a weak quarter before and it remains a weak quarter," Steven Landefeld, director of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, said during a press conference this week, referring to the fourth quarter of 2007. He said the overall revisions "maintain the same general picture" of the economy.

The previous time the economy contracted was in the third quarter of 2001 during the last recession, when it shrank at a 1.4 percent pace. Growth from January through March was revised down to a 0.9 percent pace from 1 percent. The revisions are part of the government's annual adjustments to gross domestic product based on additional information from surveys and Internal Revenue Service data. The changes in this year's report go back to the first quarter of 2005.

For 2005, growth was cut to 2.9 percent from 3.1 percent, and the rate of expansion for 2006 was reduced to 2.8 percent from 2.9 percent. The economy grew 2 percent last year, down from a previously reported 2.2 percent. Nine of the 13 quarters under review were revised down, three increased and one was unchanged.

The largest downward revision was for the last three months of 2007, as the previously reported 2.3 percent gain in consumer spending was reduced by more than half, to 1 percent. Americans cut back on the use of electricity and gas as fuel bills soared.

The largest upward swing, from 3.8 percent to 4.8 percent, was for the second quarter of last year. The figures also showed the housing slide that began in 2006 was worse than previously thought. Residential investment fell 32 percent in the two years ended in December 2007, compared with a prior estimate of 29 percent.

The popular definition of a recession -- two consecutive quarters during which the economy shrinks -- isn't always fulfilled. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based arbiter of economic cycles, defines a recession as a "significant" decrease in activity over a sustained period of time. The declines would be visible in GDP, payrolls, production, sales and incomes.

"While everyone focuses on GDP, keep in mind that it is not the only barometer of economic activity," David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York, said in a July 28 note to clients. Growth "is subject to huge historical revisions."

The four other factors that the NBER takes into account, Rosenberg said, peaked between October 2007 and February 2008. "We think the recession actually began in January," he said. The NBER usually declares a recession has started between six to 18 months after it's begun, according to its Web site.




U.S. Economy Grew Less Than Forecast Last Quarter
The U.S. economy expanded less than forecast in the second quarter as the drag from housing and rising unemployment blunted the impact of federal tax rebates.

The economy grew at a 1.9 percent annualized rate from April through June, after a 0.9 percent pace in the first quarter that was smaller than previously estimated, the Commerce Department said in Washington. The report also contained annual revisions that lowered the growth rate back to 2005 and showed gross domestic product contracted in the last three months of 2007.

Stock-index futures dropped and Treasuries rallied after the figures raised the odds that the U.S. has entered a recession. Growth may weaken in the second half as unemployment increases, with government figures tomorrow forecast to show a seventh straight month of payroll declines.

"As the stimulus spending wears off, with the backdrop of a weak labor market, consumer spending will take a leg down," John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics LLC in New York, said before the report. "That's when you might get a conventional GDP recession."

Yields on benchmark 10-year notes fell to 3.97 percent at 8:41 a.m. in New York, from 4.05 percent late yesterday. Futures on the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index declined 0.7 percent to 1,276.20.

The smallest trade deficit in seven years prevented the economy from shrinking again last quarter. The trade gap narrowed to a $395.2 billion annual pace, adding 2.4 percentage points to growth, the most since 1980. Excluding trade, the economy would have contracted at a 0.5 percent pace, the second decline in the last three quarters.

The annual benchmark revisions showed the U.S. may have slipped into a recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened. The economy shrank 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter last year, compared with a previously reported 0.6 percent gain.

First-quarter figures were also revised down to show a 0.9 pace of growth compared with a prior estimate of 1 percent, Commerce said. Economists had forecast a 2.3 percent gain in second-quarter growth, according to the median of 79 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. Projections ranged from a 0.9 percent increase to a 4.2 percent gain.

The report is the first for the quarter and will be revised in August and September as more information becomes available. Declines in growth in the revisions are reinforcing the recession signals sent by the loss of jobs so far this year. Still, a downturn is unlikely to be officially declared for months to come.




U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Rise to Five-Year High
The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, reaching the highest level in more than five years.

Initial jobless claims increased by 44,000 to 448,000 in the week ended July 26, from a revised 404,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Economists in a Bloomberg survey had forecast a drop in claims. The total number of people on benefit rolls rose to the most since December 2003.

The figures add to concern that consumer spending will falter as employers slash positions to cope with increased fuel costs, the housing slump and tighter credit. Separate government report showed the U.S. economy shrank at the end of last year and grew less than forecast in the second quarter of 2008. A report tomorrow may show payrolls declined in July for the seventh consecutive month, a Bloomberg News survey showed.

"We're definitely looking for more contraction in the labor market," Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at Horizon Investments in Charlotte, North Carolina, said before the report. "The risk for dramatic cutbacks in employment will be focused in the financial services industry."

Initial claims were forecast to fall to 393,000 from the 406,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median projection of 40 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 375,000 to 440,000. The total number of initial filings last week was the highest since April 2003.

A Labor spokesman said the weekly increase in claims was partly attributed to workers who had been in the program until their benefits expired or they found work. Some of those workers who have since lost their new jobs reapplied, and instead of getting extensions were eligible for regular unemployment insurance, the spokesman said.

Weekly filings may be higher for several weeks as more workers apply for extended unemployment claims and find that they're eligible for regular benefits, the spokesman said. The Labor Department's July payrolls report tomorrow may show the economy lost 75,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate rose to 5.6 percent, according to the Bloomberg survey median.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, a less volatile measure, gained to 393,000 from 382,000, the report showed. The number of people continuing to collect jobless benefits increased to 3.282 million in the week ended July 19, from 3.097 million the prior week. The weekly jump in continuing claims was the biggest since June 1998.

The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, rose to 2.5 percent, from 2.3 percent. These data are reported with a one-week lag.




Massachusetts Charges Merrill Over Auction-Rate Securities
The Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth charged Merrill Lynch & Co. with fraud in pushing the sale of auction-rate securities while "misstating the stability of the auction market itself."

"This company was aggressively selling ARS to investors and its auction desk was censoring the research analysts to make sure they downplayed ARS market risks in research reports up to the day Merrill pulled the plug on its auctions," Secretary William Galvin said. "They knew the auction markets were in trouble, but the investors were the last to know."

The complaint also alleges Merrill co-opted its research department to help sell the securities and seeks to order the brokerage to "make good" on the sales of now-frozen securities and make restitution to investors who sold at less than par.

Earlier this week, units of UBS AG disclosed they will pay $4.4 million to settle allegations from the state's attorney general's office that the bank misled cities and government agencies into investing in the troubled investment products.

The payment will come in addition to the roughly $35 million that UBS agreed to pay in May to Massachusetts municipalities and agencies. The Swiss bank didn't admit or deny wrongdoing in the settlement, which it said "represents the final step in the resolution of this matter with the Massachusetts attorney general." New York has also filed charges against UBS.

Auction-rate securities -- issued by municipalities, student-loan companies, charitable organizations and others -- are long-term securities that Wall Street engineered to have short-term features. Their interest rates reset at weekly or monthly auctions run by Wall Street firms.

The firms promised individual investors and corporate clients that the frequent auctions made these securities as safe and liquid as cash because they would always be easy to sell quickly. Thursday's complaint versus Merrill alleges the company had known for several months that the auction markets faced significant danger of collapsing.

In a personal email last November, one executive allegedly wrote, "The market is collapsing. No more $2k dinners at CRU," referring to a Manhattan restaurant. Yet about three months later, a research analyst told financial advisers the auction business represented a "good, conservative and reasonable investment."

Only five days later, Merrill decided to stop supporting the auction-rate securities, and most of the auctions failed the next day. The complaint alleges Merrill Lynch made about $90 million from the auction market in 2006 and 2007.

Earlier this week, Merrill agreed to sell more than $30 billion in toxic mortgage-related assets at a steep loss, hoping to purge its balance sheet of problems that continue to plague the giant brokerage firm.




Freddie Mac to Double Incentives To Servicers to Avoid Foreclosures
Freddie Mac, which has been stung by surging delinquencies, will double the financial incentives it offers to mortgage servicers that help borrowers with Freddie-owned loans avoid foreclosure.

The mortgage giant has struggled in recent months as federal officials have sought to reassure investors about its financial health and pressure mounts to raise fresh capital to offset the tumbling values of home loans it holds. Freddie shares are off 75% year-to-date and recently traded down 12 cents at $8.61.

Beginning Friday, compensation for repayment plans will jump to $500 from $250, while loan modification compensation will also double to $800. For preforeclosure sales, under which Freddie Mac accepts less than the full amount owed on a borrower's loan, compensation will increase to $2,200, up $1,000.

Freddie Mac, one of the largest investors in residential mortgages in the U.S., will also extend the time for foreclosures, so servicers will have more time to negotiate workouts with delinquent borrowers in Washington, D.C., and 20 states with relatively fast foreclosure processes. Servicers will be given up to 10 months from the due date of the last payment to the foreclosure sale.

"Giving our servicers more time and greater compensation to help troubled borrowers is fundamental to preserving homeownership and maximizing our efforts to minimize foreclosures," Vice President of Servicing and Asset Management Ingrid Beckles said.

The slumping stock prices of Freddie and fellow mortgage giant Fannie Mae have set off a raging debate on Wall Street over whether the companies, which are crucial to the battered housing market, will need a big cash infusion and possibly government help. 




Central banks move to boost credit flow
Three of the world's most powerful central banks unveiled new measures to boost US dollar liquidity for European banks in an effort to help credit flow more freely.

The European Central Bank, the US Federal Reserve and the Swiss National Bank announced new measures to make dollars available for a longer period. In December the Fed, ECB and Swiss National Bank responded to the international financing crisis by agreeing to currency swaps that allowed the ECB and SNB to provide dollars directly to European banks.

Many banks had invested heavily in securities backed by US mortgages, and when that market dried up, the banks found it hard to obtain the dollar liquidity needed to keep their operations afloat. An initial 28-day period is being extended since it has become clear that banks need the cash for longer periods to calm the market's still troubled waters.

UniCredit Markets economist Harm Bandholz said the move showed that "the Fed acknowledges that circumstances in financial markets remain fragile". At the same time, the Fed said it would let Wall Street firms draw emergency loans into next year and give financial companies more options to help them overcome credit problems.




GMAC Reports $2.5 Billion Loss as Auto, Housing Slump
GMAC LLC, the auto and mortgage finance company majority owned by Cerberus Capital Management LP, reported a $2.5 billion loss as vehicle sales plummeted and the housing slump boosted foreclosures.

The second-quarter loss, GMAC's fourth straight, compares with profit of $293 million a year earlier, the Detroit-based company said today in a statement. Residential Capital LLC's loss jumped to $1.86 billion from $254 million a year earlier, and the home loan unit has suspended almost all production outside the U.S.

Since arranging a $60 billion debt refinancing package last month to keep ResCap out of bankruptcy, GMAC has faced a deteriorating auto market on top of the U.S. housing slump. General Motors Corp., which sold 51 percent of GMAC to Cerberus two years ago, said sales of new cars and light trucks dropped 18 percent in June.

"It's a disaster," said Gregory Habeeb, who manages $8.5 billion in fixed-income investment at Calvert Asset Management Co. in Bethesda, Maryland, including a "small position" in GMAC and ResCap bonds. "There's very little good news with General Motors. Then you consider all the mortgage-related problems." He was interviewed before results were released.

ResCap has recorded $7.2 billion of losses in seven quarters. The second-quarter deficit stemmed from losses on sales of pools of mortgages and increased reserves because of "continued deterioration in certain European markets," the company said. ResCap said today it halted all lending outside the U.S. with the exception of Canadian insured loans.

The global automotive finance unit, which specializes in making loans to consumers, reported a loss of $717 million in the second quarter compared with income of $395 million a year earlier, GMAC said. The insurance business earned $154 million, after a $143 million profit in the same period last year.

GMAC said this week it will stop subsidized auto leasing in Canada as the value of vehicles declines. The company said it's reducing new leases in the U.S. GMAC has an exclusive contract to provide loans and leasing incentives to GM car buyers until 2016.

High gas prices and rising unemployment are dragging down sales at Detroit-based GM, which has lost two-thirds of its stock market value in the past year. Auto finance units are losing money on existing leases as sport-utility vehicles and trucks plunge in value.

GMAC took a $716 million impairment charge because of the declining value of leased vehicles. The company said it has $30 billion in leases, including $12 billion in sport-utility vehicles and $6 billion in trucks, categories facing declining sales because of soaring gasoline prices.




Fannie Mae portfolio rose at fastest rate since '03
Fannie Mae, the largest provider of funding for U.S. residential mortgages, on Wednesday said it grew its investment portfolio in June at the fastest annualized rate in nearly five years. Fannie Mae's mortgage portfolio increased at a 22.8 percent annualized rate to $749.6 billion in June, from $736.9 billion in May, the Washington-based company said in a statement.

The government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) has been boosting growth in its investments since its regulator earlier this year began easing requirements on capital it must hold against the assets. Lawmakers consider such purchases by Fannie Mae and rival Freddie Mac as playing a key role in supporting the U.S. housing market that is going through a wrenching downturn.

U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law on Wednesday a housing bill that includes measures to ensure funding for the two companies, which have sustained billions of dollars in losses from rising loan defaults.
Serious delinquencies on loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae jumped to 1.3 percent in May from 1.22 percent in April.

Fannie Mae last registered a faster annual rate of portfolio growth in September 2003 as falling interest rates sparked a record boom in refinancing. Commitments by Fannie Mae to purchase mortgages in future months declined to $38.3 billion in June -- the third-highest rate this year -- from nearly $43 billion in May.




Treasury confident it will keep AAA rating
Two days after the White House revealed that the budget deficit for fiscal 2009 will set a record approaching $500 billion, the Treasury Department announced its strategy to finance all that extra borrowing.

Anthony Ryan, Treasury's acting undersecretary for domestic finance, announced Wednesday that the federal government will borrow $171 billion during the July-September quarter. That's the second-largest quarterly financing requirement in history - and fiscal 2009 doesn't even begin until Oct. 1.

Mr. Ryan expressed confidence that the federal government would continue to maintain its AAA credit rating even as budget deficits rise. "It's a huge advantage to have that AAA status, and we are committed to that," Mr. Ryan said. A top-notch credit rating allows a borrower to raise funds at lower interest rates.

Earlier this month, both Moody's and Standard & Poor's, two leading credit rating agencies, declared that the United States would not be in danger of losing its AAA rating, even if it had to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that own or guarantee half of the nation's home mortgages.

James Horney, an economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed. "In the short run, the deficit and debt, as a percentage of the economy, are within the range needed to maintain our AAA rating," he said. "Ten years from now, if debt is still rising and nothing has been done" to address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, "people would start to get nervous."

Earlier this year, Moody's said the United States could lose its AAA rating if it did not take radical action to slow its health care spending and curb its Social Security obligations. "If no policy changes are made, in 10 years from now we would have to look very seriously at whether the U.S. is still a AAA credit," Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, told the Financial Times in January.

On Monday the White House raised its estimate of the 2009 deficit to $482 billion, nearly three times the 2007 deficit. The 2009 deficit estimate is also $69 billion above the previous record of $413 billion set in 2004. However, the 2009 deficit will almost certainly exceed $500 billion because the White House's latest estimate includes only $70 billion to fund the global war on terror. For 2007 and 2008, Congress authorized spending an average of $184 billion per year on that goal.

When Congress passed its housing bill last week, it increased the statutory debt limit from $9.8 trillion to $10.6 trillion. According to the revised budget estimates issued Monday, the nation will probably bump up against the new limit sometime in fiscal 2010.

However, the increase in the national debt during fiscal 2009 will actually exceed $800 billion. The official figure is $817 billion, but the eventual total could easily go beyond $900 billion. The national debt has never increased by as much as $600 billion in a single year.




U.S. Auto Lease ABS Ratings Facing Stiff Headwinds
The recent announcements by the financing arms of Chrysler, GM and Ford regarding the discontinuation or overhaul of their auto lease programs underscores the impact of rapidly declining vehicle resale values, according to Fitch Ratings.

Earlier this week Chrysler Financial, GMAC and Ford Motor Credit announced significant changes to their auto lease businesses with Chrysler Financial suspending their U.S. auto lease program all together. GMAC announced it will stop subsidizing leases in Canada and will eliminate certain lower credit quality borrowers from consideration domestically.

Ford announced significant increases in lease rates for certain SUVs and trucks. All three companies indicated that their decision was influenced by the ongoing decay in the resale values of vehicles coming off lease. Coincident with these declines, Fitch is currently completing a review of its auto lease ratings with a focus on the 2007 and 2008 vintages.

Fitch currently has 20 public ratings outstanding from 10 transactions representing approximately $7.2 billion in principal outstanding from 2007 and 2008 U.S. captive finance company issuances. The initial review is expected to be completed over the next two to three weeks.

'As Fitch has noted, dramatic drops in the value of used cars is impacting the entire auto ABS sector, but those declines are having an amplified affect on the performance of auto lease transactions,' said Managing Director and U.S. ABS group head Kevin Duignan.

'Transactions from 2007 and 2008 may not have built enough credit enhancement to offset the potential increase in residual value losses while still maintaining coverage consistent with Fitch's original ratings.' U.S. captive finance companies, in particular, are experiencing higher than expected residual value losses due to the steep drop in the values of vehicles coming off lease especially for SUVs and trucks.

Fitch's base case residual value loss expectation for these companies' auto lease ABS transactions has increased by 20-30% since the second half of 2007 as value declines accelerated. However, current data suggests that actual declines are exceeding this range in certain transactions with further deterioration expected.

'While ratings in the auto lease sector have traditionally been remarkably stable, the rapid rate of decline in vehicle values over the past six months is unprecedented and will put those ratings to the test,' said ABS Senior Director Ravi Gupta.




Deutsche Bank Profit Declines 64% on $3.6 billion Debt Writedowns
Deutsche Bank AG, Germany's largest bank, said second-quarter profit fell 64 percent as 2.3 billion euros ($3.6 billion) in writedowns led to a second straight loss at its securities unit.

Net income declined to 649 million euros, or 1.27 euros a share, from 1.78 billion euros, or 3.60 euros, a year ago, the Frankfurt-based bank said on its Web site today. Earnings beat the 491 million-euro median estimate of 19 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg after a year-earlier tax charge wasn't repeated.

Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann said he "remains cautious" after the investment bank posted a 311 million-euro pretax loss on markdowns of mortgage securities, loans and debt backed by bond insurers. Deutsche Bank sidestepped the worst of the subprime contagion, which led to record losses and capital raisings at UBS AG and Merrill Lynch & Co.

"Compared to the U.S. banks and UBS, there's a world of difference," said Juergen Meyer, a fund manager at SEB Asset Management with the equivalent of $2.2 billion under management, including Deutsche Bank shares. "In the current market, it isn't a given that a bank remains profitable."

Deutsche Bank was unchanged at 58.83 euros by 9:19 a.m. in Frankfurt trading, leaving declines this year at 34 percent and valuing the company at 31.2 billion euros. The 71-company Bloomberg Europe Banks and Financial Services Index has fallen 31 percent in 2008.

The company reduced the value of residential mortgage-backed securities, mostly so-called Alt-A mortgages, by 1 billion euros. It reported markdowns of 530 million euros on assets secured by bond insurers and 309 million euros on commercial real estate loans. Loans for leveraged buyouts were written down by 200 million euros, and other investments by 203 million euros.

Deutsche Bank's second-quarter markdowns bring its total to about 7.3 billion euros. The collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market has led to $476 billion of credit losses and writedowns at financial institutions globally, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Merrill Lynch, the third-biggest U.S. securities firm, said on July 28 it will sell $8.55 billion of stock and liquidate $30.6 billion of bonds at a fifth of their face value to shore up credit ratings imperiled by $52 billion in mortgage losses. Zurich-based UBS, the largest Swiss bank, has recorded about $38 billion of markdowns.

"We remain cautious for the remainder of 2008," Ackermann, 60, said in a statement. "We will continue to strictly manage cost, risk and capital, and to reduce our exposures in key areas." The investment bank's loss compares with a profit of 1.75 billion euros a year earlier and exceeds the 154 million-euro loss estimated by analysts.

The division, led by Anshu Jain and Michael Cohrs, posted a 79 percent decline in fixed-income sales and trading revenue to 602 million euros. Equities sales and trading revenue fell 41 percent to 830 million euros. Pretax profit from consumer banking, asset management and global transaction banking rose 2.2 percent to 854 million euros from 836 million euros a year earlier.

The so-called stable businesses generated about a third of the bank's pretax profit last year. The consumer business, boosted by the acquisitions of Germany's Norisbank and Berliner Bank in 2006, reported record quarterly pretax profit of 328 million euros.

Deutsche Bank's earnings in the second quarter were helped by a tax surplus of 3 million euros, compared with a tax expense of 922 million euros a year earlier. Profit was also boosted by 241 million euros from asset sales, including shares in Daimler AG, the world's second-biggest luxury carmaker, and Allianz SE.




Credit market far from tossing away its crutches
New Federal Reserve liquidity measures announced on Wednesday continue the process of healing for severely injured global credit markets, but a happier day will be when the market can toss away its crutches for good.

The positive reception to moves by the Fed, ECB and Swiss National Bank in currency, equities, and credit markets was short-lived in Wednesday trading, underlining how brittle the financial system remains. "This latest I.V. keeps the patient in stable but not critical condition, but not ready for discharge," said Doug Roberts, chief investment strategist at Channel Capital Research
.
By various measures the credit crisis of the past year is still raging, or in the Fed's words, conditions remain unusual, exigent and fragile. The U.S. central bank said it would continue to lend directly to investment banks by extending the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) from the originally-planned August sunset.

The Fed also announced a new program, auctions on TSLF options, for times of "elevated stress" such as the end of a quarter. "These actions should help to somewhat alleviate market stresses, but are incremental rather than transformational," said economists at Goldman Sachs.

The PDCF gives investment banks access to the Fed's discount window for lender-of-last-resort cash. The TSLF is a series of weekly auctions of 28-day loans of Treasury securities to primary dealers. An extension of the facilities was hinted at recently by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and other Fed policy-makers.

Still, it was seen as well timed ahead of major economic reports due later this week and the Federal Open Market Committee's policy meeting next Tuesday. "It should be a plus for depository institutions and financial institutions in general," said Michael Moran, chief economist at Daiwa Securities American in New York.

The lending facilities could be around until at least the end of January, or withdrawn if circumstances change.
"The Fed was clear that these facilities (PDCF and TSLF) are temporary and will end when it judges the emergency has passed," said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman in New York.

Measures such as the TED spread, the difference between Treasury bill yields and Eurodollar deposit yields, still imply high risk in the banking system. "Some reduction of uncertainty in the banking sector is a prerequisite, but right now it seems another shoe is falling every other day," said Channel Capital's Roberts. The sector could take years to fully right itself, he added.

The TED spread, which was trading near 25 basis points before the credit crisis erupted in August 2007, peaked in March near 200 bps, but is still near 100 bps. "Conditions in financial markets remain very fragile, with key gauges of the health of the financial sector only looking moderately better than the most recent peak in the spring," said Rudy Narvas, analyst at 4CAST Ltd in New York.

A "show me" attitude prevailed in the credit default swap market, which measures the cost of protecting corporate debt. The main index of investment-grade credit default swaps traded down to about 130.5 basis points early but ended at about 132 bps against 131.6 bps at Tuesday's close, according to Markit Intraday data.

"There's still a lot of serious issues out there that need to be resolved and more bonds that need to be marked down across the financial spectrum," said Mirko Mikelic, a corporate bond portfolio manager for Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Analysts said the Fed's provisions can't address the issues behind the credit crisis, now nearing a dubious first birthday, namely the billions of dollars in bad mortgages that have sunk the U.S. housing market and caused more than $400 billion of writedowns at financial institutions around the world.

Figures on Wednesday showed that serious delinquencies on loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae, the largest provider of funding for U.S. residential mortgages, rose to 1.3 percent in May from 1.22 percent in April.
With U.S. house prices still plummeting, according to the latest Standard & Poors/Case Shiller home price index, mortgage delinquencies most likely have not peaked.

In a report this week, economists at Deutsche Bank forecast that the shock from the credit crunch and the related reduction in leverage ratios at financial institutions would linger.

"We estimate that this deleveraging will depress credit supply to the non-bank sector by roughly 15 percent in the United States and 12 percent in Euroland by 2010," the report said. "The current credit tightening has the potential to be a significant drag on growth for some time to come."

In that vein, GMAC and Ford Motor Credit on Tuesday announced steps to cut back on auto leases, a move that threatened to hurt auto sales already at decade lows.

"Creditors in the United States are wary of making mortgage loans, consumer loans, and student loans, all of which are rising in price and have become less available," said Timothy Canova, professor of international economic law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

"There is no forcing banks to take on increased risk at a time when their losses are mounting," he said




Fed Signals Market Strife Will Continue Into '09
When will the financial markets will return to normal? Not until next year, at least. So it seems, says the Federal Reserve.

On Wednesday, the central bank gave Wall Street's biggest investment houses, the so-called primary dealers, another four months of access to its emergency borrowing window. It wasn't entirely unexpected, and it gives firms like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers extra breathing room to work toxic assets off their balance sheets and raise capital.

Combined with the Securities and Exchange Commission's emergency order to restrict short-selling in stocks of those same 19 companies, an order that the agency extended for another 10 days, it seems regulators still have heightened concerns about the financial sector.

The Fed said it was leaving the window open to the dealers "in light of continued fragile circumstances in financial markets." How fragile? Economists point to the TED spread, which measures the difference between the three-month U.S. Treasury bill and the three-month Eurodollar future (aka the inter-bank lending rate).

The difference is an indicator of credit risk, since U.S. T-bills are considered risk-free, while the inter-bank rate reflects banks' willingness to lend to each other and corporations in general. In normal times, the TED spread is around 25 to 40 points. During the year-long credit crisis, it soared to a spread of as much as 200 points. On Wednesday, the spread was 111.

The Fed's move, along with tweaks to other programs introduced this year to kick-start the credit markets after months of crisis, comes just two days after Merrill Lynch sold a $30 billion portfolio of toxic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) for just 22 cents on the dollar and announced another $5.7 billion in write-downs for the third quarter.

Oddly, financial stocks are soaring this week despite evidence the write-downs and losses will continue--and signals from Washington that the concerns are still high. Citigroup, which has Merrill-like exposures to CDOs, is seen taking $8 billion of write-downs in the third quarter, along with billions more in credit loss reserves. Citi shares are up 26% since mid-July, when it reported a loss of $2.5 billion, which was actually better than expected.

Primary dealers, an elite group of banks that trade U.S. government securities directly with the Fed, have had access to its emergency discount window since Bear Stearns suffered a run of liquidity and was forced into a sale to JPMorgan Chase. That was mid-March.

Before that, the dealers raised cash for daily operations in the short-term secured credit markets, through swaps and repos. Fears that another liquidity crisis could topple Lehman or another major investment bank led the Fed to open the lending window, putting the primary dealers on the same standing as commercial banks.

Since March, Wall Street firms have borrowed a total of $275 billion in overnight loans from the window, but the borrowing was heaviest in the spring and has dwindled to almost nothing. The fact that it's still available, however, is what is keeping another major financial institution from going bust.

"Today's decision by the Fed is the right one for the American economy," said Tim Ryan, chief executive the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Wall Street's trade group. "Continued access to the window will help calm the waters at a tumultuous time. The availability of this potential liquidity reassures the market and provides a backstop that, because of its mere presence, makes it less likely to be utilized."




Moody's Lies In The Bed It Made
Moody's second-quarter earnings were anything but sterling. The ratings service's profit tumbled on plummeting demand for mortgage bonds and collateralized debt obligations. Yet Moody's, the parent of Moody's Investors Service, managed to perform better than expected, sending shares higher in morning trading.

Its early gains were reversed, however, when Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced at a press conference he was suing Moody's, McGraw-Hill, the parent company of Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings for giving artificially low credit ratings to cities and towns that cost taxpayers millions of dollars in unnecessary insurance and higher interest payments.

Blumenthal is not the only one to criticize the ratings agencies. Investors, politicians, regulators and others have pointed fingers at the three ratings agencies for failing to warn of widespread defaults on U.S. subprime mortgages and the ensuing credit market crisis. In turn, the credit market has tightened demand for mortgages and CDOs have plunged as buyers have had a harder time getting credit.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an investigation into credit ratings agencies' failure to identify much of the risk involved in subprime investments. In May, the Financial Times reported that Moody's had wrongly assigned triple-A ratings to complex European debt products called constant proportion debt obligations, or CPDOs.

On Wednesday, Moody's announced its net income tumbled 48.0% to $135.2 million, or 54 cents per share, from $261.9 million, or 95 cents a share, in the prior year. The company said its operating profit fell 36.0% from a year earlier to $233.7 million. Profit excluding items was 51 cents per share, beating analysts' estimates of 47 cents a share. Revenue fell 25.0% to $487.6 million, beating the analyst forecast of $467.6 million.

Moody’s reported a 56.0% plunge in revenue from CDOs and other structured finance products, including such asset classes as residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate finance and credit derivatives. In the United States alone, structured-finance revenue fell 67.0%. Expenses declined 10% percent as Moody's cut jobs and reduced incentives and stock-based compensation.

Raymond McDaniel, the company's chairman and CEO, said Moody’s results in the second quarter were better than the first quarter, although they were below the prior year. McDaniel said he is “cautious about recovery in the credit markets for the remainder of 2008.”

The company reaffirmed its previous full-year earnings per share guidance of $1.90 to $2.00, which was given on April 23, because of strength in its ratings business, growth from Moody's Analytics and cost-cutting initiatives. Analysts forecast full-year earnings per share of $1.92. Moody's largest shareholder is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, with a 19.6% stake as of March 31.




Connecticut Sues Moody's, S&P and Fitch Over Ratings
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Moody's Corp., Fitch Inc. and Standard & Poor's parent The McGraw Hill Cos. claiming they unfairly gave municipal bonds lower ratings than comparable corporate or structured debt.

"We are holding the credit-rating agencies accountable for a secret Wall Street tax on Main Street," Blumenthal said in a statement. The complaints, filed today in Connecticut Superior Court in Hartford, seek redress for what Blumenthal called the companies' "deceptive and illegal" business practices.

Blumenthal said the dual rating system costs "taxpayers literally $2.3 billion for insurance." He has been conducting an antitrust probe of the three companies since last summer. In June, he said firms that rate U.S. municipal bonds "knowingly and systematically" gave the securities lower grades, raising costs for state and local governments.

Blumenthal, Connecticut's top law enforcement official, said the investigation is continuing. Moody's, under pressure from regulators and state finance officials, said last month it would change the way it rates municipal bonds and rank them on the same scale it uses for corporate and sovereign debt. Blumenthal said the dual standard benefited bond insurers, investors and the agencies themselves.

"This rating charade created a Wall Street shell game constructed by the ratings agencies for the benefit of the bond insurers," he said, adding that bond insurers profited from unnecessary premiums and interest paid by taxpayers.

Blumenthal is seeking a ruling declaring the companies engaged in unfair and deceptive acts, an order to determine the amount of improper fees and revenue they gained, penalties for each violation of the state's unfair trade practices act, restitution and disgorgement.

Moody's Chief Executive Officer Raymond McDaniel called the lawsuit "meritless." "The suit implies that the measuring system is wrong," McDaniel said today during a conference call with analysts. "That's like saying it's wrong to measure distance in centimeters and right to measure it in inches."

In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Blumenthal disagreed with McDaniel's analogy. "It's like having two strike zones in baseball," he said. "It's like the umpires having a small strike zone for the good pitchers and a regular strike zone for all of the rest."

Blumenthal's allegations are "an unfortunate development" and without merit, Fitch Managing Director David Weinfurter said in an e-mailed statement, adding the firm would fight the suit. "Fitch rates Connecticut and all states based on our forward-looking opinion as to their financial capacity to pay their debts as they come due -- not based solely on historical rates of default," Weinfurter said in the statement.

He said Fitch performed "a comprehensive review" of its municipal finance ratings and will disclose the results tomorrow.
McGraw-Hill echoed Weinfurter's comments in a separate statement, saying it too would fight the litigation. Connecticut is attempting to "use litigation to dictate what bond rating it receives," McGraw-Hill said.

State officials and regulators have criticized New York- based firms Moody's and Standard and Poor's, as well as Fitch, a unit of Paris-based Fimalac, for using a scale that raised borrowing costs by holding municipal bonds, whose 10-year default rate was 0.1 percent between 1970 and 2006, to a higher standard than corporate and sovereign debt.

Many issuers bought bond insurance to improve their rating, a strategy that backfired this year when some guarantors lost their AAA ratings amid subprime mortgage-related losses. The Connecticut probe has included whether the firms rank debt against issuers' wishes, then demand payment, or threaten to downgrade debt unless they're awarded business to rate all of an issuer's securities, Blumenthal has said.

He has also been scrutinizing links between Moody's and its largest shareholder, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has led efforts to end the separate rating scales, saying they burden taxpayers with unnecessary, added interest expense.

Lockyer said that if California, the most-populous U.S. state, had top credit ratings, it might save more than $5 billion over the 30-year life of $61 billion in yet-to-be-sold, voter- approved debts. California has spent $102 million on municipal bond insurance in the last four years, he said.

Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo on July 24 sued MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group Inc. and four other bond insurers for allegedly conspiring to maintain a credit-rating system that led local governments to buy "unnecessary" policies on their bonds.

Borrowers in the $2.66 trillion U.S. municipal market have for decades paid insurers to guarantee their bonds, seeking to lower borrowing costs by paying AAA rated companies to stand behind the securities. That practice has drawn fire this year from public officials who said it exaggerates the risk that municipal bonds will default, forcing states, cities and schools to buy backing they don't need.




Bear Stearns Demise Proves Premature as 'Ace' Sells New Shares
When Michael Nolan walked into his office on the 26th floor of the former Bear Stearns Cos. building on June 2, after the JPMorgan Chase & Co. takeover was completed, he found a packet on his desk. Inside: a JPMorgan security badge, a list of contacts and business cards that read, "Bear Stearns: a JPMorgan Company."

Nolan, 52, and 325 other Bear Stearns retail brokers will carry on the name after a crisis of confidence among customers and lenders forced the investment bank to sell itself to JPMorgan in March. Alan "Ace" Greenberg, Bear Stearns's best- known trader and its former chairman, will continue selling stocks to clients, 59 years after joining the New York-based company as a clerk.

"I'm thrilled the name lives on," said Nolan, who joined Bear Stearns in 1991. "I believe in branding, and I don't see a reason to kill it after 85 years of building it." Keeping alive a vestige of the securities firm founded in 1923 by Joseph Bear and Robert Stearns is more than just nostalgia, said Charles Geisst, the author of "100 Years on Wall Street," who teaches finance at Manhattan College in New York.

Just as Citigroup Inc. hung onto Salomon Brothers for five years, and UBS AG retained PaineWebber for almost three, the brand may help keep clients. "JPMorgan is not known for brokerage," Geisst said. "As a result, you want to keep the name that signifies brokerage, and that, of course, is Bear Stearns."

Bear Stearns, previously the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm, had more than 500 retail brokers. The wealth management division booked $830 million of revenue in 2007, 14 percent of the firm's total. JPMorgan didn't have a retail brokerage prior to the purchase, and Jes Staley, 51, who runs the bank's asset management unit, said in December that he wasn't interested in running such a business.

Some of the Bear Stearns brokers who joined JPMorgan shunned offers of as much as $2 million from competitors including UBS, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Morgan Stanley, executive recruiter Mindy Diamond said in March. They chose instead to join the third-largest U.S. bank by assets, which has managed this year's market turmoil better than rivals.

Led by Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan recorded $12.8 billion of net losses since the beginning of last year. Bank of America Corp., the second-largest lender, posted $21.2 billion of losses in the same period. Brokers were also lured by the opportunity to sell JPMorgan's bigger range of investment products, such as private- equity and hedge funds, said Barry Sommers, 39, who oversees the Bear Stearns unit.

Sommers, along with Staley and Mary Erdoes, 40, chairwoman of wealth management, visited Bear Stearns's six brokerage offices outside New York -- in Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Los Angeles -- after the deal was announced. They assured workers that the Bear Stearns "entrepreneurial" culture would persist, Sommers said.

"The strategy is to keep the culture intact, but tap into the products at JPMorgan," Sommers said in an interview. The Bear Stearns brokers remain a separate division from JPMorgan's private bank, whose clients are typically worth more than $25 million. They'll be kept on a commission-based model, not the salary and bonus pay structure of private banking, Staley said in an interview.

JPMorgan plans to keep the business small, growing to a maximum of 1,000 brokers, Staley said. Merrill Lynch, the world's biggest brokerage, has a team of 16,690. "My philosophy is, seek to be the best and don't confuse being the best with being the biggest," he said. "What we want to do is improve on the quality of our brokers, maintain their business model, but give them access to the products of JPMorgan."

The Bear Stearns unit collected revenue of $38 million in the second quarter, its first as a division of JPMorgan. That was less than 2 percent of the entire asset management unit's intake of $2.1 billion. Assets under management were $8 billion.

It's dwarfed by Citigroup's Smith Barney unit, one of the few Wall Street names that wasn't retired after a takeover. Smith Barney's 15,000 brokers had $2.7 billion in revenue for the second quarter. At Morgan Stanley, net revenue including private banking was $2.4 billion in the quarter ended May 31.




Ilargi: The Governor and his finance folk are confused on terms like recession and stagflation, but they do feel the hammer swooshing down. Does anyone still question that what happens in New York now will soon spread nation wide? Unions can complain all they want, but the money’s really not there for much longer. They’d be much better off negotiating new contracts with that in mind.

New York economy officially in recession, state budget director says
Gov. David Paterson and his budget director said today the state faces "the specter of stagflation" as it tries to cut more than $1 billion in spending. Budget Director Laura Anglin has concluded the state's economy is officially in a recession.

Paterson has called state legislators back for an "emergency economic session" on Aug. 19. He wants them to cut about $600 million in state spending in the current budget, on top of measures he announced today. That includes a hiring freeze and a 7 percent reduction in spending at state agencies. That will generate most of the $650 million Paterson said he can save with such unilateral actions.

"These are essential areas we're looking at cutting. That's how bad our economic situation is," Paterson said at a press conference in Manhattan. "We've been running a deficit, but we've been bailed out by Wall Street many times," Paterson said. Those times have ended, he said.

Another way Paterson wants to raise or save money is by developing public-private partnerships for state assets, including lease-back programs. In such a case, the state would sell an asset--a bridge or tunnel, for instance--to a private investor, who would then immediately lease the asset back to the state.

Unlike his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, Paterson said he is not going to sell any state assets. Spitzer wanted to privatize the state lottery to start an endowment for the state's public universities. "I don't want to sell the Thruway," Paterson said. "But we need to look and think creatively about how to create long-term revenue streams and provide opportunities for the state to grow." He declined to elaborate.

Anglin, the budget director, outlined several negative trends in the state's economy, including $225 billion in subprime mortgage loans that banks have written off, enabling them to take that money off their bottom lines. "It's a fairly dramatic shift," Anglin said. "We don't think it's done."

Several unions criticized Paterson's call for spending cuts and a hiring freeze. CSEA, the state's largest public employee union, said reducing the state's 200,000-member work force would be a "sham."

"When the governor talks about families who can't afford to heat their homes, can't afford to put gas in their cars and can't afford groceries, he is describing his own workers and their families who will only be hurting more after he takes away their jobs," said president Danny Donohue.




AIG Results Deteriorate on Private Equity Returns
Just when American International Group Inc. shareholders figured things couldn't get worse at the world's largest insurer, profit from the company's private equity and hedge fund investments is evaporating.

Earnings from so-called alternative holdings were probably close to zero in the second quarter, after soaring 77 percent to $1.02 billion a year earlier, said Citigroup Inc. analyst Joshua Shanker. The drop follows the worst first half for hedge funds in almost two decades and a 73 percent decline in the value of announced leveraged buyouts, according to data compiled by Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research Inc. and Bloomberg.

Private equity and hedge funds were seen as "something that provided more consistency and stability to AIG's earnings growth," said Henry Smith, who manages $6.5 billion as chief investment officer at Haverford Trust Co. and holds about 2.3 million AIG shares. "That's not the case right now."

The diminishing returns make Chief Executive Officer Robert Willumstad's task of reversing AIG's 55 percent stock slide this year and its record $7.81 billion first-quarter loss more difficult. Second-quarter adjusted net income probably fell 78 percent to $1.04 billion, analysts estimate. Willumstad, 62, the CEO since last month, will announce results Aug. 6.

In what may be a precursor for New York-based AIG, Allstate Corp., the largest publicly traded U.S. home and auto insurer, said July 23 that earnings from private equity, hedge funds and real estate funds dropped 65 percent from a year earlier to $30 million. The slide contributed to Allstate's 98 percent decline in net income. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. this week said income from alternatives fell 77 percent to $25 million.

"This year, with hedge funds, we saw some meaningful reductions in income," said Hartford CEO Ramani Ayer in an interview yesterday. "We had a very good year last year, and we had a not-so-pretty year this year." CNA Financial Corp. posted a 35 percent decline. Lincoln National Corp. reported an 81 percent drop to $13 million.

"Every company thinks they're special, that somehow they're more able than others to invest and deliver these returns without the volatility and losses," said Paul Newsome, a Chicago-based analyst at Sandler O'Neill & Partners. "It's not historically been a good plan."

Insurers reaching for higher returns than from bonds and stocks increased private equity and hedge fund assets by 48 percent last year to $49.8 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in Kansas City, Missouri, which compiles data from companies' U.S. units. In 2006, the holdings rose 34 percent.

"There were a number of years where alternatives were booking 20 percent-type returns," Newsome said. "That looked awfully attractive versus a 5 percent bond." The companies "will be happy" these days if alternative investments don't lose value, he said.

AIG's first-quarter returns from alternatives fell 84 percent from a year earlier to $197 million, an annualized gain of 2.7 percent. AIG expects 10 percent to 15 percent over the long term on the investments, Chief Investment Officer Win Neuger told analysts in June, including start-up hedge funds and private equity stakes in power plants, waste-treatment facilities and shipping termin




Exxon Profit Rises Less Than Estimated; Output Drops Most in Over a Decade
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest oil company, posted a smaller increase in second-quarter profit than analysts estimated after production dropped the most in at least a decade.

Net income rose 14 percent to $11.7 billion, or $2.22 a share, from $10.3 billion, or $1.83, a year earlier, the Irving, Texas-based company said today in a statement. Per-share profit excluding costs related to a ruling in the Valdez oil-spill case was 26 cents lower than the average of 12 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Production tumbled 7.8 percent after assets were seized in Venezuela, Nigerian workers went on strike and record prices triggered contract clauses that give oil-rich governments a bigger share of output. U.S. crude futures rose above $140 a barrel for the first time, allowing Exxon Mobil to achieve the highest profit ever for a U.S. company without one-time gains.

"If oil prices are going up $20 and $30 a barrel a quarter like they have been, it hides a lot of flaws," said Brian Gibbons, an analyst at New York-based CreditSights Inc. "The question on everyone's mind is, how do these guys expect to grow production given the restrictions on access to reserves?"

Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson is spending $52 million a day to search for new fields after reserves fell in 2007 by the most in at least a decade. Exxon Mobil plans to start 12 projects this year that will pump the equivalent of 411,000 barrels of crude a day, more than the daily output of Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. oil field.




U.K. House Prices, Confidence Fell Most in Two Decades
U.K. house prices declined the most in almost two decades in July and consumer confidence fell to a record low as the economy edged closer to a recession.

The average value of a home dropped 8.1 percent from a year earlier, the biggest decline since at least 1991, Nationwide Building Society, Britain's fourth-biggest mortgage lender, said today. An index of confidence based on a survey of 2,001 people fell 5 points to minus 39, the lowest since the data began in 1974, GfK NOP Ltd. said.

Britain's economic outlook has deteriorated in the past month after "bad news" on retail sales and other data, Bank of England policy maker David Blanchflower said yesterday. Support for Prime Minister Gordon Brown's ruling Labour Party dropped to the lowest since the early 1980s in a Populus Ltd. poll published this week, as the economy weakened.

"These data reinforce our view that the U.K. economy is going into recession," Michael Saunders, chief western European economist at Citigroup Inc., said in a research note. "With monetary and fiscal policy both hamstrung, most of the economic pain still lies ahead."

On the month, house prices dropped 1.7 percent from June, the ninth consecutive decline, bringing the average value of a home to 169,316 pounds ($335,400), Nationwide said. The pound snapped two days of gains against the euro after today's reports, falling to 78.82 pence as of 12:07 p.m. from 78.62 pence yesterday.

Mortgage lenders stung by the credit-market rout have exacerbated the property downturn by raising borrowing costs. The rate on a home loan fixed for two years rose to 6.63 percent in June, the highest since February 2000, Bank of England data on July 9 showed.

About 1.7 million U.K. homeowners are likely to see the value of their houses fall below the amount they owe on their mortgage, Standard & Poor's said yesterday. Luxury-home prices in central London, the world's most expensive location for prime real estate, fell for a third month in July as the number of properties sold declined by about 50 percent, Knight Frank LLP said today.

"The weakening economy and poor housing market sentiment do not suggest that the market will recover quickly," said Fionnuala Earley, chief economist at Nationwide. "The risk of an economic recession in the U.K. is now clearly rising." GfK's main measure of consumer confidence is now 4 points below the result for March 1990. Gauges of the general economic situation and the climate for major purchases dropped to the lowest on record, the report showed.

The index of consumers' personal financial situation over the next 12 months fell nine points to minus 18, the lowest in 14 years. The Confederation of British Industry's retail sales index dropped to the lowest in 25 years in July, and banks granted the fewest mortgages since at least 1999 last month, reports this week showed.




Housing Slump Hits Northern Ireland Economy Harder Than Bombs
Jim Kingham says the credit crunch is hurting his Belfast-area moving company more than the violence that ravaged Northern Ireland for 35 years.

Kingham has fired nine of his 12 workers at A1 Shortnotice, based in Newtownards, as house prices plunge and sales dry up.
"You can take me back to the days of the bombings," says Kingham, who has run A1 for 40 years. "Business was better then. Five of my six lorries haven't left the yard for months."

The credit-market rout is undermining the peace dividend for one of the U.K.'s poorest regions. Northern Ireland's economy is stalling as house prices, which surged as violence came to an end, fall at the fastest rate in the U.K. and building reaches a 12-year low.

"First-time buyers are now frozen out; the investors have packed up," says Alastair Adair, a professor at the University of Ulster in County Antrim who helps compile the province's main house-price index. "It's a real problem for the economy."
Northern Ireland's economy will grow 1 percent this year and next, less than half the rate in 2007, according to a forecast by Ulster Bank, a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.

The province had expected an economic revival following the restoration of a power-sharing government between Catholics and Protestants last year. The accord settled a conflict that claimed 3,500 lives during a period known as the Troubles.

Leading up to the deal, house prices rose at the fastest pace in Europe, data from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors show. They climbed 79 percent in the two years ending in the second quarter of 2007, according to Nationwide Building Society, the U.K.'s biggest customer-owned lender.

"Properties would go on the market and the same day there was maybe 10 or 20 bids in," says Desmond Turley, managing director of Ulster Property Sales in Belfast. "It was frenzied. Now it's different. The level of interest just isn't there." On average, U.K. house prices fell 4 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, according to Nationwide. In Northern Ireland, prices plunged 19 percent.

The credit crunch has deterred local buyers and investors from south of the border, real estate agents say. "The investors aren't around any more," says Stephen McCarron, who runs a real estate agency in Derry, in the northwest of the province. "During the boom nothing surprised me, and 40 percent of property deals in the city were made by southern investors."

McCarron says he sold 10 houses to a buyer from the Republic of Ireland in May 2007, after the man walked into his office with 1 million pounds ($2 million) to spend. At the peak of the boom, a five-bedroom house on Alliance Avenue in Belfast sold for 800,000 pounds. The North Belfast thoroughfare had been dubbed "Murder Mile" because 40 people were killed on or near the road during the conflict.

Four years ago in Dunmore, in north Belfast, homebuyers lined up overnight to buy property just yards from a park split by a 25-foot-high corrugated iron wall erected to keep Protestants and Catholics apart, Turley says. Prices in the area fell 25 percent in the past 12 months.

In April, Belfast-based Northern Bank, owned by Danske Bank A/S, withdrew the 100 percent mortgages it had offered to borrowers in the province, following the lead of other banks. Others raised lending rates, choking off demand for mortgages. While home loans fell 40 percent across the U.K. in the first five months of the year, they slid 60 percent in Northern Ireland, according to the London-based Council for Mortgage Lenders. That's helped send prices tumbling.

Maeve Egan bought a two-bedroom apartment in west Belfast for 130,000 pounds in 2006. Now it's worth 30 percent less, and she can't afford the 800-pound monthly mortgage payment after failing to find a roommate. "I'm living in my mum's house and renting the flat out just to pay the mortgage," says Egan, adding that she's cut her spending on clothes and holidays. "I can hardly afford to go out through the door because of it."

Tom Gray, owner of Budget Travel in Belfast, says sales are down 12 percent this year. Car sales in the province have fallen 9 percent from last year, the biggest drop in the U.K., according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.
"There is a risk that the property prices will slip a bit more," says Alan Bridle, economist at Bank of Ireland Plc. "The associated business-service side has caught the chill as well."

Back at A1, Jim Kingham is mulling packing up one last time. "I don't think we'll continue that much longer," he says. "Even during the Troubles it wasn't as hard as it is now."




HBOS's outlook for the UK housing market is not pretty
The drip-drip approach to bad news continues at HBOS and that's aside from the 72pc collapse in half year pre-tax profits to £848m reported this morning.
 
For the first time, chief executive Andy Hornby has given the market an indication on how far he expects house prices to fall this year and next. It's not pretty. "Consensus forecasts, for the decline in house prices, is now in the range of 15pc-20pc over 2008 and 2009 combined."

He couches it as someone else's opinion, but Hornby mandates the numbers by not questioning them.
Previously, he had forecast falls for 2008 alone of "mid single digits" before revising that to 9pc. Until now, 2009 was unknown territory. The economy, too, gets the same bleak treatment. Just six months ago, at the full-year results in February, HBOS was predicting economic growth this year of 2pc-2.25pc.

The best Hornby can manage now is: "We expect UK GDP growth to remain positive in 2008 but with a risk to the downside in 2009." For HBOS, owner of Britain's biggest mortgage lender in the Halifax, a house price crash and severe economic slowdown is a frightening prospect.

The numbers in today's half-year results paint those fears only too well. Mortgage bad debts are already escalating. In just six months, the value of impaired loans has increased £900m to £5.14bn, or 2.16pc of the £237bn mortgage book.

The bank has had to take an extra £225m of provisions, equivalent to more than a quarter of the half's pre-tax profits, compared with last year. Specialist lending - self-certification and buy-to-let that accounts for a third of the book - has performed particularly poorly with impairments jumping from 1.97pc to 2.49pc.

The book of corporate loans fares not better. Provisions doubled to £469m as company debt started to go bad. As analysts have pointed out, we are still very early in the cycle and insolvencies have yet to kick in. Hornby warns that bad debt losses will only get worse, having seen them jump already by 36pc for half to £1.31bn at group level.

"In light of the deteriorating economic environment, we expect to see upward pressure on impairment losses," he says. So what is HBOS doing about it? In a nutshell, it's lending less. Net mortgage lending in the half was just £2bn, a market share of just 7pc compared with its total 20pc share of stock.

This time last year, when its net lending halved to £4.3bn and its market share collapsed to 8pc, HBOS was so ashamed of the performance it got rid of the head of retail banking, Benny Higgins. This performance is worse in, arguably, a more attractive market. Profit margins have shot up, which explains why Abbey and Lloyds chose to write half of all new mortgages between them in the six months to June.

Hornby himself said that HBOS will pursue mortgage margin. His failure to do so when margins are at their widest for years speaks volumes about the difficulties the bank faces. Even after its £4bn capital raising, HBOS is having to rein in lending to reinforce its balance sheet further. Shareholders are taking the pain in droves.

After being tapped for £4bn, they are seeing their interim dividend slashed from 16.6p last year to 6.1p this year. Moreover, it is being paid in shares, though Hornby pledges to pay the final dividend in cash. And the good news? Credit market writedowns have risen just £200m to £3bn since the update earlier this year, and the numbers were not as bad as any analyst had feared, which explains the 7pc jump in share price today.

But, even after stripping out all the exceptionals, as Lloyds TSB did yesterday, there's nothing cheery to report. Underlying profit before tax, excluding credit market adjustments, fell 14pc to £2.55bn. Lloyds at least managed a profit increase on the most flattering measure.

At least HBOS has its £4bn and a strong capital base with core tier one of 6.5pc from which to withstand the economic buffeting in prospect. But that's about it. The best the normally upbeat Hornby can muster is: "Post the rights issue, and with stable and potentially improving margins underpinning pre-provisioning profitability, we are well placed to compete in tougher markets.




Spain's Inflated Home Valuations Infect $498 Billion of Mortgage Bonds
Jose Maria Gonzalez is struggling to unload a four-bedroom apartment in Madrid so he can pay for the 480,000-euro ($750,000) house he now lives in. His problem may wind up hurting investors in Rome and Hong Kong he's never met.

That's because mortgage-backed bonds issued by Gonzalez's lender are held by funds run by Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC and Pioneer Investments. Property appraisal firms, working in the interests of the banks who controlled them, regularly inflated home values, says Josep Prats, a fund manager at Ahorro Corporacion in Madrid. Such assets are behind as much as 320 billion euros of that paper sold to savers worldwide.

Those estimates helped Spanish banks boost lending by supporting the sale of mortgage-backed bonds that fueled Europe's biggest homebuilding boom. The strategy turned sour after the U.S. subprime crisis triggered more than $470 billion in losses and writedowns worldwide. As Spanish assets are reassessed, the country may become a fresh source of losses.

"Valuations aren't realistic," says Prats, who heads a team managing about 11 billion euros. "Valuation companies issue reports for whatever amount the bank managers are prepared to lend." Gonzalez's lender, Caja de Ahorros de Gipuzkoa y San Sebastian SA, a savings bank in northern Spain known as La Kutxa, has sold 2.5 billion euros of mortgage-backed bonds since the end of 2005.

Pimco, based in Newport Beach, California, and Pioneer Investments bought Kutxa bonds for funds sold to investors around the world. Pimco's Euro Bond Fund, sold to savers in Hong Kong, is the biggest investor in Kutxa's 2007 issue with a 20.6 million-euro holding, according to a March 31 regulatory filing. Pioneer Investments' CIM Euro Fixed Income Fund, which is sold to Italian savers, holds 11 million euros of the bonds.

Pimco, majority-owned by Munich-based Allianz SE, runs the world's largest bond fund and has $829.5 billion under management on behalf of corporate pension plans, public retirement funds and foundations. Pioneer Investments is the fund-management arm of Italy's largest bank, Milan-based UniCredit SpA, which oversees 190.5 billion euros for 40 million customers in 23 countries.

Krishna Prasad, senior fund manager for asset-backed securities at Pimco in London, declined to comment on the fund's holdings. Spokeswoman Mary Zerner said Pimco had no comment for this story. Raffaele Bertoni, the Dublin-based head of fixed income for Pioneer Investments, says the Kutxa bond is backed by solid collateral: homes in the wealthiest areas of Madrid, Barcelona and the Basque Country.

The mortgages account for an average of 78 percent of the properties' value, and the large number of borrowers also spreads the risk of default, he says. "The Spanish market is not the U.S. property market," Bertoni says. "We don't have the famous subprime. Generally speaking, the collateral for each loan is always quite high."

That hasn't prevented Kutxa's bond from losing 8 percent since it was issued in February last year. That contributed to the Pioneer fund underperforming the JPMorgan EMU Bond Index by 2.7 percentage points over the past 12 months. One concern is that the real worth of many Spanish homes is far below official values, meaning the so-called loan-to-value ratio, which underpins Bertoni's view of the investment, understates the risk, according to Prats of Ahorro Corporacion.

A Kutxa spokesman said no one ever raised the issue of home estimates with the bank. Kutxa's mortgage-backed bonds have been successful because of the quality of their loans, said the spokesman, who can't be identified because of company policy.

This month's collapse of Martinsa-Fadesa SA, a developer with more than 5 billion euros in bank debts, suggests investors are beginning to share Prats's concerns about Spanish house values. The company sought protection from creditors after failing to raise 150 million euros even though its property and land holdings were valued at 10.8 billion euros.

Spanish house prices fell for the first time in a decade in the second quarter, and the volume of transactions dropped by a third in May from a year earlier. Yet Bertoni's view is echoed by the Spanish government and the central bank: Spain has no subprime.

"Subprime lending, meaning poorly documented, very long- term, increasing-interest mortgage loans where repayment by the debtor depends sometimes critically on the ability to refinance, simply does not exist in Spain," Deputy Finance Minister David Vegara said in an Oct. 24 conference speech.

Still, in 2006 and 2007 many banks allowed three or four people to sign for mortgages when the buyers didn't qualify on their own, said a spokesman for Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Spain's second-biggest bank. Banks also granted variable-rate loans to families at the financial limit when interest rates were close to the lowest in a generation. Kutxa even offered a 50-year mortgage in 2007.




Spanish banks vulnerable to plummeting real estate market - S&P
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said the correction in Spain's real estate market took a downward step after real estate firm Martinsa Fadesa's recent voluntary declaration of insolvency.

S&P said Martinsa Fadesa is the largest corporate insolvency in Spanish history, involving more than 80 financial institutions as creditors. The ratings agency said the Spanish bank system's lending to residential real estate developers accounted for 17 percent of the system's credit at the end of last year.

S&P said the system's large exposure to the real estate sector is a main risk factor that it incorporates in its ratings. 'Accentuating the housing market's fall are prolonged liquidity constraints in the global financial markets, increasingly restrictive credit conditions, and ebbing buyer confidence,' said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Jesus Martinez.

S&P said non-performing loans (NPLs) to real estate developers represented only 0.91 percent of financial institutions' loans to the sector at the end of March but it expects this proportion to climb rapidly. S&P said it believes most Spanish banks face the weakening in the real estate market from a position of strength, with high loan loss reserves and strong efficiency.

However, S&P said increasing NPLs will erode these banks' cushions and this shrinkage could accelerate if the economic downswing deepens.

S&P recently revised its outlooks on several Spanish banks to negative from stable, reflecting concerns about the impact of the real estate downturn on banks' financial profiles and 'Martinsa Fadesa's declaration of insolvency vindicates our concerns', the ratings agency said.




Ilargi: I’m thinking of including a comedy segment in the Debt Rattles; article sthat are so obviously stupidly upbeat that you can’t help but laugh. Spain is about to hit a wall, period. The government has acknowledged a recession, one of the first among peers to do so. But that same government now insists housing is fine,. becaue Spain never had "subprime". And those "strong" domestic banks have lent out all the credit that has shot up real estate prices through the Meditteranean skies. How are they OK? HOW?

Whatever, Business Week, I read the two articles above; nuff said.

Spanish Banks Stay Strong amid Downturn
Compared with its U.S. and European rivals, Spain's Santander—the largest bank in the euro zone by market value—and its smaller rival, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, have a lot to smile about.

Lacking exposure to U.S. subprime assets, the Spanish financial giants have successfully navigated the choppy economic waters, while other banks, such as Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, have been forced to call for life preservers. Key to the banks' success has been geographic diversification.

Like the conquistadors before them, these Spanish financial buccaneers have flourished by expanding into the New World. That has helped shield them from an economic downturn that's threatening their home market. Both Santander and BBVA now generate roughly one-third of their net profits from Latin America—a region relatively unscathed by the credit crunch.

The benefit from overseas expansion was evident on July 29, when Santander posted an annual 6.1% increase in first-half net profit, to $7.4 billion, on the back of a 13.8% jump in revenues, to $21 billion. A day earlier, BBVA—Spain's second-largest bank by market cap—announced an 11.6% increase in first-half net (excluding one-off charges), to $4.5 billion, on revenues of $15.1 billion, up 15.2%. That's markedly better than some other banks' multibillion-dollar losses.

"Both banks have been performing well against their peer group," says Antonio Ramirez, a banking analyst at stockbroker Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods in London. "Diversifying into other markets should help protect them against the economic slowdown in Spain."

This theory will soon be tested, as the Spanish economy is expected to grow a mere 1.6% in 2008, compared with 3.8% last year. The country's unemployment rate now tops 10.4%. And after a 10-year housing boom, the domestic real estate market has imploded, leaving banks holding millions of dollars of bad loans. Raj Badiani, an economist at researcher Global Insight, reckons there's a 60% chance the Spanish economy will fall into recession.

How will this domestic downturn affect Spain's financial highfliers? Analysts at brokerage Dresdner Kleinwort expect BBVA to continue outperforming rivals, due to its large capital reserves and strong presence in emerging markets. The bank saw a 7.6% increase in first-half net profit from its Mexico unit, to $1.5 billion, and a 7.5% rise in South America, to $548 million. It has roughly $78 billion in reserves to underpin its operations—a larger cushion than at most other banks.

For Santander, Latin America also will grow in importance once the bank finalizes its takeover of Brazil's Banco Real. Santander paid $17.2 billion for the Brazilian business as part of the breakup of Dutch financial giant ABN Amro . According to Santander Chief Executive Alfredo Sáenz, the bank's increased presence in Brazil will eventually produce a 30% overall net profit, compared with 9.5% currently. First-half profit from Latin America rose 1.6%, to $1.1 billion.

Not that the Spanish banks are completely immune from the problems affecting other financial players. As in the U.S., declining real estate sales in Spain—still the main market for BBVA and Santander—are hitting their balance sheets. Defaults as a proportion of Santander's total loans topped 1.3% in the first half of 2008, compared with 0.8% over the same period last year.

For BBVA, the figure rose to 1.2% this year, vs. 0.8% in 2007. "There's no doubt both banks will suffer somewhat from the indigestion caused by the Spanish housing market," says Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods' Ramirez. Yet despite domestic economic turbulence, both Spanish banks are better prepared than others to take advantage of current financial instability.

Santander agreed on July 14 to buy troubled British mortgage lender Alliance & Leicester for $2.6 billion. Rumors abound that other deals will follow as the banks look to snap up distressed assets across Europe. That spells good news for Spain's leading financial players. With limited exposure to U.S. subprime assets and buoyed by strong lending portfolios in the Americas, BBVA and Santander are standing tall.




Australian RMBS market on brink of collapse
The RMBS market is in danger of collapsing and - without government intervention - consumers may be left at the mercy of the big banks as the only remaining mortgage lenders.

“The RMBS market is dying on the vine," said Greg Medcraft, chief executive of the Australian Securitisation Forum (ASF).
Medcraft said confidence among institutional lenders, being the groups that buy the RMBS bonds that fund the mortgages that hundreds of thousands of Australians use to buy their homes, is so low that only $2 billion in RMBS bonds were bought in the first six months of this year compared with $47 billion during the same period last year.

This low volume of housing bonds issuance is transforming the mortgage market as non-bank lenders get crowded out by the big banks and evaporating competition. Medcraft said the five largest banks have increased their home mortgage market share dramatically in recent months.

After steadily falling from 65 to 58 per cent between 2004 and 2007, the RMBS drought has seen banks reclaim 10 per cent of the market returning them to the glory days when they dominated the market. Non-bank lenders entering the home mortgage market saw spreads, the gap between actual mortgage rates and the official Reserve Bank rate, drop two-thirds from nearly 5 per cent to now less than 2 per cent.

Fears are growing a reduction in competition from non-bank lenders may see these competition effects reverse.To resuscitate the market, the ASF is proposing that the government, through the Australian Office of Financial Management, intervene in the corporate bond market to provide liquidity in the same way the RBA intervenes to support banks.

The proposal is similar to how the home mortgage market is funded in Canada, but starkly different to the flawed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac schemes used in the US, said Medcraft. “The difference between securitisers and banks is they can raise short term funding through the RBA. Non-banks need to be in a position to access the same liquidity."

Kim Cannon, managing director of FirstMac, said, “We hear the Treasurer talk about competition, but we're it." The ASF, however, is not waiting for the government as they are already working with investors to create bonds that are more investor-focused, such as designing them to be compatible with benchmarks regarding maturation timetables and collateral structure.

They are even investigating the creation of customised benchmarks to create a whole new asset sub-class, modelled on a bank bill-like framework.




Australia Facing 'Once-in-100-Year' Housing Slump
Australia may be headed for a housing recession similar to those roiling the U.S. and U.K. The cause is a combination of rising default rates, the biggest drop in home prices in five years, the highest borrowing costs in a decade and slowing economic growth.

Prices in the property market -- described by the International Monetary Fund in April as one of the world's most "overvalued" -- will fall 30 percent by 2010, according to Gerard Minack, senior economist at Morgan Stanley in Sydney. Prices dropped in all of Australia's major cities last month for the first time since just before the Great Depression.

"I panicked" when the figures came in, said John Edwards, chief executive officer of Residex Ltd., a Sydney company that tracks property prices. "We've been doing this for 20 years and have data that goes as far back as 1865, and it's really abnormal."

Prices fell in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart and Canberra by between 0.6 percent and 2.2 percent, according to Residex. The national median house price fell almost 3 percent to A$458,000 ($435,000). "Australia is headed for a once-in-100-year real-estate slump," Edwards said.

"I have never seen the convergence of so many negatives." Rising property prices drove a decade-long consumer spending boom that saw Australia's $1 trillion economy weather fallout from the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the collapse of Internet stocks in 2000.

Household debt has almost doubled since 1999 to around 160 percent of incomes, a higher ratio than in the U.S. and U.K., according to AMP Capital Investors. The median national house price soared about 140 percent in the same period. "By every metric I can think of, Australian houses are too expensive," Minack said, costing an average of six years' earnings, double what Americans paid before their property market started falling in 2006.

The Washington-based IMF says Australian house prices were overvalued by almost 25 percent in the decade through 2007 when compared with household income and ability to pay debt. Only Ireland, the Netherlands and the U.K. were higher. A crash would "result in a significant negative wealth shock" for Australians, whose spending accounts for about 60 percent of the economy, Minack said.

While growth is expected to continue for a 17th straight year in 2008, the Reserve Bank of Australia forecasts it will slow to 2.25 percent from 3.9 percent in 2007. A government report today showed retail sales fell 1 percent in June, the biggest drop in six years.

A housing recession may also trigger losses at lenders including Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Westpac Banking Corp., whose stock has fallen more than 20 percent this year. The nation's five largest lenders have added an average 105 basis points to mortgage rates so far in 2008 as the global credit squeeze drove up funding costs.

They were also reacting to moves by central bank Governor Glenn Stevens, who raised the benchmark lending rate twice this year by a total of 50 basis points to a 12-year high of 7.25 percent to curb inflation. Prices gained 4.5 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2001.

The increases have added A$250 to monthly payments on an average A$250,000 home loan, according to the Real Estate Institute. Households spent 38 percent of their incomes on mortgage payments in the March quarter, the most in the 22 years the institute has measured affordability.

Sydney research company Fujitsu Consulting says 923,000 households will face "mortgage stress" by September, up from 171,000 a year earlier who said they were having trouble repaying loans. Australia's population is 21 million, and 6.9 million households have mortgages.




Brazil to harden line on U.S. farm aid post Doha
Brazil will likely take a hard line against U.S. agricultural subsidies at the World Trade Organization now that the Doha talks have collapsed, trade specialists said on Wednesday.

The WTO's so-called Doha Round of talks to cut trade barriers and farm subsidies collapsed on Tuesday in Geneva, frustrating hopes in Latin America's largest economy for a global deal. As one of the world's farming giants, Brazil had hoped that a successful conclusion to the talks would have resolved many of its outstanding objections to U.S. agricultural subsidies and tariffs, most notably in the areas of cotton and ethanol.

"With U.S. cotton subsidies, there does not appear to be any way out -- retaliation is the only option for the government now," said Pedro Camargo Neto, who was instrumental in forming Brazil's WTO challenge against U.S. cotton aid. Earlier this year, the WTO upheld its original ruling against U.S. cotton subsidies in favor of Brazil in the final appeal process lodged by the United States.

"There was some kind of agreement that Brazil would not retaliate because Doha was supposed to solve the cotton problem. But now there is no hope of such a solution," Camargo said. "The government won't like it but the rule is, if you win the appeal, trade sanctions are the only option." Camargo said he did not see U.S. farm policy changing without Brazil imposing trade sanctions against U.S. products, including intellectual property rights.

With the collapse of the Doha Round, litigation against the United States's ethanol import tariff at the WTO also seems more likely. Brazil's Sugar Cane Industry Association (Unica) had hired lawyers to study the compatibility between the U.S. tariff and WTO rules but decided to give the Doha talks a chance before deciding whether to press the government to back a challenge.
Producers see the 54-cent-a-gallon import tariff as an obstacle to cane-based ethanol exports to the U.S. market.

The Brazilian government has already said it was finishing studies on the issue and that a challenge at the WTO was on the table. "Going to the WTO and asking the dispute settlement body to analyze the legal basis of the U.S. tariff is now possible," Unica President Marcos Jank said. "Of course, we would prefer a negotiated solution. Litigation could be complicated -- look what happened with cotton."

Unica's president said other options under consideration are working with groups in the United States that also defend the tariff reduction and searching for bilateral talks. "Bilateral talks are always a possibility but there is little mood now," Jank said, adding that the presidential elections in the United States would make things even more difficult. "I doubt we'll see any results in the short term." Brazil is the world's largest ethanol exporter.

Jank said that the ethanol import quota the European Union offered Brazil last week was part of the Doha talks. Therefore, with its failure, the offer was no longer on the table. Camargo added that U.S. farm subsidies will also likely face a renewed challenge at the WTO from a joint action opened some months ago by Brazil and Canada, which questions whether the recent U.S. Farm Law exceeds WTO subsidy limits.


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Debt Rattle, July 30 2008: Mutilation of Old Money


National Photo Company Old Money Washington circa 1915
"Miss Louise Lester, in charge of mutilation of old money at Treasury Dept."


Ilargi: A wide overview today of what Merrill Lynch's CDO sale will mean for the rest of the banks and funds that sit on similar paper. Not pretty. Many banks will not be able to go that path and come out in one piece. The first $400 billion in writedowns was a lot easier, but now most of the flexibility is overstretched to the point of snapping.

And more warnings from the rest of the world: if you still think that your country or your state or your job or mortgage will be fine, 98 to 1 says you're dead wrong. Cut the delusion. Today it's New York State, California, Italy, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand, and where ever it is you live will also soon be on the list.

I got to run, I'm getting a steroid shot this morning. It's getting close to the Olympics, after all.


Merrill Lynch’s CDO sale to double writedowns to $800 billion, more to come
The banking industry will be forced to take hundreds of billions of dollars of further writedowns on mortgage-backed securities after Merrill Lynch sold $30.6 billion (£15.5 billion) of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) for only 22 per cent of their face value on Monday, according to a leading US ratings expert.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the financial groups that underpin America’s housing market, will be hit worst as they are forced into a combined writedown of about $100 billion, the Egan Jones Ratings Company believes. Mike Mayo, an analyst for Deutsche Bank, said that Citigroup would need to write down the value of its CDO portfolio by $8 billion in the third quarter, based on the Merrill sale price.

At present Citigroup values the securities at 53 cents in the dollar, more than twice the Merrill sale price. Merrill Lynch is among the biggest victims of the credit crunch and is selling high-risk assets such as CDOs, which are pools of mortgage bonds, in order to regain financial stability.

The CDOs that Merrill sold, which originally had a face value of $30.6 billion, had been marked down to $11.1 billion at the end of June. Less than a month later, the assets were sold for $6.7 billion to Lone Star, a private equity fund.

Sean Egan, of Egan Jones, called the sale a watershed moment, with implications that would trigger huge additional writedowns on CDOs and related assets worldwide. “This sends a loud and clear signal that the issue with CDOs is not liquidity in the market but problems with the value of their underlying assets,” he said.

Many owners of CDOs have marked down their value insufficiently, believing that such assets were sound and that the market’s appetite for them had dried up temporarily amid nervousness about all but the safest forms of debt.

Mr Egan said that Monday’s sale indicated that the problems were not temporary and that there needed to be widespread devaluation of CDOs. Mr Egan said: “The accountants will have to put significant pressure on their clients to write down these assets — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular — as this high-profile transaction has underscored the losses that are inherent in these kind of asset-backed securities.”

Freddie Mac disclosed at the end of March that it had $32 billion of losses on various securities that it deemed “temporary” and which were not reflected in its accounts. Fannie Mae reported $9 billion of similar losses at the same time. However, the writedowns will need to be much greater than that, Mr Egan said, in part because the market for CDOs has deteriorated significantly since March.

The extra losses that Mr Egan forecasts could double writedowns that financial institutions have taken so far in relation to the credit crisis, which stand at $400 billion. Merrill’s writedown lifted hopes that financial services firms were beginning to take action to draw a line under their sub-prime losses.

Those hopes boosted America’s stock markets, along with the announcement of strong second-quarter results by US Steel and a falling oil price. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up by 266.50 points at 11,397.60. Merrill’s shares rose almost 8 per cent to $26.25.




View of Merrill CDO Sale Darkens: None Of The Gains, All The Losses
Merrill Lynch & Co. gave up any potential gains on $30.6 billion of securities it sold this week while remaining "on the hook" for losses, Bank of America Corp. analysts said, revising their earlier positive view of the sale.

Merrill agreed to sell collateralized debt obligations to private-equity firm Lone Star Funds for about 22 cents on the dollar and to lend about 75 percent of the purchase price. Bank of America analysts, who said yesterday the sale "suggests the endgame" for banks' CDO risk, today wrote they had overstated the "positive implications" of the transaction.

A drop in the value of the CDOs by about a further 5 cents would wipe out the equity from Lone Star and "leave Merrill back on the hook for the exposure," said the analysts, led by Jeffrey Rosenberg in New York. Lone Star bought "the upside of the underlying subprime assets in the CDO pools" while Merrill retained "most of the downside," they wrote.

Merrill, the third-biggest U.S. securities firm, has written down or lost almost $52 billion mainly on mortgage-backed CDOs since the third quarter of last year. Financial firms worldwide have marked down or lost $474 billion since the start of the credit crunch. Merrill yesterday raised $8.55 billion by selling new shares to cushion the loss on the asset disposal. The bank will have recourse only to the CDOs it sold should Lone Star fail to repay the loan, it said July 28.

Lone Star effectively "purchased a call option on the value of the subprime assets backing the CDO" for the $1.68 billion it paid from its own funds, or about 5 cents on the dollar, the Bank of America analysts wrote today. That is about the level indicated by the lowest-rated portions of the benchmark Markit ABX.HE BBB- indexes of mortgage-backed securities.

An option gives the holder the right and not the obligation to buy or sell a security at a stated price. A call option, which gives the right to buy, is a bet the price of a security will rise. The Bank of America analysts wrote yesterday that the sale "creates initial losses but relieves future uncertainty," before issuing its report today, titled "On Second Thought?"

The cost of protecting Merrill against non-payment of its debt fell 15 basis points to 265, according to credit-default swap prices from CMA Datavision in London. Credit-default swaps, contracts conceived to protect bondholders against default, pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a company fail to adhere to its debt agreements.

A decline indicates an increase in the perception of credit quality. A basis point on a credit-default swap contract protecting $10 million of debt from default for five years is equivalent to $1,000 a year. Merrill rose as much as 7.6 percent to $28.25 in New York trading and was at $26.67 by 10:22 a.m.

Merrill's sale "may set a benchmark that will be followed by other financials," BNP Paribas SA analysts wrote in a client note today, saying they "do not believe that other banks" have written off 75 percent of the value of their CDOs as Merrill has.
"As more firms follow, writedowns will inevitably occur," according to BNP.

Citigroup Inc., the biggest U.S. bank, will probably write down the value of CDOs by $8 billion in the third quarter, Deutsche Bank AG analyst Mike Mayo said yesterday. The company may be forced to raise more capital as a result, Mayo said. CDOs repackage bonds, loans and credit-default swaps and use the income to pay investors. Merrill spokeswoman Jessica Oppenheim in New York said the firm's policy is to decline to comment on analyst reports.




Fed Extends Emergency Lending Amid Continued Credit-Market Stress
Facing continued troubles in credit markets, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday it is extending its emergency lending to investment banks through January and expanding several other direct-loan programs created over the past year.

The moves are a recognition of the fragile conditions in financial markets that are threatening to worsen the credit crisis and restrain the overall economy despite a series of deep interest-rate cuts and other aggressive moves since last September. The central bank said in a statement that the steps are designed "to enhance the effectiveness of its existing liquidity facilities."

The lending to investment banks, started in March after the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos., allows investment banks to take overnight loans directly from the Fed's discount window. That program, known as the primary dealer credit facility, was set to expire in September. Its creation led the Fed to increase its oversight of major investment banks.

The Fed extended the program through January 30, 2009, but said "the facilities would be withdrawn should the Board determine that conditions in financial markets are no longer unusual and exigent." The central banks also extended a separate program, the Term Securities Lending Facility, through January. That $200 billion program allows investment banks to receive 28-day loans of Treasury securities.

In addition, the Fed said it authorized the auctioning of options of up to $50 billion under that program "for exercise in advance of periods that are typically characterized by elevated stress in financial markets, such as quarter ends." That may prevent further market stresses as investment banks remain under pressure.

The Fed said it would auction loans to commercial banks lasting 84 days in addition to the 28-day loans under the Term Auction Facility. That program was created as an alternate to the Fed's discount window, which is generally used by banks for last-minute funding needs but often carries a stigma from those banks the fear being seen as troubled.

The $25 billion auctions for 84-day loans will start August 11 and alternate with $75 billion in 28-day loans. The total credit available under that program will be $150 billion. The central bank also said it would increase the size of a swap line with the European Central Bank to $55 billion from $50 billion to accommodate an increase in the ECB's auctions of U.S. dollars.

The ECB and Swiss National Bank are extending 84-day loans in addition to 28-day funds. The Swiss central bank's swap line remains at $12 billion. The ECB last upped its swap line with the Fed back in May, to $50 billion from $30 billion. Since then, the central bank has held auctions of $25 billion in 28-day funds every two weeks. It debuted the swap line with auctions in increments of $10 billion last December.

Demand for the dollar funding has been rising at each auction since May. In the most recent auction Tuesday, 63 banks bid more than $101 billion for the $25 billion auction. That was the highest number of institutions to bid, and the highest ration of demand to the amount of funds available, since the ECB opened its swap line with the Fed in December.




As the deflationary process unfolds
A trader friend opined to me yesterday that he “hears” that there are lots of “shorts” in the credit markets and it could get “squeezed”. Minyans need to look past this type of talk. As the deflationary process unfolds, we're going to be exposed to all kinds of such talk, innuendo, and mis-information.

First of all the credit markets are not really structured like that. There are very few ways to “short” it. There are a few indexes, which may be crowded because of the lack of them, that people can short to hedge their exposure or bet on declines in price, but the relative notional shorts compared to the longs is insignificant. But this is not really the point.

The big picture is this. For the last twenty years the Federal Reserve has used the banking system to expand the credit base of the economy. They kept interest rates low to encourage borrowing. Beginning in 2001 and 2002 the Federal Reserve went into overdrive, driving real interest rates negative and thus encouraging massive speculation in credit. The result is a money supply six times normal relative to GDP but more importantly one bloated with debt with virtually no relative savings to support it.

The system is now broken as evidenced by the TAF facility: the very definition of this is “the financial system has no more capital left and the TAF is the only way the Federal Reserve can get capital back in the system. So the Federal Reserve has taken bad debts in exchange for capital onto their balance sheet. This makes them very nervous.

It's not a far fetched thought to believe that the new SEC rules were specifically implemented to drive financial stocks up in order to allow them to raise capital through stock offerings. The capital would make it more probable that these banks are eventually able to take the bad debt back from the Fed. This serves as a warning to those who are tempted to fall for this and buy financial stocks on these secondary stock offerings.

Again, we hear from apologists that banks selling stock will "heal" the system. But again that's not how it works. It only transfers wealth from one part of the system to another because wealth is not being created. There's no production, only transfer. It's a hallmark of deflation that companies sell stock.

That is deflationary. People have to use cash to buy stock. So cash goes from investors who have less cash to buy things with, to banks who use it to write down debt. But the point is banks selling stocks to investors reduces liquidity, it does not increase it.

The government’s strategy is to buy time. It always is. Time allows it to slowly drain wealth from the poor/middle class and re-distribute it to the rich who own the financial system. The only important thing to me and what I think Minyanville is all about is to try to help people not be one of them.

As risk grows, lower yours. Stay out of risky assets. Stay out of debt. Don’t be tempted by the trading types. All their little “tells” sound good but they don’t work in a market like this. Don’t bottom fish unless you have excess capital you're willing to lose.

There will be opportunity at some point, and you're going to want to have savings when that occurs, but it's far from here and you will know when it happens. You'll be able to find an investment where the returns are adequate to low risk. Today we only have returns subject to very high risk (possible high returns or possible negative returns versus high risk).

Risk is high. Keep yours low. Be patient.




Banks under pressure to follow $30 billion Merrill cut-price debt sale
Global banks including Citigroup and UBS faced pressure yesterday to write down or sell billions of dollars in toxic assets following Merrill Lynch's disposal of $30bn (£15bn) in mortgage-related securities at a cut price.

Shares in Merrill and other financial companies rose on investors' hopes that the sale of collateralised debt obligations for $6.7bn, or 22 cents on the dollar, heralded similar deals by other banks to purge their balance sheets of bad assets. However, the low price paid by Lone Star Funds, a distressed debt investor, for Merrill's CDOs also sparked fears that the financial system could enter another spiral of writedowns followed by highly dilutive capital raisings.

Merrill yesterday raised $8.5bn - to offset $5.7bn of writedowns caused by the CDO sales and other losses - by selling shares at $22.50, a 7.5 per cent discount to Monday's close. Mike Mayo, a Deutsche Bank analyst, said Merrill's action, which was announced on Monday - a fortnight after John Thain, chief executive, said it did not need more capital - "raises ongoing credibility issues for the industry".

William Tanona, a Goldman Sachs analyst, said that if Citi were to write down its $22.7bn of CDOs to the levels implied by the Merrill deal, it would take a $16.2bn hit. Citi said this month that it valued its CDOs at about 61 cents on the dollar. Citi declined to comment.

UBS, which had $6.6bn in CDO exposure at the end of March, declined to comment. Merrill's capital raising will dilute shareholders. However, Temasek, the Singaporean sovereign fund that invested $5bn in Merrill last year, will receive $2.5bn to compensate it for the paper loss on its investment.




Australia faces worse crisis than America
The world's financial storm has swept through Australia and New Zealand this week amid mounting signs of contagion across the Pacific region.
 
Financial shares were pummelled in Sydney on Tuesday after investor flight forced National Australia Bank (NAB) to slash a £400m bond sale by two thirds. The retreat comes days after the Melbourne lender shocked the markets by announcing a 90pc write-down on its £550m holdings of US mortgage debt, an admission that it AAA-rated securities are virtually worthless.

In New Zealand, Guardian Trust said it was suspending withdrawals from its mortgage fund owing to "liquidity difficulties in the market". Hanover Finance - the country' third biggest operator - last week froze repayments to investors. The company said its "industry model has collapsed" as the housing market goes into a nose dive. Some 23 finance companies have gone bankrupt in New Zealand over the last year.

It is now clear that the Antipodes are tipping into a serious downturn. Australia's NAB business confidence index fell to its lowest level in seventeen years in June. New Zealand's central bank began to cut interest rates last week on fears that the economy may have contracted in the second quarter, and is now entering recession. Housing starts slumped 20pc in June to the lowest since 1986.

Gabriel Stein, from Lombard Street Research, said Australia could prove vulnerable once the global commodity cycle turns down. It has racked up a current account deficit of 6.2pc of GDP despite enjoying a coal, wheat, and metals boom, effectively spending its resources bonanza in advance. Household debt has reached 177pc of GDP, almost a world record.

"It is amazing that in the midst of the biggest commodity boom ever seen they have still been unable to get a current account surplus. They have been living beyond their means for 10 years. What worries me is that productivity growth has been very low: they have coasting after their reforms in the 1990s," he said.

Australia's Reserve Bank has had to grapple with vast inflows of Asian capital, especially Japanese money fleeing near zero rates at home. Short of imposing currency controls, it would have been almost impossible to stop the inflows.

"The easy money went straight into real estate," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas. "Australia will now have to generate 4pc of GDP to meet payments to foreign holders of its assets," he said. This is twice as high as the burden faced by the US.

Both the Australian and New Zealand dollars have fallen hard in recent days and now appear to be breaking down through key technical support against major currencies, including the US dollar. "The Aussie is going down, big time," said Mr Redeker.

The picture is darkening across the Pacific Rim. The Bank of Japan's deputy governor, Kiyohiko Nishimura, said its economy may now be falling into a "technical recession". Household income dropped 2.1pc in June compared to a year earlier and manufacturers are the gloomiest since the deflation crunch in 2003.

The decision by National Australia Bank to make drastic provisions on its US mortgage debt could have ramifications in the US itself. It opted for a 100pc write-off on a clutch of "senior strips" of collateralized debt obligations (CDO) worth £450m - even though they were all rated AAA. No US bank has admitted to such fearsome loss rates.




Bush signs housing rescue plan into law
As home foreclosures rise and property values slump, U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a rescue package that includes emergency backstops for mortgage financing companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Despite opposition to a provision that offers $4 billion in grants to states to buy and repair foreclosed homes, Bush reversed his opposition to the overall legislation because it included numerous other key housing reforms.

The new law boosts oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or guarantee almost half the country's $12 trillion in home mortgage debt. It also expands a temporary line of U.S. Treasury credit and gives the government the option to buy shares in them if they ran into trouble.

"We look forward to put in place new authorities to improve confidence and stability in markets, and to provide better oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. Bush signed the measure in the Oval Office shortly after 7 a.m. EDT with his economic team on hand, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who helped negotiate the package with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The new measures come as prices of U.S. single-family homes plunged at a record pace in May from a year earlier. The closely-watched Standard & Poor's/Case Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas fell 0.9 percent in May from April, bringing the measure down 15.8 percent from May 2007.

The new law also sets up a $300-billion fund under the Federal Housing Administration to help distressed homeowners get more affordable, government-backed mortgages and get out from under exotic mortgages they cannot afford.

"The Federal Housing Administration will begin to implement new policies intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes," Fratto said.

The bill also offers tax breaks to spur home-buying; sets up the first national licensing system for mortgage brokers and loan officers; and raises the limit on the size of mortgages that federal agencies can guarantee.




Home Prices In May Took A Steep Fall
Home prices registered their sharpest annual declines in at least two decades as consumer gloom about the labor market deepened, according to two closely watched surveys.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index, which tracks prices in 20 U.S. markets, found that in the 10 metropolitan areas it has tracked since 1987, prices declined 17% in May compared to the same month a year earlier, the largest annual decline since the survey began. Home prices in 20 metropolitan areas followed since 2000 dropped 16% in May from a year earlier, with a decline of 23% since the peak in July 2006.

On a month-to month basis, the 10-market survey declined 1% in May and the 20-market survey dropped by 0.9% Not all the data were negative. Of the 20 markets tracked, house prices rose in seven in May from April. But many economists said the housing market has yet to bottom out nationally because home supply still outstrips demand.

Las Vegas and Miami, once hot housing markets, had the biggest drops in value, declining 28.4% and 28.3%, in May from a year earlier. Prices in those areas also fell 2.9% and 3.6%, respectively, in May on a month-to-month basis. Charlotte and Dallas were the only two markets to have three straight months of rising house prices.

"It's not all a matter of tighter financial conditions scaring borrowers," said Alan D. Levenson, chief economist for T. Rowe Price Associates. "Borrowers don't want to borrow as much because the expected returns aren't as great."

Separately, the Conference Board said its consumer-confidence index rose slightly to 51.9 in July from 51.0 in June, the first increase after six months of sharp drops. But consumers' assessment of their job prospects worsened somewhat, with those saying that jobs are harder to find increasing by about 0.6 percentage point.

About 16% of respondents now expect their family income to decrease in the next six months, up from 9.8% at the start of 2008. That is the highest reading since the survey began in 1967.

The gain in the overall index came from slightly improved expectations, which rose to 43.0 from 41.4, as gas prices edged downward and the stock market improved. Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics, said consumer confidence was still "extraordinarily weak."




U.S. mortgage applications fall to 2000 levels
Applications for U.S. home mortgages dropped to their slowest pace since December 2000 as loan rates hovering near one-year highs compounded the housing market's woes, according to data from an industry group on Wednesday.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity declined 14.1 percent to 420.8 in the week ended July 25. The decline was the most severe move in percentage terms since May. The MBA's seasonally adjusted index of refinancing applications plunged 22.9 percent to 1,074.4 last week. The MBA's gauge of loan requests for home purchases fell 7.8 percent to 309.5.

Fixed 30-year mortgage rates averaged 6.46 percent in the week, compared with a one year-high of 6.59 percent in the prior week, the MBA said. While concerns of faster inflation have boosted the market rates that influence mortgages, the credit crisis has hurt banks' ability to support the market for mortgage-backed securities, applying upward pressure to the rates that lenders charge to consumers.

A slowing rate of applications suggests potential homebuyers may be expecting better deals in the future as rising foreclosures and a softening economy nudge home prices lower. Prices of U.S. single-family homes measured in 20 major metropolitan areas have dropped about 16 percent in the past year, with few signs of recovery, according to S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index on Tuesday.

Sales of existing homes in June also dropped to their slowest pace in 10 years, the National Association of Realtors said last week.




Ilargi: Charles Hugh Smith writes a nice blog, and in this piece says a lot of the right things. Yet, he fails to draw the entire conclusion. He moves into the direction of my "80% or more" prediction concerning losses on US home values; why he thinks it’ll stop at 66%, I have no idea.

What seems to have been solved when prices are down to $70.000, namely affordability, will in fact not be solved at all: affordability is not a fixed number, it is a direct function between available capital and credit on the one hand, and prices on the other.

If prices fall by 66% from the 2006-7 peak, and capital/credit also falls by 66%, the problem remains the same. Today's prices are already too high for today's available capital. If capital falls, prices will therefore have to fall more.

And since banks, governments and individuals are all heavily in debt, with much more to come, available capital is certain to come down enormously. No matter the bail-outs, they change nothing but a tiny fraction of money flow -and push citizens even deeper into debt in the process.

In the 1930's nobody had access to any credit, except for the already well-to-do (who didn't need it). That is where we are heading. And that is why home prices will plunge well over 66%.

How the Median House Price Will Fall from $215K to $70K
I am constantly amazed (yes, I know I shouldn't be) by how many otherwise intelligent people expect housing to "recover" next year. I shouldn't be surprised, of course, because fantasy and hope are the key traits of all post-bubble busts.

Thus we had analyst after analyst in 2001 and 2002 calling "the bottom" in the Nasdaq, even as it fell from 5,000 to 3,000 to 2,000 and then finally to 1,000. In a similar fashion, we now have a nearly universal belief that oil and commodities have "topped out" and the recent decline is a new trend.

Happy days are here again, oil is heading back to $75/barrel, hoo-ha! In a similar fashion, we should not be fooled that a brief market reaction is the start of a new trend, i.e. "housing will soon bottom." On the contrary, I predict the median price of a house in the U.S. will fall from $215,000 all the way down to $70,000.

According to the National Association of Realtors, the median home price was $215,100 in June 2008. These data sources suggest the median is around $230,00 and the average around $300,000: US: Median Price of Houses Sold including Land Price and US: Average Price of Houses Actually Sold.

Whatever number you pick, I predict a 2/3 decline from here, based on these long-term trends and historical patterns:
1. A further 30% decline is required to bring rents and the cost of ownership back into the long-term historical range/ratio. The only reason to buy a house/dwelling which costs far more than renting the equivalent residence is the investment belief that appreciation of the property will exceed (after all the tax benefits are calculated in, etc.) the appreciation of other asset classes. (Note: the ratio varies depending on locale, but in general it is still out of whack from the mean.)

In other words, it's an investment decision, not a decision about owning a place to live. If real estate proves to be a poor investment which only depreciates year after year, this belief (currently a near-religious belief of stupendous power in the U.S., based on the past 25 years of debt-fueled speculative frenzy), then housing will decline back to the historical ratio.

Now if rents are set to rise 30% above inflation, then the argument could be made that housing will not decline; but with wages in a long-term decline and the economy souring, what rise in income is foreseeable which would fuel a rise in rents? It is more likely that rents will decline in most markets as well, further pressuring the decline in housing values.

2. The cost of money will rise for a generation. The two keys to appreciation in real estate are: cheap, easily available money/mortgages, and a highly liquid market in which any property can be quickly bought/sold. Guess what's disappeared and won't be coming back: cheap, easy money and a liquid market. If you are fearful that you can't sell the house you're about to buy, then it's a Capital Trap you will want to avoid.

And if money becomes tight again, then a 20% down will be standard once again--and in a recession which has strangled credit, asset values and the economy, how many people will have saved up that much cash? How many will be willing to sink all that cash into a Capital Trap? Relatively few compared to the hordes who "qualified" in the era of liar-loans, no-down, interest-only loans, etc.)

3. Oversupply and vast overbuilding render the market illiquid. With almost 20 million empty dwellings (of which perhaps 4-5 million are true "vacation/second homes") and huge numbers of empty rooms in existing housing, the number of homes for sale will exceed the number of qualified buyers for a long time to come.

PIMCO's Bill Gross went on record recently suggesting 1 million homes should be dynamited; good idea, Bill, but that still leaves 15 million empty dwellings. Please don't tell me about population growth: Immigration is already slowing because jobs are drying up, and household size in the U.S. can easily rise, enabling more people to live in the same number of dwellings.

The overbuilding was not the result of meeting demand for housing, it was all about meeting the demand for speculative vehicles. Once the speculators are slowly roasted year after year by declining prices, then eventually nobody will be thinking that housing is a "great investment."

Once that belief system has been eradicated via everyone who acted on it being destroyed financially, then housing will once again be viewed as shelter rather than a speculative vehicle for investment or "get rich quick" deals.





Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Live to Die Another Day
Two weeks ago, with their stock prices plummeting and accusations of insolvency swirling through the marketplace, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant mortgage-finance companies, stared into the abyss.

What looked like a black hole turned out to be a blank check from the U.S. Treasury: an unspecified and unlimited credit line, borrowing privileges at the Federal Reserve's discount window, and a pledge of a capital injection from the government if needed. The Securities and Exchange Commission coughed up additional protection, tightening the rules for short-selling of Fannie and Freddie, along with 17 other financial stocks.

Mission accomplished? With the government making explicit the implicit guarantee of the two government-sponsored enterprises, which together own or guarantee $5.2 trillion of the nation's $12 trillion of mortgage debt, the hope is that Fannie and Freddie won't have to tap the emergency backstops. The fear is that the needed makeover will stop there.

If these public-private hybrid companies are too big to fail -- and everyone from the Bush administration to Congress to businesses and homeowners agrees that they are -- then by definition they are too big to survive in their current state, a paradox voiced by William Poole, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in a July 27 New York Times op-ed.

The lame-duck Bush administration, no fan of Fannie and Freddie until recently, has neither the clout nor the interest to refashion the companies. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has said repeatedly that Fannie and Freddie, which play "a central role" in the housing finance system, "must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies."

Congress, for its part, isn't interested in an extreme makeover. As part of the Federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, awaiting presidential signature, lawmakers provided for a "world class" regulator for the GSEs, according to the Senate Banking Committee's summary of the legislation. (Quotation marks theirs.)

An interesting choice of words. Regulators get their mandate and powers from Congress. Lawmakers, by their own admission, seem to be saying the current GSE regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, is a bantam weight. If Ofheo is, then it's of Congress's choosing: a choice heavily influenced by one of the most effective lobbying machines in Washington.

Earlier this month, Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said that any federal bailout of Fannie and Freddie should include a ban on their "lobbying and political activities." "Any legislation exposing taxpayers to this risk should include a serious debate on long-term reforms, and a ban on lobbying must be included," DeMint said. "

DeMint tried to hold up Senate passage of the bill last week by forcing a vote on an amendment to curtail lobbying by the GSEs, the only government agencies to engage in such a practice. The Senate leadership rejected his request. Congress isn't known for its long-term thinking.

To the extent that the immediate crisis abates -- borrowing isn't a problem now that Fannie's and Freddie's debt carries the full faith and credit of the U.S. government -- it will reduce the impetus to seek a long-term solution, which is exactly what's needed. A "world class" regulator isn't the solution. Eliminating the asymmetric risk/reward from Fannie and Freddie is.

If the taxpayer is going to shoulder the burden for bailing out Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer should stand to benefit. It makes no sense to guarantee the debt of a private company, the benefit of which accrues to the shareholders, and not own the equity.

And it isn't only a bunch of right-wing, free-marketeers pushing for a re-evaluation of the role of the GSEs in the 21st century. Former Treasury Secretary and Harvard University Professor Larry Summers, who is an economic adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the priority should be protecting the taxpayers and financial system, with the stockholders and subordinated-debt holders taking the hit.

Summers's idea is to run the GSEs as public corporations for a few years, after which their government and private functions could be divided, with the latter sold off. Fannie Mae, created in 1938 and re-chartered as a shareholder-owned company in 1970, and Freddie Mac, chartered in 1970, have strayed far afield from their original mission, which was to provide liquidity, affordability and stability to the housing market.

Nothing in there about "using its cost-of-funds advantage to lever its balance sheet," said Josh Rosner, managing director at Graham Fisher & Co. in New York. "Buying manufactured housing, aircraft lease equipment, Alt-A mortgages: the taxpayers should not fund the non-corporate businesses."

What's more, only 7 basis points of the GSE subsidy benefited the home buyer, according to a study by Federal Reserve economists. Now that Congress has passed a housing-rescue bill, which authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to insure as much as $300 billion of refinanced mortgages in addition to establishing a new GSE regulator, "they think the problem is fixed," said Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research in Chicago.

Bianco expects the other shoe to drop, perhaps in early August, when Freddie Mac reports quarterly earnings. "Freddie announced its intentions to raise $10 billion of equity on July 18, filed a shelf offering on the 22nd, and the clock is still ticking," Bianco said. "It took Merrill Lynch 12 hours to pull off an $8.55 billion stock sale."

In this era of big government, it's good to know there are a few things the market still does better.




Goldman sees bank buy unlikely, analyst Whitney says
Goldman Sachs Group Inc management was quoted by analyst Meredith Whitney as saying that the largest U.S. securities firm was "highly unlikely" to buy a retail bank given current regulation, and that current market environment posed strong headwinds to earnings growth.

"While much speculation has been made about Goldman's interest in acquiring a retail bank, we believe the chances are less than slim," the Oppenheimer & Co analyst wrote in a note to clients. On Tuesday, analyst Whitney met with Goldman's Chief Financial Officer David Viniar, Co-President Jon Winkelried, and Head of Investment Banking David Solomon.

"Management stated that the company would only be interested in purchasing a bank if it was able to use the acquired deposits as a funding source for any other part of the business and without additional regulatory scrutiny," Whitney said. "Obviously, current regulation makes that scenario impossible," she added.

The credit crunch has prompted analysts and investors to speculate that Goldman, eager to establish a new and more stable source of funds, would snap up a bank. The market talk has gained strength in recent weeks as rising loan losses and worries about the U.S. economy has made bank stocks cheap.

Earlier this week, Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski, who had also met with CFO Viniar, said Goldman had considered buying a deposit-taking bank, but added that such a deal was not very likely now.

"CFO Viniar did caveat that clearly if the regulatory pendulum swung to an extreme so as to force broker dealers to convert into a bank holding structure... then GS would be interested in acquiring bank deposits," Whitney said.

Viniar expects additional regulation for broker-dealers, including greater U.S. Federal Reserve oversight, more disclosure requirements and higher capital requirements, Whitney said. Viniar, however, does not expect broker-dealers to be subject to full bank regulations, she added.

Goldman, which has largely avoided the credit losses hobbling its rivals, acknowledged that the current environment of low levels of activity and lack of confidence in the markets posed strong headwinds to earnings growth, Whitney said.

"Management believes these headwinds will continue to persist if not accentuate," she added. Goldman also expects material reduction in investment banking headcount by year-end, Whitney said.

The company, however, has positioned itself with healthy liquidity and "dry powder" to take advantage of attractive opportunities and potential share buybacks, she said. Whitney rates the stock "perform." Shares of Goldman were up 1 percent at $183.47 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange.




Merrill's fire sale sparks fears of more write-downs by the banks
Merrill Lynch's decision to sell mortgage derivatives with a face value of $30bn for less than $7bn has raised fears of more write-downs to come across the troubled banking sector.

And as investors debated whether the fire sale marks the bottom of the credit crisis, there was evidence yesterday that US house prices are continuing to fall, further reducing the value of the collateral that underlies hundreds of billions of dollars of these derivatives.

Wall Street has so far lost more than $400bn on investments in so-called collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and the final tally will not become clear until the housing market stabilises. However, Merrill's sale does put a current market price on securities that have not been changing hands since the credit crisis began.

At 22 cents on the dollar, that is a lower price even than many had feared. Sceptics also pointed out that Merrill had lent the buyer, the private equity firm Lone Star, 75 per cent of the money to do the deal.

Meredith Whitney, the bearish banking analyst at Oppenheimer & Co, called Merrill's sale a "capitulation", while Prashant Bhatia, analyst at Citi, said it would have consequences across the sector. "This is a watershed transaction that provides price transparency. This is the first large-scale CDO transaction that is not a distressed sale."

Analysts said Citigroup, the US banking conglomerate, would now be forced to recalculate the value of its remaining holdings in mortgage derivatives known as collateralised debt obligations, which were valued at its last results at $22.5bn. Deutsche Bank estimated that this could lead to a write-down of another $7bn.

After Citigroup, UBS has the next largest exposure to CDOs, most recently valued at $15.6bn. In the UK, shares of Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland were hit, since both have significant holdings of CDOs. Barclays shares fell as much as 9.5 per cent but closed down 4.1 per cent, while RBS stock closed down 2.7 per cent after dropping more than 7 per cent earlier.

Barclays has taken smaller write-downs than most other banks, insisting that its assets are of higher quality than those held by rivals. It wrote down £1.7bn on credit holdings in the first quarter and didn't take further significant charges in the second quarter. RBS has already flagged £5.9bn of write-downs on sub-prime related assets and leveraged loans this year.

Whether Wall Street has written down the value of CDOs by enough, or perhaps even by too much, will depend on the numbers of US homeowners who default on mortgages and the price fetched for repossessed homes.

The Case-Shiller index of house prices in the country's 20 biggest metropolitan areas, released yesterday, showed prices sharply down on a year ago, although the pace of decline has slowed in most areas. The year-on-year declines are still across the "sunbelt" – from Miami, Florida, to Los Angeles in California – which had been the hottest markets during the boom.

The average US home, according to Case-Shiller, is down 15.8 per cent in value on a year ago.
By cutting his losses rather than waiting to see if mortgage derivatives increase in value, CEO John Thain hopes to put Merrill Lynch on a more secure financial footing, ending months of rumours about its capital position which had buffeted the stock.

The financial restructuring also included an $8.5bn share issue, which was a significant U-turn for Mr Thain, who had previously said the company had enough cash.




Merrill sparks fears of soaring costs
Merrill Lynch's surprise write-down ratchets up pressure on rivals to cut the values of their own subprime assets as they grapple with mounting debts and economies weaken.

The global credit crisis, roughly a year under way, could cause total damage of around $1 trillion to balance sheets of financial services companies. That's far above the more than $400 billion of write-downs taken so far. Merrill's revelation of a $5.7 billion (2.8 billion pounds) write-down and plans to sell $8.5 billion of stock heightened worry of more pain to come from European lenders UBS AG and Barclays, and from Wall Street and U.S. commercial banks.

Citigroup , Bank of America Corp, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Wachovia, for example, each still have billions of dollars of exposure to complex debt, mortgages, or both. About $4.4 billion of the Merrill write-down came from a sale of $30.6 billion of collateralized debt obligations -- which are typically backed by mortgages -- to private equity firm Lone Star Funds for $6.7 billion, or 22 cents on the dollar. Merrill had valued the CDOs at $11.1 billion just four weeks ago.

"It was a very aggressive markdown," said Chris Henson, a portfolio manager at MFC Global Investment Management in Toronto. "The question is, is that now the clearing price for anyone who has CDOs?" Prospects of more write-offs and credit losses have already battered lenders' shares. The Standard & Poor's Financials Index , for example, had through Monday fallen 32 percent this year, twice the S&P 500's .SPX decline.

"The current environment is not one where people are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt," said Gerry Rawcliffe, group credit officer for financial institutions at Fitch Ratings. "There's a broad loss of confidence in banks." Merrill's sale may also offer insight into the value of rivals' so-called Level 2 and Level 3 assets. Banks value these based on prices of similar securities in the marketplace, or on their own models when there is no market for them.

"Other buyers out there are going to use this as a reference point," said Michael Hampden-Turner, a Citigroup credit strategist. "The question is, to what extent does 22 cents constitute fair value, or the price at which a bank could offload a huge volume of very distressed assets?" It remains difficult for outsiders to assess the quality of assets on balance sheets. Some banks, such as Barclays, claim their assets are better-quality and more well-hedged.

Citigroup said it ended June with $22.5 billion of subprime exposure. That included $18.1 billion of super-senior asset-backed securities CDOs (ABS CDOs), the kind of debt Merrill sold, including $14.4 billion of commercial paper. Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Mike Mayo said Citigroup might face an $8 billion write-down on CDOs, as the bank has valued them at 53 cents on the dollar. Fox-Pitt Kelton analyst David Trone estimated a $4 billion write-down.

Citigroup spokeswoman Shannon Bell declined to comment. On July 18, Chief Financial Officer Gary Crittenden said: "There has not been a single American dollar cash flow loss against the asset-backed commercial paper ... I rush to add that that is not a forecast for the future."

According to Oppenheimer & Co analyst Meredith Whitney, Lehman ended May with about $600 million of gross ABS CDO exposure, and $29.4 billion of commercial mortgage exposure. Lehman spokesman Randy Whitestone declined to comment. Bank of America said it ended June with $8.43 billion of net CDO exposure, including $5.17 billion of subprime debt it was carrying at 43 percent of its original net exposure.

"We price our CDOs frequently during the quarter," spokesman Bob Stickler said. "The values take into account everything, including underlying asset flows and external market events. We would certainly take the Merrill sale into account, but it wouldn't be a single driver of valuation."

European lenders may also take hits. Stuart Graham, a Merrill analyst in London, said that under his revised "stress test," large banks on that continent may have $58 billion of future write-downs, up from his prior $22 billion assumption. Falling asset values could also make lenders less able to lend or more skittish about extending credit.

"They become much more cautious," Citigroup strategist Hampden-Turner said. "If you are a homeowner, it is harder to refinance. If you are a company, you can't borrow money as before." Pacific Investment Management, where Chief Investment Officer Bill Gross runs the world's biggest bond mutual fund, last week estimated that global banks could face $1 trillion in losses from the credit crisis and lowered asset prices.

Wachovia said it ended June with $5.86 billion of subprime exposure, including $4.38 billion of mostly hedged ABS CDOs. It also has a $122 billion portfolio of adjustable-rate mortgages where many borrowers owe more than their homes are worth. Spokeswoman Christy Phillips-Brown declined to discuss the exposures, but said the fourth-largest bank is reducing risk, after losing $8.86 billion in the second quarter.

Wachovia has hired Goldman Sachs Group, a Wall Street bank that largely sidestepped the credit crisis, for advice on what to do with its loan portfolio. Robert Steel, Wachovia's new chief executive, is also a Goldman alumnus.




Is IndyMac too much for the FDIC?
For all of the press that the failure of IndyMac Bank has generated in recent weeks — it was the largest thrift and the second largest financial institution to ever have failed, after all — it’s what hasn’t gotten press at all thus far that is much more likely to be the largest test of resources at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as it seeks to sell off the bank’s assets.

Consider that IndyMac held the nation’s 8th largest residential mortgage servicing portfolio, at $200.7 billion by the end of the first quarter, according to statistics compiled by Inside Mortgage Finance. Now consider that the FDIC is tasked with managing the single largest servicing transfer tied to a failed bank in history — and by a long shot, too. It’s not even close.

The next closest comparison would be Superior Bank, which failed in July 2001 and serviced a $3.7 billion portfolio of securitized subprime mortgages, eventually sold to former Bear Stearns & Co. subsidiary EMC Mortgage Corp. in February 2002. But this isn’t a $3.7 billion servicing portfolio. This is more than 50 times larger.

Understandably, more than a few MBS investors have been on edge in recent weeks as the future of the servicing portfolio remains up in the air; $184 billion of the loans in the servicing portfolio were sold or securitized, with IndyMac retaining servicing rights. The future of the portfolio will likely remain in limbo for some time longer, as well, as FDIC officials sort through their options for selling off the portfolio.

Many industry participants had suggested to HW at the outset of IndyMac’s failure that trustees would look to move servicing elsewhere — a report by analysts at Credit Suisse Group, published last week, suggested that such movement is unlikely so long as the FDIC continues making servicing advances.

“Even if the trustee elects to initiate a servicing transfer, the FDIC may ignore the request in order to maximize the value of the assets it plans to sell,” wrote the team of analysts, led by Rod Dubitsky. “So the event of default directly resulting from receivership will not trigger an immediate transfer of IndyMac servicing.”

“[W]e believe that once the FDIC decides to assume the servicing contract it would be required to advance and comply with the servicing agreement. The bottom line is that we don’t believe the FDIC can selectively comply with the terms of the servicing agreement.”

HW’s sources have suggested that the FDIC has been blanketing much of the mortgage industry with requests for proposals regarding the servicing portfolio. Beyond large banks with their own servicing portfolio, who have been bidding on the active and parts of the special servicing business, independent REO shops have received requests to bid on pieces of the IndyMac portfolio as well.

“Nobody really knows which way the FDIC will go on this, or if they can sell the entire portfolio to one buyer,” said one source, a senior banking executive that asked his name not be used in this story. “There aren’t but four or five firms that could take on this big of a portfolio in one piece, and so far, it’s anyone’s guess if there’s interest there enough to make it the least-costly scenario the FDIC will look for.”

The team of Credit Suisse analysts postulated that the servicing book could be split along GSE and non-agency lines; $60 billion of loans in IndyMac’s servicing portfolio were sold to either Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to the report.
In the short run, loan modification clearly looks to be on the rise within the IndyMac portfolio.

As HW reported earlier, the FDIC has initiated a foreclosure freeze on the serviced loans owned by IndyMac, equal to roughly 10 percent of the servicing portfolio; the government wants to attempt workouts with troubled borrowers, according to press remarks made by FDIC chairman Sheila Bair.

But our sources suggest that the FDIC is also actively looking into the Pooling & Servicing Agreements that govern the rest of the servicing portfolio, as well, in an effort to gauge the degree of flexibility in loan modification authority that exists.

The team of Credit Suisse analysts suggested that FDIC officials see IndyMac’s substantial portfolio as an “ideal test case with which to trigger a paradigm shift” towards the sort of modifications that Bair has pressed for in the past six months — in particular, the FDIC chairman has strongly advocated use of principal reductions in public speeches recently.

Of course, that all depends on how quickly the FDIC can sell off the servicing portfolio, in whole or in parts. And it depends on whether or what sort of messes the FDIC is called on to clean up next — some of the nation’s largest mortgage servicing portfolios are with institutions that have faced some pretty big challenges of their own as of late.

Among the nation’s top servicers: Citigroup Inc, which holds a $798.8 billion portfolio; Washington Mutual, which holds a $616 billion servicing book; and Wachovia Corp., which holds $197.3 billion.




Growth slump may force Italy out of eurozone
Italy is sliding into a deep structural crisis and risks being forced out of Europe's monetary union as the region's economic downturn gathers pace, according to a new report by Capital Economics.

Over the last decade, the country has failed to reform its labour product markets sufficiently to cope with the rigours of euro membership and is now caught in a spiral of decline as the working population starts to shrink. Productivity growth has slowed to 0.5pc a year.

"An ugly combination of weak GDP growth, poor international competitiveness, and rising government borrowing costs could lead to renewed calls for Italy to leave the euro," said the report, written by Julian Jessop and Roger Bootle. "As things stand, not only will Italy lose ground to the rest of the eurozone, it could soon start to do so at an even more rapid rate," they said.

Italy has lost roughly 40pc in labour competitiveness against Germany since 1995, according to Eurostat data. Capital Economics said Italy - now on the cusp of its fourth recession this decade - faces a "demographic time bomb" as the workforce starts to shrink at an accelerating rate over the next 30 years, making it ever harder to finance the biggest national debt in Europe (107pc of GDP).

There is a risk that the spreads between German Bunds and Italian 10-year bonds could widen quickly from 58 basis points today to over 100 if the question of euro membership creeps back onto the table. Italy set off a minor scare in mid-2005 when two cabinet ministers from the radical Northern League called for a return to the lira.

It was suggested that the political pain threshold in a major economic crisis may be lower than widely assumed. The country regained momentum during the final upswing of the global credit boom, helped by Fiat's remarkable comeback. This has entirely faded. "Italy's upswing has unravelled at an alarming pace," said the report.

Business confidence has fallen to the lowest since October 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The country is disproportionately hit by the high euro because it relies heavily on "mid-tech" exports that compete toe-to-toe with Asian goods.

Italy can at least take some comfort that other euro members are feeling the strain too, reducing the risk of EMU break-up. France's Insee consumer confidence plunged to a 21-year low in July. The epicentre of the unfolding crisis is Spain, where the number of houses built this year is expected to collapse by half from the 760,000 constructed in 2007 at the peak of the bubble.

Spanish unemployment is rising by almost 70,000 a month, touching 10.6pc at the end of the fourth quarter. However, Spain has a much small public debt than Italy. Most studies on the risk of an EMU break-up conclude that it cannot occur because the costs would be too high. But this overlooks that markets could set in motion a chain of events that forces a country to leave.




Temasek Gets Sweet Deal As Merrill Raises Capital
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s plans to raise new capital are a great deal for one of its most important investors: Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd.

On Monday, the Wall Street firm announced plans to raise capital through an $8.5 billion share offering. By participating in the plan, Temasek, an investment firm owned by Singapore's government, will essentially wipe out much of its paper loss on a previous $5 billion investment in Merrill Lynch thanks to special downside protections it negotiated at the time.

The deal will also raise Temasek's approximate 9% ownership of Merrill -- potentially even pushing it above the 10% threshold for foreign ownership in U.S. companies that triggers a government review on national-security grounds.

When Temasek agreed to invest in Merrill this past December and March at $48 a share, it secured a price-reset clause. The agreement stated that if Merrill sold new shares within one year at a price less than $48, then Merrill would need to pay Temasek the difference in either cash or shares.

As part of the plans announced Monday, Merrill will issue $2.5 billion in new shares to Temasek. Temasek will kick in an additional $900 million. How much of a stake the company ends up holding in Merrill will depend on the price and number of new shares issued. On Monday, Merrill closed at $24.33, down $3.19 a share.

Temasek's deal highlights the importance of downside protection that sovereign funds and other investors negotiated when they agreed to plug the holes in Western banks' balance sheets left by the U.S. subprime crisis. Investments by sovereign wealth funds into Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley, for example, have been structured to provide a steady, guaranteed return and to convert into shares later.

The terms of the Morgan Stanley deal guarantee China Investment Corp. a 9% annual return until it converts its investment to shares in 2010. The Government of Singapore Investment Corp. and other investors are getting a 7% dividend payment from Citigroup until a similar conversion.

Earlier investments, including ones made by several foreign investors in Barclays PLC, didn't contain such clauses. Temasek agreed to invest an additional £200 million ($398.8 million) and China Development Bank an additional £136 million in a £4.5 billion capital raising that Barclays announced in June. Those purchases, while not a huge increase in their holdings, helped prevent the investors' stakes from being significantly diluted.

Some investment agencies in Asia are coming under attack at home for bailing out foreign institutions when their local stock markets are suffering. And at least one, Korea Investment Corp., a sovereign wealth fund set up in 2005 that manages more than $20 billion, is having second thoughts about its experience, even with protections on its investments.

"We have learned a lot from investing in Merrill Lynch and will take a more cautious approach in the future," KIC Chief Executive Chin Youngwook said Tuesday.

In January, KIC agreed to buy $2 billion of preferred shares in Merrill at a price of $52.40 each alongside other investors. In a deal similar to Temasek's, the Korean investor agreed to convert its holding to ordinary shares earlier than planned in exchange for additional Merrill shares.




Merrill Deal May Cause Banks to Revalue Debt
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s fire sale of assets might burn some other fingers on Wall Street.

In the world of complex and infrequently traded securities, the investment bank's move to unload $30.6 billion in securities to private-equity firm Lone Star Funds produced a rare data point: a market price. And that market price was 22 cents on the dollar.

Securities such as collateralized debt obligations are highly varied and difficult to compare to one another. But analysts said banks, which generally carry securities at higher average values, will have trouble ignoring Merrill's price. It is also possible insurers such as American International Group Inc. could have a harder time viewing the impairment of similar assets as temporary. All of that means the write-downs plaguing Wall Street likely haven't come to an end.

"While these are Merrill-specific deals, they do have the potential to create marks and put pressure on some other companies to de-risk their balance sheets and take their lumps in an effort to move forward," UBS analyst Glenn Schorr said in a note to clients.

Merrill's sale, announced after the market closed Monday, appeared to be the biggest slug of troubled assets sold off in one shot and publicly disclosed by an investment bank during the credit crisis. It also commanded a low price.

Hedge fund Citadel Investment Group paid about $800 million, or 27 cents on the dollar, last year for assets with a face value of $3 billion sold by E*Trade Financial Corp. In May, UBS AG sold $22 billion in mortgage-backed assets to BlackRock Inc. for $15 billion, or 68 cents on the dollar. BlackRock is also liquidating about $30 billion in Bear Stearns assets for the Federal Reserve.

In addition to being large and public, Merrill's sale wasn't forced by a crisis. As such, it will be hard to ignore. "This is the first large-scale CDO transaction that is not a distressed sale," Citigroup Inc. analyst Prashant Bhatia said in a note. "Industry participants will likely mark super-senior CDO assets with 2006 and 2007 vintage collateral down to the 22-cent range."

Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo said Citigroup may have to write down $8 billion on its portfolio of CDOs as a result and cut his earnings estimates for the bank. Citigroup values its portfolio of the securities at 53 cents on the dollar, he said. There are arguments for that position, he said, but he expects Merrill's sale will force Citigroup to revalue its own holdings sharply lower. Goldman Sachs analyst William Tanona agreed. Citigroup wouldn't comment.

Citigroup shares were up slightly in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Merrill Lynch was down 1.3%. UBS shares fell in Zurich on concern the bank will copy Merrill's approach and sell off troubled assets at a loss that forces another round of capital raising, even as the bank repeated its position that more capital isn't needed. The stock closed down 3.2%.

"Although UBS has said it expects to break even in the second quarter, there is a risk that their results announcement will also include plans to accelerate the rate at which they sell off their subprime exposures and this could result in yet another large write-off and a capital-raising exercise to compensate," said Peter Thorne, a London-based analyst with independent brokerage Helvea.

UBS reports results for the quarter Aug. 12, but said earlier this month that it may eke out a break-even result thanks to tax credits related to the mortgage losses. Mr. Thorne said he sees additional UBS write-downs for the quarter of as much as five billion Swiss francs ($4.83 billion) and fund-raising of as much as 10 billion francs, as "entirely possible."

U.K. banks Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Barclays PLC also slid, 2.7% and 4.1%, respectively. Analysts at BNP Paribas warned against automatically assuming every bank will have to take Merrill-like hits, but said Merrill's quick turnaround on the value of its securities will raise questions about the accuracy of banks' marks.




U.S. Profits May Drop Most Since at Least 1998, Led by Lehman
Profits at U.S. companies may have dropped the most in at least a decade last quarter after credit writedowns triggered a combined $7.43 billion loss at Merrill Lynch & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Earnings of Standard & Poor's 500 Index companies have tumbled 24 percent from a year earlier, according to data compiled by Bloomberg on the 291 companies that had reported quarterly results through yesterday. As recently as July 3, analysts expected a drop of 11 percent.

Financial industry profits, which analysts estimated would fall 60 percent, have plummeted 87 percent. Record oil prices drove earnings of ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum Corp. to the highest in their histories. The energy group of the S&P 500 has posted a 15 percent gain in profits so far.

"It's a tale of two sectors that are really driving things," said Dirk van Dijk, director of research at Zacks Investment Research in Chicago. "On the bad side it's financials," he said in an interview. "On the upside, it's energy." The benchmark S&P index, representing companies with a combined market value of $11.3 trillion, slipped 3.2 percent in the quarter, the worst showing for the period since 2002. The index fell 14 percent this year before today.

A 24 percent earnings drop would be the deepest since at least the second quarter of 1998, according to the earliest comparable Bloomberg data. Profits fell 23 percent in the third and fourth quarters of 2001 and in the fourth quarter of 2007.

The decline marks the fourth straight quarter of reduced earnings for U.S. companies. The losing streak is the longest since the five quarters that ended in March 2002, when the U.S. was emerging from an eight-month recession. Excluding financial companies, profits have climbed 8.5 percent so far.

Lehman, the fourth-largest U.S. securities firm, posted a loss of $2.77 billion, or $5.14 a share. Merrill Lynch, the third-biggest U.S. securities firm, lost $4.65 billion, or $4.97 a share. Credit-market writedowns in the second quarter cost Merrill $9 billion and Lehman $4.9 billion.

Worldwide, banks and brokerages have reported more than $470 billion in writedowns and credit losses since the beginning of last year as mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, leveraged loans and other fixed-income assets lost value. Information technology earnings advanced 21 percent for the quarter, as Apple Inc. jumped 31 percent and Google Inc. gained 35 percent. Analysts had estimated the category would increase 13 percent, as of July 3.

ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil producer, posted the highest quarterly profit in its history, after crude prices climbed to a record and natural gas surged to a 2 1/2-year high. Net income of $5.44 billion, or $3.50 a share, topped analysts' average estimate by 2 cents.

U.S. oil futures climbed above $140 a barrel for the first time in June, and the average price during the period rose 90 percent from a year earlier. Oil prices have crippled earnings of consumer companies, including automaker Ford Motor Co., home furnishings retailer Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and hotelier Marriott International Inc.

"Because of high oil prices, a weak housing market and a weak job market, the consumer is under unprecedented stress," Alec Young, a New York-based equity strategist at Standard & Poor's, said in an interview. Earnings for 41 companies that rely on consumers' discretionary spending that reported through yesterday have declined 22 percent, less than the 24 percent decrease projected by analysts.

"A lot of it does come down to the auto companies," Zacks' van Dijk said. "Pretty nasty earnings from Ford." Ford, the world's third-biggest automaker, posted a record quarterly loss of $8.7 billion, or $3.88 a share, as $4-a-gallon gasoline trimmed demand for the pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles that generate a majority of its U.S. sales.

Ford's loss included a writedown of $8 billion for plant closings and the declining value of leased vehicles owned by its credit unit. Marriott, the world's largest hotel chain, reported a 24 percent drop in profit, and forecast declines for the rest of the year, as U.S. business and personal travel fell.

For the year, S&P 500 companies' earnings will rise 1.6 percent, helped by a fourth-quarter surge, S&P's Young said.
There will be "just a massive rebound in financial earnings," Young said. Comparisons with the fourth quarter of 2007 will be easier because of writedowns firms took in the period, he said.




Gold and long mattresses
If you saw dark clouds drifting from St. Charles last week, they were probably coming from the dreary mood at the CFA Institute's annual investment seminar for professional investment managers.

Every year, the respected chartered financial analyst investment education group brings money managers from around the world together in the Chicago area and exposes them to provocative thinkers on investment strategy and market conditions. And with most of the world's stock markets down 20 percent or more from their highs, economies slowing throughout the world, and a credit crisis toying with the flow of money, this year's speakers were gloomy.

"I am officially scared," GMO investment manager Jeremy Grantham told professionals from as far away as Abu Dhabi and Malaysia. "In 2000, we had a technology bubble. But this is massive, a massive credit crisis and a bubble in global housing, global equity and global land."

Grantham is sometimes referred to as a "perma-bear" because he's a stickler about avoiding overpriced stocks. Two years ago, he warned his audience that U.S. stocks were too expensive, even after recovering most of the ground lost from the 49 percent drop to correct the bubble in technology stock prices in 2000.

But back then, Grantham was cautious; not fearful. While he was avoiding U.S. stocks, he thought fast-growing emerging markets still held promise. Now, after a tremendous surge of investor money into Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, he is concerned about the prices of those stocks, as the world works its way through what he called the "first truly global bubble."

In the last few weeks, economies throughout the world have slowed sharply, and Grantham said corporate profit margins must decline as the trend continues. But he does not think investors have adjusted their expectations. For investors expecting 7 percent annual returns in the U.S. stock market, Grantham said the price-earnings ratio would either have to go to 35, or "profit margins would have to go off the chart."

The price of Standard & Poor's 500 stocks is currently about 22 times earnings. When asked by a money manager what he would buy now, Grantham said, "long mattresses"—jesting about the stereotypical nervous behavior of hoarding cash. He seriously suggested: "Put money into something incredibly safe, like a high-quality hedge fund."

Grantham said rather than buying stocks for the long run now, he would only "short" them, or bet that they will decline in price. He sees "nothing interesting in quality corporate bonds," and he has been shorting oil. "Commodities had a good run, but that's over," he said.

Although downtrodden mortgage-related bonds might be a good deal now because some are selling for 59 cents on the dollar, he said he wonders if the price will seem compelling if home prices fall another 20 percent or 25 percent. He confessed to the group that "I bought my first gold last week, and I hate gold. It doesn't pay a dividend. I would only do it if I was desperate."

Grantham said part of his angst comes from a lack of leadership. He criticized U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for failing to force banks to raise capital when it was warranted two years ago. And he added: "Just imagine, we have chosen to borrow money from China so we can buy oil from the Middle East and use it to pollute the planet."

Marc Faber of Marc Faber Ltd. blamed former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan for failing to acknowledge the Fed's role in repeatedly inflating dangerous bubbles. By keeping interest rates low, "the Fed has created a bubble in everything—stocks in emerging market, real estate everywhere in the world, commodities, art," he said. "The only asset class that is down is the U.S. dollar."

Generally, when bubbles burst, the asset prices stay down for lengthy periods. Grantham isn't expecting the stock market to hit its low until 2010.

Farouki Majeed, the senior investment officer for asset allocation and risk management for the giant California Public Employees' Retirement System, noted that with the tech bubble bursting in 2000 and the current bear market, investors in stocks have seen virtually no return for the last 10 years. That's unusual, but typical of "boom and bust" cycles, he said. Calpers reduced its exposure to stocks from 60 percent of the pension fund to just 54 percent this year.

Faber said, "It is quite likely that the current synchronized global economic boom and the universal, all-encompassing asset bubble will lead to a colossal bust." And with commodity prices so inflated, he expects an "increase in international tensions" over resources.




Waiting for Jamie Dimon's next move
With so many banks reeling because of the credit crisis, the rumor mill is cranking up again about what JPMorgan Chase might want to buy next. So what's chief executive officer Jamie Dimon waiting for?

A little more clarity, for starters. There is still plenty of uncertainty about whether the worst is ahead or behind for the financial services sector. Two more banks failed last Friday. In addition, Merrill Lynch announced Monday, that it was seeking to raise $8.5 billion in capital to clean up its balance sheet.

Analysts were also caught off-guard nearly two weeks ago when Dimon warned during JPMorgan Chase's second-quarter earnings conference call that he expected losses in his company's prime mortgage portfolio to triple in the coming quarters.

And there is no sign that housing prices, or the broader economy for that matter, have found a bottom, suggesting more writedowns and loan losses for the nation's banks. "He sees that we are in a muddy risk environment," said Jason Tyler, a senior vice-president at the Chicago-based Ariel Investments, which manages about $9 billion and owns shares of JPMorgan Chase. "He wants to makes sure the price is absolutely reflective of any downside scenarios."

Still, some analysts speculate that Dimon is eager to add another regional bank to JPMorgan Chase's franchise. As for potential targets, analysts say that many of the same names that Dimon was interested in since he first took over as CEO two and a half years ago are probably still intriguing.

There's Atlanta-based SunTrust for starters, which would give JPMorgan Chase a bigger presence in the Southeast. So far this year, SunTrust shares are down nearly 42%. And just last week, the company said it sold about $2 billion worth of its long-time investment in Coca-Cola Co. stock in order to raise capital.

The thrift giant Washington Mutual has been often mentioned as a takeover target as well. Acquiring the troubled WaMu would give Dimon the West Coast exposure he has long desired. In fact, WaMu reportedly snubbed a $8-per-share offer from JPMorgan in April, in favor of selling an equity stake to a group of investors led by the private equity giant TPG. For what it's worth, WaMu shares have fallen 67% since then and now trade at about $4..

And some experts believe the Charlotte-N.C.-based Wachovia, whose credibility was recently bolstered with the appointment of former Treasury undersecretary Robert Steel as its new CEO, may also be in play. Wachovia shares are down 64% so far this year.

But there are big hurdles to getting any deals done. The stock price of most targets may be so beaten down that management won't want to sell, noted Thane Bublitz, senior equity analyst at the Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial. "There are a lot of regional banks that the management team is in it to eventually be acquired, but they are not talking about it because valuations are so depressed," said Bublitz.

Few doubt Dimon's ability to pull off another acquisition just two months after completing its purchase of investment bank Bear Stearns. For more than a decade, Dimon served as the right-hand-man of Sandy Weill, helping create the modern-day Citigroup through a dizzying number of mergers. But if Dimon waits too long, he might have to pay more for something than he would today.

"It's certainly a buyer's market - it would be to their advantage to do something relatively soon," said Christine Barry, research director at Aite Group. What's more, banks also face the threat of key accounting changes starting next year. One rule under consideration by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, an organization that establishes financial accounting and reporting standards in the United States, would require financial institutions to include all off-balance sheet assets onto their books.

While that might not be enough to prevent JPMorgan Chase from doing a deal in 2009, if Dimon waits until next year, that could mean more nasty writedowns for the bank. Dimon himself told Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Meredith Whitney in a meeting late last week that the new accounting changes for 2009 could "hamper M&A activity within the industry," Whitney wrote in a note published Sunday.

So if a deal is indeed looming for JPMorgan Chase, you can bet Dimon will want to act sooner, rather than later. 




Moody's Profit Falls 48% as Rating Demand Dries Up
Moody's Corp., the world's second- largest credit-rating company, said second-quarter profit fell 48 percent as demand slumped for ratings on mortgage bonds and collateralized debt obligations.

Net income declined to $135.2 million, or 54 cents a share, from a record $261.9 million, or 95 cents, a year earlier, New York-based Moody's said today in a statement. Revenue dropped 25 percent to $487.6 million. Profit before a one-time tax benefit was 51 cents, beating the 47 cent average of seven analysts' estimates in a Bloomberg survey.

Moody's and larger rival Standard & Poor's are suffering from a plunge in bond sales that stifled demand for credit ratings. Revenue from mortgage-backed securities and CDOs dropped 56 percent in the quarter. Moody's Chief Executive Officer Raymond McDaniel, who sliced expenses 10 percent by firing workers and reducing compensation, said he remains "cautious" about the chances of a rebound in the credit markets this year.

"This will be the worst quarter in the cycle in terms of earnings performances," Peter Appert, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in San Francisco, said before the report. Appert, who rates Moody's "neutral," had predicted revenue would decline by 25 percent. The company reiterated its forecast for annual profit of $1.90 to $2. "First-half results reflect persistently difficult credit market conditions," McDaniel said in the statement.

McDaniel, 50, has failed to convince investors that the company can rebound from the seizure in the credit markets that began in August. Critics including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd have said the slump was driven in part by ratings companies' willingness to assign AAA credit ratings to subprime mortgage securities. Merrill Lynch & Co. agreed July 28 to sell CDOs for an average of 22 cents on the dollar.

S&P, Moody's and Fitch Ratings, the three-biggest ratings companies, are being investigated by U.S. and European regulators for providing top grades to securities backed by U.S. subprime mortgages that sparked more than $468 billion of writedowns and credit losses at the world's financial institutions.

Moody's, whose largest shareholder is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., is down 37 percent in the past 12 months, making Buffett's 19.6 percent stake worth $1.5 billion less than it was a year ago. The stock rose $2.60 to $36.15 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday after New York-based McGraw-Hill Cos., parent of S&P, said profit fell less than analysts' estimates on revenue gains in education and investment services.

McGraw-Hill reported a 44 percent slump in new bond sales yesterday, driven by a 95 percent decline in mortgage-backed securities and an 88 percent slide in CDOs. "The reason I'm not recommending Moody's is it's a pure play rating agency" as opposed to McGraw-Hill, Appert said. "They are getting the full negative of the near-term trend. The positive is a five-year story, not a one-year story."

Moody's exceeded analysts' estimates in the previous two quarters and its shares outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 Index so far this year. Still, speculators anticipate more declines. Short interest in New York-based Moody's jumped to a record 47 million shares in mid-July, an increase of 10 percent from the end of June and double a year ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

McDaniel cut more than 7 percent of the workforce, reduced compensation and closed some offices. He ousted President Brian Clarkson in May and removed Noel Kirnon as head of structured finance this month. He said employees violated internal rules in assigning ratings to constant proportion debt obligations. Moody's awarded AAA ratings to at least $4 billion of CPDOs, or bonds backed by derivatives, before the securities lost as much as 90 percent of their value.

Sales of residential- and commercial-mortgage bonds, asset- backed debt and CDOs created by banks fell 66 percent to $510.3 billion in the first half from the same period in 2007, according to newsletter Asset-Backed Alert.

"The revenue from securitization ratings was a substantial component of their profitability," said Tom Priore, chief executive of Institutional Credit Partners LLC, a New York investment bank, before the Moody's announcement. "The level of securitization and their financial performance is highly correlated."

Moody's profit rose more than 30 percent in 2005 and 2006 as sales of CDOs soared. CDOs package pools of debt and slice them into pieces of varying risk, requiring ratings for each part. Moody's profit fell 7 percent in 2007 as CDO issuance dropped. McDaniel's compensation declined 10 percent to $7.4 million in 2007, according to company filings.

Eventually, securitization will return and credit-rating companies will benefit, Priore said. "Is that to say we're not going to see growth from these levels, because securitization is forever impaired and gone?" Priore said. "I don't believe that's the case."




Economic Growth or the Environment?
As economic conditions worsen, people who are asked to make a decision between protecting the environment or economic growth and development have moved even more strongly into the economic growth column. Specifically, a Harris Poll conducted online among 2,454 adults aged 18 and over between June 9 and 16, 2008 by Harris Interactive(R) found:

• U.S. adults are divided on how they perceive things in their own community as 38 percent say it is going in the right direction while 37 percent believe things have "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track". This perception has gotten better in the past few months. In November, almost half (47%) of adults felt things were going off on the wrong track in their community and one-third (32%) felt they were going in the right direction;

• More than three in five Americans (63%) say economic growth and development is more important to their region while one-quarter (27%) believe protecting the environment is more important. Just over three in ten Easterners (31%) believe protecting the environment is more important while seven in ten Midwesterners (69%) believe economic growth is more important;

• The focus on economic growth has grown over the last year. In June of 2007, Americans were more divided as 48 percent thought economic growth was more important and 43 percent believed protecting the environment was more important. In November, a small 51 percent to 37 percent majority believed economic growth was more important; and,

• Looking ahead to the future, just over half of U.S. adults (56%) believe that the quality of life in the area they live in will decrease for their children and grandchildren while 44 percent believe it will increase. Younger generations are more optimistic on this - over half (56%) of Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) believe the quality of life will increase compared to 38 percent of Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62) and one-third (32%) of Matures (those aged 63 and older).

In Canada, there are different opinions on some of these topics:

• Canadians are much more positive about the direction of their community as over three in five (63%) believe things in their community are going in the right direction and 37 percent say they are going off on the wrong track;

• Canadians are more evenly split on which is more important, economics or environment as 45 percent say it is economic growth and development and 44 percent believe it is protecting the environment; and,

• One area Canadians agree with Americans on is the quality of life in their region for children and grandchildren as 56 percent of Canadians say it will decrease and 44 percent believe it will increase.

So What? As the economic woes continue, anything that places the economy versus something else will see economy most likely winning the battle. But, many polls, including earlier Harris Polls, show very strong support for strengthening environmental protections and regulations.

Also, most people do not see the hard trade off between economic development and protecting the environment. In fact, many people believe that we not only can do both of these, but that we should be doing both.




NY governor recalls legislature to solve budget crisis
New York Gov. David Paterson on Tuesday said he will recall the legislature next month to solve a budget crisis that he said reflects Wall Street's sliding fortunes, saying public-private partnerships and spending cuts will be needed.

Paterson said the state's budget shortfall for the multiyear period starting next April has soared 22 percent in just 90 days, to an estimated $26.2 billion from $21.5 billion. "The damage on Wall Street is infecting all of our communities and its effects on New York state finances are devastating," the Democratic governor said in a televised address. He said he also will be "addressing the size of the state work force."

Paterson is recalling the legislature on Aug. 19 to solve what some pundits have called the state's worst fiscal crisis since the 1970s. About one out of every five tax dollars that the state collects comes from Wall Street banks and brokerages, which have written down hundreds of billions of dollars of losses from their ill-fated subprime mortgage investments.

In June, New York's tax take from its top 16 financial companies plunged by 97 percent to $5 million, down from $173 million in June 2007. "It is time for us and other governments to cut up our credit cards," Paterson said, urging elected officials from Albany to Washington and business and labor leaders to "join us in this great effort."

Paterson, who took office in mid-March after Eliot Spitzer resigned, trimmed the budget he inherited to $122 billion, pruning spending by $500 million to $800 million. But Paterson said that for the next fiscal year starting on April 1, 2009, the deficit has ballooned to $6.4 billion from the $5 billion estimate made when he was sworn in.

Additional details about the state's finances will be released on Wednesday by the state budget division.
Though the Republican-led Senate said it will return in early August to enact the governor's property tax bill, the Democratic-controlled Assembly has yet to reveal its plans.

Edmund McMahon, who directs the Empire Center, a conservative Albany-based research group, and Democratic State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli agreed that New York had gone on a multiyear spending binge fueled by booms on Wall Street and the housing market that legislators now would have to tackle.

After Paterson spoke, DiNapoli said it will take years to fix long-standing problems. "New York State has spent money it didn't have and borrowed to make up the difference," he said in a statement. The size of the budget has leaped 75 percent over the past 10 years, McMahon told Albany radio station WCBI.

He blamed the increases on Spitzer, a Democrat who enacted only one budget, and his predecessor, Republican Gov. George Pataki, who oversaw eight budgets. The November elections could prove pivotal because the Senate Republicans, who have run that house for decades, have just a one-seat majority and political analysts said this puts extra pressure on Paterson to devise a sound fiscal plan that does not cost his party votes.




SEC Extends Limit on Short Sales of Brokers, Fannie, Freddie
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission extended an emergency limit on short sales in shares of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and 17 brokerages as it prepares broader rules to thwart stock manipulation.

The SEC pushed back expiration of its ban on so-called naked short sales of the firms' stocks to Aug. 12, the Washington-based agency said in a statement yesterday. The order aims to keep traders from driving down financial stocks to boost profits after Bear Stearns Cos. and IndyMac Bancorp Inc. collapsed amid rumors they were faltering.

The emergency order, focused on companies whose collapse might expose the U.S. government to losses, gives regulators time to weigh wider restrictions. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox last week told lawmakers the agency is examining additional proposals.

"The commission will continue exploring other remedies for the broader marketplace to further protect investors from 'distort and short' artists," Cox said in the statement. The agency doesn't plan to extend the temporary order again. In traditional short selling, traders borrow shares and sell them. If the price drops, they profit by re-buying the stock, repaying the loan and pocketing the difference.

Naked short sellers don't borrow shares before settling sales. The SEC is concerned manipulative investors may use the sales, legal under some conditions, to drive down prices by flooding the market with orders to sell shares they don't have.

The temporary order took effect July 21 and would have expired yesterday. It requires traders to at least arrange to borrow shares before selling short Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored mortgage buyers. The order covers brokerages with access to the Federal Reserve's discount window, which was opened to investment banks after the March collapse of Bear Stearns.

Market makers have an exception under the SEC order that permits them to sell short to maintain liquidity. Investors, such as hedge funds, previously could start trades without an agreement to acquire shares.

Short sales, particularly among retail investors, plummeted after the SEC announced the ban, according to data from S3 Matching Technologies, which processes trades for three of the top five retail brokerages. The sales fell 78 percent on average among the companies named in the order, compared with trades on July 14, the day before the SEC announced the measure, S3 data shows. The company handles about 15 billion transactions daily.

"I see no reason that will turn around," said John Standerfer, the Austin, Texas-based firm's vice president for financial services. "It seems like a pretty restrictive rule to put in place for the entire market."

Penson Worldwide Inc., the Dallas-based company that clears trades for more than 250 firms, is introducing a system this week to automate much of the process after employees were forced to manually review short sales and work weekends, said Mike Johnson, head of global securities lending.

"I hope they don't go market-wide, because that would take six months to a year to implement," he said. "Capital has to be extended, systems have to be rebuilt and we're talking about months of infrastructure building." Cox last week told Congress the agency may also force investors to disclose "substantial" bets on falling stocks and reinstate a version of the so-called uptick rule, which barred short sales of stocks when prices are falling.

The uptick rule, implemented after the Great Depression and scrapped last year, allowed short sales only if a preceding trade boosted the stock price. The SEC is studying whether increasing the uptick increment, such as to a nickel or dime, might be more effective, he said.




England’s retailers suffer worst month in 25 years
Britain's retailers have suffered their grimmest month in a quarter of a century as deep price cuts in the summer sales failed to entice wary consumers into the shops, the CBI said today.

The monthly snapshot of the high street from the employers' organisation found that 61% of businesses said activity was lower in July than a year earlier while only 25% said it was higher. The CBI said the resulting balance of -36 points was the weakest since it began its distributive trades survey in 1983 and that retailers expected another dismal month in August.

Andy Clarke, chairman of the CBI distributive trades panel, and retail director of Asda, said: "It is turning out to be a very grim summer for many retailers. Pressure from higher fuel and food prices is prompting many people to rein in their spending, proving that value retailing has never been more important.

"The faltering housing market has really depressed sales of home furnishings and white goods this month and the high street is still struggling, but supermarkets are faring better. "The retail sector will have to focus more than ever on providing good value to customers if they want to keep the sun shining this summer."

Faced with consumer belt-tightening, the shops and stores surveyed by the CBI had been expecting July to be a poor month for business, but the negative expectations balance of -32 was far worse than the -7 points anticipated. In a potential blow to the rest of the economy, retailers said that they were slashing orders with their suppliers.

The reluctance to spend displayed in today's report confirms poor recent trading reports from individual retailers such as Marks & Spencer and John Lewis. Only supermarkets and sellers of footwear and leather goods bucked the downward trend.

The CBI said sales of big-ticket items were especially weak, with every respondent selling durable household goods and furniture and carpets reporting that sales were down on a year ago. Clothing retailers also suffered.

Howard Archer, economist with Global Insight, said: "The CBI's July distributive trades survey is a real shocker, pointing to consumer spending starting off the third quarter very much on the back foot. Indeed, evidence is mounting that consumers are now reining in their spending appreciably in the face of seriously squeezed purchasing power and other significant pressures."




Euro-Zone Economic Sentiment Drops Following ECB Rate Increase
Business and consumer confidence in the 15 countries that use the euro weakened significantly in July after the European Central Bank raised its key interest rate. According to a European Commission survey published Wednesday, the overall measure of economic sentiment in the euro zone fell to 89.5, from 94.8 in June.

It was the largest monthly fall since October 2001, the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., and much larger than the drop to 93 that was forecast by economists. The Economic Sentiment Indicator now stands at its lowest level since March 2003, indicating that the economy will slow further in the months ahead.

"It was only the latest number in a string of very weak data that confirm that the economy is experiencing a severe downturn," said Aurelio Maccario, an economist at Unicredit in Milan. "It will be very hard to see the return to relatively healthy growth numbers the ECB currently envisages from Q4 onwards."

Consumer confidence was particularly hard hit, with the headline measure falling to -20 from -17. Economists had forecast a drop to -18. Consumers became much more pessimistic about the outlook for the economy over the next 12 months, and about the jobs market.

The consequences for their spending plans are clear from a quarterly survey also released by the commission Thursday. It found that consumers are more reluctant to buy a new car or a new home over the next 12 months than at any time since records began in 1990.

However, the ECB will gain some comfort from the fact that inflation expectations fell slightly, which may be a direct consequence of its decision to raise rates in order to show its determination to bring inflation under control, come what may. The ECB raised its key rate to 4.25% from 4% at its July meeting, its first move since June 2007, which was also an increase.

With interest rates rising, the credit crunch sapping world growth, and oil prices still near record highs, industrial confidence weakened sharply. The headline measure fell to -8 from -5 as new orders slowed, with export orders dropping sharply. Economists had forecast a decline to -7.

"Business and consumer confidence is being pummeled by a myriad of factors," said Howard Archer, an economist at Global Insight. "These notably include elevated energy and food prices, the ongoing credit crunch and financial market turmoil, the very strong euro, the ECB's raising of interest rates in July and fears that it could tighten monetary policy further, and serious concerns about the global economic outlook."

In a quarterly survey, manufacturers reported that they were running at only 82.9% of capacity, down from 83.8% at the start of the second quarter. But in a development that will worry the ECB, manufacturers said they expect to raise their prices at a much faster rate than previously.

So despite the sharp drop in confidence that signals a further slowing of economic growth in the months ahead, the ECB may yet decide another rate increase is needed to counter inflationary pressures. No part of the economy was left untouched by the gathering gloom.

The services sector recorded the largest decline in confidence, with the headline measure plunging to 1 from 9, while the headline measure for the retail sector fell to -9 from -4, and for construction fell to -14 from -11.

Confidence also weakened again in the financial services sector, which had seen a rebound in May and June after sharp declines early in the year. The headline measure fell to 13 from 20 in June, still above the record low of 8 reached in April.

Financial services firms said they intend to cut back on hiring in the next three months, a goal shared by manufacturers, other service providers and construction companies. Retailers were the exception, reporting that they intend to keep payrolls at June levels.

"Hiring intentions in industry and services fell away sharply, continuing the recent trend and offering further evidence to suggest that a vicious circle of weaker spending, output and employment is now in train -- just the kind of vicious circle which leads to a recession," said Ken Wattret, an economist at BNP Paribas.

A separate measure of the climate for doing business in the euro zone -- the Business Climate Index -- fell sharply in July. The BCI declined to -0.21 from +0.13, the first time it has been in negative territory since September 2005. "The low level of the indicator suggests that economic activity in industry ... remains subdued," the commission said.




Lone Star Unafraid Of Investing Where Others Won't
Lone Star Funds isn't afraid of going it alone. On Monday, New York-based investment bank Merrill Lynch & Co. said it was selling a portfolio of collateralized debt obligations with an original face value of $30.6 billion to the Dallas-based private equity firm for $6.7 billion.

The CDO's, essentially bonds collateralized with other forms of debt, are so risky the struggling broker had already written their value down to $11.1 billion as of the end of the second quarter. Merrill's CDO portfolio isn't the only risky bet Lone Star has made on assets affected by the on-going housing slump and credit crunch.

It recently acquired CIT Group Inc.'s (CIT) mortgage business for $1.5 billion. It also bought Bear Stearns' residential mortgage business and paid $295 million for Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. Why Lone Star would pony up so much money for assets seen as being shaky is no secret.

Unconstrained by capital requirements and freed from quarterly reporting obligations, a private equity firm like Lone Star can take time to let the assets mature. That means it can turn a tidy profit if even only a portion of the businesses functions the way they were originally expected to perform.

"If there's anyone who's to have the risk appetite in this kind of environment, it's going to be the alternative investment community," said Philippa Allen, a director at ComplianceAsia, which provides consulting services to the financial industry.
Representatives of Lone Star could not be reached for comment.

Lone Star was founded in 1995 and is led by John Grayken, a former associate of Texas billionaire Robert Bass. Grayken developed his investment strategy while resolving bad debt during the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980s. The fund has made a name for itself by buying chunks of companies facing financial stress, rehabilitating them and then selling them to other investors or listing them on stock exchanges.

One of its first big deals was the purchase of Shoney's Inc., the restaurant chain that once operated the Big Boy franchise. After owning the restaurant for about five years, it sold it off to another investor. Lone Star has also dabbled overseas. In 2001, Lone Star bought a small nationalized lender from the Japanese government for around $400 million.

It sold about a third of the bank, which it had renamed Tokyo Star Bank, to the public in 2005, raising almost twice what it paid for it. It then sold another portion to a hedge fund as part of a deal that was valued at more than $2 billion. It also bought hotels and golf courses in Japan as the country's prolonged real estate recession created opportunities in property-related businesses. It rolled those purchases into operating companies so that it could maximize economies of scale.

In South Korea, Lone Star made a splash by buying most of Korea Exchange Bank, Korea's seventh-largest bank, for about $1.3 billion in 2003. Three years later, Lone Star tried to sell its stake to Kookmin Bank, the biggest Korean lender by assets, but the deal fell through.

Later, South Korean authorities questioned whether Lone Star executives had manipulated the stock prices of a credit card company KEB bought after it was owned by the fund. The investigation of the alleged impropriety grew so heated that Grayken was detained in Seoul for 10 days earlier this year after he flew to South Korea to testify to authorities. Lone Star was found not guilty of wrong-doing by a South Korean court last week.

The fund is now negotiating a sale of the KEB stake to London-based HSBC Holdings PLC that could bring it a profit of as much as $5 billion. The two sides have a self-imposed deadline of July 31 to reach a deal. Lone Star's deal with Merrill Lynch will likely be less controversial but still very profitable.

As part of the deal, Merrill is funding three quarters of the purchase price. If Lone Star defaults on that loan, the only recourse Merrill has is to the CDOs it sold Lone Star. That means the fund is only putting up about 5.5 cents of its own money for every dollar of face value.




America's Long Overdue Extreme Makeover: Extreme Failure
Symbolic to our era like a sledgehammer to drywall, the biggest house that ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" ever made over -- a sprawling, four-bedroom starter castle, a three-car garage mahal with a turret and all -- has gone into foreclosure, in the 'burbs south of Atlanta.

In that particular episode of the hyper-benevolent reality show, which first aired in February 2005, it took 1,800 volunteers a week to demolish the house with the overflowing septic tank that belonged to Milton and Patricia Harper of Lake City, Ga., and then entirely rebuild a new, larger house, while the Harpers and their three children went away to Disneyland.

When they returned, they had the biggest house on Ahyoka Drive, with all the appliances and furnishings, plus enough money to pay taxes on it for decades, plus a fund to send their children to college.

The house will be auctioned off, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, next Tuesday on the steps of the Clayton County Courthouse. The Harpers had used their home as collateral on a $450,000 loan from JPMorgan Chase and fell in arrears, the newspaper reported.

He ran a home security business; she mommed at home. Happy to be on television back then, they declined to be interviewed last week, when a news crew showed up from local station WSB, wanting to know wha'ppen.

The mayor of Lake City, Willie Oswalt, who said he'd helped lift a beam into place in the Harpers living room, told the press that "it's aggravating. It just makes you mad. You do that much work, and they just squander it."

You could (and will) say the Harpers had it coming, but really, we all had this coming. One thing we'll always remember about this decade was the constant home do-over fetish, in real life and in the reality of reality TV -- the constant warping of the consumer's sense of entitlement, the fairy-dust economics, the MasterCard reminder that the experience is priceless.

We'll look back and think of all the time we spent watching shows where people flipped houses for easy profit, or traded spaces, or designed it to sell, or were led into rooms blindfolded to experience the paroxysms that came with new paint, new furniture, new life.

All the crying people did for the camera: They cried when television's magic wand touched them, and the hosts always cried, too, while telling the camera how good they felt making the dreams of the sick and wretched owners of substandard tract houses come true. Think of the many tears that were shed on American television over organized closets and new kitchen countertops.

Now comes a long period of tsk-tsk, and tut-tut. The schadenfreude potential is everywhere now in these newly sobered times, and it would be something if the Harpers would make themselves available for an entirely other kind of documented extreme makeover, penny by penny.

Every day, we are greeted with fresh evidence of the great American fire sale. If it was wrong to think the economy could go on forever subsisting on money that no one actually had, then it was wrong to think there was something wonderful about watching shows where people got houses for nothing, and then expect them to live happily ever after.

Last week, the new numbers came out: Foreclosures were filed against some 740,000 U.S. homes between March and June alone. There should be shows on every cable channel about that, hosted by people who don't cry, and who don't have megaphones and plastered-on smiles.

These shows should air only on analog television, after Feb. 17, 2009. A certain kind of television viewer wouldn't mind watching some more of this, please, if certain kinds of television producers are listening. It's hard to explain, comeuppance. But surely it's as fascinating as installing laminate-wood floors.

Bring on Extreme Failure.




Massachusetts Finance Authority Ending Private Student Loans
The Massachusetts student lending authority announced this week that it will stop issuing private student loans, a move that could affect Connecticut students who attend school in the Bay State and rely on the agency for loans. But Connecticut officials say those students should be able to obtain other loans, in part because Connecticut's student lending agency remains in good shape.

The Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority, or CHESLA, offers state-backed loans to students from or attending school in Connecticut. It now has nearly $20 million to lend, and officials will begin working on a $45 million bond issue next month to replenish the lending pool, executive director Gloria Ragosta said Tuesday.

CHESLA has avoided the problems similar state student loan agencies have faced because it raises money by selling fixed-rate bonds, rather than the auction-rate securities that have caused trouble, Ragosta said. Officials at the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority, or MEFA, announced Monday that the agency was unable to secure funding to loan money for the coming school year. During the past academic year, MEFA loaned $510 million to students from or attending school in Massachusetts.

MEFA previously announced that it would stop providing federal student loans. Monday's announcement marked a withdrawal from the private student loan market. MEFA officials are advising students to consider federal PLUS loans, which allow parents to borrow up to their students' cost of attendance.

Mark French, associate director of student financial aid for the Connecticut Department of Higher Education, advised students who still need to secure financing for college to speak with their school's financial aid office. Higher education officials and families have been closely watching the student loan market as the nation's credit market has slumped.

Officials now say students who qualify should not have trouble obtaining federal loans. Some lenders have stopped offering federal loans, but many more remain. Private loans may be more difficult to obtain. Some lenders have limited their programs because of difficulty raising money, and many others have raised the credit requirements for private loans.




Students Scramble to Secure New Loans as Dozens of Lenders Drop Out
Forget back-to-school shopping: With just a few weeks to go before the start of the fall semester, many college students are doing some last-minute student-loan shopping as more and more cash-strapped lenders drop out of the student loan business.

Texas A&M University financial aid director Delisa Falks said that in the last few days, the university has heard from seven different lenders saying they could no longer provide federally guaranteed loans. It's a problem that has been ongoing nationwide for months, leaving many students with dwindling options for financing their college educations.

Falks said that while there are many other lenders to take the place of the recently discontinued lenders, "it's very disappointing that it's gone this way in the student loan industry." Student loan companies traditionally raise capital by selling bonds, but as a fallout from the subprime housing meltdown continues to shake the country's financial sector, investors have become wary about putting their money into student loans.

As a result, "lenders have been having a hard time raising enough capital to continue making loans," said Justin Draeger, a spokesman with the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

"The whole problem in the capital markets started with mortgages and has drifted down," said Thomas Graf, the executive director of the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority (MEFA), which this week announced that it would not provide funding to 40,000 students and families.

"Difficulty in the capital markets in the last few months has made it extremely difficult for us to secure funding for the fall season," Graf told ABC News. Since March, roughly 100 U.S. lenders have suspended their government-backed student loan programs while nearly 30 have also stopped their private student loan programs, according to the NASFAA statistics.

MEFA, a state non-profit agency, had already announced in April that it would not be providing government-backed student loans. This week's announcement pertained to low-cost private loans. The suspension of MEFA loans and others have led students and families to scramble for alternatives.

Lynne Meyers, the director of financial aid at College of the Holy Cross, said that on Tuesday alone, her office received 120 applications for PLUS loans, government-backed loans that parents take out on behalf of their children. Kaitlin Sullivan, 19, was among those filing an application. Though applying for a new loan meant more paperwork for Sullivan, the sophomore took it in stride.

"The financial aid office sent me all the information that I needed to know, and they assured me that if I followed the steps, I'd be all set," she said. "That's what I've done." But PLUS loans don't work for everyone. Dyneche Duffield, 18, of Nacogdoches, Texas, comes from a single-parent household. She and her mother, she said, don't receive financial support from her father, and while Duffield has obtained federal student loans, her mom's poor credit history has kept her from qualifying for a PLUS loan.

Instead, Duffield, an incoming freshman at Houston Baptist University, is now applying for private loans, which generally have higher interest rates than federally-backed loans like PLUS. (PLUS loan interest rates are currently 8.5 percent; interest rates on federal Stafford loans are 6 percent this year.)

Duffield has noticed the decline in student lenders. Her local bank, she said, used to offer student loans but recently stopped.
"I would have much rather taken out a loan there than somewhere where I didn't know anyone," she said. NASFAA's Draeger said the federal government has taken steps to shore up the student loan market through the Ensuring Continued Access To Student Loans Act, which was signed into law in May.

Among other measures, it allows the U.S. Department of Education to buy government-backed loans from student lenders, thereby providing lenders with more capital that they can then use to make new loans. The bill passed Congress and hit the president's desk "very fast," Draeger said. "Everyone's on the same page -- no one wants to see a student denied any access to a federal student loan."

Draeger conceded, however, that the credit crunch means that private loans will be harder to obtain. Charlene Haykel, the CEO of Simply College Aid, a company that advises families on financial aid, advised that when it comes to private loans, students and families should start their research and planning early -- ideally by January of a student's junior year of high school.

"They have to be much more vigilant," Haykel said. Students and parents should treat their search for college funding, she said, "like a job." "Too often, kids wait until the last minute," she said, "and get into very high-debt situations."




Treasury stimulates money grab
When the government of the United States offers to give the financially ailing public an "Economic Stimulus" check (funny thing), I thought that that was what is was to be used for. I was wrong! Apparently, it was a way for the Student Loan people to get additional funds from those who are already hurting economically. This is wrong!

SallieMae is already taking 15 percent of my Social Security check every month, leaving me and hundreds of thousands of Americans who are already hurting without even this small bit of relief.

This was not a tax rebate check. This was not a tax refund check. This check was given for a specific purpose, and that was to simulate the economy and encourage spending to help move some merchandise and get the country moving forward.

It was not suppose to be a grab bag opportunity for SallieMae or any other student loan organization. Where are our representatives? Where are our rights? By what right does SallieMae or anyone else get to confiscate this money?

SallieMae was supposedly under investigation for overcharging students on their student loans and then giving kickbacks to the universities that allowed them to do that. What happened to that investigation? Did our supposed representatives in Washington get an additional kickback to drop the investigation?

I hired a lawyer to settle the account with SallieMae. I have been disabled for years; I can no longer either drive or work. SallieMae disregarded letters sent to them by my attorney three times, effectively denying me my right to have legal counsel. I always thought that the right to legal counsel was a constitutional right, even in a case such as this. Apparently I was wrong there also!

I grow weary of this kind ripoff tactic by SallieMae and others like them. We are already being inundated by outrageous prices at the pump and at the grocery store.

We are being overrun by people who routinely violate our boarders, costing the taxpaying American public billions of dollars a year, and now this new and unconscionable usurpation of our measly little "Economic Stimulus."

This is bordering on the ridiculous. Is there a lawyer anywhere in these United States willing to take on the student loan organizations and stop them from running roughshod over the disabled and poor?




Ilargi: Peter Schiff’s take from a few days ago.

US National Debt Limit Raised Ahead of Budget Busting Bailout Legislation
With President Bush no longer threatening a veto, the subprime mortgage and Fannie and Freddie “bailout” bill is now sailing through Congress.  In anticipation of its enactment, Congress had the foresight to raise the national debt limit to $10.6 trillion.  Who says that politicians don't plan ahead?

Once signed into law, the budget busting legislation will hand the Administration a blank check to prop up the ailing home lenders.  The ultimate cost is anybody's guess.  I believe that the price tag will be higher than just about anyone imagines.  Paulson's Bazooka will be locked and loaded with enough fire power to blow what's left of our economy into the dustbin of history. 

Though the government and Wall Street assure us that these bold moves will save the housing market, and the economy as a whole, from collapse, the reality is that the solution is far worse than the problem.  As painful as the failure of Freddie and Fannie would have been, bailing them out will hurt even more.  In other words, it's not the disease that will kill us but the cure.

Ironically, while government is rightly criticizing mortgage lenders for ditching lending standards during the boom (well after the horses had left the barn) the new law will actually encourage lenders to be even more reckless then before.  By taking all of the risks out of mortgage lending (provided of course that the loans are conforming), the government is telling lenders not to worry about the loans they make, because if borrowers do not repay, the government will.

Since this bailout eliminates all market based deterrents to reckless lending for conforming loans, the only checks remaining will be those imposed by Freddie and Fannie themselves through the criteria they set for those loans.  And although they have taken some steps over the past few months to tighten their minimal “standards”, the political agenda behind the bailout will cause this nascent effort to lose steam.  In essence, the government's main goal is to prop up home prices.  Since American homes are still overvalued given the fundamentals, their prices can only be pushed up with reckless lending and inflation. 

As a result of this bailout bill, the share of mortgages owned or insured by Freddie and Fannie will likely swell from near 50% today to over 80% within a year or two, turning a $5 trillion problem into a $10 trillion fiasco.  If the government succeeds in keeping real estate prices propped up, it will only do so at the cost of sending all other prices through the roof.  More likely, real estate prices will continue to decline despite government efforts to levitate them, compounding the problems and the losses.

The grim reality is that trillions of dollars were borrowed and spent that will never be repaid.  No government program can alter that fact.  Someone is going to have to pay the piper for all those granite counter tops and plasma TVs.  The price tag is staggering and for all the bailouts and stimulus packages, all the government can do is exacerbate the losses and shift the burden through inflation.  Nor can the government resurrect bubble home prices and the fantasy of real estate riches that went along with them.  One way or another, rational home prices will be restored and the myths of our asset-based, consumption-dependent economy will be finally discredited.

CNBC once nicknamed me “Dr. Doom”, but compared to what I see coming now, they should have then called me “Dr. Sun Shine”.  Take a look at a presentation I made back in November 2006, at the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference.  There are eight clips in total, and though the entire presentation is worth watching, most of the real estate comments begin with the 4 th clip.  Click here to watch the video on YouTube.   Every real estate prediction I made at that conference, which was considered outrageous at the time by those in attendance, has already come true.  As confident as I was then about this impending crises, I am even more confident now that the government has just thrown gasoline onto the fire.





Ilargi: Good news is hard to find these days, but this I like.

Doha world trade talks collapse in blow to globalisation
The Doha round of world trade talks has collapsed in what one former trade chief called the biggest blow to globalisation since the end of the Cold War.

An emergency World Trade Organisation summit aimed at resuscitating the seven-year long talks broke down in acrimony last night. Negotiators warned that there was now little or no chance of salvaging the talks, which promised to bring down trade tariffs, pull millions out of poverty and keep food and goods prices under control.

It is the first time a major set of world trade talks has collapsed entirely, and insiders warned that the consequences would be comparatively weaker economic growth and a less globalised world in the coming years.

Although the talks broke down at a summit in Cancun five years ago and were later revived, officials warned that there was now “little or no appetite” to return to the round. Insiders said the talks had stumbled after the United States, China and India failed to compromise on the size of their agricultural tariffs.

After nine days of emergency talks in Geneva, WTO chief Pascal Lamy broke the news to ministers from the seven biggest trading blocs that the talks had failed. At the centre of the dispute were so-called “safeguard clauses” which allowed developing nations to slap emergency tariffs on imports if they suddenly jumped to unmanageable levels.

US negotiators apparently balked at Indian and Chinese proposals to trigger these safeguards on their cotton exports. European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said: “We have missed the chance to seal the first global pact of a reshaped world order. We would all have been winners from a Doha deal. Without one, we all lose.”

Peter Sutherland, the chairman of BP, who as director general of the WTO’s predecessor, GATT, helped bring the previous trade talks - the Uruguay round - back from the brink, said the collapse was “a disaster.” “This is deeply disturbing,” he said. “Years of negotiation which were and are important for globalisation have been sacrificed by this failure. And there would appear to be no short-term fix.”

“This is undoubtedly the biggest blow to globalisation since [it gathered pace after] the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a deliberate and serious blow to multilateralism, and has raised further the spectre of protectionism, which is always evident at a time of weak economic growth and recession.”

Negotiators will now discuss whether any of the progress made in the seven years of discussions can be salvaged. However, with the Presidential election in the US next year and a change of European commissioners later this year, the consensus is that there will be no meaningful opportunity to discuss trade until at least after 2009.




The Demise of Doha
What global trade talks lack in cat-like agility they often make up for by having nine lives. But the Doha Round may not land on its feet after yesterday's collapse, which is dreadful news for the struggling world economy.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The proximate cause of yesterday's schism was a "special safeguard mechanism" for agricultural imports. American officials accused China and particularly India of wanting to renegotiate the level of import growth at which developing nations could invoke this safeguard and jack up their tariff rates.

Officials from other nations reply that India never signed off on that import level in the first place. Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said yesterday that the higher threshold on which Washington insisted would risk "the livelihood of millions of farmers" in his country. We would point out that developing nations ought to welcome cheaper farm products at a time when many of them are raising export tariffs to ensure that enough food stays inside their borders.

In any case, the blame can hardly be laid solely at India's and China's feet. To hear non-American officials tell it, the U.S. was as much at fault as anyone else. The Bush Administration made waves last week when it offered to cut its allowance of trade-distorting ag subsidies by 70% to $14.5 billion per year. But that level, while lower than outlays in seven of the past 10 years, was still twice what Washington paid farmers last year.

U.S. subsidy payments fell in 2007 as commodity prices rose. Congressional mandates for ethanol, which uses corn, have also contributed to the higher prices. Boondoggle that those requirements are, U.S. negotiators could have at least taken advantage of them to make their lower subsidy offer last year. America's trading partners might have been impressed back then; now, not so much.

The U.S. also seems to have erred in insisting on farm-market access (i.e., lower tariffs on food products) to match its cuts in trade-distorting ag subsidies, rather than asking for lower tariffs for manufactured goods and better access for services. The U.S. farm lobby may be strong -- strong enough to muscle Congress in May into passing the new $300 billion farm bill over President Bush's veto. But Americans were always going to benefit far more from a Doha deal that gave their industrial goods and services better access to emerging markets.

The Bush Administration was calling the shots on this negotiation, but Democrats in Congress have also spooked the rest of the world with their protectionist talk -- from their farm-bill veto override to their refusal to ratify a bilateral trade deal with U.S. ally Colombia. For all their talk about listening to America's partners, Democrats have their fingers in both ears on trade.


Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Debt Rattle, July 29 2008: 5.5 Going On Zero


National Photo Company Collection Eighty million Washington, D.C., 1914
Treasury Department Office of U.S. Treasurer.
Reserve vault cash room packages seen in picture contain over 80 million dollars.


Ilargi: Three large issues today:

  1. US home prices fall at a record pace
  2. Merrill Lynch takes a record hit on the sale of its CDO’s
  3. US banks and the Treasury launch a duck that’s dead in the water: covered bonds.

1/ Home prices are down, across the country, by 15.8%. In many places, it’s much worse. It translates into a wealth loss of about $3.25 trillion. In one year.

2/ It looks very likely that Merrill knew on June 27 that it would do the CDO sell-off. Still, in a July 17 conference call with analysts, CEO John Thain said: “Right now we believe we are in a very comfortable spot in terms of our capital.”

$30.6 billion in CDO’s are sold to a Lone Star affiliate for $6.7 billion. That means Merrill get 22 cents on the dollar. But Merrill itself finances 75% of the $6.7 billion (not an unfamiliar construction). So LoneStar puts in just $1.68 billion, and don’t be surprised if that too comes from somewhere close to Merrill. Hence, Merrill gets, at best, 5.5 cents on the dollar.

And I have good reason to argue that they are merely putting on a show in order to hide the fact that they get zero. All I would need to point out to make that case is that Lone Star’s collateral for the $5 billion loan to buy the assets ..... are those same assets.

We now find that it wasn’t National Australia Bank that initiated the sell-off of its US mortgage securities, last week, it was Merrill’s decision to sell that forced NAB to do the same. NAB sold at 10 cents on the dollar. The official 22 cents number reported today would make it look like Merrill gets twice as much, but as we’ve seen, they don’t get double, they get half of 10 cents. If that much.

Singapore’s Sovereign Wealth Fund Temasek invests another $900 million into Merrill, but that’s nothing but another deceiving number. When Temasek bought Merrill shares earlier this year at $48, Merrill agreed to make up for potential losses in value. The bank now trades at $24, and is forced to pay Temasek $2.5 billion for lost share value. Which will probably flow right back into Merrill, so Temasek will be close to a stake in the bank that is so large that Washington will get nervous.

For other banks, this sets a new benchmark. Citi today values its CDO’s at 53 cents on the dollar, but that has now become untenable. What may save others from an immediate writedown to 5% is a less urgent need to sell. But there will come a moment for all of them when shareholders will demand opening of books, or simply sell and walk away.

3/ Wall Street aims to win back investor confidence by introducing an unregulated version of covered bonds, a European investment instrument, that is not only strictly regulated in Europe, it’s also dead over there. Then again, if CDO's days as a financial instrument are indeed numbered, the consequences for the mortgage trade, and by extension the entire banking industry, will be devastating.


Merrill's CDO Sale 'Suggests Endgame,' Analysts Say
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s decision to liquidate $30.6 billion of collateralized debt obligations at a fifth of their face value "suggests the endgame" for CDO risk at financial companies, Bank of America Corp. analysts said.

The sale reduces uncertainty for brokers, banks and bond insurers, analysts led by Jeffrey Rosenberg in New York said yesterday in a report. Merrill, the third-biggest U.S. securities firm, also plans to sell $8.5 billion of stock and will book $5.7 billion of writedowns in the third quarter.

"Selling off the portfolio at levels below marks creates initial losses but relieves future uncertainty," Rosenberg wrote. "The capital raise, if ultimately successful, could indicate private capital raising ability more broadly for financials. Proving access to raising equity capital would be a clear positive for financial credit spreads, though not necessarily for stock prices."

Merrill is offloading its CDOs as issuance of the debt has tumbled to $89 billion so far this year, down from $870 billion in the same period of 2007, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. data. Some AAA rated portions of CDOs have returned no money to investors in liquidations over the past eight months, according to Standard & Poor's.

In May, Zurich-based UBS sold $22 billion of mostly subprime and Alt-A mortgage bonds to a fund run by New York-based BlackRock Inc. for $15 billion, providing an $11.25 billion loan to finance the purchase.

Last November, Citadel Investment Group LLC paid 27 cents on the dollar to purchase $3 billion of mortgage-related securities from E*Trade Financial Corp. The deal coincided with a separate equity injection into New York-based E*Trade by the Chicago-based hedge-fund manager.

Merrill is selling stock after almost $19 billion of net losses in the past year. The New York-based firm has already raised $30 billion since December to keep pace with mounting charges on mortgage bonds. Standard & Poor's cut the firm's debt rating last month and signaled that more downgrades were possible.

Merrill agreed to sell $30.6 billion of CDOs -- the mortgage-related securities that have caused most of the firm's losses -- for $6.7 billion and provide financing for about 75 percent of the purchase price. The financing for the sale to Dallas-based private-equity firm Lone Star Funds is secured only by the assets being sold, meaning Merrill would absorb any losses on the CDOs beyond $1.68 billion.

Merrill providing financing for the deal "suggests that the true value of the assets is quite a bit less," said Julian Mann, a mortgage and asset-backed bond manager at First Pacific Advisors LLC in Los Angeles, which manages $11 billion. "Until the true value and the mark to model converge it's going to be difficult for investors to have confidence in anything Wall Street management says," he said.

CDOs package pools of securities and slice them into pieces with varying risks and ratings. "If others were to follow such a playbook, writedowns on CDO positions could be larger than taken to date with the offset of reduced uncertainty going forward for broker and bank spreads and tightening spread implications for monolines considering their current distressed levels," Rosenberg said in the report.




US home prices drop record 15.8%
May home prices dropped a record 15.8% from a year ago, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index of 20 cities. It was the 22nd consecutive month of decline recorded by the index. Prices fell 0.9% from April to May.

Each of the 20 metro areas covered by the index posted annual declines; nine posted record lows and 10 cities recorded double-digit drops. The Case-Shiller 10-city Index posted a year over year decline of 16.9%, and a 1% month over month dip. Both the 10-City Composite Index and the 20-City Composite Index are reporting record annual declines.

"Since August 2006, there has not been one month where we have seen overall price increases, as measured by the two Composites," said David Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's.

Case-Shiller has been tracking the 20-city index for 19 years, while the 10-city index is 21 years old. The current price decline streak has been unprecedented in both length and depth. Starting in April 1990, the 10-city index streaked down for 10 consecutive months. But that total loss was just 6.5%.

Since the 10-city index peaked in July 2006, it has plunged 19.8%. The 20-city is down 18.4%. The 20-city index's Sun Belt cities, which recorded the biggest price gains during the boom, have led the charge down. Las Vegas prices have plummeted 28.4% during the past 12 months; Miami prices fell 28.3%; and Phoenix homes lost 26.5% of their value.

Midwest metro areas, which have endured tough economic times for years, are also feeling the pain. Detroit prices are off 17.4% for the 12 months, and Cleveland is down 8%. Northeast cities like Boston, down 6.2% for the 12 months, and New York, off 7.9%, have been less volatile than the Sun Belt.

The smallest year-over-year declines were recorded by Charlotte, N.C. (down 0.2%), Dallas (down 3.1%), and Denver (down 4.8%). The soaring numbers of foreclosures are helping to push down prices. Banks tend to slash prices when selling repossessed homes, since they lose money every month a house sits vacant. They must pay property taxes, maintenance expenses and utility costs while getting nothing back in return.

Those sales, in turn, tend to bring down prices in the rest of a given neighborhood, creating a vicious cycle. Foreclosures accounted for a large - and growing - share of all existing homes sold in some markets. In California, for example, 40% of the existing homes sold during the three months ended June 30 were foreclosures, according to DataQuick, a real estate information provider. That's up from just 5.4% during the same three months in 2007.

Optimistic observers might point out that price declines appear to be slowing. The 10-city index's 1% month to month dip in May was less than April's, when it registered a 1.5% decline, while the 20-city index fell just 0.9% in May after dropping 1.3% in April. Can this be a sign of better times to come?

Patrick Newport, an economist with Global Insight, an economic forecasting firm, doesn't think so. He points out that seasonal variations may account for what appears to be a slowdown in the pace of the decline. "You can't go by monthly numbers," he said. "What I look at is the Census Bureau's inventory of vacant homes on the market. That hasn't budged much, although it dropped to 2.8% [of total homes for sale] in the second quarter from 2.9%."

"What's worrying me is that foreclosures are adding to inventory, and the inventory numbers tell you what to expect for the next couple of years," says Newport. "They're saying home prices will drop."  




Merrill to Sell $8.5 Billion of Stock, $30.6 Billion in CDO’s, Write Down $5.7 Billion
Merrill Lynch & Co., the third- biggest U.S. securities firm, will sell $8.5 billion of stock and liquidate $30.6 billion of bonds at a fifth of their face value to shore up credit ratings imperiled by mortgage losses.

Temasek Holdings Pte., the Singapore-owned fund that became Merrill's biggest investor by acquiring shares in December, will buy $3.4 billion of the new stock, Merrill said yesterday in a statement. The New York-based company is paying Temasek $2.5 billion to offset losses on its earlier investment. Merrill will also book $5.7 billion of writedowns in the third quarter.

Almost $19 billion of net losses in the past year forced Chief Executive Officer John Thain to backtrack from assurances that the firm had enough capital to weather the credit crisis. Since taking the post in December, Thain has raised $30 billion in an effort to keep pace with mounting charges on mortgage bonds amassed by his predecessor, Stan O'Neal. Standard & Poor's cut the firm's debt rating last month and signaled that more downgrades were possible.

"It does mark an attempt at curing the problem but at a tremendous cost to existing shareholders," said Charles Peabody, an analyst at Portales Partners LLC in New York who recommends selling Merrill shares. "How can you be pleased by that? It's a necessity."

UBS AG analyst Glenn Schorr estimates Merrill will report a third-quarter loss of $4.80 a share because of "significant dilution" from the stock sale. Schorr, who has a "neutral" rating on Merrill, previously estimated earnings of 72 cents.

Merrill rose 14 cents to $24.47 in German trading today. The company sold its 20 percent share of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, earlier this month for $4.43 billion, 11 percent less than the $5 billion market value Thain placed on the stake in June. He also agreed to sell Financial Data Services, an in- house mutual-fund administrator worth $3.5 billion.

"While third-quarter results and the future capital raise would be yet another burden, we do believe there is light at the end of the tunnel," wrote Douglas Sipkin, an analyst at Charlotte-based Wachovia Corp. who has a "market perform" rating on Merrill, in a note to clients today.

In yesterday's statement, Merrill said it agreed to sell $30.6 billion of collateralized debt obligations -- the mortgage- related bonds that have caused most of the firm's losses -- for $6.7 billion. The buyer is an affiliate of Lone Star Funds, a Dallas-based investment manager.

"Our consistent focus has been to opportunistically reduce risk, and in order to take advantage of this sizeable sale on an accelerated basis, we have decided to further enhance our capital position," Thain, 53, said in the statement.

Merrill will provide financing for about 75 percent of the purchase price, according to the statement. The financing is secured only by the assets being sold, meaning Merrill would absorb any losses on the CDOs beyond $1.68 billion. The sale will result in a third-quarter pretax writedown of $4.4 billion, Merrill said.

Less than two weeks ago, the firm announced $3.5 billion of CDO writedowns for the second quarter that ended in June. Bank of America Corp. analyst Michael Hecht estimates Merrill will report a full-year loss of $11.55 a share and he cut his price target for the stock to $40 from $47, according to a note to clients.

"Why these assets are written down when you're selling them and weren't written down in your earnings is a question," said Ralph Cole, a senior vice president in research at Ferguson Wellman Capital Management Inc. in Portland, Oregon, which oversees $2.7 billion and doesn't own Merrill shares. "This kind of announcement is surprising and a little disheartening."

Merrill has lost almost 55 percent of market value this year. Only Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has fallen more on the 11- member Amex Securities Broker/Dealer Index, dropping 77 percent. Merrill fell 12 percent yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Thain, who worked as a mortgage trader during his 25-year career at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said July 17 that he was "hopeful" that Merrill could sell its CDOs, while adding he didn't "want to do dumb things" by selling them too cheap.
In yesterday's statement, Thain said, "the sale of the substantial majority of our CDO positions represents a significant milestone in our risk-reduction efforts."

The CDOs Merrill sold to Lone Star were carried on the securities firm's books at about $11.1 billion, indicating they already had been written down to about 36 cents on the dollar. The Lone Star sale values them at about 22 cents. Merrill may sell as many as 356.5 million shares in the latest offering, the firm said yesterday in a presentation for potential buyers.

That represents a 36 percent increase over the number outstanding at the end of June. The price of the new shares will be set today, according to the presentation. The share sale is Merrill's fourth since Thain took over following O'Neal's ouster last October.

Thain raised $6.2 billion in December -- when Temasek bought its initial 9.4 percent stake -- and another $6.6 billion in January. That month, he told investors Merrill had attracted more than it needed. Since then, he has repeated that the firm's capital was sufficient. "We're very comfortable with our position," Thain said on Jan. 30. "We could have raised substantially more money. We turned people away."

Three months later he sold $2.55 billion of preferred stock. Then, after Standard & Poor's cut Merrill's credit rating to A from A+ on June 2, Thain announced he was considering a sale of Merrill's stake in Bloomberg. When the firm reported a $4.65 billion second-quarter net loss on July 17, Thain said the firm's resources were adequate.

"We believe that we are in a very comfortable spot in terms of our capital," he said on a conference call with analysts. In yesterday's statement, Thain said the new capital became necessary because the completion of the Lone Star deal meant additional losses had to be booked.

Merrill was contractually bound to compensate Temasek and other investors who bought shares in the December and January offerings. The stock has since plummeted almost 55 percent. So in addition to the new public offering, Merrill will pay $2.5 billion to Temasek and issue an additional 195 million shares to the other investors, according to yesterday's statement.

Losses on CDOs and the associated hedging contracts have accounted for about $27 billion of the total $41 billion of total writedowns taken by Merrill over the past year. The firm was one of the largest underwriters of CDOs before the credit crisis hit last year, and Merrill was stuck with more than $50 billion of them on its books when buyers fled the market.

The remaining CDOs may be less worrisome to investors. About $7.2 billion of the $8.8 billion left are hedged with "highly rated counterparties," the firm said in the statement. In addition to the losses from the Lone Star sale, Merrill said it will record a $500 million loss related to the termination of hedging contracts on CDOs with XL Capital Assurance. It took another $800 million maximum loss related to the potential settlement of hedges with other bond-insurers.

Moody's Investors Service affirmed Merrill's A2 credit rating today after the securities firm announced the asset sale. "We think they have taken care of much of their troublesome exposure in structured finance and real estate," said David Hendler, a bank analyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York.




2008 quotes from Merrill's Thain on capital needs
Merrill Lynch & Co Inc said on Monday it would raise $8.5 billion by selling new stock. But CEO John Thain has consistently denied that the investment bank would need to raise more capital. Here is a selection of comments by Thain or about his views since the end of last year:

"One of my first priorities at Merrill Lynch was to strengthen the firm's balance sheet, and today we have made great progress towards that by bolstering our capital position through these investments and our announced sale of Merrill Lynch Capital." (December 24, 2007 -- Thain in a statement when Merrill announced a $6.2 billion capital raising)

"...These transactions make certain that Merrill is well-capitalized." (January 15, 2008 -- Thain in a statement after selling $6.6 billion of preferred shares to a group that included Japanese and Kuwaiti investors)

"We're very confident that we have the capital base now that we need to go forward in 2008." (January 18, 2008 -- Thain as quoted by the New York Times).

"...Today I can say that we will not need additional funds. These problems are behind us. We will not return to the market." (March 8, 2008 -- Thain in an interview with France's Le Figaro newspaper)

"We have more capital than we need, so we can say to the market that we don't need more injections. We can confirm that we have tackled the problem." (March 16, 2008 -- Thain in an interview with Spain's El Pais newspaper)

"In 2007, we lost 8.6 billion dollars after tax, but we raised 12.8 billion dollars in new capital. We raised significantly more capital than we lost. And we did that on purpose so that we could say to the marketplace that we raised more than enough capital. We replaced all the capital we lost. We have plenty of capital going forward, and we don't need to come back into the equity market. The goal is to maintain our current ratings. No more capital raising; I'm sure we have enough capital." (April 4, 2008 -- Thain in an interview with Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun)

"We deliberately raised more capital than we lost last year ... we believe that will allow us to not have to go back to the equity market in the foreseeable future." (April 8, 2008 -- Thain to reporters in Tokyo, as reported by Reuters)

"John Thain has been very clear that we have sufficient capital and don't have a need to raise additional common equity for the foreseeable future. When we raised this capital in January, we had a lot of demand so we went beyond what we needed." (May 12, 2008 -- Merrill President Greg Fleming in an interview with the Times of London)

"Today on a pro forma basis we have about $44 billion of equity capital, which actually isn't very much below the all-time high that Merrill ever had. And our philosophy about this is that we are well-capitalized. We're comfortable with our capital position. We, like everyone else, are deleveraging our balance sheet." (June 11, 2008 -- Thain on a conference call hosted by Deutsche Bank)

"Right now we believe that we are in a very comfortable spot in terms of our capital." (July 17, 2008 -- Thain on a conference call after posting Merrill's second-quarter results)




Merrill’s Latest Misfire
The forecasters who thought investors should now pile into the financials, that the sector would start seeing an upward trend, now know the pain of betting on a false bottom.

Merrill Lynch’s shocking announcement after the market’s close yesterday that it will book a huge pre-tax $5.7 bn writedown from its toxic, risky debt offerings, plus raise another $8.5 bn in new stock on top of the dilutive $12 bn it’s already raised (a total of $26 bn in capital raised from equity offerings and asset sales), should make investors who piled into the shares just last week at $31 thinking the worst was over after Merrill reported its disastrous second quarter results feel totally blindsided.

It defies reason that Merrill did not know about this massive problem in its book of business, that it didn’t see this freight train of a writedown coming when just last week it disclosed $4.9 bn in second quarter losses due to $9.4 bn in writedowns for the period. Wall Street had expected lesser sums here, $1.8 bn in losses due to $6 bn in writedowns.

At minimum, do you really think it takes only about a week to convince foreigners to invest even more money at a time when the stakes they’ve already bought in Merrill earlier this year are now drastically under water?

The second quarter losses marked Merrill’s fourth straight quarterly loss, the tally at $19.2 bn and counting, and writedowns amounting to $40 bn. Now more losses are on the way for the third quarter, the fifth straight quarter, at Merrill.

On the July 17 conference call about its second quarter with analysts, analysts who were skeptical as they were expecting a loss of $1.8 bn, Merrill’s chief executive John Thain said: “Right now we believe we are in a very comfortable spot in terms of our capital.” Really? And 10 days later you announce both a massive writedown and another eye-watering, dilutive capital raise? 

Earlier in the year, Thain also dismissed the notion that Merrill needed any more new capital after it raised $12 bn, saying it would not be necessary. Merrill to date has laid off 5,200 people. When did Merrill know it planned to unload this distressed debt and when did it know it had to do another $8.5 bn equity raise? Did it really come as a eureka moment just overnight?

Investors who bought in last week when it was said the worst was over at Merrill, when it was trading at around $31, are getting killed now. The stock is trending down toward $20. “Shareholders are seeing their positions diluted massively,” says Dennis Gartman of the Gartman Letter.

Gartman adds the blame should also be put squarely on Merrill’s former chief executive Stanley O’Neal, ousted last fall due to his mismanagement, who walked away with $161.5 million in compensation, compensation “that is not being written down even as the shareholders are having their positions massively corrupted,” Gartman says. “If there is a crime on Wall Street it is this.” That compensation effectively was paid out based on artificial profits made during the housing bubble.

Yes, I have raised the question of what some analysts were saying, whether we were seeing a bottom in the financials. I also warned you that thinking that way would be like trying to hold onto a piece of Styrofoam in a typhoon. Merrill’s stock got pounded in after hours trading, closing down 12% to $24.33. Shares are down 54% this year, and are trading at their lowest levels in ten years.

Meredith Whitney, a top analyst at Oppenheimer, says Merrill’s pro forma book value per common share is more like $21 and that shares are still trading at levels that are “at a premium” and “expensive.” Whitney does think Merrill is getting closer to being fairly valued and that “the hardest work” is behind the company. Whitney now expects Merrill to post a loss of $10.50 per share for the entire year, versus the $8.37 expected earlier.

Last week, Merrill announced it would unload its stake in Bloomberg for $4.43 bn to raise capital. It had to unload this asset due to the fine print of an earlier $12 bn equity offering sold to Singapore’s investment fund Temasek and the Kuwaiti investment authority, which forces Merrill to remunerate them in the event of any further dilutive equity raises.

The new equity offering now forces Merrill to reset its earlier deals with Temasek and Kuwait, an issue I warned you would happen. Don’t be fooled by false bottoms in the financials. As economist Ed Yardeni points out, the financial sector of the S&P 500 jumped 31% “in a six-day short-covering rally that was interrupted by a 6.7% drop last Thursday, the biggest decline since a 7.7% decline on April 14, 2000.”

The jump came after Congress said it was close to signing the $300 bn housing bailout bill, which included the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “The financials tend to rally following massive government programs to avert a financial meltdown,” Yardeni says.  

Investors in Merrill should be notably concerned with what is happening at the country’s largest brokerage. Merrill was a repackaging factory for some truly toxic subprime debt, including those pumped out by Countrywide Financial. Countrywide pointed its conveyor belt of nasty loan products at Wall Street, and Merrill was first in line to gin them up into asset-backed securities.

Merrill’s latest writedowns resulted from the sale of a huge $11.1 bn slug of its asset-backed securities, creating the latest $5.7 bn pre-tax writedown. It also pulled the plug on hedges with troubled bond insurers, the two white hot zones on many financials’ balance sheets.

Watch how this deal to unload a whopping slug of Merrill’s distressed debt breaks down. Merrill said it sold $30.6 bn worth of distressed debt in the form of super senior asset-backed debt for just $6.7 bn. Merrill had just said at the end of its second quarter these assets were worth $11.1 bn, or just 36 cents on the dollar.

So, being that it has sold this distressed debt, called collateralized debt obligations, for just $6.7 bn to a unit of Lone Star Funds, a Dallas private equity firm, when you do the math, that’s about 22 cents on the dollar. That’s a writedown of 78%. Gasp. That created $4.4 bn of the writedown.

That’s what Merrill is now getting for its misplaced bets. That’s what you can expect other Wall Street houses to mark these investments to, with more writedowns coming. Watch out, Lehman Bros. Moreover, Lone Star only has to pony up $1.7 bn to seal the deal, borrowing the rest, or 75%, from Merrill. So Lone Star is effectively putting up just 25% of the deal, about six cents on the dollar, for the gross value of the deal.

“That does not sound very good for the about-to-be diluted shareholders, now does it?,” says Jill Schlesinger, executive vice president and chief investment officer for StrategicPoint Investment Advisors. The sale cuts Merrill Lynch’s total CDO long exposures from $19.9 bn at June 27, 2008, to $8.8 bn. Most of what’s left is made up of older vintage securities, dating back to 2005.

Take a closer look through Merrill’s books and you’ll still see problems. As of June 27, it said it had exposures of $33.7 bn to U.S. prime mortgages, $1.01 bn to U.S. subprime mortgages, $1.54 bn to “Alt-A” mortgages and $7.45 bn to non- U.S. residential mortgages. It’s also got a big $18 bn in exposures to subprime- and commercial-backed securities. Of that sum, its net exposure to subprime alone is $4.5 bn.

Citigroup has $22.5 bn in subprime securities exposures here, and UBS, $15.6 bn, both ranking the highest in this category, Oppenheimer’s Whitney says. Merrill has been in acute pain due to what it has had on its balance sheets, with 30 CDOs worth in the aggregate $32 bn for deals Merrill underwrote in just 2007 alone.

Some 27 of these have seen their top triple-A ratings downgraded to “junk,” Janet Tavakoli, a structured-finance consultant in Chicago, reportedly said. Their performance has been “dreadful,” she says. Merrill has about $41 bn in net worth, or shareholder equity against about $34.4 bn in illiquid level three securities, those securities it has price tagged itself because no one wants them.

The $8.5 bn capital raise will dilute existing investors by nearly 40%. Merrill has to compensate Temasek and the Kuwaiti Investment authority who both bought shares in Merrill earlier this year at a higher price.

Temasek had bought $5 bn at $48. As Merrill is now trending toward $20, Merrill has to pony up $2.5 bn to Temasek, and Temasek is expected to turn around and invest that remuneration into its new $3.4 bn investment in Merrill’s latest equity raise. Merrill also is in talks with the Kuwait Investment Authority to renegotiate the terms of its original investment. And Merrill’s management will buy 750,000 shares in the new offering.




How Merrill Lynch dragged NAB into an $830m writedown
The National Australia Bank's shock write-down of $830 million worth of collaterallised debt obligations (CDOs) can now be explained.

It was triggered by a move from struggling US investment bank Merrill Lynch to get rid of billions worth of CDOs in which the NAB was a co-investor. Merrill's took a decision to sell the CDOs at a written-down value and the NAB had no option but to follow suit. Its larger write-down than Merrill Lynch (90% vs. 78%) reflects its lower ranking of security.

The NAB was involved in a parcel of what’s called "super-senior" CDOs with a face value of $19.9 billion. NAB and the Australian stockmarkets were directly affected by the Merrill move, which reflects the US banker's desperate desire to quit as much of its toxic subprime mortgage related investments as it can, without regard to the flow on impact to other banks and markets.

In effect Merrill's move to sell these holdings of CDOs to a distressed debt fund investor, forced the NAB to write-down the value of its holding in the CDOs, a move which triggered a huge sell-off of Australian bank shares Friday and yesterday. Yesterday the ANZ revealed a completely unrelated set of write-offs and provisions, butr these had more to do with the slowing Australian economy.

At the same time, I understand that APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, has been talking to the NAB and ANZ and were liaising with them on these moves and had a full understanding of both banks' actions. APRA has been actively talking to banks and other financial groups it regulates about their exposures to the US and to Australian corporate basket cases, such as Allco and Opes Prime.

Confidence in banks has been hit by the NAB and ANZ announcements, but not all banks are in that boat. Westpac revealed this morning it had successfully raised just over $1 billion from an issue of stapled securities to boost its regulatory capital. The bank said its previously announced offer of 10.36 million Westpac stapled preferred securities at $100 each to shareholders, broker firms and institutions has closed and was completed in full.

That shows the nervousness about banks in recent weeks hasn't stopped big investors making positive decisions: Westpac's issue was announced last month and finished in the turmoil of the past two days. Merrill's move, revealed this morning in a shock statement to Wall Street after trading closed was part of a $US8.5 billion emergency fund raising and another $US5.7 billion in write downs.

Merrill said it would sell CDOs with a nominal value of $US30.6 billion to Lone Star Funds, a distressed-debt investor. At the end of the second quarter, the bank had estimated the value of the CDOs at $11.1 billion. However, it said yesterday it was selling the securities for just $US6.7 billion, or about 22 cents on the dollar; and financing 75% of the purchase. This smacks of desperation:

On a pro forma basis, this sale will reduce Merrill Lynch's aggregate U.S. super senior ABS CDO long exposures from $19.9 billion at June 27, 2008, to $8.8 billion, the majority of which comprises older vintage collateral -- 2005 and earlier.

The pro forma $8.8 billion super senior long exposure is hedged with an aggregate of $7.2 billion of short exposure, of which $6.0 billion are with highly rated non-monoline counterparties, of which virtually all have strong collateral servicing agreements, and $1.1 billion are with MBIA. The remaining net exposure will be $1.6 billion. The sale will reduce Merrill Lynch's risk-weighted assets by approximately $29 billion.

It's that phrase in the above paragraph; "super senior ABS CDO" which reveals what happened. This sale was dated June 27 but only completed yesterday, but it preceded the NAB announcement on July 11 when it warned that there could be further write-downs.

Then last Friday NAB warned that there would be write-downs of $830 million (on top of the earlier $181 million), meaning it was cutting the value of its investment in the CDOs by 90%. It was a 'senior' ranked investor in the CDOs and when a super-senior ranked investor decides to liquidate or sell the CDOs at a lower value, the other investors have no say in the matter and have to follow suit.

Super-senior investors hold all the cards in these complicated deals. The NAB has super-senior securities among the $US4.5 billion of various derivatives still in its off-balance sheet investment conduit. If Merrill had not decided to liquidate its position and sell, the NAB would have been in all probability, still an investor today with a $181 million write-down.




Singapore's Temasek invests $900 million more in Merrill
Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings will pump an additional $900 million into Merrill Lynch as part of the debt-laden U.S. investment bank's latest $8.5 billion fund-raising effort.

Temasek said on Tuesday that Merrill will give it a rebate of $2.5 billion on its original $4.4 billion stock purchase following the U.S. firm's decision to sell new shares. Temasek will plough that money, plus another $900 million, back into new Merrill stock, potentially increasing the state-run fund's stake in one of the best-known U.S. banks to more than 10 percent.

The fund had been facing huge paper losses on its initial investment in Merrill at $48 per share as banking stocks slid this year amid writedowns on risky debt. The rebate, announced less than two weeks after Merrill posted a $4.9 billion second-quarter loss, effectively reduces the cost of Temasek's existing shares in the U.S. bank by more than half to $21 a share.

Neither Merrill nor Temasek disclosed the price at which the new Merrill shares would be offered. Merrill shares fell 11.6 percent on Monday to $24.33. After the market close, the company said it will take a further $5.7 billion in debt-related writedowns in the third-quarter and raise $8.5 billion by selling new stock.

Sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East have become more influential in financial markets after pouring billions of dollars into Merrill and other big banks on Wall Street and Europe that were reeling from losses related to the U.S. mortgage market. But many wealth funds are now smarting from huge losses and facing growing public criticism at home as the value of those investments continues to slide.

Singapore's government has said the investments by Temasek, and by its larger sister fund GIC in banks including Citigroup and UBS would give good long-term returns. But another major Asian sovereign wealth fund, the Korea Investment Corporation (KIC), said it may shy away from further investments in U.S. banks, as it struggles to avoid losses from its $2 billion investment in Merrill.

KIC chief executive Chin Youngwook told a news conference on Tuesday that it had posted about $800 million in valuation losses before it converted its preferred Merrill shares into common stocks on Monday, more than two years ahead of schedule.

"We learned a lot of good lessons from the investment in Merrill Lynch," Chin said, when asked about its interest in Lehman Brothers and other U.S. investment houses. "I think we may have to approach cautiously."

Temasek had invested a total of $5 billion in Merrill Lynch in December and February, but Merrill shares have fallen by about half since then. The deal had a feature that required Merrill to compensate the Singapore investor should the U.S. firm subsequently raise new capital at a lower price.

"Temasek's point of view is that this opportunity is not going to be repeated," said Arjuna Mahendran, Singapore-based head of investment strategy at HSBC Private Bank. "From a long-term investor's point of view, getting access to the U.S. financials market is best done through strategic stakes," he added.

"Temasek confirms its commitment of $3.4 billion in the public offering by Merrill Lynch, a portion of which is subject to regulatory approval," spokeswoman Myrna Thomas said in a statement. "The commitment includes a sum of $2.5 billion arising from a re-set payment."

The sovereign wealth fund's latest purchase of Merrill Lynch shares is subject to approval by U.S. regulators as it could result in Temasek's owning more than 10 percent of the U.S. broker. According to Reuters data, the Singapore wealth fund owns 86.95 million Merrill Lynch shares, or about 8.85 percent of the firm.

But the Singapore fund's stake could rise to as much as 15 percent if other investors shun Merrill Lynch's latest fund-raising exercise. A stake of that size may raise some concerns among U.S. politicians about the level of foreign ownership at one of the nation's best-known banks.

"Merrill needs big, strong investors, and it will be good for sentiment. These are the guys who are unlikely to bail out at the first sign of trouble," said Singapore-based Song Seng Wun, regional economist at CIMB, Malaysia's largest investment bank.

"At the end of the day, we are unlikely to see the Merrills of this world collapse -- that will cause the depression of the 21st century," Song said. Temasek said it managed about $108 billion as of March 2007. According to Morgan Stanley, it manages $159 billion and is the world's seventh-largest sovereign wealth fund.




Merrill Aims to Raise Billions More
Merrill Lynch & Co. agreed to sell more than $30 billion in toxic mortgage-related assets at a steep loss, hoping to purge its balance sheet of problems that continue to plague the giant brokerage firm.

The move was described by a person close to Merrill as an effort to "lance the boil" that has resulted in more than $46 billion in write-downs since June 2007. Dumping the assets for just 22 cents on the dollar will result in a write-down of $5.7 billion. That is an ominous sign for other Wall Street firms and commercial banks trying to get rid of loans and securities in a market flooded with distressed assets.

Faced with another leak in its balance sheet, Merrill also announced late Monday it would sell $8.5 billion in new common stock. The sale will dilute existing Merrill shareholders by about 38% -- and is additionally painful because the firm will have to make extra payments to an investor that bought shares at a much higher price in an offering last December.

Meredith Whitney, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., said that while the "capitulation sale" and resulting stock offering will bring more short-term misery, they signal that Merrill might finally pull itself out of a financial tailspin that has haunted Chairman and Chief Executive John Thain since he took over in December.

"What has become increasingly clear over the past year is the longer you wait, the less the soured assets are worth," she said. "John Thain is cutting his losses." In a press release, Mr. Thain said the transaction represents a "significant milestone" in the firm's efforts to reduce risk.

The sale to an affiliate of private-equity firm Lone Star consists of collateralized debt obligations with a face value of $30.6 billion. CDOs are securities backed by pools of mortgages or other assets, but they have plummeted in value since the credit crisis erupted last summer. Merrill valued the CDOs at just $11.1 billion as of June 30.

Lone Star is paying $6.7 billion for the assets, triggering the write-down by Merrill. The New York company still has $8.8 billion in remaining exposure, but much of that is hedged. As a result, Merrill is much closer to ridding itself of the CDOs that fueled massive profits when the housing market was booming and Merrill pushed to become top CDO underwriter. But the CDOs have since caused losses far exceeding those gains.

Merrill's announcement came after a tumultuous day in stock and bond markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 239.61 points, or 2.1%, to 11131.08, bringing it down 16% on the year. All the blue-chip average's financial components traded lower, stung by the collapse late Friday of two small banks, First National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank of Newport Beach, Calif. Asian stocks tumbled Tuesday morning, following the slide in U.S. financial stocks and Merrill's plans for a write-down.

State and federal officials took new steps to address the market's woes Monday. The Treasury Department said that four of the nation's largest banks -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. -- agreed to begin issuing a type of debt called covered bonds, which the Bush administration has been pushing as a way to help reinvigorate the housing market.

Meanwhile, New York's top insurance regulator, Eric Dinallo, helped broker a deal between troubled bond insurer Security Capital Assurance Ltd. and Merrill that would allow the insurer to terminate $3.74 billion of bond-insurance policies it has written by paying $500 million to Merrill.

Financial shares shot up in mid-July after the federal government offered help for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and announced steps to crack down on "short selling," in which investors seek to profit from a decline in shares.

But Monday's slide showed that many obstacles remain to a resolution of the woes that have gripped the market. "This is a financial crisis in slow motion," said Nicholas Bohnsack, operating partner at research firm Strategas Research Partners.




Citigroup To Write Down Additional $8 Billion
Citigroup Inc. probably will write down the value of collateralized debt obligations by $8 billion in the third quarter based on Merrill Lynch & Co.'s repricing of its CDOs, said Deutsche Bank AG analyst Mike Mayo.

Merrill sold its holdings for 22 cents on the dollar, while Citigroup currently values the securities at 53 cents, Mayo wrote in a report to clients today. Merrill is taking a $4.4 billion loss on the sale of $11 billion of CDOs -- the mortgage- related bonds that have caused most of the firm's losses.

"The good news is that that the actual sales can give confidence that Merrill is finally selling assets rather than merely marking them to market," Mayo said.

At Citigroup, the additional writedowns mean the bank probably will report a third-quarter loss of 59 cents a share and a full-year loss of 80 cents, said Mayo, who has a "hold" rating on the stock. He previously estimated the New York-based bank, the biggest in the U.S. by assets, would report a loss of 66 cents in 2008.

Mayo is estimating that Merrill, the third-largest U.S. securities firm, will report a full-year loss of $10.95 a share, compared with his earlier prediction of a $5.80 loss. Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Meredith Whitney estimates the company will report a loss of $10.50 in 2008.

UBS AG analyst Glenn Schorr estimates Merrill will report a full-year loss of $11.36 a share because of "significant dilution" from the plan to raise capital by selling about $8.5 billion of stock. Schorr has a "neutral" rating on Merrill.

"While we don't think Merrill's announcement necessarily implies a 40 percent writedown ($7.2 billion) for Citi, directionally we think investors should expect further incremental writedowns in coming quarters," Schorr wrote in his report to clients today.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-biggest U.S. securities firm, may have to sell "significant assets" to guard against further losses from its $65 billion of mortgage and real estate holdings.




Freddie, Fannie: The situation is much worse
Forget everything you've read about how woefully undercapitalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. The situation is much worse.

Unlike other companies, the two government-chartered mortgage financiers publish quarterly fair-value balance sheets showing what the real-world values of their assets and liabilities supposedly are. By this measure, both companies' net- asset values are much lower than what the government lets them show as capital, or what the accounting rules let them report as shareholder equity.

The companies' critics for years have pointed to the gaps between these figures as proof that the government's capital requirements are a joke. What I hadn't realized, until an astute reader tipped me off, is that the fair-value balance sheets overstate the companies' asset values, too.

The issue centers on the way Fannie and Freddie calculate their fair values for deferred-tax assets, which is really just a fancy term for deferred losses. If you believe the companies' numbers, the more money they lose, the more their deferred taxes are worth.

Deferred-tax assets consist of tax-deductible losses and expenses carried forward from prior periods, which companies can use to offset future tax bills. Under generally accepted accounting principles, they are valuable only to companies that are profitable and paying income taxes.

To the extent a company doesn't expect to have enough profits to use them, it's supposed to record a valuation allowance on its GAAP balance sheet. Fannie and Freddie so far have recorded no such allowances. The two companies, of course, are so profitable right now that they're on the verge of a government bailout.

By the government's main capital measure, Fannie had "core capital" of $42.7 billion on March 31, or $5.1 billion more than required, while Freddie had $38.3 billion, or a $6 billion surplus. Meanwhile, on a fair-value basis, Fannie said its net assets were worth $12.2 billion, while Freddie showed negative $5.2 billion.

One reason the core-capital figures are so much higher is that the government lets Fannie and Freddie exclude tens of billions of dollars of pent-up losses on mortgage-related securities they're holding for sale, solely because the companies have deemed the losses "temporary."

Another reason is that core capital includes deferred-tax assets. Commercial banks, by comparison, normally don't get to count these in their capital, because they can't be sold by themselves and, thus, can't be used as a cushion against losses.

Here's where it gets tricky: On their fair-value balance sheets, Fannie and Freddie included adjustments to their deferred taxes that added billions of dollars to their asset values. Without the boosts, the companies' fair-value tallies would have looked even uglier.

Start with Fannie. As of March 31, it showed $17.8 billion of net deferred-tax assets on its GAAP balance sheet. Fannie's fair-value balance sheet doesn't show a separate line for deferred taxes. Instead, Fannie included them in an item called "other assets," to which it assigned a GAAP carrying value of $45.5 billion and a fair value of $60.7 billion.

Using the methodology described in Fannie's footnotes, I was able to estimate that about $14.3 billion of that $15.2 billion differential came from adjustments to the company's deferred-tax assets. The way this works is the company calculates the tax effects on the difference between its shareholder equity at fair value and under GAAP; it then includes these in other assets.

Without that $14.3 billion of tax adjustments, the fair value of Fannie's net assets would have been negative $2.1 billion, by my math. Exclude deferred-tax assets entirely, and it would have been negative $19.9 billion as of March 31. (Fannie raised $7.4 billion of additional capital in May.)

As for Freddie, it showed $16.6 billion of net deferred-tax assets under GAAP as of March 31. Like Fannie, it put deferred taxes in "other assets" on its fair-value balance sheet. Freddie said its other assets had a GAAP carrying value of $31.6 billion and a $42.5 billion fair value.

By my calculations, using the methodology in Freddie's footnotes, it looks like Freddie wrote up the deferred-tax assets on its fair-value balance sheet by about $10.1 billion. So, take out the tax write-up, and Freddie's net assets had a fair value of negative $15.3 billion. Exclude deferred-tax assets entirely, and that falls to negative $31.9 billion.

In its latest quarterly report, Fannie said "we anticipate that it is more likely than not that our results of future operations will generate sufficient taxable income to allow us to realize our deferred tax assets." Hence, no valuation allowance.

Freddie gave a similar explanation in its July 18 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also cautioned that "if future events differ from current forecasts, a valuation allowance may need to be established which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and capital position."

It's fishy enough to say no valuation allowances were needed under GAAP. Yet it seems beyond the pale to claim that, on a fair-value basis, their tax assets actually were worth more than what their regular balance sheets said. My guess is they're worthless now.

Brace yourselves, taxpayers. Uncle Sam soon may have to write a very large check.




Banks Throw Weight Behind Paulson Covered-Bond Plan
Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. threw their support behind Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's effort to spur covered bonds as a new source of mortgage financing.

"We look forward to being leading issuers as the U.S. covered bond market develops," the banks said in a joint statement in Washington. They applauded Paulson's release today of guidelines for issuers of covered bonds, which detail the types of loans that should go into the securities and how their payments ought to be made.

The banks stopped short of announcing specific plans for issuing the bonds, illustrating how the market may be slow to take off in the U.S. in the aftermath of the mortgage meltdown. Even in Europe, where covered bonds are a market in excess of $3 trillion, investors are shunning the debt amid a collapse in appetite for investments in housing.

"Mortgage-backed securities investors are not in the mood right now to buy bonds with anything less than government backing," Kenneth Hackel, managing director of fixed-income strategy at RBS Greenwich Capital Markets in Greenwich, Connecticut, said in an interview, referring to debt guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the market is "not yet" ready for covered bonds, "the concept is certainly more interesting now than it has been in a very long time," he said.

Paulson said the four U.S. banks are "ready to go" and that sales by the largest banks can help encourage smaller mortgage lenders to proceed. "Covered bonds have the potential to increase mortgage financing, improve underwriting standards and strengthen U.S. financial institutions," he said.

Covered bonds offer greater protection to investors because banks keep the home loans on their books, and must make up shortfalls if homeowners fail to pay. The Treasury's guidelines exclude riskier types of mortgages that contributed to the crisis of the past year, including loans made without documenting the borrower's income and those involving higher debt compared with property value.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc. are the two U.S. issuers of covered bonds so far. We will look to amend our program to make sure it's fully compliant" with the guidelines, Paul Baalman, a structured finance executive at Bank of America, told reporters at the Treasury in Washington today. He declined to comment on when the bank may next sell the bonds, adding that it will take some time to adapt to the new regulations.

Paulson said covered bonds will help provide financing to a U.S. mortgage market that now depends on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other government-linked institutions for more than 70 percent of funds. Fannie and Freddie slid to their lowest levels in more than 17 years this month on concern they lacked sufficient capital to offset losses and writedowns. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages and package them into securities sold to other investors. They also borrow to invest in home-loan debt.

Covered bonds achieve higher ratings than regular notes by augmenting the issuer's pledge to pay with a group of assets such as mortgages that can be sold in a default. The extra security allows lenders to pay less interest. While the securities are backed by loans and bank assets to get AAA ratings, most are valued, on average, as if they were three levels lower.

The Treasury's guidelines spell out a formal definition for covered bonds. The bonds should have maturities of at least one year and no more than 30 years. Home loans in covered-bond pools would have a maximum loan-to-value ratio of 80 percent. Today's announcement is part of Paulson's strategy of pushing banks to proceed with sales without waiting for legislation to be enacted by Congress.

In Europe, which has a covered-bond market of more than $3 trillion, many countries have laws spelling out the ground-rules for issuance. Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh backed Paulson's plan to support covered bonds, highlighting that the central bank would accept them as collateral at the discount window for direct loans to commercial banks.

"Highly rated, high-quality covered bonds would generally fall within that broad range as eligible collateral," Warsh said in a statement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. already has issued new regulations on how covered bonds would be handled in the event of a bank failure. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said Paulson's best practices augment the FDIC's efforts to lay out clear guidance for the industry.

"Covered bonds can be a useful tool to help restore confidence and stability to the housing industry, as well as to the mortgage finance system," Bair said today. The success of Paulson's strategy of pursuing issuance without legislation depends on how well the guidelines prove to have been written, said former FDIC general counsel John Douglas, now with the law firm Paul Hastings in Atlanta.

"Certainly a law is better than a regulation, but regulation seems to be plenty of comfort in a lot of areas," Douglas said. "The real issue is if it's substantive enough for the market, not the form in which it comes." Treasury officials held discussions with almost 60 market participants, including investors such as Pacific Investment Management Co., Blackrock Inc. and TIAA-CREF, the retirement annuity provider.

In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government this year put in place legislation on covered bonds, joining Germany, France and Spain among European countries setting rules on how the securities are issued. "It needs a very strict and very clear legislation. Otherwise I don't think the investors will buy it," said Louis Hagen, executive director of the Berlin-based Association of German Pfandbrief Banks. Covered bonds are known as pfandbrief in Germany.

Europe's covered market was started by King Frederick the Great of Prussia in the 18th century to help rebuild after the Seven Years War, according to the Web site of the German association of pfandbrief banks. Rules for the securities differ by country, including the amount of capital required to back the bonds.




A New Way to Generate Mortgages
The financial establishment came together Monday in search of a new way for banks to come up with cash for home mortgages. Regulators, bankers and traders, led by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., all pledged to do their best to get a “covered bond market” going in the United States.

Covered seems to be a synonym for collateralized, but it also has other meanings that may be appropriate in this effort to salvage the housing market. Think of covered wagons, which can be circled in times of crisis. With banks reluctant to lend their own money for mortgages, and the private securitization market quiescent if not dead, the cost of mortgage loans has been rising even as housing prices fall, making a bad situation worse.

At best, a covered bond market would provide a cheaper source of financing for banks while reassuring investors that their money is safe. Essentially investors would buy into a pool of mortgages that would be kept on the balance sheet of the bank that made the loans. These would be high-quality loans, and at the first sign of trouble in the underlying mortgages, those mortgages would be replaced in the mortgage pool.

Thus, investors would be assured of repayment unless the underlying mortgages suffered major losses and the issuing bank failed. That might make investors burned by existing mortgage securities more willing to return to the market. At best, a covered bond market would provide a cheaper source of financing for banks while reassuring investors that their money will be safe.

It is highly unusual for the government to take such a major role in getting a market established, but Treasury officials said their action was needed to get more money into housing loans. “We spoke to 50 or 60 market participants,” a senior Treasury official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the process publicly. “It became clear that if we took the lead, we had a real chance to kick-start this market.”

In Washington, Mr. Paulson said that “as we are all aware, the availability of affordable mortgage financing is essential to turning the corner on the current housing correction. He was joined by officials from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

“We are at the early stages of what should be a promising path, where the nascent U.S. covered bond market can grow and provide a new source of mortgage financing,” Mr. Paulson said. Four major banks — Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — said they hoped to issue such bonds, and a larger group of investment banks and brokerage firms pledged to establish desks to trade the securities.

What remains to be seen is if there will be buyers. Mr. Paulson said the bonds appeared to be attractive to major banks, which would be able to pledge them to obtain loans from the Fed, and to some institutional investors. The F.D.I.C., which takes over failed banks, promised to respect the terms of the bonds, so that bondholders would be repaid from the value of the mortgages, even if other bondholders in the failed bank suffered major losses.

Covered bond markets exist in many European countries. In some of them, laws make the legal standing of such bonds clear, but Mr. Paulson and the other agencies concluded that no legislation was needed, and that policy statements by regulators would suffice. It is expected that Bank of America will be the first issuer. Bank of America has issued such bonds in Europe, and did one $2 billion American offering of covered bonds in June 2007, before antipathy to mortgage securities intensified.

The covered bond markets in some European countries have suffered to some extent from house price declines, but the markets have not closed down as the private-label securitization market has in this country. In the United States, those securities were backed by mortgages that were not guaranteed by either the federal government or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored housing finance enterprises.

Fannie and Freddie became the principal buyer of mortgages after the private securitization market closed down, but their own financial health has deteriorated, and provisions for their own bailout, if necessary, are pending. In normal times, an American covered bond market would bear little resemblance to traditional mortgage securitizations, in which the investors are paid from the interest and principal payments on underlying mortgages (and thus suffer all the risks involved in such loans).

Instead, a bank that issued such bonds could do so on any terms it and investors agreed on. The bond payments would come from general corporate funds, and would not have to be tied to terms of the mortgages. Under a set of “best practices” issued by the Treasury and rules issued by the F.D.I.C., the bonds could have maturities from one year to 30 years.

The mortgages securing them would be of high quality, and for no more than 80 percent of the home’s market value. That market value would be adjusted according to regional trends in home prices; if home prices declined, mortgages covering those homes might have to be replaced in the pool.

Any mortgage on which payments were at least 60 days overdue would also have to be replaced, so at least in theory the pool would always include good loans, and their value would have to total at least 105 percent of the outstanding bonds. The mortgages would remain on the books of the bank that issued them, and the bank would stand to lose if the loans went bad.
That was not the case in recent years when mortgages were sold to securitization pools.




Banks Act to Aid Mortgage Lending
Four of the nation's largest banks will begin issuing a type of debt the Bush administration has been pushing as a way to help reinvigorate the housing market.

On Monday, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., said they would begin issuing so-called covered bonds, a popular method of financing in Europe that could make more mortgage financing available in the U.S.

The move came as federal regulators announced a set of voluntary industry guidelines intended to provide clarity to issuers and investors about the types of assets banks must hold if they issue such bonds and how investors would fare in the event of a bank failure.

"As we are all aware, the availability of affordable mortgage financing is essential to turning the corner on the current housing correction...covered bonds have the potential to increase mortgage financing," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said at an event to announce the agreement.

The move is the latest step by the Bush administration to aid the beleaguered housing market. Two weeks ago, the Treasury unveiled a plan to shore up mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by creating an unlimited line of credit for the firms and getting authority to invest in the companies.

The two firms are critical to the housing market because together they own or guarantee about $5.2 trillion of U.S. home mortgages -- nearly half of all those outstanding. The firms have seen their shares pummeled by investors concerned about their capital levels.

Washington's interest in pushing covered bonds stems from the success of Europe's $2.75 trillion covered-bond market. Such bonds are the primary source of mortgage-loan funding for European banks. Some analysts have predicted that a covered-bond market in the U.S. could grow to $1 trillion over the next few years. There are currently $11 trillion in home mortgages outstanding in the U.S.

Covered bonds are backed by mortgages but they are considered safer investments than the products that fueled the housing boom and landed many Wall Street banks in trouble. That's because the bonds stay on a bank's balance sheet and are backed by a "cover pool" of high-quality mortgages that must meet certain criteria, such as being up to date in their payments.

Investors are also protected because if the mortgages go bad, the bank must step in to ensure that bond holders get their interest. U.S. banks can issue covered bonds but only two have done so: Bank of America and Washington Mutual Inc. The market in the U.S. has been hampered in part because of regulatory uncertainty surrounding the products.

Investors have worried about where they stand in the event of a bank's demise and issuers have wanted clarity about the types of assets they must hold, among other things. The voluntary guidelines announced by the Treasury and supported by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision outline the types of collateral issuing banks must hold and the types of disclosure banks must make to investors.

Among other things, the guidelines require that mortgages backing the debt be underwritten with fully documented income, current when added to the pool, replaced if they become more than 60 days delinquent and held on an issuer's balance sheet. The guidelines are intended to reassure investors who have kept money on the sidelines after suffering heavy losses on bonds backed by subprime mortgages over the past year.

At the same time, most banks and financial institutions, which have also incurred losses and write-downs on similar assets, have been unwilling to create or underwrite new mortgage securities. Providing an alternative method of financing could help the housing market since investors would provide money to banks to make home loans. How much it could help remains to be seen and federal officials said they don't expect covered bonds to solve the housing problem.

"There are no magic bullets to solve the housing crisis," said FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair.




Why America's debt makes it a dangerous place
The US government now has $2061 billion of Treasury bills in circulation.

This is effectively the size of the loan it has taken from the rest of the world in order to finance its economy and is one of the reasons that the US dollar has depreciated so significantly against many other currencies over the last few years.

Since 2001 the US dollar has depreciated 43% against the Swiss franc and 47% against the euro. This depreciation has been fairly orderly but there are increasingly important reasons why a disorderly depreciation, or even a run on the currency, could occur. 

The largest holder of T-bills is Japan with $592 billion, closely followed by China with $502 billion and the OPEC members who between them officially have $154 billion. However, a lot of OPEC members also own T-bills via proxy that are held in the UK. The high oil price has seen the foreign exchange reserves of these countries swelled with dollars, as oil is primarily priced in US dollars.

China has accumulated their holdings due to the huge levels of trade that are carried on with the rest of the world using dollars. Japan has long been a keen buyer of T-bills but has recently started to reduce its holdings (by 3.6% in the last year). Asian central banks don't publicise the allocation of their currency reserves but they hold about $4.35 trillion in total foreign exchange reserves and about 70% of these are thought to be dollar-denominated.

US dollars and dollar-denominated assets are held in a wide range of foreign countries, some of whom have strained political relations with the US due to the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration and one has to wonder how far they will bend to the will of a financially weak and economically exposed America. There are several reasons why the US dollar is exposed to geopolitical and investment risk in a way that hasn't been seen before:

1) Several countries are now pursuing a policy of diversification away from the US dollar in their foreign exchange reserves as they are still worried about further depreciation due to the declining economic environment in the US. The euro is a potential beneficiary, or a basket of currencies could be adopted. If everyone starts diversifying at the same time there is the risk of flight from dollar assets that begins to become obvious to markets and which could cause other investors to panic.

Whilst sovereign wealth funds are usually slow to act, they have indicated greater interest in investments in Europe and emerging markets as a way of diversifying their currency allocation as well as their asset allocations.

2) There is talk of the US losing its top investment grade rating and if this were to happen there could be a crisis of confidence in the dollar. A downgrade would require the US to offer higher interest rates, which in turn is not good for the economy and could cause further dollar weakness.

The US has held a triple-A rating since 1917 but healthcare and social security costs are rising with no sign of a solution to their spiralling costs. The cost of financing military excursions in Afghanistan and Iraq also adds to the problem. America has been spending beyond its means for some time (hence the huge volume of T-bills in circulation) but there is a strong possibility that this strategy may have serious repercussions one day.

3) Several Middle-Eastern and Asian countries have pegged their currencies to the US dollar and have had to lower their base rates in line with US rates, in spite of the fact that they are experiencing very high levels of inflation. Qatar is struggling with 14% inflation, Egypt 19%, Dubai 20%, Saudi Arabia 10% and the UAE 11%. They are not suffering from the same economic woes as the US, so interest rates of 2% are totally inappropriate.

Middle-Eastern countries have been forced to lower rates just as their economies are booming on the back of oil receipts and domestic investment is running at record levels. This divergence in economic fortunes has placed great strains on the dollar peg and there is a chance that some countries might have to break it at some point, which could be extremely dollar-negative.

4) The size of its outstanding debt to the rest of the world makes the US vulnerable to pressure in global political matters. If, for example, China wanted to have its way on an important political issue, it could imply that it was going to reduce its dollar holdings due to lack of confidence in the currency. This kind of declaration would have hugely negative ramifications for the dollar and the US economy, and is something the US would be keen to avoid.  

It is this fourth point that I wish to expand on. China is often seen as seen as the main threat to US domination in global politics due to its size, its economy and its military might. It now has a major bargaining advantage in its creditor status. Since China's rise to prominence as a global economic power, its partial embrace of capitalist culture and its accession to the World Trade Organisation, there hasn't really been a significant dispute with the US. But what if this were to change one day?

In the same way that Russia has become more confident and more belligerent as its economic wealth has grown, China could also adopt a more aggressive stance towards the US.

In some ways the economic strength of the US and its influence on the world stage has been sold out from underneath it by the sale of so many Treasury bills. A country such as China, which holds 19% of all the T-bills in circulation, might be able to dictate terms to the US or else it could threaten to sell off its holdings under the auspices of diversification or lack of confidence.

Whilst this would mean that the value of all China's dollar-denominated foreign reserves were pummelled, it would ultimately survive. However, there would be a run on the US dollar and it would decimate the US economic system. In one single bound China could overtake the US as the world's most important economy and as the world's premier superpower.

If China were to sell its US dollar holdings at an accelerated rate, then the value of the dollar would collapse and interest rates would be forced up in order to support the currency. High interest rates would almost certainly send the US into a severe recession. It would also likely lose its triple-A credit rating which would exacerbate the problem.

A stable currency is essential for any country to attract foreign investment and the dollar has been propped up for a long time by the continued purchases of T-bills by overseas investors, particularly China, due to the size of its holdings. It currently requires $2billion a day to finance the current account and if sovereign wealth funds stopped buying dollars the deficit could balloon to unmanageable proportions. America's role as the greatest economic power in the world would be at an end.

Other holders of dollar-denominated assets, such as Japan and the OPEC members, would also suffer and they would certainly condemn China for taking such action. But are their concerns enough for China to pass up the chance of moving up the rankings in the global economy? Wars have been started for less.

Whilst the chance of an economic attack on the US by China as described above might be considered fantasy, the fact remains that the US has put itself in a position where it is theoretically possible that such a strategy could be carried out and where the very hint of a threat by the Chinese could be extremely damaging.

Sino-US relations have never been particularly friendly and the two countries have traditionally been seen as opponents, if not enemies. Maybe the struggle between communism and capitalism hasn't completely disappeared after all and the Chinese have been merely biding their time.

The US has been quite vocal about the way it thinks China should manage its currency but it is not really in a position to dish out advice on a subject in which it is clearly not an expert. The current Bush administration continues to officially support a strong dollar policy but the reality is somewhat different - and they are kidding no-one. Either the US has no control over its own currency or the huge depreciation in the value of the dollar was what they wanted all along.

However, today the US has clearly lost a large degree of control over its currency, and by association its economy, because it has put itself in the position of debtor to China (and to other countries) and this makes the US a riskier place to invest than is widely perceived, regardless of its current credit rating.

A rapid sale of US treasuries by China might seem like a black swan event but it is one that is theoretically possible and which can be foreseen. If it ever occurs then you don't want to be holding US dollars. Even without any action on the part of foreign holders of US Treasuries, the balance of power has certainly changed and the US has placed itself in a vulnerable position. 




Banks' Woes Made Worse By Big Bets On Banks
It isn't just souring loans that are giving banks fits. A number of small lenders also gambled too heavily on bank stocks. The 45% swoon by bank stocks from their October highs is hurting the investment portfolios of many small U.S. banks, which usually are much more heavily concentrated in financial stocks than the portfolios of the largest banks.

Write-downs to reflect the fallen stock prices essentially erased second-quarter profits at some banks, deepening the misery caused by bad loans. "It's almost like doubling down," said Gerard Cassidy, a bank analyst at RBC Capital Markets. "At times like this, you're getting hit twice as hard."

Fulton Financial Corp., the Lancaster, Pa., parent of 11 local banks, took a $24.7 million pretax impairment charge related to the declining value of its bank stocks. Those holdings are the only stocks in Fulton's $3 billion investment portfolio. Companies are supposed to take an impairment when they determine an asset has lost enough value that it isn't likely to rebound quickly.

"We really feel like we know bank stocks, since we're in the business," said Charles J. Nugent, Fulton's chief financial officer. In the past decade, Fulton reaped $89 million in gains and $22 million in dividend income from its bank stocks, which typically generate about 3% to 7% of Fulton's overall profit.

Causing some of the sharpest pain are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Investments in the two mortgage giants have been especially popular among banks. The companies' preferred shares churn out rich dividends, and their debt enjoys high ratings and is viewed as safe. But with the futures of Fannie and Freddie cloudy, owning the shares has become far riskier than most banks bargained for when they barreled into them.

At Webster Financial Corp, a write-down of $53.7 million tied to the Waterbury, Conn., bank's investment portfolio included a $7.7 million hit from the beaten-down values of the mortgage companies' preferred shares. Both stocks are down by more than 70% since the start of 2008.

Webster declined to comment. The bank had a net loss of $28.9 million in the second quarter. The losses are piling up despite the recent rebound in financial stocks. While the bounce is showing signs of fizzling, a sustained rally could allow banks to recoup some of their losses when they report third-quarter results.




Ilargi: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard missed the target by a wide schasm yesterday: "World markets are poised for a major relief rally today". Ouch.

Or how about Sen. Dodd: "This bill is going to make a difference almost immediately".

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Congress backs rescue package
World markets are poised for a major relief rally today after the US Congress met in a rare weekend session to pass the most far-reaching rescue package for America's financial system since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
 
The emergency bail-out gives the US Treasury sweeping authority to inject capital into the giant mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together own or guarantee half the country's $12 trillion stock of home loans. The ceiling on the US national debt has been lifted by a further $800bn, giving the Treasury almost unlimited resources to prop up the two lenders.

In parallel, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) is to guarantee up to $300bn of fresh mortgages for struggling homeowners trapped with soaring loan costs, often the result of "honeytrap" contracts. The scheme aims to avoid an avalanche of fresh defaults as the housing market continues to deteriorate. Over 740,000 homes fell into foreclosure in the second quarter.

The new bill - reluctantly endorsed yesterday by the White House despite lashings of lard for Democratic special interests - should help to calm the markets after wild gyrations last week. Global bourses have suffered the worst mid-summer sell-off since the early 1930s.

The share prices of Fannie and Freddie, the world's two biggest financial institutions, have dropped by almost 85pc. The rating agency Standard & Poor's said it may downgrade a $19bn chunk of subordinated debt issued by two agencies despite the Treasury plan, citing "heightened financial risks". This raises implicit concerns about the credit worthiness of the United States itself, though S&P denies any plan to cut the US sovereign rating at this stage.

Hank Paulson, the US treasury secretary, brushed aside complaints that the rescue package amounts to a taxpayer bail-out for shareholders, insisting that the new authority to buy stock is merely intended to reassure investors and may never be activated if all goes well. The authority expires at the end of 2009.

A vocal minority on Capitol Hill now fears that the US government is shielding Wall Street from the consequences of its own folly. The risk of default has been taken over by society as a whole, while investors alone stand to gain from any recovery. "This bill has moral hazard written all over it: we are letting a monster loose," said Jeff Flake, a Republican Congressman.

The majority of President George W Bush's own party voted against the package in the House. A new regulator will take charge of Fannie and Freddie, but this addition has the look of an afterthought. Critics say Washington should have adopted the sterner methods of Norwegian and Swedish regulators during the Scandinavian banking crisis of the early 1990s, when shareholders received nothing after the banks were seized.

Mr Paulson is concerned that such Draconian methods could aggravate the crisis by making it harder for US banks to attract fresh capital. The financial system remains extremely fragile. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) intervened late on Friday to take over two more bankrupt lenders, First National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank. It follows the seizure of California's IndyMac two weeks ago.

Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, said the new package was vitally needed. "We are in the midst of the most serious economic crisis to face our nation in many years. This bill is going to make a difference almost immediately," he said.

Paul Ashworth, US strategist at Capital Economics, said US bank credit had been contracting for the last quarter. While the fiscal stimulus package helped to keep the economy afloat in the second quarter, this one-off boost is now largely exhausted. "The economy is likely to slide into a more severe recession during the rest of the year as the credit crunch gradually begins to have a more pronounced impact on the economy," he said.

Some 400,000 homeowners are expected to benefit from the FHA's new mortgage facility, which is confined to those trying keep up with their payments. This is a small proportion of the estimated 11m American households now facing negative equity, a figure that is certain to rise much further as house prices deflate. The overhang of unsold houses on the market has reached 11.1 months supply.

BNP Paribas said the new danger is that banks in other parts of the world will soon find themselves in similar difficulties as the long-term effects of the credit crunch bite deeper. "The epicentre of the financial market sell-off will switch from the US into Europe and Oceania. Most of Euroland has entered a recession. A synchronised global downturn is on the agenda," it said.




Ilargi: This is so funny, I have nothing further....

"[The] study predicts that house prices in England will rise by 25 per cent over the next five years".

Housing slump will end by 2010, says report
The property market will bounce back from its current slump by 2010, research suggests. National Housing Federation (NHF) study predicts that house prices in England will rise by 25 per cent over the next five years.

It predicts the average home in England will cost £274,700 by 2013, with prices rising by 5.2 per cent during 2011 and by more than 9 per cent a year in both 2012 and 2013. In the short-term, it expects prices to fall by a further 2.1 per cent in 2009, before beginning to increase in 2010, edging ahead by 1.3 per cent.

The research, which was carried out for the group by Oxford Economics, said that despite the current crisis, demand for property is still growing, while the supply of new housing is falling. It said only 75 per cent of the new homes that are required are actually being built each year, with 167,577 new homes completed in 2007, and the figure likely to fall to just 120,000 this year.

But an estimated 223,300 new households are expected to form each year between now and 2026. The NHF, which represents housing associations in England, said the report showed that it was critical that the Government continued to invest in new social housing.

David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, said: "Our report shows that despite concerns about the current housing market downturn, house prices will increase substantially over the mid to long term."

He called on the Government to support housing associations in buying up unsold properties that have been built by private developers, as well as helping them to develop mortgage rescue schemes for people in danger of losing their homes.




Ilargi: Meanwhile, in the part of the world where the drugs are less potent and hallucinatory.., the numbers keep getting worse.

UK mortgage approvals plunge 68.4% to new low in June
Homeowners have been warned to brace themselves for further falls in the value of their houses after figures from the Bank of England showed mortgage approvals have plummeted by more than two thirds in a year.

The Bank said the number of approvals slumped 68.4pc to 114,000 year-on-year in June. They were down from 41,000 in May to just 36,000 last month, the lowest level since records began in 1993.

Economists, who had forecast a reading of 37,000, said the figures are the latest evidence of how borrowers are being hit by the credit crisis, which has forced banks to curb lending and insist on bigger deposits before offering new loans.

Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at Global Insight, said: "This is yet more very disturbing mortgage data that heighten concerns over the potential depth and length of the housing market correction.

"Very low mortgage activity suggests that house prices will continue to head south at a pretty rapid rate," he added. He warned those people who took out 100pc or even 100pc plus mortgages within the last three years were particularly vulnerable to falling into the negative equity trap.

Simon Rubinsohn, chief economist at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), said: "The latest numbers from the Bank of England demonstrate in the clearest possible way the consequences of the credit crunch for the residential property market.




UK homeowners will struggle to get mortgages until 2010, report says
Homeowners may struggle to get mortgages for the next three years, an eagerly-awaited Government-backed report has warned.

The ability of banks to offer mortgages will be "severely constrained" until 2010 with first-time buyers with deposits of less than 25pc of their property's value particularly badly hit. The mortgage shortage is likely to hit house prices and consumer spending on the high street. The warning has been sounded by Sir James Crosby, the former chairman of HBOS bank, in a detailed analysis for the Treasury.

He also predicts there will be an increase in the number of people defaulting on their mortgages over the next two to three years raising the spectre of tens of thousands of homeowners having their properties repossessed. The news comes as homeowners have been warned to brace themselves for further falls in the value of their houses after figures from the Bank of England showed mortgage approvals have plummeted by more than two thirds in a year.

The Bank said the number of approvals slumped 68.4pc to 114,000 year-on-year in June. They were down from 41,000 in May to just 36,000 last month, the lowest level since records began in 1993. The Government is studying plans put forward by Sir James to kickstart the mortgage market by offering finance for new mortgages.

Government-backed bonds could be offered to Britain's mortgage lenders to allow them to offer home loans to people. An announcement on the plans will be made in the autumn. In his interim report, Sir James said: "Given that more of their [lenders'] existing mortgage-backed borrowings will need to be repaid over the next three years, their capacity to make new mortgage advances therefore looks severely constrained.

"In my opinion, such a shortage of mortgage finance will persist through 2008, 2009 and 2010." He warns that people seeking to borrow more than 75pc of their property's value or those without regular employment will find the "availability of finance…considerably reduced."




S&P 500 Firms’ Pension Plans Plunge by $170 Billion
The value of pension plans for S&P 500 companies has plunged by $170 billion thus far this year, reducing a $60 billion surplus from 2007 to $110 billion deficit, according to research by Credit Suisse.

Defined-benefit pension plans have been stung by the turbulent equity and bond markets this year. Plans rely on solid returns to meet their payout obligations, so declining asset values hits them especially hard.

With the steep decline in asset values so far this year, "pension plans may have given up some of the hard earned gains from the past five years," the report said. The most painful impact may be on the balance sheets of corporate pension sponsors. The funded status of pensions appears on company balance sheets and must be marked-to-market annually, showing the extent of a fund's decline.

Also, pension costs that rise beyond expectations could put added pressure on earnings, and companies may have to contribute more to the plans, according to the report. In turn, that could detract from money that could otherwise be used to pay dividends or service debt.

"If the plans get weaker the companies that sponsor them could get hit from a number of angles," the report said.
Struggling pension funds affect all companies differently, depending on their exposure, the researchers observed. Some companies, such as General Motors, Ford, Eastman Kodak, and Goodyear have benefit obligations that are larger than their market capitalizations, according to Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse's projections for 2008 are based on market performance so far this year, in which equity prices are down by 10 percent. Companies have been shifting where they allocate their pension fund assets in the last year, reducing their exposure to the equity markets and investing heavily in fixed income.

This year's pension problems began in January, when 100 of the biggest U.S. companies saw their defined-benefit plans lose more than a full year of 2007 gains in the first month of the year, when funded status fell by $63 billion, according to Milliman, a pension actuarial firm.

Last year companies with big pension plans enjoyed the income-statement effects of a hefty cut in plan costs. With big asset losses of 1999 through 2002 having mostly worked their way through the pension system, plan expenses dove by $19 billion, boosting company earnings by $8 billion, Milliman found




Is Singapore the canary in Asian economy mine?
It was the night before Singapore's Finance Minister was due to talk to The Times and a more internationally recognisable voice of the city-state was out and about in full, hectoring flow.

Lee Kuan Yew, the octogenarian statesman who looms over the Singaporean Government as its “Minister Mentor”, was opening an event at one of the city's swish hotels. If voters were ever gripped by the “sheer madness” of electing a member of the opposition, Mr Lee said, in a typical bit of carrot-and-stick politicking, it would take “only five years” to ruin Singapore completely.

It is tempting to believe that the old man must be wrong and that there is far more resilience in Asia's smallest country than its patriarch suggests. Singapore's affluent skyline bears every sign of the city-state's sustained economic vibrancy. Where there are not recently finished skyscrapers, there are cranes building more.

There is a fledgeling biotechnology industry and a fourth university has just opened. The host of expatriates, sucked first towards the city's financial district for work, cram a swelling new ghetto of clubs and bars after hours. Even Cabinet ministers admit that the place is much more interesting than it used to be. Singapore appears, at least on the surface, to be a country with enough momentum and vivacity to survive the election of a few MPs from outside the monolithic ruling party.

But there is little doubt that Singapore's business model is under threat. According to the Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, it always has been. And now it has a number of hungry, growing cities in India and China breathing down its neck as viable financial hubs.

Because of Singapore's minuscule size, the openness of its markets and its dependence on exports and the financial services industry to drive growth, a country that appears to have prospered through doctrinaire social manipulation is, in reality, disproportionately at the mercy of monetary and fiscal policy.

“I would say that starting from the premise that we are vulnerable is not a bad thing in a whole sphere of policies,” Mr Tharman said. “The fact is that we are vulnerable ... psychologically, it is both a liability and an asset.” He describes the need for a place such as Singapore to build resilience to the “unknown unknowns” that the global economy may throw in a finance minister's path. In the 21st century, he argues, unpredictable shocks are becoming more frequent.

Latitude in monetary and fiscal policy is crucial - and yet when the softly spoken, British-educated Mr Tharman talks of Singapore's striking economic vulnerabilities, he emphasises the need for social cohesion, a force, he says, that has helped to make his country so attractive for investment and without which one of South-East Asia's most impressive economic stories would surely unravel.

Although that emphasis on social cohesion as economic panacea is textbook Singapore stuff, Mr Tharman believes that the Government's attitudes are too readily simplified. It is easy, he smiles, to parody Singapore - and the farther from Singapore you go, the easier it is. Instead, Mr Tharman sees himself as being in charge of the finances of a complex society with a “surprising amount of fringe”.

Nor does he see paradox within the Government as it struggles to ferment new ideas and a “fertile crescent” for business and science. When he returned from a recent visit to Israel, Mr Tharman remarked on that country's ability to nurture innovation within what he called an unruly democracy.

It is not outside Singaporean culture to be questioning people, he said, but there was more evolving to do. He adds his belief that the Government should not try to control the internet because of the impossibility of doing so effectively - a comment at odds with a continuing legal action against a foreign blogger critical of Singapore's justice system.

“It is not every man for himself and every idea for itself and we all live happily ever after,” Mr Tharman said. “We have to preserve this compact, but never be trapped by our past.” Singapore's need for social cohesion, Mr Tharman believes, arises from its size. If Singapore were like London or San Francisco and other cities within larger economies, he argues, it could afford to be more of a free-for-all.

“In those cities you have the weight of a middle country out there where established norms are sustained and persevered with and values evolve only gradually,” he said. “Our middle country is two or three subway stops from the centre of the financial district. Everyone is part of the same neighbourhood. You have to look after not just your software programmer, your financial derivatives trader and your creative class, but the people who are clearing the refuse and serving in the McDonald's outlets, the technicians, secretaries and engineers.

“That is why you need a certain degree of consensus-building, a degree of constraint in your social norms.” Cohesion, therefore, remains the stated goal and Mr Tharman insists that the global economic tide has made securing it even more vital. The balance of policy-making, he says, is even more delicate. Singapore's traditional use of exchange-rate policy to respond to the economy's various headwinds faces limitations in the current climate, he feels.

A dramatic strengthening of the Singapore dollar might bring some temporary relief from $120-a-barrel oil prices, but it would hurt the country's already slowing exports. Singapore's extraordinary rise was crafted in an era of far more favourable terms of trade. With that era over, the burden on the monetary and fiscal navigators is even heavier.

With the exception of eggs, Singapore imports all its food and energy, so it has found itself in the front row for soaring commodity prices and the resultant inflation. Mr Tharman says that the most critical task he faces is ensuring that corporate Singapore does not unleash a second, more destructive, spiral of inflation via wage rises.

The tripartite tradition of annual pay talks, which puts the Government at the same table as employers and unions, goes a long way to ensuring that the State's views on the matter are heard.Morever, Singapore's wrestle with inflation is teaching lessons that should be heeded abroad. Singapore's unique catalogue of exposures, Mr Tharman says, means that it is behaving like an ultra-sensitive barometer for the rest of Asia.

With very little in the way of padding from price shocks, Singapore is facing in the immediate weeks what others will be forced to cope with in coming months. Mr Tharman said: “We have not had the luxury of even contemplating insulating ourselves from global prices. We are a small, highly open economy, a textbook case of a country that cannot insulate itself from global prices and trends.

How we behave and how we respond to the crisis is, in a sense, something that all countries will have elements of. Ultimately, as you are finding across Asia, sustaining subsidies is an expensive proposition.” Given Singapore's reputation as a land of strict rules with a top-down vision of how the state should look, many people would expect its Government to dictate its way through any given crisis.

Mr Tharman is adamant, though, that Singapore's response will bear no such hallmarks. “It's really not an economy that can be characterised in any sense as having command features,” he said. “If we are interventionist, it is in the social sphere in the way we shape our housing policies ... in the effort to achieve social cohesion and ethnic cohesion in our neighbourhoods.

“Singapore is one of the freest economies in the world. We make no bones about the fact that we do intervene in the social sphere to ensure a degree of mobility and cohesion that would not naturally come about through the free workings of the market.”


Monday, July 28, 2008

Debt Rattle, July 28 2008: Numb and Numbers


Dorothea Lange Shoofly Tobacco July 1939
Shoofly, North Carolina.
"Tobacco field in early morning where white sharecropper and wage laborer are priming tobacco."


Ilargi: On two consecutive days, we have two reports coming from the IMF. While the paper we dealt with yesterday predicted a significant improvement in US housing starting next year, today’s "Global Financial Stability Report" simply states that there’s no end in sight; it also confirms an earlier prediction of $1 trillion in losses from the US mortgage crisis.

Which leads me to what the rest I have to say today will consist of: a series of numbers taken from the articles posted below. Take out the calculators (you may also need that bottle of rye and the teddybear). Other than that: Don’t miss BusinessWeek on the safety of your bank, nor David Rosenberg’s claim that deflation will soon replace inflation.

And when you're done reading the numbers, you might want to check your wallet.

  • Cost of the various US housing bail-out programs to date, through the Federal Reserve, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.: $1.46 trillion.
  • Increase from 2006 to 2007 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac part of the bail-outs: $621 billion (expected to be much higher this year)
  • Total new financing the Fed has made available to markets: $446 billion
  • Cost for (non-Fan and Fred) housing part of the The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. a new program at the Federal Housing Administration for refinanced 30-year fixed loans: $300 billion. Homeowners "rescued": 400.000. Cost per home: $750.000.
  • Increase in US debt limit to accommodate the bill: $800 billion, to $10.6 trillion from $9.816 trillion .
  • Time the bill will be implemented: Summer 2009
  • Taxpayers cost for explicit government guarantee for Fannie and Freddie: more than $1 trillion
  • 2008 salary Fannie Mae CEO: $13.4 million .
  • Increased amount of what FHLB calls “advances” to member banks: $274 billion,
  • Total advances: $914 billion (second quarter of 2008).
    NOTE: the FHLB has a "Superlien" with the FDIC. When banks go belly-up, they get their money first, before depositors do. The FHLB boasts that it has never lost a penny on a loan to its member banks.
  • Decrease in average home value in the past two years in South Florida: $100,000, $4,100 a month, $136 a day, or $5.70 every hour.
  • New record US budget deficit for period starting October 1: $490 billion
  • George W. Bush February deficit forecast: $407 billion
  • Funds required to meet the US transportation infrastructure demand: $225 billion a year
  • Current spending: $100 billion per year
  • Bridges in the U.S. that are either "functionally obsolete" or "structurally deficient: 25%
  • Budget for House bill passed Wednesday for highway and mass-transit projects: $8 billion
  • Expected 2009 Congress transportation bill $400 billion over 6 years.
  • Worldwide asset writedowns and losses: $469 billion in the past year
  • Capital raised: $345 billion
  • Cost of payments distributed under US economic stimulus package: $168 billion
  • Cost of invasions Iraq and Afghanistan: $10 billion to $12 billion a month
  • Decrease in miles driven by Americans in past 7 months: 40 billion, 3.7%.
  • Number of days one third of UK adults can survive on savings: 11
  • Forecast increase UK unemployment: 1.6 million to 2.5 million over the next two years.
  • U.S. Treasury securities outstanding: $4.67 trillion
  • Amount held by Japan and China: more than $1 trillion combined.




Update 6.00 pm EDT Ilargi: I was gone for the afternoon, but it doesn't at all surprise me to see, when coming back, that financials have taken a skinning once more. As I've said before: who wants to own US financials' shares? What is there to expect from them but trouble?

Before confidence can be restored, they'll have to open up and show all assets, including Level 3 and off-balance, and apply honest assessments. But yes, I know, for more than a few that'll be the end of the road. Thing is, if this continues, that end will soon arrive anyway. Two or three more days like today, and we'll start seeing plans for take-overs, bail-outs and bankruptcies in the sector, with the Fed and the Treasury playing first violins. This cannot go on.

Here are the numbers, the Dow lost 2.11%.






IMF Says U.S. Housing Slump End 'Not Visible,' Credit to Worsen
The International Monetary Fund said there's no end in sight to the U.S. housing recession and warned that deteriorating credit conditions for consumers and banks may prolong a period of slow economic growth.

"At the moment, a bottom for the housing market is not visible," the IMF said in its Global Financial Stability Report, released today in Washington. "Stemming the decline in the U.S. housing market is necessary for market stabilization as this would help both households and financial institutions to recover."

The IMF, which a year ago failed to foresee the depth of the subprime mortgage collapse, stood by its April forecast for about $1 trillion in losses stemming from the U.S. mortgage crisis. While U.S. policy makers have helped contain the financial losses, "credit risks remain elevated" and banks need to raise more capital.

Worldwide asset writedowns and losses have totaled $469 billion in the past year and $345 billion has been raised.
The Washington-based lender in the report said the Federal Reserve's decisions to expand lending to Wall Street firms "have succeeded in containing systemic risks." Still, weakness in housing threatens to extend the slump.

"The growing concern is that, with delinquencies and foreclosures in the U.S. housing market rising sharply, and house prices continuing to fall, loan deterioration is becoming more widespread," the IMF said. Falling share prices are making it harder for banks to raise capital, increasing the risk of a downward spiral in the global economy, the IMF said.

The outlook for banks may make investors reluctant to provide fresh funds needed to restore the strength of financial institutions, the fund said. "As economic growth slows, banks will face continued headwinds in maintaining earnings due to falling credit quality, declining fee income, high funding costs, and exposures to monoline and mortgage insurers," Jaime Caruana, director of the IMF's monetary and capital markets unit, said in a statement.

The fund warned that the frailty of the financial system would be increased by the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of U.S. mortgage financing. Shares of both companies are down more than 80 percent in the past year.

The U.S. Congress two days ago passed legislation to stem foreclosures for 400,000 homeowners and aid Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its most sweeping effort to halt the biggest housing slump since the Depression. President George W. Bush may sign the bill into law this week.

IMF economists said that the global holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt meant that "there would have been systemic consequences had confidence in the debt come into question." The report said oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was too weak. "Part of the problem stems from the current regulatory framework, which has allowed their balance sheets to expand to their current systemic significance," the fund said.

For central bankers, the risks of inflation as well as weaker growth are rising, the IMF said. On July 17 the IMF said inflation in developing and emerging countries would average 9.1 percent in 2008, up from a forecast of 7.4 percent in April. Their prediction for inflation in advanced economies for this year was raised to 3.4 percent, compared with a forecast of 2.6 percent in April.

"Policy trade-offs between inflation, growth and financial stability are becoming increasingly difficult," the fund said. "With inflation risks on the rise, the scope for monetary policy to be supportive of financial stability has become more constrained." IMF economists said the duration of the turmoil in credit markets was testing the resilience of emerging markets, leaving investors wary of putting money in countries with rising inflation and large trade deficits.

"There are now clear signs that investors are becoming more cautious about adding to positions," the fund said. "Outflows from emerging market equity funds have been concentrated on Asian markets where inflation and downside growth risks are most elevated."




U.S. Deficit to Hit Record $490 Billion in 2009
The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record of about $490 billion next year, an administration official said, leaving a deep budget hole for the next president.

The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is far higher than the $407 billion forecast by President George W. Bush in February. The official also confirmed a report in USA Today that the deficit this year will be less than the $410 billion estimated in February.

The bigger shortfall for fiscal 2009 may reflect dwindling tax receipts because of the U.S. economic slowdown, the cost of payments distributed under the $168 billion economic stimulus package and the continuing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We've already seen a pretty sharp cooling in tax receipts and it's just going to continue into next fiscal year," Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Capital Markets, said in a telephone interview. White House press secretary Dana Perino refused to comment on the numbers, while adding that the administration said when the economic package passed in February that it might increase the deficit.

"That's the price we would pay" for boosting the economy, she said at a briefing this morning. The White House budget office will release its mid-session review of the government's balance sheets at 1:30 p.m. today. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about $10 billion to $12 billion a month, which may leave little room for other new initiatives in such areas as education or transportation.

The Bush administration and Congress haven't dealt with the largest long-term fiscal problems: the growing costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those three programs consumed an estimated 41 percent of the federal budget in 2007.

Obama was scheduled today to confer with his top economic advisers "on America's pressing economic challenges," his campaign said today. The Illinois senator was to meet with business and labor officials on oil, food and other commodities, topped with discussions with investor Warren Buffett, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, among others.

Record gasoline prices, plunging home values and shrinking credit access have thrust the economy to center stage. The Labor Department this week may report a seventh straight month of job losses. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, Democrat of South Carolina, took the administration to task for a new deficit record, citing news accounts.

"If these reports prove accurate, they confirm the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history," Spratt said in an e-mailed statement. A Bloomberg survey of 28 analysts completed July 25 showed the average estimate for the deficit at $447 billion next year and $407 billion this year.

Bush inherited a budget surplus when he took office in 2001. In his State of the Union address he pledged to submit a budget that would return the federal government to a surplus by 2012




Funds for US Highways Plummet As Drivers Cut Gasoline Use
An unprecedented cutback in driving is slashing the funds available to rebuild the nation's aging highway system and expand mass-transit options, underscoring the economic impact of high gasoline prices. The resulting financial strain is touching off a political battle over government priorities in a new era of expensive oil.

A report to be released Monday by the Transportation Department shows that over the past seven months, Americans have reduced their driving by more than 40 billion miles. Because of high gasoline prices, they drove 3.7% fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, the report says, more than double the 1.8% drop-off seen in April.

The cutback furthers many U.S. policy goals, such as reducing oil consumption and curbing emissions. But, coupled with a rapid shift away from gas-guzzling vehicles, it also means consumers are paying less in federal fuel taxes, which go largely to help finance highway and mass-transit systems. As a result, many such projects may have to be pared down or eliminated.

The challenge comes at a time when surging costs for asphalt and other construction materials already are straining state and local transportation budgets. Those cost increases make it more expensive to maintain the nation's roads, bridges and rail networks.

In many areas, the ragged edges are already showing. About 25% of bridges in the U.S. are either "functionally obsolete" or "structurally deficient," like the Mississippi River bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last August, killing 13 people.

Moreover, the pavement is rated "not acceptable" on one of every seven miles of the nation's roads, according to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, whose job is to assess infrastructure problems and recommend fixes. Overall, the commission estimated, $225 billion a year is needed to meet the country's transportation infrastructure needs. Current spending is about 40% of that level.

"We were losing ground to these incredible increases in construction costs, but then to see the erosion in driving -- it's a double whammy," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. On top of the federal gasoline tax, currently 18.4 cents a gallon, the states charge their own gasoline taxes, which are typically slightly above the federal rate.

The Bush administration is expected to release as early as Monday figures projecting a deficit of $5 billion or more in the Highway Trust Fund for next year. Thanks to steady increases in driving, since it was set up under President Dwight Eisenhower, the trust historically has run a surplus. It steers gasoline-tax revenue through a federal appropriations process before sending it back to the states.

The prospect of the highway fund running a big deficit has sparked a frenzy of lobbying on Capitol Hill, as business groups, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, have pressed lawmakers for a quick solution.

"We're going to spend a lot of time, money and effort on this," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue. "People need to understand that this infrastructure thing is not optional." In recent weeks, Mr. Horsley's group has circulated a memo estimating that the states will lose a total of about $14 billion and roughly 380,000 jobs if Congress doesn't act to shore up the fund soon.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill targeting $8 billion for highway and mass-transit projects. The measure has a good chance of clearing the Senate as well, despite White House reservations. On Thursday, the House passed legislation that designates an additional $1 billion for bridge repair. House and Senate leaders are talking about including a significant increase in infrastructure spending in a possible second economic-stimulus bill.

The moves are a prelude to a debate expected next year as Congress considers a new, six-year transportation bill that could authorize more than $400 billion in spending.




Banks Are Still On The Short List
Some short-sellers on Wall Street are predicting more pain for financial-sectors stocks - despite the rally some shares posted this week in the wake of second-quarter results.

One investor, Bill Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital, said he's far from calling the bottom on any financial sector stock tied to mortgages and still wouldn't buy a single one of them.

"All financials will make new lows, not because of this week's inflated rally, but because we have not factored in the interplay of lower home prices, a slower economy, and we don't have proper marks on assets in our investment banks," said Fleckenstein, who has recently authored a book called "Greenspan's Bubbles."

Mark Hanson, a mortgage consultant with the Field Check Group, who is used by Fleckenstein and an A-list roster of hedge-fund clients who each manage $1 billion to $10 billion in assets, recommended after the banks' earnings reports this week that they rush to call their options broker and load up on puts.

Puts are a bet that the price of a stock will fall. Stocks he suggested betting against were Lehman, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, US Bank, PNC Bank, H&R Block and Assured Guaranty. One Hanson recommendation played out big this week - Assured Guaranty.

Based on Hanson's detailed analysis six months ago that showed Assured had $21.5 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBs) exposure and that 17.3 percent were rated BBB or lower, he bet Wilbur Ross' $1 billion pledged investment wouldn't be enough for the double-digit billions that could come on Assured books to pay off defaulting mortgage bonds.

Fleckenstein shorted Assured Guaranty at $24. The company's shares are off nearly 59 percent in 2008 and 42 percent in the last five trading days, hitting a low of $8.89 last week. That's a nice return for FleckEnstein, who admitted he enjoyed being able to ring the cash register on his short play this week while warning financials will see more pain.




Treasuries seen favored if deflation prevails
Despite current concerns about global inflation, U.S. economic prospects are so grim that deflationary pressures will prevail and push investors to take shelter in the relative safety of the Treasury bond market, Merrill Lynch said.

"Investors should seek out safe yield as much as possible, whether in the Treasury market, the muni market or among other high-quality fixed-income vehicles," wrote David Rosenberg, North American economist with Merrill Lynch in a research report released Friday.

Rosenberg expects commodity markets, which have recently begun retreating from record highs, to continue their fall, easing inflationary pressures amid the U.S. housing market's ongoing two-year decline. "We do not see the prospective backdrop as inflationary," he wrote. "All one has to do is pick up the newspaper to see that autos, housing, or practically anything you want to buy in a department store is experiencing 'fire sale' conditions."

The next bubble that U.S. investors are likely to stoke will be in bonds, as commodities and stocks sell off during a painful economic period, comparable to the U.S. consumer recession of 1973-75, Rosenberg argues. "Back then, collapsing earnings and price-earnings multiples triggered a 40 percent peak-to-trough decline in the S&P 500," he recalled.

The S&P 500 stock index fell to 1,252 points on Friday, down about 20.5 percent from its lifetime peak in October 2007 and technically at the edge of bear market territory. As consumers continue to cut back and equities remain under pressure, "if there is another bubble around the corner, it is likely to be in bonds, and this will be particularly apparent once the commodity explosion reverses course," Rosenberg wrote.

U.S. households' bond exposure is not much more than 5 percent of their total assets, after the past two decades’ scrambles into stocks and then real estate. But a shift back toward the late 1980s and early 1990s level of between 7 percent and 8 percent of total assets "would imply the potential for $1.75 trillion of incremental demand," Rosenberg expects, most of which would go to Treasuries and other higher-quality bonds as riskier corporate debt feels the pinch of a tough economy.

"That potential home-grown demand for bonds can easily absorb the new government bond supply that is likely to come on stream to fight the economic downturn, not to mention serve as a huge offset to any prospective selling of Treasuries by global entities, even if foreign investors do own half of the Treasury market," Rosenberg wrote.

Of the $4.67 trillion U.S. Treasury securities outstanding, Japan and China alone hold more than $1 trillion combined. Consumers' rising inflation expectations as prices at the pump and the grocery story have surged in recent months have caused a bond market selloff, since inflation is anathema to bonds.

The benchmark 10-year Treasury note's yield, which moves inversely to its price yielded 4.10 percent on Friday, up from a five-year low yield of 3.29 percent hit in January. Yet a wave of deflationary pressures will soon eclipse consumers' inflation worries, Rosenberg forecast. Yields could move lower if inflation pressures start to ebb and the economy turns recessionary.

"The forces of deflation will outlast the cyclical inflation story," Rosenberg wrote, adding that Japan's experience in the 1990s of a lost decade of economic growth and deflationary pressures after equities and real estate bubbles there burst could mirror the unfolding situation in the United States more closely than many analysts reckon.

"Using the Japan post-bubble experience of the 1990s as a benchmark for comparison purposes may not be such a stretch as many people think it is because this is increasingly looking like a very similar secular bear market in equities," he wrote. Another lesson the United States now can draw from Japan's earlier experience is that tax rebates may not free the economy up from the long lasting constraints of a credit crunch, he wrote.




Ilargi: I think BusinessWeek takes a significant step today. The combined topics of bank safety and deposity insurance are a couple of hot irons. The magazine lets everyone have their say.

The significance lies in the fact that they are the first major respected business publication that reserves space for Aaron Krowne and his Bank-Implode-O-Meter, a move that decisively pushes the debate into a far more "gloomy" corner than the usual coverage. Needless to say, I think that is a very positive development: continuing to live in la-la land isn’t going to do anyone any good, except for a handful of bankers and politicians.

Is Your Bank Safe?
Nothing says hard times like people standing outside a bank demanding their money. IndyMac Bancorp's failure and the resulting chaos were reminiscent of Depression-era bank runs even if the country's economic condition doesn't marginally resemble that era.

But in an economic slowdown with few visual reference points—what does a subprime loan look like anyway?—IndyMac's failure carried a clear message for some: Stick your money under the mattress. Banks and federal officials have worked diligently in recent days to make images of bank runs vanish.

Some banks are now issuing tellers talking points to use to reassure customers that their money is safe, housed by an institution that is well-capitalized. BankAtlantic, a Florida-based regional bank, even sued an analyst after he pegged its parent BankAtlantic Bancorp near the top of a list that could be "next" after IndyMac. "A falsehood, when widely circulated, becomes its own truth," the bank's lawsuit says.

But critics contend that a dearth of information will only make customers more suspicious and open the door to dangerous rumors. Since IndyMac's failure, everyone from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to bureaucrats at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have hit the media trail to reassure depositors their money is safe. Their chief message is built on the federal guaranty behind every deposit up to $100,000, even in cases where a bank collapses. Joint accounts, retirement accounts, and trusts are also insured, up to a limit.

But even as they explain the process, regulators are not willing to tell consumers everything. For instance, the FDIC compiles a quarterly watch list of troubled banks; there are 90 (out of 8,494 FDIC-insured banks) currently considered to be on shaky financial footing. The agency assesses each bank's capital position, the quality of its assets, and its management team, its earnings, its liquidity position, and the bank's sensitivity to broader market forces.

That list "is going to grow longer, given the stresses we have in the marketplace, given the housing correction," Paulson said on July 20 in an interview with CBS's Face the Nation. Just don't ask for the names of any banks on the list. The FDIC cannot discuss which firms are in danger of failing, given that the agency collects proprietary data from each bank and says it would be unfair to use the information to expose them publicly.

Such a release could also cause undue alarm, says FDIC spokeswoman Lajuan Williams-Dickerson, because "most banks on the problem list are very unlikely to fail." To some consumer advocates, that position seems to contradict the agency's stated goal of increasing consumer awareness. "On the one hand, the FDIC is promoting consumer education and empowering people," says Joe Ridout, a spokesman for Consumer Action, a national consumer education and advocacy group.

"But on the other hand, the FDIC is withholding the most critical piece of information." FDIC officials said the agency makes available reams of data that customers can use to determine whether their bank is healthy.

To be sure, far fewer banks are in trouble these days than during past downturns. Despite a wave of bank writedowns that have so far topped $400 billion to date, only seven banks have failed in 2008, compared to the hundreds that failed during the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1990, about 10% of the 15,000 FDIC-insured banks were on the agency's problem list, compared with only about 1% today, FDIC spokesman David Barr said.

But that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern. Many more people now have deposits that are above FDIC-insured limits, meaning that if their bank failed they might get only a portion of that money back. In 1991, 82% of deposits were insured, according to FDIC estimates. The $100,000 insurance limit hasn't been raised since 1980. Today, only about 62% are insured.

Banks are certainly paying renewed attention to deposits. They are perhaps the most plain-vanilla products in a bank's repertoire, but their importance has been reinforced by the industry's current problems. Checking accounts, savings accounts, money-market accounts, and certificates of deposit give banks ready access to cheap cash with which to make loans. Without a strong base of deposits, a bank is doomed.

While writedowns will slowly erode a bank's balance sheet over several quarters, a run on deposits can hurt it far more quickly. In IndyMac's case, that process took just 11 business days. The Pasadena (Calif.)-based bank was founded in 1985 as Countrywide Mortgage Investment by Angelo Mozilo and David Loeb, who ran the bank in tandem with mortgage firm Countrywide Financial.

With total assets of $32 billion, IndyMac became the second-largest financial institution in U.S. history to collapse, after the 1984 failure of Continental Illinois. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), a division of the Treasury Dept., says the run started after Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to federal regulators on June 26 expressing concern about IndyMac's financial state.

When the letter went public, IndyMac's customers rushed to bank branches to yank their money. After the dust settled, IndyMac was $1.3 billion poorer and no longer able to pay its creditors. On July 11, federal regulators took it over. On July 25, the government seized two small Western banks, First National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank, of Newport Beach, Calif. Combined, the two most recent failed banks had 28 branches and assets of $3.6 billion. Mutual of Omaha Bank took over the banks' deposits and will serve the accounts.

For the vast majority of IndyMac customers, withdrawing their money made little sense. Only about 5% had deposits that were not insured, says Barr, the FDIC spokesman. But bad news tends to cascade, and once the run began it gained momentum. Regulators and bank officials placed much of the blame on Schumer and his "interference in the regulatory process."

Schumer pointed his finger in the other direction, saying regulators sought to "blame the fire on the person who calls 911." "The breadth and depth of the problems at IndyMac were apparent for years and they accelerated in the last six months," Schumer said in a statement. "But the OTS was asleep at the switch and allowed things to happen without restraint."

Schumer isn't the only one who has taken lumps for speaking up about banks. Richard Bove, an analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann (LTS), was sued along with his firm on July 21 by BankAtlantic, which accused him of defamation and negligence. Bove had placed BankAtlantic's parent company, BankAtlantic Bancorp, near the top of a list he released on July 13 ranking institutions based on their volume of nonperforming assets. In the suit the bank charged that Bove's report "relied upon, asserted, and implied demonstrably and obviously false facts about the financial condition of BankAtlantic and Bancorp."

In Florida, as in many other states, spreading false rumors about a bank is illegal. Eugene Stearns, a lawyer for BankAtlantic, said the bank is healthy and Bove used "the wrong numbers" to compile his report because he relied on a research firm's analysis of data rather than FDIC numbers. The suit particularly notes the danger of a bank run spurred by false information. Bove declined to comment on the lawsuit. Asked if he would continue making lists of troubled banks, he said, "I have no need to change anything I'm doing."

Stearns said he thinks Bove's report gained prominence in part because the FDIC's list is secret and people are hungry for information. "Because he was the only one to step up when the FDIC wouldn't list the banks that are in trouble, this story was repeated over and over," Stearns said. Data on banks can be hard to come by.

Mark Fitzgibbon, a principal at investment bank Sandler O'Neill & Partners, published a report on July 15 about U.S. banks with the most "jumbo" deposits, which have a $100,000 minimum and are less likely to be covered by FDIC insurance. Within days the firm called it "outdated" and would not release it. Fitzgibbon did not respond to several requests for comment; the firm declined to comment.

Indeed, anxiety is high in the industry. Many banks have started their own campaigns to reassure customers that they're not going anywhere. Wachovia's new president and CEO, Robert Steel, is featured in a video on the company's Web site aimed at bank customers. "Although the nation's financial news lately has been a bit troubling and Wachovia certainly isn't immune, I want you to know that our company is on exceptionally sound footing," he says.

Steel goes on to list the bank's capital ($50 billion), liquid funding capability ($150 billion), and says the bank has enough cash to meet its current long-term debt obligations for three and a half years. "My point in telling you all this isn't to brag or illuminate issues in the overall economy," he said. "I want you to know that Wachovia is ready to do business."

Other regional institutions have encouraged branch employees to talk about their bank's financial condition with customers. Associated Banc-Corp., a regional bank based in Green Bay, Wis., issued talking points to tellers and other bank employees the week after IndyMac's demise. It wanted customers to know, among other things, that it was well-capitalized and had issued dividends for 154 consecutive quarters.

"We encourage all of our folks to engage in conversations" about the bank, says Dave Stein, Associated's director of retail banking. "Often it starts with 'Wow, it's a tough time in the industry.' That's when our folks go into a nice job of launching" into the talking points. Associated has seen double-digit growth across all deposit categories over the past 30 days, says Janet Ford, a spokeswoman for the bank.

Because comprehensive FDIC data have not been released since the IndyMac closing, it's too early to tell which banks are seeing more deposits and which are seeing fewer. In general, it's rare for an average retail customer to move deposits around much, in part because it takes time and often costs to set up an account at a new bank, said Derek Ferber, an analyst at SNL Financial.

But even as banks try to reassure their customers, they are competing with increasingly vocal skeptics. Lists of troubled institutions continue to proliferate on the Internet. Aaron Krowne, a 28-year-old from Atlanta, started a series of blogs in 2006 called Implode-o-meters covering various industries, including hedge funds, mortgage lenders, and banks. Krowne, who has a background in computer science, considers himself an "armchair economist," but he partners with more established industry experts to compile the lists.

He hopes the sites become the base of a successful media company. On Krowne's Bank Implode-o-meter, he lists the failed banks and credit unions. Next to them is a list called "Writedown, Rundown, and General Distress" listing banks that could be in trouble. Krowne contends the banking and mortgage industries have not been telling consumers and investors the truth, and his job is to "put some counterspin on it."

His mortgage site was sued after it posted an e-mail from a whistleblower, but the bank site "hasn't received even a single nasty-gram." He said he does not claim banks are insolvent, and just highlights their trouble spots. Ridout, of Consumer Action, says such sites are subject to rumor and innuendo, but adds that Krowne's bank-monitoring site proved prescient on IndyMac, spotlighting troublesome signs well before the bank was seized by regulators.

So which bank will be next to fail? "I do have a sense but I can't tell you," says Krowne, "because then I would be spreading panic."




More bad news for European economies
Europe was hit by another wave of bad economic news on Monday, with surveys showing German consumer confidence worse than at any time since recession last struck and yet more house price falls in Spain and Britain.

Economists said high food and fuel costs were hurting German morale more than pay rises were helping it, compounding the risk that domestic demand would fail to compensate for weaker foreign demand for German goods as downturn hits other countries too. While world oil prices eased in recent days, they are still roughly 40 percent higher than at the end of last year.

Market research company GfK said German consumer confidence, which it measures in monthly surveys of 2,000 people, dropped to its lowest since June 2003, when the gross domestic product of Europe's largest economy last shrank for a brief period. "German consumers are increasingly becoming depressed," said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at Dutch bank ING.

The forward-looking GfK consumer sentiment indicator fell for a third month running, to 2.1 for August from a downwardly revised 3.6 in July. "With inflation eroding households' purchasing power, a substantial recovery in consumer spending has now become very unlikely," said Martin Lueck, economist at UBS.

That followed news last week that German business confidence as measured by the Ifo index registered its biggest fall in July since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and bigger slides than anticipated too in France and Italy.

Spain and Britain produced further evidence of the downturn in housing markets which hit the U.S. before spreading to parts of Europe where building and liberal mortgage lending gave the biggest boost to the economy in recent years.

Spain's statistics office said house sales there plunged 34 percent year-on-year in May as households baulked at borrowing rates which have hit 8-year highs. The pace of the decline reverted to the striking levels seen earlier in the year after a somewhat milder drop of 7.1 percent in April.

Spanish house prices could drop by up to 30 percent in real terms in coming years, according to Spanish property firm Colonial and other industry executives. That is partly due to a glut of up to 1.5 million unsold homes after years of overbuilding, property firms say.

House sales in May tumbled to 50,161 units and mortgage lending plummeted 40 percent year-on-year. In Britain, figures from a government agency showed house prices in England and Wales fell 1.0 percent on the month in June.

The Land Registry said house prices were just 0.1 percent higher than a year ago last month -- the 10th month of slowing annual price growth and underlining the slowdown in the housing market. Earlier on Monday, property consultants Hometrack said house prices were 4.4 percent lower than a year ago in July. That was the biggest annual fall since its survey began in 2001.

The fear there is that a collapse in house prices will cause broader economic trouble because of the extent to which consumer spending was buoyed in recent years by both the need to furnish houses and the ease with which people had access to credit.

Despite a sharply decelerating rate of economic expansion, Spain remains plagued by high inflation levels that are making life difficult for households and for policymakers. Spanish Economy Minister Pedro Solbes said on Monday that his country's inflation rate could rise even further, after hitting a 13-year high of 5 percent in June.

The Spanish government slashed its economic growth forecasts for this year and next last week, to 1.6 percent and 1.0 percent respectively, from previous targets of 2.3 percent for both years. For the euro zone as a whole, short-term prospects have taken a marked turn for the worse as well of late.

A Reuters poll of over 80 economists, conducted from July 16 to 22, showed they forecast zero economic growth over the three months to end-June after a healthy 0.7 percent rate of growth in the euro zone in the first three months of 2008, quarter-on-quarter.




Merrill says likelihood rising that Goldman could buy a bank
Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski said the likelihood of Goldman Sachs Group Inc acquiring a bank is rising, but not one of any particularly large size.

"We believe [Goldman] would not look entirely askance at the prospect of buying a depository, a significant change. We still would not ascribe very high probability, but if a bank with excess deposits were available at the right price, with no need for (Goldman) to exit existing businesses, we'd no longer rule it out," Moszkowski said.

He has a "buy" rating and a price target of $212 on the stock, which closed at $178.66 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.




'Stealth' Housing Bailout: It's Bigger Than You Think
[Now that Congress has given] the Treasury a blank check to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s worth looking at how much money the government has already pumped into the system during the housing crisis.

The numbers are staggering and likely to get much larger. What we have here is, through a variety of programs, a stealth bailout where more than a trillion dollars of taxpayer guarantees have been extended to the housing market, both to keep it going and to clean up the mess from the past.

I looked at the changes over the past year to the balance sheets of four governmental and quasi-governmental agencies—the Federal Reserve, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The objective was to see how much additional financing they have provided to the housing market. The total: $1.43 trillion.

I’ll walk you through the numbers in a minute, but it’s worth pointing out this is not an actual expenditure of taxpayer money—not yet anyway. It’s a tally of how much financing those organizations have put out into the marketplace that's largely related to the housing crisis.

The costs to the taxpayer will be directly related to how bad the housing crisis gets from here, how much of a buffer in the way of capital these organizations have to absorb losses, and how good their underwriting is for the new loans or collateral. Which is to say: We can count the exposure, but we can’t yet tally the losses.

The Fed: $446 billion A simple way to look at how much financing the Fed has pumped into the housing market is to look at the change in the weekly balance sheet. What you’ll see immediately is that the total amount of Treasurys on its books has fallen by $311 billion compared with a year ago. This has been replaced by $150 billion in collateral from the Fed’s Term Auction Facilities, in which it is taking in a variety of collateral, much of which is presumed to be housing-related.

Another $29 billion is on its books in the form of collateral from Bear Stearns, which greased the wheels of that firm's buyout by JPMorgan Chase. Add to that $14 billion in discount window lending to banks and $88 billion in repurchase agreements, which the Fed has always done, but not in such great amounts or for such periods. These repos are now from 15 to 90 days.

There’s another $65 billion in swap lines to the European and Swiss central banks that are designed to allow European banks to borrow dollars and finance their illiquid assets. We should also count the $100 billion of Treasurys the Fed loans out through another new facility designed to pump liquidity into the market. Through that system, the Fed loans Treasurys and takes in collateral—again, some of it housing-related.

The Fed doesn’t debit its Treasury line item for this because it says it’s only loaning out the securities, but those loans are backed up, in part, by a variety of assets, including some from housing. So the total for how much new financing the Fed has made available to markets: $446 billion. Fed officials have said they've never lost a penny on such lending in the past and they deal only with sound financial institutions. (If you’re not sound, you can’t borrow from the Fed, and staying current with the Fed is a good way to stay sound.)

They add that they have protection through haircuts or discounts, so that $100 of bonds could get only $95 of financing. In addition, to some extent, as the Fed has made more financing available to real estate-related securities, it’s made less financing available elsewhere. But overall, it’s opened up the spigots to finance real estate in a big way.
Note that the Fed won’t provide values of the types of collateral it holds against its loans.

Federal Home Loan Banks: $274 billion This is an easier calculation than for the Fed. The 12 Home Loan Banks provide financing to its 8,000-plus banks that, in turn, is used to fund mortgages. The amount of what FHLB calls “advances” to member banks has risen by $274 billion, to stand at $914 billion for the second quarter of 2008.

The FHLBs say existing capital and member banks will absorb losses if they occur. But there is an implicit government guarantee, on that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson reiterated recently. The legislation in front of Congress allows Treasury to increase lending to FHLB.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: $621 billion Another easy calculation. Just go look at the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddie and look at the increase in outstanding mortgage-backed securities. That number tells you how much more mortgage guarantees the two giants have out there. Combined, the figure is up by $582 billion. Add in a $39 billion increase in Fannie Mae’s portfolio to get to $621 billion. But note that this is comparing 2007 with 2006. The numbers are almost certainly larger now.

Federal Housing Administration: $90 billion Officials there tell me they have added $90 billion or so of insured loans since October. Moreover, they have added loans from people they formerly did not lend to: Now they're doing refinancings and funding delinquent borrowers, folks they previously wouldn't deal with.

They say the phone is ringing off the hook as subprime borrowers look to FHA to help them get out of onerous loans. This is a place where there could be real losses, and where losses are expected to grow. The legislation in front of Congress authorizes up to $300 billion of FHA lending.




The Fan/Fred Bailout Is a Scandal
Americans who work hard, pay taxes and play by the rules can't seem to get fair representation in Washington, D.C., these days. In the current debate over a government bailout of speculators, irresponsible banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the responsible majority has once again been pushed aside in a legislative rush to "do something."

This should have been a perfect opportunity for Republicans, struggling to regain some standing with the American people, to rise united and demand real accountability and reform. Remember how Democrats put the collapse of Enron and the subsequent losses to shareholders at the feet of the Bush White House?

Freddie and Fannie are like Enron on steroids. There's a well-documented history of accounting corruption to benefit senior management; hundreds of millions of dollars spent lobbying against oversight and reform; and myriad connections to both Democratic committee chairmen and subprime lender Countrywide Financial.

Actions by Fannie and Freddie management and their regulators this year precipitated the current crisis. Under pressure from the Democrat-controlled Congress, the Bush administration lifted Fannie and Freddie's portfolio caps in February and reduced their capital reserve requirements in March. In this year's stimulus bill, Congress went further and nearly doubled the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can purchase or guarantee.

As a result of this reckless expansion, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) now touch nearly 70% of all new mortgages. At the same time, they are insolvent by most measures. The ostensible purpose of Fannie and Freddie is to provide liquidity to America's housing markets. In practice, they are the source of systemic risk and instability in a time of need.

What is needed now is an orderly restructuring that protects taxpayers from such financial exposure in the future, such as the plan proposed by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas). Mr. Hensarling's legislation would phase out the charter of either GSE over a five-year period if they access credit lines from the Federal Reserve or Treasury.

It also provides a receivership option if the GSEs continue to stumble. Instead, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson offered the beleaguered GSEs and their patrons in Congress a blank check signed by the taxpayers, promising potentially unlimited funds to backstop the lenders. Not surprisingly, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd accepted.

Just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted last week, President Bush withdrew his previous veto threats against the overall legislative package on Wednesday, having gotten virtually nothing in return. The emboldened Democrats have simply attached the Paulson proposal to their housing bailout legislation. Having repeatedly called for Fannie and Freddie restructuring in the past, Mr. Paulson now fights to defend them in their current form.

An explicit government guarantee for Fannie and Freddie could ultimately end up costing taxpayers more than $1 trillion, according to an analysis by Standard & Poor's in April. The entire spectacle reinforces a persistent public prejudice that the GOP routinely defends the interests of their big business and Wall Street cronies at the expense of the little guy. Messrs. Dodd and Frank won't likely wear this political albatross. Republicans who go along with this GSE bailout certainly will.

So what will congressional Republicans do? Ironically, a veto-sustaining majority of House Republicans -- led by House Minority Leader John Boehner, Financial Services ranking minority member Spencer Bachus, and Republican Study Committee Chairman Hensarling -- voted against the bill on the very same day that the Bush administration caved. "I'm deeply disappointed the White House will sign this bill in its current form," said Mr. Boehner in a statement.

"We must take responsible steps to ensure our financial and housing markets are sound, but the Democrats' bill represents a multibillion dollar bailout for scam artists and speculative lenders at the expense of American taxpayers."

The final Senate floor battle on the proposed housing bailout could prove to be a definitive one for Republicans. Will they be the party defending taxpayers that play by the rules, or will they continue to indulge the Beltway crony capitalism advanced by this bill? Will they be a compliant minority browbeaten into "doing something," or will they stand for accountability and fiscal responsibility?

When Mr. Paulson appeared before the Senate Banking Committee, only Jim Bunning (R., Ky.) directly challenged his proposed blank check. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) is still fighting to offer an amendment that would prohibit Fan and Fred from lobbying while on the federal dole. That's a great first step. Expect these two brave senators to force a full and rigorous debate.

The American public is way ahead of the Beltway intelligentsia on this issue. Multiple polls show that majorities oppose a federal mortgage bailout by a two-to-one margin. For Republican senators, a "nay" vote on the mortgage bailout is both good policy and good politics




Fannie Mae bailout: Taxing America’s poorest citizens to help the richest
The federal government is soon to be ladling out tax dollars to bail out Fannie Mae. Who will pay for this? Joe Sixpack, a guy who works hard at two jobs, rents an apartment, and tries to support a couple of kids. Who benefits?

Stockholders in Fannie Mae. Holders of bonds issued by Fannie Mae. The 5,000 employees of Fannie Mae, including the CEO who helped himself to $13.4 million in salary this year. What do the stockholders, bondholders, and employees have in common? They are all richer than average Americans and they are all going to be sucking down tax dollars paid by poorer than average Americans (plus some tax dollars from the rich, of course).

Joe Sixpack might have been thinking that he could finally afford to rent a nicer apartment or maybe even buy a place. But now Congress is giving the states $4 billion to buy up property in crummy neighborhoods. Joe won’t be getting any bargains because he will have to compete with the government when he goes home-shopping.

Suppose he remains a renter? Higher real estate prices will result in higher rents, which aren’t going to be too affordable for Joe because he is about to be laid off from one of his jobs.

In Roman times the employees of Fannie Mae would be decimated, i.e., they would draw lots and 90 percent of them would beat the unlucky 10 percent to death with clubs. What would be a modern equivalent? At the very least taxpayers should have the satisfaction of seeing the highest paid 100 Fannie Mae employees fired with two weeks of severance pay (it can’t be that hard to find replacements given that the current staff’s primary achievements have been accounting fraud and then insolvency).

The newspapers say that it is important for foreigners to have confidence that the U.S. will pay its debt. Let’s pay foreign bond holders in full then, using tax dollars as necessary. After all, a guy in China could not be expected to understand that a bunch of crummy houses in Cleveland were not worth $250,000 each. Let the domestic shareholders get 10 cents on the dollar and let the domestic bondholders get whatever the bonds are actually worth.

Poor Americans already subsidize wealthy homeowners through the home mortgage deduction. Do they need to subsidize incompetent managers who have already been paid $billions? Do they need to subsidize rich guys who bought Fannie Mae bonds? Do they need to subsidize shareholders who didn’t realize that the easy money from Fannie Mae couldn’t last forever?




As Housing Act Passes Congress, Questions Emerge
The Senate on Saturday morning passed The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, a sweeping aid package designed to help a growing number of troubled homeowners, in the hopes that the legislation might help calm financial markets that have been increasingly on edge throughout July.

Senate members from both major parties overwhelmingly approved the bill 72-13 in a weekend session, after the House’s own approval earlier in the week. It now head to President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill with little fanfare; the White House has said it expects no formal signing ceremony for a piece of legislation that has been termed “the most important housing bill in a generation” by Mortgage Bankers Association chairman Kieran Quinn.

Among the bill’s key centerpieces are provisions which would authorize the Federal Housing Administration to endorse up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed rate mortgages for troubled subprime borrowers; lenders and investors must, however, first write-down principal loan balances to 90 percent of current appraisal value.

The bill will also provide vast new authority for the U.S. Treasury to backstop the continuing operations of both housing GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bill will not go into effect until October 1, and on Friday House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) warned servicers that they needed to halt foreclosure activity on qualifying loans until the new laws became effective.
“I would hope that no one would be foreclosed upon between now and October 1st who would have qualified for this program had the effective date been immediate,” Frank said in remarks during a committee hearing.

“I think it would be a shame, an embarrassment to all of us if people were to lose their homes and the neighborhood deterioration were to be advanced and the economy would suffer because to satisfy CBO and other rules, we delayed this a couple of months.”

But the delay could be much more than just a few months, according to a report Friday evening in American Banker, which cited HUD officials as saying that the provisions of the new housing bill wouldn’t like be effective until the middle of next year.

A HUD spokesperson told American Banker that it was “absolutely totally unlikely” that the new program would be ready by October 1, noting the process HUD must go through to implement new programs — including determining underwriting standards for the new loan program the housing bill would create.

Without those standards, which could take through the end of this year to finalize, servicers will have nothing to go on in terms of refinancing troubled borrowers under the new program.

Which means two things: servicers choosing to hold off on even some foreclosures now in the hopes that they’ll be able to write-down, write-off and refinance certain troubled loans face the uncertainty of not knowing which loans will actually qualify, as well as the unsavory likelihood that they’ll be self-imposing a moratorium that could last much longer than 60+ days.

It also means that Barney Frank is one ticked-off Congressman. “The notion that this takes a normal bureaucratic response when you have this social and economic crisis is unacceptable. … that would be incompetence bordering on malfeasance,” he said in an interview with American Banker on Friday. “I cannot believe that this would wait.”

HW’s key sources have suggested that servicer advances are likely the most critical piece of the puzzle going forward, and that the housing bill — if anything — further puts pressure in this area. “Servicers are being asked to put a voluntary moratorium on some unknown number of foreclosures, but nobody has addressed the servicer advances that must continue to be paid during this period,” said one industry consultant who asked not to be named.

“And worse yet, nobody knows just how long servicers would need to keep advancing their money to a trust, since apparently there is a good chance the program wouldn’t be in place by October.”

A few servicing managers HW has spoken with have suggested that the only way many servicers can survive the current environment is by having access to the discount window or FHLB advances, to help keep servicing operations afloat — meaning that the servicing shop has to be within a bank, generally speaking.

And that’s exactly the sort of capital strain, BTW, that many of the nation’s already-limping banks can ill afford to take on right about now.




No Free Bubble
The short take on the economic crisis of the 1970s was that regulation failed. Price controls failed; high taxes failed; regulation was outmoded.

The mortgage and banking crisis of 2008 feels diametrically different. What failed this time were markets. The lenders who were supposed to regulate mortgage borrowing — and the credit-rating firms who monitored them — failed utterly. The investors whose job it was to monitor the capital of financial institutions were asleep at the switch.

It is not really that simple, because investors were encouraged by the creeping government doctrine of “too big to fail.” But if, after the ’70s, the solutions in one way or another were about opening industry to the fresh breath of markets, today the remedies issue from Washington. It is quite possible that the great experiment in laissez-faire has, for this generation, run its course.

The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury have lately widened the federal safety net more quickly and more aggressively than at any time since the New Deal era. Indeed, a recent front-page headline in this newspaper, “Confidence Ebbs for Bank Sector and Stocks Fall,” had distinctly Depression overtones. (You could almost envision the next line: “Hoover Urges Calm.”)

And not since the Depression (under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation) has the government bought significant equity in private firms, as the Treasury has sought the authority to do in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At least during the 1930s, legislation followed months of deliberation and public hearings. The proffered fixes to today’s fast-moving crises are worked out hastily and in private.

At a visceral level, it is deeply upsetting when institutions that once reaped fabulous profits (a goodly share of which were snared by their executives) are granted the protection of Uncle Sam. Robert Rodriguez, the C.E.O. of First Pacific Advisors (which has a fund I’m invested in), confessed to a “sickening” feeling at the news that the Treasury might guarantee the debts of Fannie and Freddie.

Rodriguez was one of the few fixed-income investors who, having noticed the bloated balance sheets of the mortgage giants, refused to buy their debt securities. Ordinarily, less prudent investors would have suffered a loss; instead, any pain will be borne by the taxpayers.

More troubling than the unfairness is the potential that the solutions will exacerbate moral hazard: that people who feel inoculated will run greater risks. As Rodriguez observed: “Nobody wants to take the pain for excesses. Each time the problem gets bigger.”

The entire U.S. policy of promoting homeownership, which during the boom raised the ownership rate from 64 percent to 69 percent, now looks to be a case study in unintended consequences. Encourage more housing than markets will support and you get — voilà! — mortgages that fail. Fannie and Freddie were among the chief implements of the policy.

Though judged by Standard & Poor’s to be only a Double A-minus credit, they were able, thanks to the widely held belief (since validated) that the United States would not allow them to fail, to borrow at lower than Triple A rates. As the balance sheets of the agencies swelled, they grabbed the profit margin that traditionally went to savings and loans. The thrifts complained, but they were no match for Fannie and Freddie’s well-heeled lobbyists.

And so housing was increasingly financed by lenders insensitive to market risk. Recently, as mortgage companies began to fail, the U.S. encouraged Fannie and Freddie (which already owned or guaranteed $5 trillion in mortgages) to buy still more mortgages. This aggravated the problem. Since the agencies’ capital was inadequate, they should have been reducing risk.

In a similar vein, federal regulators seized IndyMac, a Pasadena bank whose depositors had crowded the door demanding their money and which became the second-biggest bank failure ever. The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation immediately announced that IndyMac would stop foreclosing on mortgages.

No doubt this was pleasing to California homeowners, as well as to the 55 congressmen and senators who represent them (and who help to oversee the F.D.I.C.). But it amounted to yet another giant socialization of risk and to a dubious precedent. What if politically mindful regulators now lean on Freddie and Fannie to halt foreclosures? Exactly which losses are immunized and, just as important, who gets to decide?

Similar questions have been raised by the Fed’s various actions to protect Bear Stearns and other investment banks and their collective creditors. In the space of several months, a wide swath of American finance has ceased to operate under normal rules.

Fixes are being introduced, and the next administration will very likely initiate its own reforms. The Fed has tightened mortgage rules; higher capital requirements are coming. Also, better accounting and disclosure rules would help investors to understand the often-complex assets that banks own.

But there is a difference between increasing transparency, with regard to risk-taking, and underwriting losses. The government should get out of the business of assuming risk — which hinders markets in a function they can handle better. With investors conditioned to look for rescues, it will not be easy to get the genie back in the bottle.

A good first step would be to draw a bright line between Fannie and Freddie’s outstanding obligations, which total $1.5 trillion, and the borrowings they undertake in the future as their current paper matures. Their current debt is presumably socialized. But if the Treasury were to announce that new obligations were not protected, markets would gradually force the beleaguered twins to both raise more capital and shrink their asset bases.

The U.S. might even consider splintering the companies, AT&T style, into pieces. The goal should be to ensure not that they never fail, but that for Fannie and Freddie and for other institutions, failure reacquires its proper status in a capitalist society: that of a tolerable event.




JPMorgan Chase, Lenders May Gain New Borrowers from Housing Law
Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase and Co. and U.S. lenders may sign up customers backed by the government, and shed bad home loans after Congress passed legislation to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bill lets the Federal Housing Administration guarantee new loans for 400,000 homeowners after lenders reduce the unpaid balance, and creates a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, the government-sponsored companies that are the biggest providers of funding for U.S. mortgages. President George W. Bush will sign the legislation as early as this week, a spokesman said.

"We would expect to see an increase in the number of homebuyers who are seeking FHA financing to purchase a home, and that will be a benefit to us," said Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Bank of America, which became the biggest mortgage lender after acquiring Countrywide Financial Corp. this month.

The bank is the leading provider of FHA loans, he said. The legislation, which passed the Senate 72-13 yesterday and the House 272-152 on July 23, is Congress's broadest response to plunging home prices, a more than doubling of foreclosures in the second quarter and market turmoil that led to the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos. in March and the seizure of IndyMac Bancorp Inc. July 11.

Bankers and their lobbyists generally back the measure and say a tax credit for first-time buyers will create new borrowers, helping to trim an oversupply of available homes and slow the drop in home prices. The FHA program will let them cut the number of bad loans on their books and held by investors.

The legislation, unveiled in March, sped to approval after lawmakers added a plan proposed July 13 by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that lets him back up Fannie and Freddie. Treasury could buy shares of the companies, which own or back half of the $12 billion in U.S. mortgages.

The change prompted Bush to drop a veto threat. The bill creates a regulator for the two companies with the power to raise capital standards, and restrict asset growth and executive pay. The measure gives the Federal Reserve a consultative role in overseeing their capital.

"It should help reassure investors and people who are involved in the market that the government knows the importance of these institutions," Scott DeFife, senior managing director for government affairs at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said in an interview.

Financial stocks in the S&P 500 Index, including Fannie and Freddie, rallied 21 percent since July 15, spurred by action on the legislation along with better-than-estimated earnings at JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. The centerpiece is a three-year FHA program that lets banks shift loans unlikely to be repaid to the government, after they agree to cut the mortgage principal.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in May the program will cost $1.7 billion and cover about 500,000 loans over five years. "The enhanced role of the FHA should bring stability to many communities that have been particularly hard-hit by the subprime crisis," said William Donovan, a partner at law firm Venable LLP in Washington who specializes in legislation affecting financial institutions.

The measure provides $180 million for foreclosure- prevention counseling and $4 billion to communities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes. It raises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's loan limit to $625,500 from $417,000 in high-cost areas. Some banks may avoid the program since reducing the interest rate on a mortgage or arranging a payment plan with borrowers is less costly than cutting the loan balance.

"There may be some reluctance on the part of servicers to write down loans," said Celia Chen, director of housing economics at Moody's Economy.com. The law "will make a small dent in foreclosures." JPMorgan Chase, which services about $775 billion in mortgages, probably will tap the program since it will let investors shed deteriorating loans, spokesman Tom Kelly said.

"Before, you could cut the balance, but the investor is still holding this loan," Kelly said. "This moves the asset, locks in a price for the investor and allows them to move on." JPMorgan's home-lending business will benefit from the $7,500 tax credit for first-time homebuyers included in the bill by enticing more people to buy homes, Kelly said.

"This bill with the FHA guarantee around it is going to encourage banks to use the program more," Francis Creighton, vice president of legislative affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association, a Washington-based industry group, said in a telephone interview. "It gives the borrower and lender another tool to avoid foreclosure."

The FHA program removes loans from the market that would have ended up in foreclosure or sold at a deep discount, helping to stabilize the market, said Rick Sharga, senior vice president at RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based seller of foreclosure data. The group reported a 121 percent jump in foreclosures in the second quarter from a year ago.

"If you remove the properties that would have been the biggest losses for the banks, you raise the overall pricing," Sharga said. "It's going to help lenders minimize their losses and stabilize their mortgage businesses."




U.S. Housing, Bank Regulators to Meet on Housing Bill
U.S. housing and banking regulators have been summoned to Capitol Hill this week in a bid to speed enactment of sweeping housing legislation lawmakers passed this weekend, Senator Christopher Dodd said.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said he is "terribly disappointed" by remarks he attributed to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Steve Preston that it would take as long as a year to implement regulations to provide help for almost 400,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure. A HUD spokesman said Preston didn't make the comment Dodd mentioned.

"We wrote this legislation specifically to bypass the normal rulemaking process," Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said at a news conference yesterday following the 72-13 vote in a rare Saturday Senate session. Congress passed the legislation to stem foreclosures and prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its most sweeping effort to halt a rise in foreclosures in the biggest housing recession since the Depression.

President George W. Bush will sign the measure into law, putting aside his objections to some provisions, a spokesman said. Dodd said he has asked to meet with the leaders of HUD, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Treasury Department in his Washington office July 29 "to tell me why they can't begin immediately to get this bill working."

HUD spokesman Stephen O'Halloran said Preston didn't make the comments that Dodd cited at the news conference, and he said the agency is committed to completing the work. "Despite that Congress provided no immediate funding for us to implement the entire bill, even though we specifically requested they do so, we will be working diligently to stand up the new refinance program," O'Halloran said. "Our goal is to make this a seamless transition and implementation."

The foreclosure-prevention measure, unveiled in March, sped through Congress after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked lawmakers to tuck in a provision that would let him inject capital into Washington-based Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia- based Freddie Mac through government loans and investments.

Paulson lobbied for the proposal, which creates a tough regulator for the two government-sponsored enterprises, and persuaded Bush to drop veto threats. "It is of the utmost importance to our market and economic stability that the GSE portions of this bill become law," Paulson said in a statement. "These components are orders of magnitude more important to turning the corner on the housing correction."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the bill will be sent to the White House tomorrow. The president will sign the measure without a formal ceremony, a White House spokesman said. "Oversight of the housing government-sponsored enterprises and the new temporary authorities requested by Secretary Pauslon are urgently needed now, and they'll contribute to confidence and stability in housing and financial markets," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

The legislation increases the loan limit at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $625,500 from $417,000 in high-cost areas. It raises the nation's debt limit to $10.6 trillion from $9.816 trillion to accommodate the Paulson plan. The centerpiece of the legislation is a new program at the Federal Housing Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to insure up to $300 billion in refinanced 30-year fixed loans for about 400,000 borrowers struggling with their monthly payments after loan holders agree to cut their mortgage balance.

The measure offers $15 billion in tax breaks, including provisions offering the equivalent of interest-free loans worth up to $7,500 for first-time homebuyers. States may offer an additional $11 billion in mortgage revenue bonds to refinance subprime loans. Other provisions give states $4 billion to buy up foreclosed properties, create a new affordable housing program financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and offer $180 million for mortgage counseling programs.




Bank of America, Wells Fargo Say Loan Changes Rising
Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., the top mortgage lenders, told Congress they have accelerated the pace of loan modifications to avoid foreclosures amid criticism they are slow to help keep people in their homes.

Both banks added staff and contacted more homeowners to reduce loan rates or to arrange repayment plans to cut monthly payments, executives said today at a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington. Bank of America doubled its modifications in the first half of this year from the second half of 2007, and Wells Fargo increased staffing fivefold.

"Bank of America remains committed to helping our customers avoid foreclosure whenever they have a desire to remain in the property and a reasonable source of income," said Michael Gross, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender's managing director for loss mitigation, mortgage, home-equity and insurance services.

U.S. bank regulators, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and lawmakers are prodding mortgage servicers to help more borrowers who are falling behind on their payments. Foreclosure filings rose 121 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, California, reported.

Wells Fargo, which services one in eight U.S. mortgages, expanded its staff to more than 1,000, from 200 in 2005, to help borrowers, said Mary Coffin, executive vice president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. The San Francisco-based company contacted 94 percent of customers who are delinquent and helped 60 percent who agreed to work with the bank to avoid foreclosure, she said. "Foreclosures are a measure of absolute last resort," Coffin said.

Bank of America helped more than 117,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure from January through June, almost double the pace in the second half of 2007, Gross said. The bank will modify at least $40 billion in troubled mortgages by the end of 2009 to help more than 250,000 borrowers keep their homes, Gross said.

Voluntary efforts so far"have not ramped up" fast enough to curb foreclosures, said Julia Gordon, policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, a Durham, North Carolina-based consumer group. "We have heard wildly different things about how much modification is going on," said Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat. "We have heard from industry that they are modifying like crazy. And we've heard from consumer advocates that they are hardly modifying at all."

The assessment "sounds better than it is," said Representative Barney Frank, the committee's chairman and a Massachusetts Democrat, who plans another hearing in September. "There needs to be a sense of urgency," he said. "Yes, I'm glad you're doing what you're doing, but please don't take any comfort from it because we've got problems."

Bank of America and Wells Fargo are among mortgage lenders, servicers and counselors called the Hope Now Alliance, launched last year at the request of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to reach more borrowers at risk of default and change loan terms. Almost 1.7 million homeowners averted foreclosure through loan modifications from July 2007 to May 2008, Faith Schwartz, executive director of the Hope Now Alliance, said at the hearing.

Frank said he expected lenders to help more borrowers or he would consider changing the relationship between servicers and investors to remove contractual barriers to modifying loans. Servicers have said they are sometimes constrained from changing loans because by contract they must represent investors who own the mortgage.

"If it is the case that the servicers cannot respond appropriately, then that institution of a servicer acting on behalf of ultimate investors" can't continue, Frank said during the hearing. The bank executives told Frank their obligations to investors have led them to reduce loan interest rates before they cut mortgage balances.

"Reducing the interest rate will generally result in a lower loss to the investor than reducing the general balance," Gross said. "It is the preferred option. That is the option that we are contractually bound to offer." The House this week passed legislation written by Frank to create a government program to insure mortgages for struggling borrowers after servicers voluntarily agree to reduce the loan balance.

If servicers don't participate, "then next year we'll have to change the law to reduce the role of servicers," Frank told reporters after the hearing.




Housing Prices Drop By The Hour
These numbers are sobering: If you are a homeowner reading this right now, when you wake up in the morning, the value of your house will have dropped about 45 dollars. And that's if you sleep just 8 hours. If that isn't disturbing enough, wait until you see how much home prices have dropped in the past 2 years.

"I knew it was softening," said investor Philip Logue. " I just didn't realize how quickly, how fast the market was dropping." When Logue put his Coral Gables house on the market, he thought for sure it would sell. He started at $650,000 in 2006. A couple of years later, and a $175,000 price drop. He's now renting the house out.

"I was really surprised," said Logue. " Especially at the end when we really dropped our pants down and I felt we were giving it away, and we still couldn't sell it." Numbers out from housingtracker.com show Logue isn't alone. The average home value in South Florida has dropped $100,000 in just two years. That's roughly $4,100 a month, $136 a day, or $5.70 every hour.

"The markets go up, they go down," said Ray Jourdain, a broker with Urbaniza Realty. "They have for more than 100 years; 5 years, 10 years it'll be different then it is now." Jourdain isn't surprised by the numbers. He believes short sales and foreclosures that are keeping him busy are fueling the drop. He believes the bottom is still a ways off.

"Can you afford the payments? Can you have the insurance, the property taxes, the monthly payments with a normal 20% down sale? Does it work for the average person? And when that happens, when we hit that, that's when we hit the bottom," he said.

Homeowners like Logue hope it comes sooner than later. "I think it'll come back," said Logue. "You just have to have the staying power to weather the storm."

When a homeowner is losing $5.70 an hour right now, renters actually are the ones who are making money. The person who this really effects, is anyone who bought a home in the last 3 years. They moved into a house that has dropped in value now by six figures.




Why millions of Britons may be just 11 days from financial ruin
More than a third of adults could survive financially for only 11 days if they were to lose their job or be too ill to work, according to a survey. The finding gives a worrying insight into the lives of millions who are living on a financial tightrope.

Researchers looked at how much people spend every month and how much they have in savings. It found a massive gap between the two, which means most would be crippled by a sudden change in their circumstances. The research involved interviews with more than 2,000 adults about their typical weekly spending and their accessible savings, which excludes pension.


It found the average weekly spend is £333.56 including essentials, such as council tax, luxuries, such as eating out, and debt repayments. But a shocking 36 per cent of people have less than £500 in savings to use in an emergency. As a result, they could survive for just 11 days before their finances would implode. On average, women would be much less well prepared to cope than men.

Tanya Jackson of Yorkshire Building Society, which carried out the research, said: 'In the current economic climate, this research paints an extremely alarming picture. 'Many people's finances are already finely balanced due to the rising cost of living. 'But our research reveals that both state benefits and savings are not viable options for the majority of consumers to rely upon for any adequate length of time.'

The findings come as the likelihood of people losing their jobs is rising as bosses seek to cope with the economic downturn. Economists believe unemployment could rise from 1.6 million to 2.5 million over the next two years. On Wednesday, the Bank of England said it has found evidence of bosses starting to freeze or cut back on recruiting staff to reduce costs.

Overall, the research from Yorkshire Building Society found that a typical person could survive for 52 days before hitting financial disaster. They have monthly outgoings of £1,445 but savings of only £2,474, excluding any money tied up in a pension fund. Few have any insurance to protect themselves against the sudden financial shock of losing their job or becoming ill.

In fact, the research found they are more likely to have insurance which will pay out if they die than insurance to cover becoming ill or unemployed. The report said: 'The majority are therefore better prepared for their own death, than if they were unable to work due to illness.' One in five people said they had 'no idea' how they would cope if they were suddenly unable to work.

Some said they would sell their home if they needed to get money quickly, but this is no longer a practical option. The number of homes which are finding a buyer has halved over the past year, with many sellers forced to wait or slash their asking price. The Association of British Insurers has urged the Government to introduce incentives to persuade people to improve their financial security.

These include increasing the tax-free ISA savings allowance to £9,600 and promoting longterm investments rather than cash deposit accounts. The ABI said the average household had run up unsecured debts of £21,000, with people owing a further £102,000 on their mortgage.


Sunday, July 27, 2008

Debt Rattle, July 27 2008: The Increasing Decrease


Dorothea Lange Two ForksOctober 1939
"Hay forks. Northern Oregon farm. Morrow County, Oregon."


Ilargi: An IMF working paper was published this week (see article below), and has gotten little attention -which is a bit suspicious-.

If we take the "gloomiest" numbers from the paper, US homes were overvalued by 20% in early 2008, and will come down by that much, as well as swing well below their "equilibrium level" That all seems bad enough news for the uninitiated. However, I don’t think it’s overly realistic. There are assumptions that apply a kind of optimism that doesn't seem to have much going for it it except for hope, or perhaps fear of fear.

I haven’t had time to read all 31 pages, a PDF version of which is here at IMF, and it's full of data. But what I have seen raises a few questions.

The paper indicates that housing prices will come down 25-30%, worst case, peak to trough. Still, I know that prices rose by over 100% in the US since the turn of the millenium, and hence should come down by 50% to come back to the same level. And I would expect a violent "swing" downward, an extra 10-15%, in a move I like to call "oscillation”.

So where does this discrepancy in numbers come from? Is it just inflation? I think this graph from the paper may give part of the answer:


As you can see, it assumes foreclosure starts will decrease quite dramatically from the 2nd half of 2008 onwards. With the resets in option-ARM and Alt-A loans yet to start climbing for real, and with a look at numbers presented this week by RealtyTrac, I have, to put it charitably, serious doubts about that decrease.

The same goes for the presumption that home prices will start rising, albeit merely in relative terms, from Q1 2009, and that the inventory sales ratio will fall.

A second graph from the paper seems to contradict the first one in a substantial manner. While it plots the real price itself (vs the growth rate in prices in graph 1), the differences are inexplicably large. There is some leveling off, but very little.


Looking at the paper and its graphs, I don’t see any reason to change my prediction that US home prices will come down by 80% or more (I have left inflation out). There are three forces involved in applying downward pressure on prices:

  1. The 50% drop that gets prices back to "equilibrium levels" (not my favorite term, but that’s another story).
  2. The downswing, or oscillation, factor that always follows strong upswings, 10-15%.
  3. The perhaps the most perverse factor, the decrease in available credit that is hitting the markets, and will get stronger -The Increasing Decrease-. In the UK, mortgages approvals fell over 60% from last year, and that will happen in the US as well (and all over the world). There is no more credit to be lent out.

The US (and to a lesser extent EU) housing booms of the past decade were based on a model where collateral was deemed unimportant; credit was plentiful. Neither money down nor income statements were needed, because loans were packaged and sold as smortgage-backed ecurities: the risk went somewhere else. That model is dead. And when there are no buyers, because nobody can get a loan, prices will keep falling.

And then it’s time to realize that a house is only worth what you can actually get for it. Or even what your neighbors can get for theirs.


U.S. house prices overvalued by up to 20 percent: IMF paper
The downward spiral of U.S. housing prices still has a way to go and homes were overvalued by between 8 percent to 20 percent in the first quarter of this year, according to research by an International Monetary Fund economist published on Friday.

In his report "What goes up must come down? House price dynamics in the United States," IMF economist Vladimir Klyuev used several economic techniques to determine by how much U.S. home prices are overvalued.

Klyuev drew from a government study of single-family home prices to conclude that values were "around 14 percent above equilibrium in the first quarter of 2008, with a plausible range of 8 to 20 percent." His research showed that home prices became considerably overvalued from 2001 and while the housing market has started to correct itself, there is still a long way to go.

U.S. policy-makers are now trying to guide the housing market into a soft-landing after a five-year run-up in home values that ended in 2006. The report also said that it is likely home prices will swing well below their equilibrium level before they start to recover.

Klyuev's research included data gathered by the U.S. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight which regulates mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and collects purchase price data. Klyuev analyzed the dynamics of home prices and found the inventory-to-sales ratio the most important driver of changes in property values in the short run.

"Starts in foreclosures, which obviously add to inventory, seem to also exert additional downward pressure on prices," he added. According to the research the bloated inventory-to-sales ratio, high foreclosure rates, and inertia in housing markets imply that recent price declines are likely to continue.

The research also considered whether the current fall in U.S. housing prices represented a nationwide bust. "While the national price level is falling on every measure, there is an opinion that this decline might reflect oversized drops in a few isolated markets rather than a countrywide phenomenon," it said.




Ilargi: What makes me doubt the IMF paper even more is a graph like this, which CalculatedRisk posted yesterday. If sales just keep falling, and inventory still rises at this point, there is simply no turnaround in the US housing markets anywhere in sight.

Existing Home Sales
This graph shows annual existing home sales and year end inventory. Note: for 2008 I used the June sales and inventory numbers. All other numbers are annual sales, and year-end inventory.


If the red columns (inventory) rises above the blue column (sales) - something that is likely to happen this summer - then the "months of supply" number will be over 12.




Fitch: Massive House-Price Losses in Non-Conforming Areas to Come
Fitch Ratings, arguably the only rater with their act together other than Egan-Jones, just finished with its ResiLogic enhancements. Its new mortgage loss model will be released today. In it, its new National, State and MSA-level economic and house price forecasting will make their modeling ‘far more predictive and forward-looking.’  That is a nice way to put it.

BIG PROBLEM - This more micro look at the housing market in the 25 MSA’s that in the past have contained the most ‘non-conforming (Jumbo) lending, is coming up with massive house price losses in key areas with San Diego dropping as much as 47% over the next 5-years! San Francisco is looking at an additional 33%.

These are your heavy Alt-A areas. Fitch is getting ahead of the curve this time around. I have been telling you for a few months now that according to my proprietary data while subprime defaults are falling slightly, Alt-A defaults have been soaring in the past four months led by Pay Option ARMs. Prime defaults have also spiked.

Their estimates are dire, but I feel could still be on the conservative side given the absolute lack of non-conforming financing, massive supply, sales not picking up substantially this summer selling season, over 40% of all sales coming from the foreclosure stock, values only falling for about a year and defaults in Alt-A and Prime mortgages substantially picking up steam.
  • The MSAs represent the 25 areas that have historically exhibited the most non conforming mortgage lending activity. ‘Some MSAs such as San Diego and San Francisco, CA are expected to experience home price declines by as much as 47% and 33% over the next five years, while home prices in MSAs such as San Antonio, TX are expected to appreciate by 7%, over five years,’ said Somerville. The home price forecasts are imbedded in the state and MSA level risk indicators and will be updated quarterly.

ResiLogic’s new model looks to be robust and takes into consideration many of the things that are top on my list of risks. The systems new capabilities include:
  • Introduction of MSA and national macroeconomic risk multipliers;
  • Ability to analyze seasoned loans and to take into account loan payment history and house price changes since loan origination;
  • Additional penalties for loans originated with stated income or no income/no asset documentation programs;
  • Additional penalties for loans originated with second liens;
  • Reduced credit for loans with mortgage insurance

This new model will negatively impact Fitch’s loss assumptions and credit enhancement levels for Residential Mortgage Backed Securities. This is mostly your Prime and Alt-A RMBS and not the subprime, meaning if S&P and Moody’s update their systems, round 2 of the mortgage and housing implosion could kick off with Alt-A and Prime leading the way.




Ilargi: Bill Poole was CEO of the St. Louis Fed for a decade, and left earlier this year. He says a lot of right things in this NYT op-ed, but one thing is missing. Now, I haven’t followed the Fed board meetings word for word over the past ten years, but something tells me that if Poole would have spoken out for the policy changes he mentions here, we would have seen his words reprinted by now. In other words: Bill, if you knew 10 years ago, why didn’t you say so? Why do that when it’s too late?

First We Save Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Then We Destroy Them
Critics of the Congressional housing package complain that we are now committing taxpayers to huge new outlays to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That view is wrong: Congressional inaction over the past 15 years had already committed taxpayers to the bailout.

Congress could and should have required Fannie and Freddie — which enjoy a peculiar and highly advantageous status as quasi-public agencies and quasi-private companies — to maintain more capital, but didn’t. Now the costs from Congressional inaction are becoming painfully apparent, and they cannot be avoided. To permit the two mortgage giants to default would set off a worldwide crisis.

But we can decide what should become of Freddie and Fannie after this crisis. The best option is one getting little mention in Washington: get rid of them. Because the government cannot permit Fannie and Freddie to default, their obligations are part and parcel of the full-faith-and-credit obligations of the United States. Thus, the national debt, usually viewed as the $5 trillion held by the public, is really $10 trillion once we add the Fannie and Freddie obligations and the mortgage-backed securities they guarantee.

For now, the Congressional Budget Office has entered a “place holder” of $25 billion to cover the bailout costs over the next two years but recognizes that this is a guess. The important issue is not the 2009 outlay, but the total that will be required eventually. Even if the two firms are technically insolvent, the market will continue to buy their obligations readily, for it understands that they are fully backed by the government.

Given this faith on the part of the marketplace, there will be no immediate catastrophe that would force the federal government to provide additional capital to Fannie and Freddie. The situation is similar to the one in the 1980s, when many savings and loans were technically insolvent yet had no difficulty attracting deposits, as they were covered by federal deposit insurance.

So the federal government has the option of delaying any ultimate resolution of the Fannie-Freddie mess, as it did with the savings and loans 20 years ago, in hopes that the two giants can dig themselves out of the hole. Still, it seems more likely that — again, just as in the 1980s — the longer we delay, the higher the eventual taxpayer cost will be.

Freddie Mac, according to its own fair-value accounts for the end of March, is technically insolvent — the estimated market value of its liabilities is greater than the estimated market value of its assets. Fannie Mae has a small positive net worth. In coming quarters, these figures may deteriorate because of accounting adjustments (some of the assets are questionable) and continuing defaults on mortgages. The eventual losses could run to several hundred billion dollars.

Whatever the amount of the bailout, even if “only” $25 billion, the real question is not immediate survival of the loan giants but their long-term future. Instead of being regarded as too big to fail, we should look at them as too big to liquidate quickly.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not essential to the mortgage market; if they were put out of business in an orderly fashion over 5 to 10 years, the market would pick up the business they abandon.

Fannie and Freddie exist to provide guarantees for mortgage-backed securities trading in the market. The business is simply insurance. There are lots of insurance businesses around: property, auto, life and many others. These markets work fine without any government-sponsored enterprises. They are not highly concentrated into a small number of dominant players whose failure would threaten the entire economy; rather, lots of companies compete and spread the risk.

Indeed, there are well-established firms in mortgage insurance, but their growth has been stunted by the special advantages Fannie and Freddie enjoy. In fact, there has already been a test case for how the mortgage market would function without Fannie and Freddie.

After an accounting scandal in 2005, regulators severely constrained their activities. The nation’s total residential mortgage debt outstanding rose by $1.176 trillion in that year, even though Fannie’s and Freddie’s stakes rose by only $169 billion, just 14.4 percent of the total. In essence, the market barely noticed that the two agencies’ private competitors were providing 85 percent of the increase in mortgage debt in 2005.

There are more general economic reasons for liquidating Fannie and Freddie, the biggest being that it is very dangerous to maintain such a large role in any market for only two operators. Markets work best when numerous firms compete against each other. And then there is moral hazard. Knowing they had a federal backstop, Fannie and Freddie held too little capital and the market financed their activities at interest rates very close to those enjoyed by the government.

Now we are living through the result. Does it make sense to reconstitute them so that they can engage in a repeat performance? Some believe that tighter regulation is the answer. I am skeptical of that because I know the extent to which the regulatory system is tied up in Fannie’s and Freddie’s political activities.

I find it deeply troubling that Fannie and Freddie, essentially in receivership to the secretary of the Treasury today, continue to employ lobbyists and hand out campaign contributions to influence the legislative debate over their own futures. Fannie and Freddie paid out more than $170 million to lobbyists over the last decade — more than General Electric spent.

Government departments cannot hire lobbyists or give money to campaigns — why should Fannie and Freddie, now wards of the government, be permitted to do so? The long-term health of the mortgage market is too important to be left to only two firms.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can survive as vigorous competitors without the special government privileges they’ve long enjoyed, fine. But if they insist on coming back to life as public-private hybrids with all sorts of unfair federal advantages, we’ll only be setting ourselves up for more disasters. The wisest move, in the end, is to carefully let them wither away.

William Poole, a fellow at the Cato Institute, was the chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 1998 to 2008.




S&P Puts Fannie and Freddie on Credit Watch Negative
From Standard & Poor's RatingsDirect

On July 25, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'AAA/A-1+' senior unsecured debt ratings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At the same time, we placed our 'AA-' risk-to-the-government, subordinated debt, and preferred stock ratings on Freddie Mac, and our 'AA-' subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings and 'A+' risk-to-the-government rating on Fannie Mae on CreditWatch Negative.

"The affirmation of the senior unsecured debt ratings reflects the strong explicit and implicit support these government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) securities hold in the marketplace," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Victoria Wagner.

The most recent public demonstrations of government support by the U.S. Treasury underscore the key public policy role and the key liquidity role the congressional chartered GSEs have in the U.S. mortgage markets. This is reflected in the current stable outlook on the senior unsecured debt.

The U.S. Treasury's three-point liquidity back-stop plan has been added to the pending Housing Reform Bill, HR 3221, which passed a vote in the House on July 23, and is now under review for a vote by the Senate.

The weak mortgage credit cycle driving credit losses higher at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has led to a crisis of confidence in the strength of their capital positions as the GSEs are facing higher demands for liquidity while their own core mortgage performance is weaker, and there is a higher degree of uncertainty regarding the broader market conditions.

This is reflected in the weak pricing of their equity shares during the past few weeks. The broader financial markets remain quite stressed due to the severity and duration of this weak housing and mortgage cycle. Because of this, it looks like HR 3221 will be signed into law within days.

Although there is still ambiguity on the part of regulatory authority as it applies to how nonsenior creditors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be treated if the U.S. Treasury ever acted on its three-point liquidity plan, the language in HR 3221 increases the likelihood that subordinated debtholders and preferred stockholders would face greater subordination risk.

This heightened risk is not incorporated in our current subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We may lower these issue ratings one to two notches at the conclusion of our review of the final legislation. Prior to this we had not incorporated traditional notching of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's subordinated debt and preferred stock in relationship to the risk-to-the-government ratings.

This is now under consideration, notching the subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings one notch below the risk-to-the-government ratings. Both firms face weak earnings due to rising credit expenses. The CreditWatch listing on the subordinated debt, preferred stock, and risk-to-the-government ratings underscores the expected higher stress on capital and earnings these firms face during the next several quarters.

The confidence crisis in the equity markets is adding to the already stressed business cycle and creates additional challenges in the near term for capital-raising initiatives. In addition to a detailed review of the final version of the Housing Reform Bill, we will reassess our view of the respective firms' earnings, credit performance, and capital adequacy levels.

Currently, both firms operate with a solid capital position above the regulatory minimum capital requirements, but with a lower capital cushion above the regulatory surplus requirement. Fannie Mae raised $7.4 billion of new equity in the second quarter to further bolster its surplus capital position. Freddie Mac's regulatory surplus capital position is currently lower, and it has committed to raise $5.5 billion of capital in the near term.

If we believe that operating losses reach a level that significantly reduces the surplus capital position and further threatens capital-raising efforts to support the respective businesses, we could lower the subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings by one to two notches. The risk-to-the-government ratings on the respective firms could either be affirmed or lowered one notch




Let's talk about the bad things, shall we?
Secretary Paulson claims that if he has "a bazooka in his pocket" that he won't have to draw it.  Uh huh.  Come again Hank? 

If you show up to a fight with your bare fists, the other guy is likely to actually fight you.  If you draw a knife, he'll stand back 30' and shoot you with a gun.  And if you have a Bazooka, he'll cold-cock you from behind because he knows if you get to draw it you'll blow him to Hell.

This, in fact, is the dumbest thing that Congress could have done. So why did they? I'll hazard a guess, and let me point out that this is all that it is. "Someone", perhaps Bill Gross of PIMCO or some "foreign interests", told Paulson (or Bush, or both) that if they didn't backstop their "investment" in this GSE paper that they'd dump their Treasury holdings, and screw the bond market.

But can Paulson actually backstop the GSEs? No. And here's why. See, the government can never really "fix" the economy.  Government, of course, gets all its money from the economy.  Therefore, whenever the government does something like this it can only rearrange where the money comes from and goes to - it can't actually add to the outcome.

Let's say there is $100 in value in the economy, for the sake of argument.  Government can "decide" who gets $75 of that $100, but what it can't do is make the $100 grow to $200, because the entirety of its money comes from the $100. Some will say "but they'll just print more money!" to which I reply, "that's nice; you now have $200 but the value of each of those dollars has been cut in half!"

So in reality, Government can't backstop the GSEs, because government can't make bad paper good, nor can it create more value.  It can rearrange who gets screwed, but not whether the screwing is going to happen in the first place.

There is a mass delusion foisted off on The American People that The Fed, or Government generally, can prevent recessions. This is false; The Government, again, gets all of its money from the economy.  Since it has no exogenous (outside) means of acquiring wealth to spend, it cannot change the actual outcome.

What it can (and does) do is distort the outcome.  For instance, Government can (and did) stop the decline in the market after the 9/11 attacks, preventing the full realization of the .COM bubble explosion from occurring.  But in doing so it blew an even bigger bubble in real estate, and now, we're out of places you can find a bigger bubble to blow!

Since Government is (like all things) inefficient, to "rescue" one popped bubble you need to be able to blow a bigger one.  There are no bigger ones available to blow.

Government, folks, causes Depressions.  It does so by gimmicking what are ordinary slowdowns in the economy and turning them into catastrophes.  The really bad ones tend to happen once all the people who went through the last one are dead, because those who were adults and went through the last one remember how badly it sucked, and they won't let it happen again.

We've enjoyed 80 years of relative prosperity.  We took bad choices in the 1970s, and paid with a nasty recession and stagflation into the early 80s.  We too bad choices in the 1990s, and paid with the 2000 tech market collapse.  We took bad choices from 2003-2007, and now are starting to pay for them in 2008.

This is not over, and this bill will not "fix it".  It will in fact make it much worse, because once the market realizes that despite spending $1.3 trillion dollars (the total blown thus far) that has not managed to stop the bleeding the bond and equity markets will suddenly "get it." Don't be long equities when it happens.

Do not be in debt, period. Do not have more than $100,000 in any bank.  ANY bank. Pray for our nation, if you're the praying sort.....




Banking Sector Band-aids Just Won't do It
We all know by now that the U.S. banking sector is badly broken. The real question is what to do about it. I think a few core principles need to be followed when devising a plan for healing the banking sector:
1. The plight of equity-holders should be ignored;
2. Long-standing rules governing bank ownership shouldn't be compromised in a panic; and
3. Bank balance sheets won't heal unless deep pain is felt, and preferably as quickly as possible.

Bank Equity Holders: Out of Luck Investors in junior securities, be they common shares, preferred stocks or subordinated debt, enjoy premium returns in the good times and bear disproportionate risks in the bad. They should not have a seat at the table in a bail-out scenario. When considering the plans put forth for rescuing the GSEs - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - I do not want to see Treasury Secretary Paulson spending my tax dollars propping up existing equity holders.

This is money that should go to restoring liquidity and order to the mortgage market and enabling debt holders to get their money back. Equity holders - they should be wiped out. GSE equity holders have long enjoyed the benefit of a guarantee off the backs of the U.S. taxpayer; now the tables are turned and it's payback time. If you want the potential returns to equity, then you need to shoulder the risks to equity. And those risks have been borne out. And you are busted.

Now, this is an issue separate from fraud. If it turns out the disclosures were improper and that equity holders did not have the information necessary to make an informed investment decision, then by all means file a class-action lawsuit and seek appropriate remedies. But this is also part and parcel of being an equity holder. Bad things can and do happen. It's high time that equity investors understood this. And I'm not the only one to have this view: consider the words of David Einhorn, manager of the widely-respected hedge fund Greenlight Capital, from his book Fooling Some of the People All of the Time:
The truth is that investors in corporate securities are risk takers managing investments of risk capital. One risk is fraud. The best way to discourage fraud is to actually enforce the penalties for fraud. If investors believe that companies making false and misleading statements will be punished, they will be more sensitive to what is said. And, because their money is at stake, investors will allocate their capital more carefully.
Exactly.

Don't Play Games With the BHCA The thought that bank ownership rules should be relaxed because of the need to attract liquidity into the sector is deeply misguided. While there are plenty of rules and regulations with which I disagree, but the long-standing Bank Holding Company Act rules make a lot of sense to me.

Banks play a special role in the fabric of our economy, from money creation and credit to safety and access to liquidity. These are not areas to be trifled with. Further, I think proposed rule changes really cloud the issue. If the sector needs more capital, then the question needs to be asked; what can be done within the existing rules and regulations?

We have the example of TPG/WaMu, which, I'm afraid, is not a template for bringing capital into the sector. This was a deal done behind closed doors, at terms that frankly illustrate why the sector is so badly damaged. TPG wanted lots of cushion in order to do a deal, because of a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the investment portfolio. It presumably took large deal fees.

The structure was also massively dilutive to current shareholders, and further provided anti-dilution protection against subsequent capital raises at prices lower than its deal price for 18 months. I'd be willing to wager that this is one anti-dilution feature that will surely end up in-the-money. Not bad, TPG. But to be fair, if I was TPG I'd have pushed for the same deal. Why? Because almost every large financial institution in the U.S. is made up of two institutions; a good bank and a bad bank.

Good Bank/Bad Bank as a Way to Move Forward The good bank is a bank we can understand, analyze and readily price. The bad bank, well, is bad for a reason. It contains a large number of very complex, hard-to-value instruments. Mortgages. Illiquid derivatives. Leveraged loans and loan commitments. So an investor in such a combined good bank/bad bank entity is likely to pay a sharply discounted value for the good bank because the bad bank is so bad, or at least it's potential losses are so unclear.

What I believe we really need is a good bank/bad bank approach to the current banking sector woes, causing all banks to shrink by offloading their bad bank instruments into either a bank-specific vehicle (like Citi taking its bad assets and selling them into a "Citi Bad Bank") or a series of pools organized by asset type (similar to the Super SIV idea, except separate vehicles for mortgages, derivatives, leveraged loans and unfunded commitments).

The instruments to be marked-to-market upon transfer and funded by private capital, which will now demand a return in line with the risk without placing unnecessary downward pressure on the valuation of the good banks that remain. And if private capital wishes to fund the good banks who now have clean balance sheets and are ready to expand but are short on capital, they will receive a return commensurate with healthy, good bank growth capital.

This approach does not require a change to the Bank Holding Company Act, but it does require bank managements to take big hits to equity - now -  in order to lay a strong foundation for future growth.

Note to Bank Managements: Take the Medicine - Now Bank management's steps towards fixing their balance sheets has been a slow, painful process, which is likely to be played out over even longer periods of time. This, in my opinion, is a huge mistake. It is both costly to their firms and for the economy, as the pervasive lack of confidence in our financial institutions will remain until the problems are cleaned up.

But healing can only happen if investors have greater transparency into the future of these firms, which means really understanding the risks embedded in their asset books. And as it stands today, there are still way too many unknowns to make financial commitments to the sector. Those who did so early got smoked, and others, like TPG, received deals that ultimately hurt the bank and its shareholders and don't address the issues of transparency.

Mr. Paulson should devote more calories to this issue and less to bailing out the GSE's and protecting their common stockholders. Yes, the GSEs are hugely important, don't get me wrong. But the larger banking sector needs fixing, and it appears that a little prodding is in order.

Without the health of our banking sector, I do not see a foundation for recovery. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve and bank managements need to wake up. An incremental approach to rebuilding financial strength, trust and confidence is a fool's game. Get to it.




My Experience at Indy Mac: Fraud, Corruption, Criminality
Long time readers are familiar with my fascination with antique sports cars. One of my pals, Jan, is a well known Porsche collector who is also affiliated with the International Automotive Appraisers Association (IAAA). Its a hobby for him, and he specializes in the rehabilitation and appraisal of antique sports cars. He has rebuilt and appraised everything from celebrity Bugattis to classic Ferraris to modern supercars.

I call Jan "landed gentry" -- he's owned a major car rental firm (sold it), develops real estate, buys/sells land and houses. He is quasi-retired, leaving him plenty of time to play with his many fine automobiles -- and for us to discuss the housing market collapse.

Amongst our many discussions, we have gone over the issue of housing appraisal fraud. So when the IAAA newsletter sent out the tale (below) to its members as a warning against fraud, conflict of interest, and corruption, it got his attention -- and he forwarded it to me. His comments were: "This is even worse than the nightmare of corruption you described."

Let me hasten to add that many appraisers were offended by the corruption of colleagues in their industry, especially those greased by the worst elements among mortgage brokers and real estate agents. In 2005, more than 8,000 appraisers -- roughly 10 percent of the industry -- signed a petition asking the federal government to take action; the White House and Federal agencies demurred, and appraisal fraud continued unabated.

Eventually, Phony and Fraudy cut a deal with NYS AG Cuomo to stop enabling the appraisal fraud. Which brings us to the now defunct Indy Mac, and the below diatribe about the criminality, corruption, and rampant appraisal fraud that was the CountryWide spinoff's stock in trade. The original piece was published by Vernon Martin at the Appraiser's Forum (http://appraisersforum.com). His story is utterly fascinating, and it deserves wider distribution.

Martin was the chief commercial appraiser for Indy Mac from October 15, 2001, to when he was terminated six months later for failing to look the other way or actively engage in fraud. Most of the details below are culled from the public record of his wrongful termination litigation, which was eventually settled in Martin's favor. My quick overview of the conflicts, fraud, and criminality at Indy Mac --

Fraud:
  • Underwriting loans based on appraised values well above purchase prices;
  • Fabricating rent rolls for commercial properties to be appraised;
  • Over-stating Construction work as 80% complete versus 15% in actuality;
  • Attempting to change discounted cash flow models for subdivisions in order to increase appraised value;

Criminality:
  • Attempted intimidation of Appraisers;
  • Providing false information to appraisers;

Conflict of interests:
  • Appraising a development where the land was being purchasing from David Loeb, IndyMac’s Chairman of the Board;
  • On one transaction, the CEO's father and father-in-law were commercial construction inspectors for the firm; the loan officer was the CEO's brother (a former police officer with no loan experience);

That's just the overview.

Amazingly, these events took place before the enormous Housing and Construction boom from 2003-06. One is left to imagine just how insane the place must have been during that period. I'd love to find the details, and given the enormous lending losses -- $8B and counting -- we can only begin to imagine what sort of rampant fraud took place. I hope the FDIC releases a full report of their investigation of the collapse of Indy Mac.
 
You really need to read the entire piece to get a feel as to just how much of a criminal enterprise Indy Mac was before it went under.Is it any surprise the entire firm, and not just any individuals, are under FBI investigation for Fraud?




Does Wall Street come apart next week?
I’ve been writing a bit over the last few months about the financial mess we’re about to fall into and an event I’ve been expecting for a while came to pass late last week – a foreign bank wrote down all of their U.S. CDOs to $0.10 on the dollar.

This event, the long dreaded "mark to market" for CDOs, has implications for all bonds, both commercial and municipal, due to the exposure monoline bond insurers have. This matters for stocks as commercial bonds are often the offerings of publicly traded companies, it matters for the pensions that will have to fire sale all bonds that stop having a AAA rating if the monoline insurers implode.

It’s happening against the backdrop of the first of what promise to be somewhere between 900 and 2,200 bank failures that will r