RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeSleepless in Seattle . . . FHLB-Seattle, That Is
Posted by Larry Doyle on November 10th, 2009 4:28 PM |
Having broached expectant difficulties in the Federal Home Loan Bank system last spring, I try to keep a close eye out for news of note on this largely unknown – but critically important – system of banks. To a large extent, the FHLBs have been flying under the radar despite some serious problems within their investment portfolios and loan books.
High five to KD for pointing out that the folks at FHLB-Seattle probably are not getting much sleep these days. Why is that? Insufficient capital will do it to you every time. As the American Banker offers, FHLB Seattle Still “Undercapitalized,” Regulator Says:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency said late Friday that the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle remains “undercapitalized” and will not be allowed to redeem or repurchase stock or pay dividends.
At the end of 2004, as the bank struggled with the size of its mortgage purchase program, it said members who wish to redeem their stock must wait five years before receiving their money.
But with that time period almost up, the Finance Agency said it would not allow the bank to begin redeeming stock, fearing it could lower its capital base. (more…)
Sheila Bair Trumps Tim Geithner
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 29th, 2009 9:52 AM |
FDIC Head Sheila Bair
“Too big to fail.”
Do you think the American public is sufficiently sickened by that phrase? No doubt.
How will our ‘wizards in Washington’ handle this monstrous issue going forward? Is there any doubt that the industry itself should be held accountable to provide the necessary capital to unwind firms deemed ‘too big to fail?’ Of course not. However, the execution of that policy is where the rubber meets the road and where we learn who in Washington is truly working for the American public and who is working for the financial industry. How so? Let’s navigate. (more…)
Why Is the Market Selling Off Today?
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 20th, 2009 2:30 PM |
The broad equity market indices are down 3+% on the day. Why would that happen when the bulk of company news today was generally positive? At least on the surface the news was positive:
1. Bank of America posted .44 earnings per share vs. expectations of .04
2. Eli Lilly earnings were up 23% outpacing expectations.
3. Halliburton disappointed with earnings down 35% but that is due to the massive correction in the price of oil from a year ago.
Merger Activity:
4. Oracle is purchasing Sun Microsystems in a $7.4 billion deal.
5. Pepsi is buying two bottling companies for $6 billion.
6. Glaxo is purchasing Stiefel for $2.9 billion.
Leading economic indicators declined by .3 but that decline is offset by an improved reading from the prior month.
Then, why is the market down so much? Two reasons are promoted, but only one of them is getting proper coverage.
Market analysts supposedly are focused today on the ongoing increases in chargeoffs and writedowns on the loan portfolios in the banking industry. These loans consist of credit card loans, residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, and corporate loans.
I don’t buy this line of reasoning for today’s selloff. Increased chargeoffs and writedowns have been widely expected for a while. The level of reserves taken by the banks has been widely panned as being insufficient. Then why is the market down so much? (more…)
“Beholden to Failed Banksters”
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 9th, 2009 3:56 PM |
Any investor or manager with a degree of experience knows that the “first loss is the best loss.” What do I mean by that? Once the market detects a loss or a weakened position, the price for that asset will remain capped unless and until the asset is sold or liquidated. This price action occurs in every sector of every market.
Welcome to the world of global finance 2009. As banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and other financial entities deal with losses, we see a lack of aggressive posture being taken on dealing with these losses. Why? Once moral hazard is violated with a single entity, every other entity will look to violate it as well.
Immediate losses are forestalled in hopes that they will be covered or disguised. However, every loss ultimately must be recognized. By whom and how is the question.
At this juncture, more of the losses in our financial system are being directed toward the taxpayers. How? Via the wide array of government programs. What is the cost? A likely underperforming economy due to a lack of credit, and higher taxes to offset lower revenues. (more…)
Bank Stress Tests: Major Sham??
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 8th, 2009 11:35 AM |
Why is it urban school dropout rates are 50%? Well, I am sure there would be as many reasons for that horrendous statistic as there are dropouts. The fact of the matter is, though, the state of urban education has promoted a phenomena known as “social promotion.” If students aren’t qualified to do the work, testing has been gamed, standards have been lowered, and corners have been cut. As a result, urban education at this stage is an unmitigated disaster. What does this have to do with the current state of our economy and the world of finance? I am glad you asked.
If banks, much like students, are not required to pass rigorous testing, then “social promotion” in finance will produce results not unlike those in education–underperformance and ultimately an inability to compete on the global stage.
Against that backdrop, I personally looked forward to the results of the Bank Stress Tests. Let’s finally get an honest assessment of the “students.” Let’s see how they have performed and let’s project to see how they will perform!!
As with any test, the results are only meaningful if the process and proctor have unquestioned integrity. The proctors for the Bank Stress Test are none other than Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chair Ben Bernanke. Why is a testing authority of the magnitude of FDIC, led by Sheila Bair, not more involved in the process? Ms. Bair is the one individual in our country with the greatest level of interaction with and understanding of the student body, that being the banking industry as a whole and individual banks specifically. (more…)
Zombie & Co.
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 7th, 2009 5:45 AM |
I am no fan of George Soros. I often believe he does not draw a hard line between his political interests and his business interests. His active support with MoveOn.org has made a mockery of any attempt to achieve campaign finance reform.
That said, for those involved in global finance, whether you like George Soros or not, you need to know what he is thinking. Why? George Soros can move markets via his own investment strategies. Additionally, there is little doubt that George is the epicenter in a massive flow of market sensitive information.
To that end, Soros gave a stinging indictment of the change in the FASB’s mark-to-market by stating in a Bloomberg interview,
the change to fair-value accounting rules will keep troubled banks in business, stalling a recovery of the U.S. economy.
“This is part of the muddling through scenario where we are going to keep zombie banks alive,” Soros, 78, said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “It’s going to sap the energies of the economy.”
Is this statement a self-serving offering by Soros? Who knows? Is it an attempt to further promote the U.S. as a lessened power? Perhaps. That said, there are others, myself included, who believe the relaxation of the mark-to-market, especially for outfits like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) is nothing short of a charade.
Did Soros’ statement have an impact on the market? Not today. The dollar has been improving of late. However, over the longer haul, the cost of having a number of zombie-like banking institutions will be pressure on the dollar along with increased borrowing costs for the zombie institutions or Uncle Sam who will be backing them.
From a personal perspective, would you lend money to a zombie?
And now, here’s a must-watch little treat. Crank up your speakers . . .
LD
A Fraud By Any Other Name
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 6th, 2009 4:30 PM |
A few loyal readers have graciously shared video clips of interviews with former banking regulator, William K. Black. These interviews address the fact that a tremendous amount of mortgage originations at the core of our current economic turmoil were fraudulently underwritten. The borrowers were never qualified only then to fall upon hard times. The loans were often NINJA (No income check, No job check or asset check) and the fraud was more often committed by the lender than the borrower.
Why and how did this happen? Let’s briefly revisit my writing from November 12th:
At the turn of the century, the Wall Street model was a pure “originate to distribute” model with little to no residual risk on behalf of the originators or underwriters. When there is no residual risk, those who “WIN” are the players that can purely process the most volume. Well, how does one get volume? Lower the credit standards, put fewer restrictions on borrowers, little to no covenants (NINA Loans … no income, no asset check). WOW!!! What were we thinking?? Well Wall St. felt, “let’s worry about it tomorrow or maybe not at all because we are making too much money today.”
That money SUPPOSEDLY being made left tremendous risks on the books of the banks. The pursuit of ever greater SUPPOSED profits incorporated the use of CDS (credit default swaps) as synthetic collateral for structured deals. These CDS allowed for an enormous increase in volume and SUPPOSED profits. Don’t forget, though, at the core of the process a large percentage of the underlying loans were fraudulently underwritten. (more…)
Refinancing Risk Runs Rampant…Get To Higher Ground!
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 6th, 2009 10:27 AM |
The key for the global markets and economy is the ability to refinance outstanding debt. In the absence of a viable asset securitization market, will banks provide financing for current loans to be refinanced as they come due? Please remember the asset securitization market represented approximately 40% of total lending, so we are talking about a MAJOR segment of the market.
As banks assess applications for loan refinancings, they will impose ever more stringent underwriting standards as they will most likely put these loans on their books. Consumers, small businesses, and major corporations that do not have solid balance sheets and income statements will NOT get new financing. What happens to the existing loans that can’t get refinanced? The process is as such:
1. loan becomes delinquent
2. loan defaults
3. lender forecloses and takes possession of asset
4. lender attempts to liquidate asset via sale, pressuring valuation of assets in that sector.
5. original lender books loss on non-performing asset
What does it all mean? Losses on asset classes across the board. Can government programs plug the holes in the refinancing markets? Well, the Federal Reserve is known as the lender of last resort but their loans extend primarily to the banks themselves to plug holes in their balance sheets. The other governmental programs (TALF, PPIP) will hopefully restart the asset securitization markets and bring liquidity back in for refinancing. Will these programs hold the waves behind the dike? To a certain extent, but my recommendation is . . . get to higher ground. (more…)
