RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeMum’s the Word
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 10th, 2009 12:40 PM |
The movie Goodfellas provides a wealth of material for comparative analysis of the markets. The “insider activity,” the “fooling around,” “the payoffs,” and “the gambling” all make for great drama on the screen. Truth be told, one does not have to look all that hard to find striking similarities to certain activities in the world of Wall Street, and for that matter, Washington.
One of my favorite scenes in the movie occurs after the boys make the big heist. Immediately, the word is put out to keep your mouths shut and no indications of newfound wealth.
Back to reality. In terms of “putting the fix” into the world of our major money center banks, isn’t the relaxation of the mark-to- market the “newfound wealth”? Isn’t the “keep your mouths shut” the equivalent of the Treasury telling the banks not to comment on results of the Bank Stress Test? Speaking of the Bank Stress Tests, Bloomberg reports:
The U.S. Federal Reserve has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other banks to keep mum on the results of “stress tests” that will gauge their ability to weather the recession, people familiar with the matter said.
The Fed wants to ensure that the report cards don’t leak during earnings conference calls scheduled for this month. Such a scenario might push stock prices lower for banks perceived as weak and interfere with the government’s plan to release the results in an orderly fashion later this month.
Clearly the Fed and Treasury are trying to keep their “boys” quiet and lay low while the real regulators of the market, that being honest investors, are walking the beat.
If any of the boys talk, then the leaders of the family won’t be able to coordinate the stories and hoodwink the public.
Whatever happened to, “as long as you tell the truth, you don’t have to worry about having a bad memory”?
It seems we are operating much more in the realm of, “well, I can tell you but . . . ”
The Goodfellas: Henry Hill, Jimmy Conway, Paul Cicero, and Tommy DeVito
Henry . . . Jimmy . . . Paulie . . . Tommy . . .
Please let me know who in our government and world of finance are most appropriate to play each of these individuals? Let’s have some fun.
“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…)
Big Brother
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 4th, 2009 8:45 PM |
Long term financial health and well being is predicated on fiscal discipline, core values, and strong management. These principles are necessary for major corporations and also individual family units. The market has a means of rewarding corporate units that practice these principles and punishing those that don’t. Enter into the world of finance 2009 when a number of financial units (Citi, AIG, Freddie, Fannie) are kept alive despite not practicing those principles.
Both shareholders and employees of these companies bear the risk of being connected to such institutions. It remains a challenge as to how to operate these institutions in the context of truly free and open markets. In light of these challenges, it is no surprise why other organizations would not want to have Uncle Sam as a partner. (more…)
Putting Perfume on a Pig!!
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 2nd, 2009 9:45 AM |
***Bumped up from original publication time of 7:30AM. The FASB has now just voted its approval of the change in mark-to-market accounting.
It is speculated that the FASB (Federal Accounting Standards Board) will today relax its rule known as the mark-to-market. This rule requires firms under the FASB’s purview to mark their assets to changing market prices on an ongoing basis. The institutions subject to this rule have been lobbying FASB and Congress for a change because the markets for these assets have imploded and in certain cases totally dried up.
What does the FASB plan to do? The FASB is going to cave to the lobbying pressure and will allow institutions to use their own internal models based upon cash flow analysis to price these assets. This change in the mark-to-market will not only allow institutions the flexibility to not mark down certain assets, but simultaneously mark up other assets.
The media only presents the impacted assets as “hard to value” or the dreaded “mortgage-backed securities” or “securitized assets”. In fact, many of these assets are very simple and plain vanilla. Let’s enter the world of the Federal Home Loan Banks.
The FHLB system consists of 12 regional banks and it provides liquidity (capital) for its respective members to operate. The FHLB system invests its own capital, primarily in plain vanilla conventional mortgages (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae) and Jumbo ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages) and fixed-rate pass-thrus. Certain banks within the FHLB system may have moved slightly off the plain vanilla path to purchase a small percentage of sub-prime assets, but that was much more the exception than the norm. (more…)
Mr. Geithner, “I Want Some More”
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 30th, 2009 5:15 AM |
Poor Oliver Twist faced the wrath of the workhouse master when he asked for more soup. Why is it that certain banks do not face similar wrath when they go back to Uncle Sam for more “bread” with the soup?
They want more??!!
I have commented extensively on the banks’ need for more capital. Bernanke and Geithner now share that the banking industry has significant embedded losses which need more capital: Geithner Says Some Banks to Need ‘Large Amounts’ of Assistance.
Over and above this fact, it is now widely speculated that significant revenues at certain banks (Citi and BofA) were generated in the last few months via unwinding exposure to AIG. In short, AIG entered into massive transactions with these banks to eliminate further exposure on pre-existing trades. In the process, AIG (taxpayers) incurred larger losses while these banks generated large profits. Why would AIG do this? It’s part of a “going out of business sale” and executed with a “volume discount.”
As an investor, though, am I supposed to think that bank revenues are improving because of positive trends in the economy? No way.
Risks remain extraordinarily high. To that end, I STRONGLY encourage people to listen to the audio recording or the podcast of my interview with Michael Panzner from last evening. Michael has had the economy and the market called for the last few years. His books are comprehensive in laying out a sobering reality and potentially a daunting future.
LD
Public-Private Partnership? or “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 23rd, 2009 9:22 AM |
An oversimplified view of the proposed private-public partnership for investors to purchase toxic assets from banks is as follows:
A couple (private investor) looking for a home finds a piece of property (toxic asset) that seems very appealing. A mortgage broker (the government) is indicating that he can preapprove some very attractive financing terms. The mortgage broker also indicates that he can fortuitously provide a large cushion against potential losses on the property. The buyers inquire how that cushion may work. The broker informs them that he has access to funds from all the other homeowners (taxpayers) in town to offer as incentive to sell this property and others like it.
The couple’s interest increases, but they start to wonder what’s the catch as the property has been on the market for a while.
Upon further review, the prospective buyer discovers that the property may have structural issues. In hearing that, they think about scaling back a potential bid on the property. The broker pressures them to the point where the couple starts personally disliking the broker. (more…)
Audio Recording: NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 22nd, 2009 9:36 PM |
In case you missed LD’s Sunday night radio show, just click on the Play button below for the audio recording. Once the playback has started, you can fast forward or rewind to any portion of the show by clicking at any point along the play bar.
The first portion of the show included a review of the markets and an in-depth analysis of the very critical challenges facing the insurance industry.
The second half of the show included an interview with Chuck Doyle of Business Capital in San Francisco. Chuck is one of the leading professionals in the field of debt restructuring and recapitalization.
Sunday night, March 22nd, 2009
NoQuarter Radio’s “Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle”
