Mark-to-Market | Sense on Cents Sense on Cents

Archive for the ‘Mark-to-Market’ Category

Financial Chicanery and Accounting Charades

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 1st, 2009 11:38 AM |

Financial chicanery and accounting charades come in all shapes and sizes. From mismarking trading positions on Wall Street to running massive Ponzi schemes and with many other stops along the way, the games people play to accrue false profits and cover real losses are endless. That said, all this artifice ultimately does end as the true value, or lack thereof, of the underlying assets is flushed out. For this very reason, I remain extremely concerned about the economy and overly conservative in my approach to the markets.

While we could debate at length about the necessity and efficacy of the FASB’s relaxation of the mark-to-market accounting for bank assets, ultimately the accounting will not truly matter. Why? The value of the assets on the banks’ balance sheets will find their true level. In the process, the banks will be sufficiently capitalized, or not. My bet is that many more of these banks will not be sufficiently well capitalized. Additionally, do not expect bank examiners and regulators to share this information.

I see clear evidence of this exact scenario in reading Bloomberg’s esteemed columnist Jonathan Weil’s commentary, Banks Have Us Flying Blind on Depth of Losses:

There was a stunning omission from the government’s latest list of “problem” banks, which ran to 416 lenders, a 15-year high, as of June 30. One outfit not on the list was Georgian Bank, the second-largest Atlanta-based bank, which supposedly had plenty of capital.

It failed last week.

Georgian’s clean-up will be unusually costly. The book value of Georgian’s assets was $2 billion as of July 24, about the same as the bank’s deposit liabilities, according to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. press release. The FDIC estimates the collapse will cost its insurance fund $892 million, or 45 percent of the bank’s assets. That percentage was almost double the average for this year’s 95 U.S. bank failures, and it was the highest among the 10 largest ones.

Do you think Georgian Bank was a special situation that somehow slipped past the accountants, examiners, and regulators? If you believe that, I have some AAA sub-prime CDOs for you that really look like good value.

What do we learn with the failure of Georgian? As Weil attests:

The cost of Georgian’s failure confirms that the bank’s asset values were too optimistic. It also helps explain why the FDIC, led by Chairman Sheila Bair, is resorting to extraordinary measures to replenish its battered insurance fund.

How many other ‘Georgians’ are out there? Plenty. The material difference amidst the banking system is the composition of the loan and investment portfolios of different institutions. Despite the fact that the FASB, pressured by Congress and Wall Street, has allowed banks to utilize chicanery and charades to cloud our view, fortunately we have journalists like Jonathan Weil to provide some clarity.

Might we be able to get Mr. Weil to shed some light on “Analyst Exposes Wells Fargo Balance Sheet Charade”?

Tags: accounting frauds, bank accounting, Bank capital, bank regulators and bank examiners, concerns about the economy, failure of Gergian bank in Atlanta, false profits, FASB's relaxation of the mark to market, FDIC, FDIC insurance fund, financial artifice, financial chicanery, Jonathan Weil writes Banks Have Us Flying Blind on Depth of Losses, mismarking trading positions, Ponzi schemes, real losses, value of bank assets, Wells Fargo Balance Sheet, will banks be sufficently well capitalized
Posted in accounting, bank earnings, Bank Failure, FASB, FDIC, financial frauds, Forensic Accounting, General, Mark-to-Market, markets, Mortgage Crisis, Wall Street | 2 Comments »

Financial Cooking

Posted by Larry Doyle on July 5th, 2009 8:46 AM |

When business operations make money, it is due to the brains and intellect of management, correct? When business operations lose money, it is some sort of nefarious measure at work in the marketplace which can be ‘corrected’ by changing the rules, correct? The implementation of the relaxation of the FASB’s (Federal Accounting Standard Board’s) mark-to-market utilizes that thought process. Make no mistake, it is flawed and simply allows financial institutions to ‘manage earnings,’ otherwise known as “cook the books.”

We receive a whiff of this recipe in a report by the Wall Street Journal, Home Loan Banks See Net Income Decline 51%. I have maintained that the basic business model of the FHLBs is flawed and we see evidence of this in the fact that outstanding advances (loans) by the FHLBs to their member banks actually decreased in the 1st quarter of this year:

Total advances outstanding from the banks declined to $817.41 billion as of March 31 from $928.64 billion three months earlier. After surging in 2007 and early 2008, demand for those advances has slackened, partly because of the recession and partly because the federal government has offered alternative funding programs for commercial banks.

Without even maintaining the level of advances, the FHLB system is coming under increasing pressure to generate earnings in the face of increasing delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures on all of their holdings–advances, mortgage originations, and mortgage-backed securities purchased from Wall Street. (more…)

Tags: breakdown of FHLB portfolio, cooking the books by FHLB, earnings decline at FHLBs, FASB mark to market relaxation, FASB Mark-to-market, Federal Home Loan Banks, FHLB advances declining, FHLBs, Home Loan Banks See Net Income Decline, impact of increasing delinquencies, losses within FHLBs, relaxation of mark to market
Posted in FASB, Federal Home Loan Banks, General, Mark-to-Market | 5 Comments »

Wall Street – Washington: “Pay to Play”

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 3rd, 2009 7:46 AM |

In my opinion, the relaxation of the FASB’s (Federal Accouting Standards Board) mark-to-market rule was nothing more than a vehicle to allow banks to “cook their books.” The “cooking” of the books put the burner on a low simmer in order to allow the banks sufficient time to generate earnings. Those new earnings can and will be used to offset the currently embedded losses on the toxic assets still residing in the banking industry.

The FASB did not relax their accounting rule without enormous pressure applied by both the Wall Street and Washington chefs. The Wall Street Journal reports, Congress Helped Banks Defang Key Rule:

Not long after the bottom fell out of the market for mortgage securities last fall, a group of financial firms took aim at an accounting rule that forced them to report billions of dollars of losses on those assets.

Marshalling a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign, these firms persuaded key members of Congress to pressure the accounting industry to change the rule in April. The payoff is likely to be fatter bottom lines in the second quarter.

I have numerous questions and comments on this topic, including:

1. If this accounting rule was so insidious, why was “mark-to- market” accounting ever enacted in the first place?

Sense on Cents: As with any accounting rule, the “mark-to-market” was implemented to create transparency.

2. Are the toxic assets still on the bank books?

Sense on Cents: Most definitely. They are merely being masked via this relaxation.

3. Banks maintain the toxic assets don’t actively trade and, when they do, they trade at levels not reflective of their true values.

Sense on Cents: These assets have traded everyday and at levels assuming a heightened level of future defaults on the underlying mortgages. If the banks believe the market levels are not reflective of true value, then why haven’t they and global investors raised the funds to purchase these massively undervalued securities? Investors trust the market assumption of future defaults.

The WSJ reports:

Earlier this year, financial-services organizations put their lobbyists on the case. Thirty-one financial firms and trade groups formed a coalition and spent $27.6 million in the first quarter lobbying Washington about the rule and other issues, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public filings. They also directed campaign contributions totaling $286,000 to legislators on a key committee, many of whom pushed for the rule change, the filings indicate.

4. Wall Street paid approximately $28 million in contributions and lobbying to effect this accounting change. The banks made these payments while in receipt of billions of dollars of TARP funds (taxpayer/ government assistance). Did Wall Street effectively utilize taxpayer funds in order to “pay” Washington so the banks could continue “to play” their game?

Sense on Cents: In my opinion, most definitely!!

5. How long had the “mark-to-market” been in effect prior to its relaxation?

Sense on Cents: Decades. It worked just fine.

6. Why didn’t banks lobby in the 2000-2006 era that assets were being overvalued via this accounting standard?

Sense on Cents: Bank executives were being “paid” from those inflated valuations.

7. Given that the banks now utilize internal pricing models to value the toxic securities, are those models and their embedded assumptions made public so investors can have some degree of transparency?

Sense on Cents: NO!! Why would the banks want the “cooking” exposed?

In summary, this version of “pay to play” will be seen as a watershed event in the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam economy. Why will future economic growth underperform? The banking industry will be forced to continue to set aside reserves against the embedded toxic assets. In so doing, the banks will have less credit to extend to consumers and business.

For more on this topic, I submit:

Putting Perfume on a Pig
April 2nd; post written the day FASB relaxed the mark-to-market standard

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Deja Vu?
May 28th; post highlighting the massive embedded losses in the Federal Home Loan Bank system. These losses are masked by the relaxation of the mark-to-market.

Legalized Bribery
February 16th; post highlighting Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta implicating Washington politicians’ endless pursuit of money.

How Wall Street Bought Washington
March 9: post highlighting the massive money spent by Wall Street to curry influence in Washington.

Tags: accounting transparency, banks cooking the books, banks lobby to relax mark to market, Congressional pressure on FASB, cook the books, do toxic assets trade?, FASB, FASB mark to market relaxation, FASB Mark-to-market, FASB relaxation of mark to market, financial services lobbying, how are banks covering toxic assets, pay to play, relaxation of mark to market, Toxic Assets, toxic assets in banking industry, Wall Street and Washington pay to play, Wall Street payments to Washington
Posted in FASB, Federal Home Loan Banks, General, Government funds, Mark-to-Market | 1 Comment »

Citigroup’s Earnings: More Fuzzy Math

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 18th, 2009 9:21 AM |

In reviewing bank earnings this week, I truly get the sense with a number of institutions that they determine just how much they want or need to outperform analyst expectations and then they figure out how to “manage” the books in order to get there.

This “managed earnings” process can be played for an extended period, but ultimately the earnings – or more importantly “hidden losses” – come out in the wash.

Citigroup played this game yesterday. The NY Times reports, After Year of Losses, Citigroup Finds a Profit. I give the Times credit; they did not report that Citigroup generated a profit, but that they found it. Where did they find it? The Times offers:

Like several other banks that reported surprisingly strong results this week, Citigroup used some creative accounting, all of it legal, to bolster its bottom line at a pivotal moment.

Citi utilized creative accounting supported by the pressure applied by Congress on the FASB. Where is the pressure applied by the SEC and FINRA on behalf of investors? Isn’t it only fair that somebody speaks up for investors? Is the SEC and FINRA in bed with Congress to “play the game?” Let’s move on.

The top rated banking analyst on the street chimes in: (more…)

Tags: bank analysts, Citigroup, earnings reports, FASB, FASB Mark-to-market, Meredith Whitney, quality of earnings reports, transparency
Posted in Economy, FASB, General, Mark-to-Market | 1 Comment »

“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…)

Tags: Bank Stress Tests, Economy, jonathan Weil, losses in banking system, Moral Hazard, Obama Administration
Posted in Bailout, Bank Failure, Bank Stress Test, Banking Institutions, Congress, Current Affairs, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Employment, General, Mark-to-Market, Obama Administration, Risk, Wall Street | 5 Comments »

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 . . .