Sense on Cents

Dollar Devaluation Is a Dangerous Game

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 8th, 2009 9:24 AM |

Can we ‘devalue’ our way back to our days of economic ‘wine and roses?’

Many debt-laden countries throughout economic history have chosen to implicitly or explicitly pursue a devaluation of their currency as a means of improving their economies. Are the ‘wizards in Washington’ taking this approach? Aside from a few perfunctory comments in defense of the greenback, Washington has been largely silent on the topic of the declining value of the dollar. Many believe Washington very much favors a weaker currency as a means of supporting our economy. I believe this of Washington, as well. Let’s navigate.

Going back to the G20 in London last Spring, the Obama administration has attempted to curry political favor with emerging economies, especially the BRIC nations, by ceding dollar sovereigncy as the preeminent international reserve currency in return for support of global economic stimulus programs. Why does Washington believe a weak currency serves our economic interests? A weak currency generates and supports the following:

1. Promotes inflation as imports decline. Washington would like some inflation, given the massive deflationary pressures presented by falling wages and declines in the value of commercial and residential real estate.

2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.

3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas.

So, in light of our current economic crisis, why wouldn’t we want a substantially cheaper dollar to maximize these benefits?

Recall that economists always need to keep certain variables static in order to study the impact of a change in another variable or multiple variables. This approach, known as ‘ceteris paribus,’ is not quite as easy as some may think. Why? Variables are NEVER static, or ‘ceteris is NEVER paribus.’ Read the rest »

Comments (9)

Real-Time Information Is “Everything” on Wall Street

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 7th, 2009 3:45 PM |

One of the overriding reasons why I left First Boston in 1990 to join Bear Stearns was Bear’s advanced real-time risk management system. This system allowed me the ability to more proactively manage my trading risk. In the process, I was able to take more risk in the pursuit of greater profit. I became familiar with Bear’s system during the recruiting and interviewing process and was flabbergasted to realize how far behind First Boston was in its capabilities.

Real-time risk management and real-time data processing are critically important for thorough and proper oversight of any financial enterprise. A regulator will be lost in an attempt to maintain market oversight without the proper systems and access to real-time data.

Having heard and read of the systems deficiencies at both the SEC and FINRA, I am concerned at how far behind the curve these regulators are right now and how long it will take for them to recover.

While pondering this topic, I read in Securities Industry News that the SEC is looking to capture real-time data on derivatives transactions. This commentary, SEC Wants to Gather Real-Time Data on Swaps, addresses the exact topic I broached on July 17th in writing, “Can We ‘TRACE’ JP Morgan’s Business?” I wrote:

There is little to no transparency in the world of customized derivatives and as a result the bid-ask spreads are very wide. Cha-ching, cha-ching. Jamie (Dimon) and his friends on Wall Street are working extremely hard to keep it this way.

In their defense, it is likely not functionally feasible to move many customized derivatives to an exchange. What should regulators compel them to do? JP Morgan and every other financial firm on Wall Street should have to report every derivatives transaction to a system known as TRACE, which stands for Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. This system currently only covers transactions within the cash markets and not derivatives. What does that mean for investors? No transparency and price discovery for investors in the customized derivatives space. As such, Jamie and friends can keep those bid-ask spreads nice and wide and ring up huge profits in the process.

Securities Industry News writes:

The Securities and Exchange Commission told Congress today to grant regulators “direct access to real-time data” on credit default swaps (CDS) and other derivatives.

The request comes, the agency said, because the lack of such information hampered its efforts to investigate potential fraud and market manipulation in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets during last fall’s financial crisis.

The SEC’s enforcement actions in investigating market manipulation in OTC derivatives “were seriously complicated by the lack of a mechanism for promptly obtaining critical information – who traded, how much, and when – that is complete and accurate,” said Henry Hu, the director of the SEC’s new division of risk, strategy and financial innovation, in written testimony to the House Financial Services Committee.

Hu testified that “data on securities-related OTC derivative transactions were not readily available, and needed to be reconstructed manually.” He asked Congress to expand the SEC’s inspection authority over trade data repositories and clearinghouses for derivatives.

The comments represented a rebuke to industry efforts aimed thus far at making more information on CDS and other OTC derivatives data more readily available.

What do we learn here? Information is EVERYTHING!! Wall Street is fighting tooth and nail to protect its golden goose within the derivatives space by hoarding this information.

Why is the SEC even asking for the information? If anybody in Washington truly had a set of cojones, they would merely TELL Wall Street how it is going to work going forward . . . take the information, and fulfill their responsibility to protect the public interest.

Comments (4)

Revisiting the Weakest Link

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 7th, 2009 12:44 PM |

Are all regions of the world improving? Will Asia lead the globe to greener pastures and brighter days? Well, if so, the trek through the fields will not be easy and we will encounter many storms along the way.

While Australia’s raising rates yesterday is an indication of an improving economy in that country, as one moves out of Asia into eastern Europe we encounter a decidedly different dynamic. Let’s revisit the ‘weakest link,’ that being Eastern Europe in general and the Baltic nation of Latvia specifically.

I initially addressed the economic weakness in this part of the world last February in writing, “The Weakest Link.” Today, we learn that Latvian Currency Scare Rattles Markets:

The Swedish krona and a range of eastern European currencies have tumbled as Latvia appears to edge closer to devaluing its currency.

In a re-run of the last major devaluation scare, Latvia failed to attract any bids for one of its treasury bill auctions earlier Wednesday. The country’s treasury received no bids for its offer to sell eight million lats ($16.7 million) of paper maturing in April 2010.

The poor auction results are the latest sign of economic stress in the Baltic nation, where the government is struggling to meet budget cuts required by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and other bilateral lenders in return for aid.

The Swedish krona, linked to Latvia through Sweden’s large banking exposure to the country, tumbled as news of the failed auction emerged. The euro extended earlier gains to reach a peak at SEK10.3670 against the krona.

Meanwhile, Europe’s emerging market currencies, which often suffer from nerves over risk when Latvia’s problems intensify, also fell.

The euro soared to over HUF269 against the highly risk-sensitive Hungarian forint, from under HUF267 at the start of the day. The euro also swept to over PLN4.24 against the Polish zloty, from a low of PLN4.18.

The Turkish lira and, to a lesser degree, the Czech koruna, also weakened. The failed bond auction was “not good news,” said Nigel Rendell, a European emerging markets strategist at RBC Capital Markets in London.

“It has all the makings of the final chapter in the Latvian story,” he added. In credit markets, the cost of insuring Latvian sovereign debt against default continued to climb from recent levels, in a sign that investors are increasingly uncomfortable with the outlook for the country. Regional peers Lithuania and Estonia, which also peg their currencies to the euro, saw their swaps spreads widen.

Still, the debt and currency markets shouldn’t be overly troubled by Latvian devaluation risk, as the threat has been building for some time, and the global financial markets are now much more robust than they were several months ago.

“If they did devalue, there would be a selloff [in eastern European assets], but the impact would not be as severe as it would have been six to nine months ago,” said Mr. Rendell at RBC. “If we had big currency moves, I think people would buy them back,” he added.

Devaluation is also unlikely to catch the Swedish banks off guard. To brace for the potential onslaught of defaulting customers, both Swedbank AB and Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB have set up Baltic units to deal with problem loans and seized collateral.

While officials may care to discount the impact of a full blown devaluation of the Latvian currency, the interconnectedness of the global markets has proven to be more of a risk propellant rather than a risk mitigant. How so? The use of derivatives across currency and credit markets has been shown to be as much speculative in nature as pure hedging. In fact, there certainly are market participants who will benefit by a Latvian devaluation.

Can that devaluation, if it does occur, be well contained?

I’ll be watching.

Related Sense on Cents Commentary

Let’s Cross the Pond and Revist the Weakest Link (May 23, 2009)

Comments (1)

U.S. Markets Play “Follow the Leader”

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 7th, 2009 9:40 AM |

Yesterday’s rise in rates by the Australian central bank is a bellweather sign of the global shift in the balance of economic power. While the rise in rates by the Aussies is the first central bank move, it certainly will not be the last. Why did the Aussies raise rates and what does it mean both in the short term and for the long haul? Let’s navigate.

The Australian economy did not have near the level of debt that burdens the U.S. and Europe and thus they did not need near the amount of monetary stimulus to weather this global recession. Additionally, Australia has benefited from extensive trade in the Asian hemisphere.

The knee jerk reaction in the markets was focused primarily on a selloff in the greenback which supported a move higher in commodities and global equities via the ‘positive carry trade.’ The commodity which garnered the greatest focus was gold, which moved toward $1040/ounce.

What do these moves mean? I see cross currents on the economic landscape, including:

1. The dollar may not necessarily continue to weaken, but given its current weakness it will support those companies which garner a greater degree of sales overseas.

2. A weak dollar is usually affiliated with inflation. I do not think we are in a position to look at prices in terms of one overall index. Why? Given the technical and fundamental factors in our economy, certain price components will likely project increased inflation while others will not.

To be more specific, given the labor situation in our country, I do not see any appreciable increase in wages anytime soon. In fact, I think it is likely wages will trend lower.

Given the glut of supply and vacancies in both the residential and commercial real estate markets, I have a tough time believing these prices will move appreciably higher anytime soon.

Commodities may very well move higher. Why? High five to MC for sharing with me that there is increased dialogue in the international trade community to move oil away from trading in dollars. In fact, that story likely had a big impact in yesterday’s trading. Even if there is not an immediate shift in this market dynamic, the mere fact that it is being discussed will support oil specifically, oil-based products broadly, and other commodities as well.

Given that these commodities are primarily inputs, the prices for the outputs will likely move higher. This development is clearly inflationary.

3. What happens to interest rates here in the United States? While on one hand we have some deflationary forces at work which would keep rates low, we have the tug of other factors pushing them higher. How does it play out? My gut instinct tells me that overall pools of capital will be flowing away from the United States and, as such, people and private corporations will have to pay more to attract capital here in our country. I think those entities which focus the bulk of their economic activity here in the United States will be forced to pay higher rates to attract funding.

4. What about our equity markets and the Fed? While the Fed will want to keep our rates low for an ‘extended period,’ they may not have that luxury. If other nations follow Australia in raising rates, the U.S. may need to withdraw some liquidity sooner rather than later. Kansas City Fed chair Thomas Hoenig made this very assertion yesterday.

What would higher rates mean or even the thought of higher rates mean? Slower growth and a tough road for equities going forward.

Thoughts, comments, questions always appreciated.

Related Sense on Cents Commentary

Dollar Carry Trade Drives Global Equities (September 16, 2009)

Comments (3)

Cash Strapped Seniors Beware!!

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 6th, 2009 2:53 PM |

Tapping home equity was a prime driver in leading us into our current economic crisis. The same dynamic with an added twist may very well be setting the table for another round of fraud and accompanying problems.

I refer to the housing finance product known as a reverse mortgage. This product is targeted primarily at our senior citizens who are cash strapped. Rest assured many a mortgage banker who is currently hard pressed to generate fees and earnings will attempt to take Grandma and Grandpa ‘to the hoop’ with this product.

While many quality professionals within the mortgage industry will work to highlight the potential pitfalls with reverse mortgages, do not think for a second that those messages will make their way to every customer.

Bloomberg highlights that our legal profession is starting to take notice of this ‘racket’ and writes, Reverse Mortgages May Be ‘Subprime Revisited’:

Reverse mortgages may be the next subprime crisis, according to the National Consumer Law Center.

Some of the same U.S. lenders that helped drive the real estate boom with loans to home buyers who couldn’t afford the payments are now targeting seniors, the center said. Brokers, who are given financial incentives to sell the loans, may be making misleading claims to potential customers, according to a report released today by the Boston-based NCLC.

“This market is designed to serve seniors, so when we find abuses cropping up and migrating from the subprime market to the senior market, that sounds an especially loud warning bell,” said Rick Jurgens, an advocate at the National Consumer Law Center, who contributed to the report.

Reverse mortgages enable people aged 62 and over who are looking for extra cash to use the equity in their homes and receive lump-sum payments, periodic checks, a line of credit, or a combination of the three. Lenders are repaid from the sale of the home when the borrowers die or move.

The former maximum payout for reverse mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration was $417,000. That limit was increased temporarily to $625,500 in February. Origination fees are capped at $6,000. In 2008, more than 100,000 seniors used reverse mortgages to tap over $17 billion in home equity, according to the Housing and Urban Development Department.

I implore anybody who reads this commentary to fully explore the implied mortgage rate and home appraisal values utilized with reverse mortgages.

Any questions, please do not hesitate to ask or to utilize the mortgage primers (in the left sidebar) here at Sense on Cents to learn more about this product.

Comments (1)

Increasing Vacancy Rates Will Pressure Both the Rental Market and Home Values

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 6th, 2009 11:42 AM |

You do not need to take Economics 101 to understand that an increase in supply of any asset will almost always lead to a decline in prices. This ‘tremendous grasp of the obvious’ in regard to housing runs right in the face of assertions put forth by many real estate brokers and housing experts.

High five to our friends at 12th Street Capital for bringing attention to The Wall Street Journal‘s writing, Apartment Glut Expands:

Signs advertise apartments for rent in San Francisco in July. Rents declined during the third quarter, usually a strong period for rentals. (Getty Images)

Apartment vacancies hit their highest point since 1986, surging in cities from Raleigh, N.C., to Tacoma, Wash., as rising unemployment continued to chip away at demand during the traditionally strong summer rental months.

The U.S. vacancy rate reached 7.8%, a 23-year high, according to Reis Inc., a New York real-estate research firm that tracks vacancies and rents in the top 79 U.S. markets. The rate is expected to climb further in the fall and winter, when rental demand is weaker, pushing vacancies to the highest levels since Reis began its count in 1980.
Read the rest »

Comments (0)

Wall Street Compensation Reform in Name Only

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 6th, 2009 9:27 AM |

Say what you want about movie producer Michael Moore, but he is no fool in tapping into the American spirit. Moore takes on Wall Street in highlighting the enormous bank bailouts emanating from this economic crisis. While there are many factors that drove our banking industry and our economy to its knees, ultimately the Wall Street compensation system allowed those taking risk to ‘swing for the fences’ while playing ‘heads we win, tails you lose.’ Washington is going to fix this, right? Having appointed a pay czar in Ken Feinberg, the Obama administration is going to address the crux of this critical issue and reform it, right? I mean, The Wall Street Journal this very morning profiles how Pay Czar Targets Salary Cuts:

The Obama administration’s pay czar is planning to clamp down on compensation at firms receiving large sums of government aid by cutting annual cash salaries for many of the top employees under his authority, according to people familiar with the matter.

Instead of awarding large cash salaries, Kenneth Feinberg is planning to shift a chunk of an employee’s annual salary into stock that cannot be accessed for several years, these people said. Such a move, the most intrusive yet into corporate compensation, would mark the government’s first effort to curb the take-home pay of everyone from auto executives to financial traders.

Folks, with all due respect to Ken Feinberg, these efforts to implement reform in Wall Street compensation practices are largely a joke. Why? While the subtitle of the WSJ’s article includes the term ‘compensation,’ Feinberg’s focus is limited to the term in the title, that being ‘salary.’ Read the rest »

Comments (0)

“Cash for Clunkers” Final Grade: F

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 5th, 2009 3:31 PM |

How did that “Cash for Clunkers” program ultimately grade out? While auto dealers were relishing the traffic that overwhelmed their showrooms, the fact is the program was nothing short of a government redistribution charade masked as an economic stimulus. If this type of program is the best we can do, we are in worse shape politically and economically than I thought.

While some pundits would sing the praises of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, fundamentally I have a difficult time understanding how real value is created when current value is destroyed in the process. Additionally, there was never a doubt that this program was merely pulling demand forward. How do we know this?

U.S. auto sales declined 23% for the month of September on a year over year basis. Sales for GM (-45%) and Chrysler (-42%) vehicles declined precipitously while Ford (-5%) declined only marginally. What does that indicate? Car buyers want to purchase a vehicle in which they have confidence in the manufacturer.

The Wall Street Journal sheds further light on this ‘clunker’ in writing, Clunkers In Practice:

Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best “the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.

The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing assets that are still productive, in this case cars that still work. Under the program, auto dealers were required to destroy the car engines of trade-ins with a sodium silicate solution, then smash them and send them to the junk yard. As the journalist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic, “Economics in One Lesson,” you can’t raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.

In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices. The people who really belong in the junk yard are the wizards in Washington who peddled this economic malarkey.

I concur. What do you think?

Comments (3)

Did Uncle Sam Intentionally Mislead the American Public?

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 5th, 2009 12:40 PM |

“You can’t handle the truth!!”

While the above line by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men may have made for good theatre, it makes for lousy public policy. Regrettably, Uncle Sam has utilized that approach in its initial disbursement of funds via the TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program). That opinion is not strictly mine (although I do agree with it), but rather that of Neil Barofsky, the inspector general charged with overseeing the bank bailouts.

The New York Times sheds light on Barofsky’s feelings this morning in writing, Inspector’s Report on Bailouts Says Treasury Misled Public:

The inspector general who oversees the government’s bailout of the banking system is criticizing the Treasury Department for some misleading public statements last fall and raising the possibility that it had unfairly disbursed money to the biggest banks.

A Treasury official made incorrect statements about the health of the nation’s biggest banks even as the government was doling out billions of dollars in aid, according to a report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program to be released on Monday by the special inspector general, Neil M. Barofsky.

There is NO doubt that Uncle Sam, in the persons of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers et al, has little confidence that the American public can handle the truth about the overall health of our banking industry.

That said, the lack of transparency and integrity as highlighted by Mr. Barofsky does not come without a cost. What is that cost? Lessened confidence in our regulators and our markets going forward.

I addressed these very topics of financial regulatory transparency and integrity on my radio show last evening. In the process of interviewing former SEC attorney Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, I made the following comment in regard to the statement put forth a month ago by SEC Inspector General David Kotz dealing with the SEC’s failures on the Madoff investigation. I said:

If that is the kind of face saving self-serving approach, people are going to call foul on it. The real cost is, and I think we are bearing this cost right now whether with the SEC or with FINRA, if you’re not going to be honest with us how can we fully trust that you’ll be honest on a going forward basis?

Now I’ll grant you I guess we don’t have much choice. What are we going to scrap the entire SEC or scrap the entire FINRA and start from scratch? Some people may say that’s what we want to do, but that’s obviously not going to happen.

It does get to the point where there’s got to be total transparency. There’s got to be total integrity. There’s got to be total accountability and if people haven’t done the job or are incapable of doing the job then you know what, for the long haul – and I’m not talking about the next six months but rather the next ten, fifteen, twenty years – people got to go and other people got to come!!

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot responded:

“I agree. That’s true.”

How about you, what do you think? Can you handle the truth? Wouldn’t you like to be given the opportunity?

Note: the views expressed by Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot during last night’s show are her own personal views and do not in any way reflect her position as an employee of the Federal Reserve Board.

Comments (1)

Beware of Money Managers ‘Talking Their Book’

Posted by Larry Doyle on October 5th, 2009 9:02 AM |

“Oh, come on, Larry, you are just ‘talking your book.'”

I can hear those sentiments ringing in my ears from many Wall Street salespeople with whom I dealt over the years. What trader doesn’t talk his book? For those unfamiliar with this phrase, it is used when a trader or money manager offers a heavily biased view of the market and economy. While it would be naive to think that individuals aren’t biased by their business in developing their opinions, the challenge for investors is to weigh the opinion in light of the bias. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of flying blind.

I see evidence of ‘talking one’s book’ in commentary provided by Bloomberg, Stock Seers Say Gross 5% May Only Be Normal In Debt,

Wall Street projections for the fastest U.S. profit growth in two decades are putting some of the biggest equity investors at odds with Bill Gross.

Money managers are betting that more than two years of declining earnings, the longest stretch since the Great Depression, will end in 2010 when net income rises 26 percent before expanding 22 percent in 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Gross, who oversees the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co., says the economy won’t grow fast enough to sustain the steepest rally since the 1930s and equity returns will be limited to 5 percent a year.

Both Gross and the equity managers are in a perpetual battle for investor assets, the lifeblood of any money management operation.

One would be ill advised not to study the opinions of those involved in managing the largest equity and bond funds in the markets. These funds can move markets given their very size. That said, we need to weigh the manager’s opinions in the context of a wide array of other vastly more important variables. What are these variables and how do they impact my thought process in making investment decisions?

I initially develop an opinion about the economy. From there, I think about respective weightings I would like to allocate to different segments of the market (equities, bonds, cash, real estate, alternative assets). At that point, I review money managers to select those whom I deem to be the best. Only at that juncture would I seriously consider the thoughts and opinions of the money manager so I can most effectively make investment decisions.

I will often immediately dismiss money managers who have never offered opinions which run counter to their business.

Talking one’s book is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would seriously discount a money manager who is not able to make a compelling case for his business. That said, as investors we need to be able to minimize the static and eliminate the noise that comes from managers ‘talking their book.’

Comments (1)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »