RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeCitigroup Still Milking Uncle Sam
Posted by Larry Doyle on September 16th, 2009 11:42 AM |
A number of banking institutions have repaid Uncle Sam’s TARP funds. The truth be told, a few of these institutions never wanted Uncle Sam’s money in the first place. Now we learn that the biggest financial beneficiary of Uncle Sam’s largesse, that being Citigroup, wants to begin discussions for Uncle Sam’s exit.
Be mindful that Uncle Sam (that’s you and me, boys and girls) owns upwards of 40% of Citi and that this giant would be dead and buried without Sam’s bailout. If I am Citi, I would also like to get out from under the grand old Uncle’s watch. The Wall Street Journal highlights this story in writing, Citigroup Explores Bid to Pare U.S. Stake:
Citigroup Inc., eager to shed the stigma of being a ward of the state, is working on a plan to reduce the U.S. government’s 34% stake.
Top Citigroup executives have been devising plans for a possible multibillion-dollar stock offering in which the New York company would issue new shares to the public, while the Treasury Department would sell at least a portion of its Citigroup holdings, according to people familiar with the matter.
Citigroup hasn’t held in-depth talks with the government. Over the weekend, Citigroup called a Treasury official and said the company wanted to start talking about paring down the Treasury investment, according to people familiar with the matter. On the call, Citigroup officials said they planned to raise outside capital in order to repay the outstanding bailout funds. Treasury officials responded to Citi that they didn’t object to the company paying back Washington as long as Citi first raised offsetting capital, these people said.
![[citigroup bailout]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-AY766_CITI_NS_20090914190901.gif)
It is regrettable that the WSJ did not juxtapose this story of Citigroup’s grand vision to regain its independence with the fact that Citigroup continues to milk Uncle Sam via the FDIC-backed debt program. What is that?
The FDIC-backed debt allows Citigroup to issue debt which is effectively government guaranteed. In the process, Citi generates a significant cost savings because this debt falls into the ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ category. How much of this ‘milk’ did Citi just suck? Try a nice steady stream totalling $5 billion. The Financial Times sheds some light on this ‘stall’ in writing, Citi Raises $5 Billion in Bail-Out Bonds:
People close to the situation said Citi was in early talks with the US Treasury over a plan that would enable the company to raise capital by selling shares and enable the authorities to pare their holding.
But Citi’s decision to sell two and three-year bonds backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation could reinforce the perception that the bank, which has received $45bn in federal aid, is still not back to full health.
The hypocrisy of it all is par for the course, but for Citi, this milk tastes Mmmm…Mmmmm good!!
LD
Auctions Across America
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 28th, 2009 4:07 PM |
How does an entity sell a massive amount of assets? Individual sales are too time consuming. Personal negotiations would be too onerous. How about utilizing the internet and engaging a wider audience? That is, in fact, exactly what is happening as America goes on sale via auctions. That’s right, folks.
From the state of California to small banks and all points in between, there are and will be ongoing liquidations via auctions for the foreseeable future.
How does one receive a list of items for sale? Check out the following to start:
>> Great California Garage Sale held by the California Department of General Services.
I have two rhetorical questions:
1. What will these auctions mean for consumer spending and retail sales going forward?
2. What will these auctions mean for the pace of inventory buildup?
All part of the new dynamic within the Uncle Sam economy.
Have fun shopping.
LD
Uncle Sam:Geppetto as Citi and BofA:Pinocchio
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 16th, 2009 1:32 PM |
If you did not think we are entering into a Brave New World of an Uncle Sam economy, then today is a day which should help change your mind.
Independent Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, would like a return to business as usual. Their outsized profits are nothing more than “to the victors go the spoils.” They will fight and lobby to make sure they get to take home these 
profits in the form of compensation.
Meanwhile back in the toy shop, Geppetto (in the form of Uncle Sam) is pulling the strings and watching Pinocchio (in the form of Citigroup and Bank of America) dance along. While Geppetto has been exceptionally busy, the taxpaying public has been kept very much in the dark. We see evidence of Geppetto’s ‘dark workroom‘ on three fronts today.
1. The Wall Street Journal offers Lawmakers Spread Blame on Merrill Deal:
House lawmakers lambasted former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis on Thursday, suggesting officials looked the other way as major mistakes at the bank required a $20 billion bailout of the firm at the expense of taxpayers.
“While all of this was going on, the American people, investors and the Congress were kept in the dark,”(LD’s highlight) said Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.), suggesting negotiations over the bank completing its deal for Merrill Lynch & Co. was a “good, old-fashioned Brooklyn shakedown.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio), citing internal Federal Reserve documents obtained by the committee, said Mr. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke ignored evidence that bank management had withheld material information from shareholders, as well as indications that Mr. Lewis’s management of Bank of America “was seriously deficient.”
While Paulson is being grilled, there is little doubt that he believes he did what was in the best interest of the country and the economy – – if not necessarily the interests of Bank of America shareholders. Paulson offered that he was not qualified to provide a legal opinion on his engagement with Lewis.
2. If there were ever any doubt about Geppetto’s lack of confidence in Ken Lewis (aka Pinocchio), it is brought to bear today by news of a ‘secret regulatory sanction’ imposed upon him and the BofA board. The WSJ highlights U.S. Regulators to BofA: Obey or Else:
Bank of America Corp. is operating under a secret regulatory sanction that requires it to overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management, according to people familiar with the situation.
Rarely disclosed publicly, the so-called memorandum of understanding gives banks a chance to work out their problems without the glare of outside attention. Financial institutions that fail to address deficiencies can be slapped with harsher penalties that include a publicly announced cease-and-desist order.
The order was imposed in early May, shortly after shareholders of the Charlotte, N.C., bank stripped Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis of his duties as chairman. Bank of America faces a series of deadlines, some at the end of July and others in August, these people said.
3. In the final act of today’s puppet show, we also learn from the Financial Times Citi Close to Secret Deal with Regulator:
Citigroup is close to a secret agreement with one of its main regulators that will increase scrutiny of the US bank and force it to fix financial, managerial and governance issues.
The proposed agreement requires, among other things, that Citi strengthens its board and governance, improves asset quality, better manages expenses and provides more information to regulators on its capital and liquidity, these people added.
The regulator’s action highlights concern over Citi’s financial health, governance and the strength of its management team, led by Vikram Pandit, chief executive. The FDIC is known to be frustrated with the slow pace of Citi’s “toxic” assets sales, its losses and the lack of commercial banking experience at the top.
What are we to learn from all of these developments? Very simply, do not accept anything at face value at this stage in our new economy. There is a reason why Geppetto is working in the dark. That is, the embedded losses in these institutions would sink these firms if not the entire economy.
Historical measures of value and economic behavior need to be looked at in the context of how Geppetto is pulling the strings!!
Enjoy the show!!
LD
Rep. Edolphus Towns on Bernanke’s Testimony: “Something Rotten in the Cotton”
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 26th, 2009 11:05 AM |
Rep. Edolphus Towns
I commend Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Rep. Town’s closing statement at yesterday’s Congressional hearing culminated some riveting theatre. That said, this is not a one act play. Rep. Towns highlights the need to dig deeper in exposing what truly happened in the midst of the Bank of America takeover of Merrill Lynch. Towns finished the hearing with this Closing Statement:
At the outset of this hearing, I said that it’s time to shine some light on the events surrounding Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
At this point, I would say we’ve gotten a peek, but we don’t have full sunshine yet.
I would make three observations:
1. There are significant inconsistencies between what we have been told today, what we were told two weeks ago by Ken Lewis, and what the Fed’s internal emails seem to say.
2. It is still unclear whether Bank of America was forced by the Federal government to go through with the Merrill deal, or whether Ken Lewis pulled off what may have been the greatest financial shakedown of all time; and
3. As a result of this hearing, we have learned that the SEC and FDIC played a role in this transaction.
Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has agreed to appear before this Committee in July and I look forward to that hearing.
But we also need to hear from the FDIC and the SEC, so that we can better understand what happened during the dark days of last December.
Will Congress and the Obama administration look to pursue these ‘inconsistencies?’ Will the parties to these conversations collectively be brought together so these inconsistencies can be addressed? Will the American public once again be subjected to an accusation by one party to a conversation claiming the other party misremembered?
In true Joe Friday fashion, Rep. Ed Towns echoes my sentiments:
The immediate reaction to Bernanke’s testimony is less than positive. The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch ‘play’ could very well be a preview to the Fed as the uber-regulator for systemic risk. Sense on Cents strongly believes the Fed should not occupy that role. Why? Throw any concept of an independent Federal Reserve right out the window. Bloomberg addresses this prospect in, Bernanke Grilling May Weaken Case for Expanded Powers:
Bernanke failed to resolve some lawmakers’ questions on whether the Fed bullied executives and stepped over other regulators in the name of financial stability in a three-hour congressional hearing yesterday.
Criticisms by members of both parties are likely to diminish support for the Obama administration’s plan to make the Fed the single agency responsible for the largest and most interconnected financial institutions.
“There’s something rotten in the cotton here — no ifs, ands or buts about it,” Representative Edolphus Towns, a New York Democrat who chairs the House Oversight Committee, told reporters after the hearing. “There was a forced situation, a shotgun wedding” and “we’re just trying to find out who had the shotgun.”
Will it be business as usual in Washington or will the American public truly learn if Ben Bernanke and possibly Hank Paulson abused their powers.
Don’t recall? Misremembered? Just the facts, please!
LD
Let’s Give Barack Some Sense on Cents
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 16th, 2009 9:16 AM |
In true Washington fashion, Obama’s proposed regulatory reforms have been “leaked” to the market. Let’s review, analyze, and critique. The Wall Street Journal provides a very helpful overview of these reforms via Blueprint to Avoid Market Meltdowns:
President Barack Obama spent the first five months of his presidency trying to make sure the worst financial shock in 70 years didn’t push the U.S. economy into a depression. He will spend the next five months or so trying to redo the rules of finance so we don’t go through this again.
Enough of the Obama plan has leaked to see how Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief White House economist Lawrence Summers propose to protect the economy from the vulnerabilities now so painfully evident: Plug the gaps; don’t redo the organization chart. Rely heavily on the sagacity of the Federal Reserve; the alternatives are inferior. Craft a plan that has a chance of getting through Congress.
Will there be real “change” involved in Obama’s plans or a mere reshuffling of the deck chairs along with a healthy dose of Monday morning quarterbacking? Will the Wall Street-Washington cabal be exposed or solidified? Let’s navigate the landscape of Obama’s proposed reforms using the WSJ’s blueprint:
Problem: Several financial firms were so big and intertwined that their failure threatened the entire system, and they weren’t all banks.
Solution: Pump up the Fed’s role in overseeing all big “financial holding companies,” giving it explicit authority to match its responsibility. Tell it to protect the system, not only the sturdiness of the banking units of these firms. Brace for controversy: Some in Congress already think the Fed is too powerful.
So propose a “council” of regulators to share some duties, but make the Fed the heavy. (Retain the Fed’s ability to lend to anyone in a crisis, as it did to Bear Stearns and American International Group, but require it to get the formal OK of the Treasury secretary.)
Sense on ¢ents: the Fed is already charged with these responsibilities within the banking industry. I highlighted these points the other day in my post “The All Powerful Federal Reserve”:
What are the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities?
-supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
-maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
The Fed failed to perform. Why give it more power? Obama is specifically addressing the risks within the insurance industry in designating the Fed as the authority in overseeing the entire economic system.
I believe our risks are increasing dramatically via this move. Why? Not enough checks and balances. Not enough eyes and ears and “teeth” to monitor and promote accountability. Merely because the Fed is “all powerful” does not mean that it is “all knowing,” “all capable,” and “all encompassing.” (more…)
Sheila “Bair”s Her Mind
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 14th, 2009 12:43 PM |
Sheila Bair, Head of FDIC
I have always held Sheila Bair in high regard. Why? I believe she has no agenda other than what is best for our country. I find her to be tough, but fair. I think she prioritizes integrity, transparency, and reputation–all of which we badly need, but are in short supply.
Ms. Bair is currently engaged in an active debate about potential management changes at Citigroup. She is no shrinking violet in taking on any and all Wall Street heavyweights. I commend her for that. Additionally, she is giving “no quarter” in defending her positions on financial regulatory reform.
Ms. Bair recently spoke with Forbes, Bair Cautions Banking Crisis Is Not Over. Ms. Bair does not pull any punches or play the pandering games regularly seen in Washington and on Wall Street. As such, I think it is prudent for all of us to listen closely to what she has to say. Forbes reports:
Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said Friday that while the crisis that swept through the financial world last year has subsided somewhat, it was far from over and there would be “many more bank failures” ahead.
“I think there’s still some challenges, I think we need to be realistic. There are still some troubled assets on the books and we still have an economy that’s under significant stress.”
How many other government officials are equally as blunt? How many regulators will openly address the fact that the toxic assets are still very much an issue and that the economy is under ‘significant stress’? Our country is screaming for some good old-fashioned truth combined with straight talk. Ms. Bair provides it. Let’s go back for some more. What does Sheila Bair think about the economy? Green shoots? Turning the corner? Bair provides sobering commentary: (more…)
Sheila Bair and the PPIPs Tour: Cancelled
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 4th, 2009 7:56 AM |
What is going on with the PPIPs?
The Public Private Investment Program was “scheduled” to play a grand national tour in helping the banking industry cleanse itself of toxic assets. Did the “lead singer,” Sheila Bair, lose her voice? Did the “backup” in the form of the banks and investors lose their rhythm? Let’s “boogie” on over and check it out.
The FT reports, FDIC Stalls Sale of Toxic Loans:
Details of the Treasury’s toxic asset plan are in doubt after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Wednesday said it was suspending a test run of the legacy loans programme.
Sheila Bair, chairman of the FDIC, said development of the programme – designed to encourage investors to buy toxic, or legacy, loans from banks in order to restart the flow of credit – would continue but a pilot sale of assets was on hold.
“Banks have been able to raise capital without having to sell bad assets through the LLP, which reflects renewed investor confidence in our banking system,” Ms Bair said in a statement.
Is this all that it appears to be or is there more of a smokescreen on the stage inhibiting all parties – Uncle Sam, the banks, and investors – from “giving it their all”? Let’s dive into the mosh pit.
Sense on Cents views the situation as follows:
1. Impetus for banks to liquidate toxic assets (now called legacy assets by the Obama administration) is dramatically lessened. Why? Are they now less toxic? No, anything but that. With the relaxation of the mark-to-market accounting standard, banks can now “mark to model.” As such, banks are not forced to write the asset value down. In so doing, banks are now not compelled to sell it at a price which would incentivize an investor to purchase.
2. What about all of the equity capital raised by banks over the last few weeks after results of the Bank Stress Tests? Has that had an influence on banks need to raise capital via the PPIP?
Yes, but remember that the Bank Stress Tests only covered the largest 19 banks in our nation. These banks have been largely successful in raising new capital. That said, the toxic legacy assets remain on their books. Do not forget, though, that many small to medium sized banks and thrifts have a sizable amount of underperforming loans (residential mortgages, commercial real estate, corporate loans) on their books. These banking institutions were neither put through a “stress test” nor are they in a position to raise capital as easily as the large banks.
A successful PPIP program would have helped these institutions.
3. Hints of potential self-dealing by banks involved in the PPIP, both as seller of assets and buyer of assets, would have created a firestorm. I addressed this problem in writing, Putting “The Fix” in the PPIP.
4. With all due respect to the lead singer, Sheila Bair, all indications are that her handler – an individual named “Uncle Sam” – can not be trusted. Potential investors have been very reluctant to get overly involved with Sam. Why? In other performances, Sam has “strip searched” individuals upon entry and also played various iterations of “bait and switch.”
As the FT reports:
Banks and investors, meanwhile, had misgivings over taking part in the PPIP amid fears the politically charged climate could prompt Congress to change rules on issues such as executive compensation for those firms that participated in the programme.
While this tour is being cancelled, don’t get overly despondent. I am sure our Summer concert series will be able to provide plenty of entertainment going forward!!
LD
Let’s Look Under the Washington Mutual Rock
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 28th, 2009 1:02 PM |
Many people may think Washington Mutual is just another large financial conglomerate that has since gone into thrift heaven via its takeover by JP Morgan. While WaMu is now part of the JPM franchise, it continues to send very real signs which provide great insight as we navigate the economic landscape.
Thank you to our friends at 12th Street Capital for highlighting a release put forth yesterday by Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JP Morgan. As the Financial Times reports, JP Morgan Warns on Credit Card Woes:
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase chief executive, warned on Wednesday that loss rates on the credit card loans of Washington Mutual, the troubled bank acquired last year by JPMorgan, could climb to 24 per cent by the year end.
In the past, credit card loss rates have tracked the unemployment rate but that relationship has been breaking down for more troubled credit card portfolios, such as the $25.9bn in WaMu credit card loans.
At the end of the first quarter, 12.63 per cent of the WaMu credit card loans were deemed uncollectable by JPMorgan. The bank estimates that figure could reach 18 to 24 per cent by the end of 2009, depending on economic conditions.
The initial question begs as to how and why the credit performance of WaMu’s cardholders could be that much worse than the industry as a whole. For those unfamiliar with Washington Mutual, the institution made a failed attempt to penetrate the Wall Street fortress via leveraging its credit origination platform. WaMu was one of the most aggressive lenders across the spectrum of products. As I wrote back on November 12th in The Wall Street Model Is Broken….and Won’t Soon Be Fixed:
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).
Washington Mutual was the poster child for aggressive, if not irresponsible, lending. When their distribution capabilities ceased, the institution was left “holding the bag.” That bag was filled with credit cards now projected by the TOP banker on the street to default at twice the norm. What more can we learn in this process? Let’s dig deeper. (more…)
Full Throttle
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 27th, 2009 11:28 AM |
To say that we are in the economic fight of our lives would be a gross understatement. While we are feeding ammo into all our weaponry on the main deck, are we remiss in keeping a close eye on what is happening “in the engine room”?
Let’s go into the control room on the main deck and scope things out. On one wing, we see the plans to combat the problems in the commercial real estate market have suffered a setback. Bloomberg reconnaissance provides details: Top Rated Commercial Mortgage Debt May Face Cuts:
The highest-graded bonds backed by commercial mortgages may be cut by Standard & Poor’s, potentially rendering the securities ineligible for a $1 trillion U.S. program to jumpstart lending.
As much as 90 percent of so-called super senior commercial- mortgage backed bonds sold in 2007 may be affected as the ratings firm changes how it assesses the debt, New York-based S&P said today in a report. About 25 percent of the bonds sold in 2005, and 60 percent of those sold in 2006 may be cut.
“We believe these transactions are characterized by increasingly more aggressive underwriting than prior vintages,” S&P said. “Furthermore, recent-vintage CMBS, particularly those issued since 2006, were originated during a time of peak rents and values,” and may be more affected by falling rents.
Cutting the ratings would exclude the securities from the Federal Reserve’s program to bolster credit markets by financing the purchase of older commercial real-estate debt. To be eligible for the program, collateral can’t carry a rating below AAA from any rating firm.
This development is a MAJOR setback in our economic battle. An overhang of office space and underperforming real estate properties will be a significant drag not only on earnings for holders of the loans but also on the economies where these properties are located. (more…)
How Will Bank Failures Impact Economy?
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 28th, 2009 1:04 PM |
Analysts discount the impact that the expected massive number of bank failures will have on the U.S. economy.
Additionally, analysts also discount the fact that the FDIC fund to cover depositors of failed institutions is close to zero. This fund can be replenished by the FDIC imposing an assessment on remaining banks or, if need be, tapping an emergency line of credit at the U.S. Treasury.
What will be the real impact of bank failures? In my opinion, American consumer confidence and small business owners will bear the brunt of the pain from the bank failures. Why?
>> The reality of further job losses at these banks and those they support within local economies.
>> The psychological impact of seeing small and community banks fail.
>> The lack of credit availability to consumers and small business owners in communities across America.
What are the plans to stem the tide and plug the holes created by bank failures?
1. Have larger banks take over these institutions. What are the risks in this transition? Many of these banks are already filled with underperforming and delinquent loans. The acquiring banks typically want the cheap deposit base of the failed banks and little more.
2. Private equity buyers will have the opportunity to purchase failed banks. What are the risks in this process? The private equity buyers will have to maintain higher capital ratios. Another risk is that the private equity buyers may utilize the cheap deposit base as a pool of liquidity and capital for higher return undertakings than traditional lending in the local communities.
In my opinion, the gap dividing Wall Street and Main Street is only going to grow wider in the midst of these bank failures. The party on Wall Street has little appreciation for this reality on Main Street.
John Kanas, the former chairman and CEO of North Fork Bank, and his private equity firm purchased BankUnited in Florida this past May. Kanas addresses these topics in an interview on CNBC.
LD
Related Commentary:
Halting Recovery Divides America in Two
by Cari Tuna, Liz Rappaport, and Julie Jargon
The Wall Street Journal (August 29, 2009)
Tags: bank failures, FDIC, Halting Recovery Divides America in Two in Wall Street Journal, how will bank failures be handled, how will bank failures be handled by private equity buyers, impact of bank failures on consumer confidence, impact of bank failures on consumers, impact of bank failures on credit availability, impact of bank failures on economy, impact of bank failures on employment, impact of bank failures on FDIC fund, impact of bank failures on investor psychology and consumer psychology, impact of bank failures on small business owners, John Kanas comments on bank failures, the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, what will bank failures mean to economy
Posted in Banking Institutions, General | 3 Comments »