RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomePimco Punts on the PPIP
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 9th, 2009 2:27 PM |
Did Bill Gross just flip off Uncle Sam? It would appear that he did. While the U.S. Treasury is touting the official launch of the Public Private Investment Program (PPIP) as a noteworthy event, the most significant aspect is the absence of Mr. Gross and Pimco as one of the managers. As Bloomberg highlights, U.S. Treasury Opens Distressed-Debt Program Without Pimco:
The U.S. plan to help buy as much as $40 billion in assets from banks got started almost four months after it was proposed and without Pacific Investment Management Co., the world’s biggest bond manager and an early supporter.
The Treasury Department picked nine money managers yesterday for the Public-Private Investment Program, or PPIP, including BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. Pimco, which in March announced plans to apply, said it withdrew its application in June because of “uncertainties” about the initiative’s design.
Uncertainties? How about if we return to Mr. Gross’ May 2009 Investment Outlook, in which he cautioned us all about business dealings with Uncle Sam:
If the government indeed becomes your investment partner, you should keep the big Uncle in clear sight and without back turned.
Over and above Pimco’s absence, the other notable development within the PPIP is the fact that Uncle Sam plans on injecting 75% of the initial equity capital while the private managers inject 25%. Given that equity split, why wouldn’t the taxpayer receive 75% of the returns? In my opinion, Treasury is injecting more capital simply because a $20 billion or even $30 billion launch would render this initiative as nothing more than PPIP: A Virtual ‘Odd Lot’, as I had written the other day.
. . . ‘without back turned’ . . . ‘odd lot’ . . . two strikes before the game has even begun.
Mr. Gross’ absence speaks volumes!!
LD
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
Wall Street: Moving Business or Storage Business?
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 29th, 2009 11:39 AM |
A standing joke on Wall Street trading desks was a question posed by sales management to trading management.
Sales Manager, looking to sell products and generate commissions, would ask Trading Manager, looking to manage risk and maximize profits or minimize losses, “Are we here at Bank (fill in the blank) in the “moving” business or “storage” business?” Meaning, would the trading desk be competitive in pricing so as to allow the sales desk an opportunity to sell product (stocks, bonds, loans, et al).
This very question is at the heart of a rapidly developing conflict in the PPIP (Public-Private Investment Program) and an expectation of relaxing the FASB’s (Federal Accounting Standard Board) mark to market. (more…)
Bullish on Ms. Bair!!
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 28th, 2009 3:30 PM |
The Bull and the "Bair"
Is there anything worse than engaging a dishonest broker? Regrettably, our financial landscape (banking, investing, real estate, insurance, et al) is littered with shady brokers. How and why these people remain in business is another topic for another day. This piece is to highlight the integrity of an honest broker, Sheila Bair, and her involvement in the PPIP (Public-Private Investment Program) designed to handle toxic assets, both securities and loans.
For those unaware of the specifics of the PPIP, the toxic securitized assets will be sold via a facility known as the TALF (Term Asset Backed Lending Facility) and via partnerships with 5 large private money managers.
Toxic loans (unsecuritized) are the much more difficult part of the program. The bulk of these loans are likely still held on banks’ books at origination cost (not yet marked down) and pose a much greater disparity in perceived value and challenge in reaching agreeable prices. (more…)
How Long Can You Tread Water?
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 26th, 2009 11:10 AM |
The other day, I provided a cursory overview of the details embedded in the recently proposed Public-Private Investment Partnership, Will Banks Truly Sell these Toxic Assets?
The main point I tried to highlight in that piece was the need for true price discovery for these toxic assets. A loyal reader provided tremendous insight in highlighting that the PPIP needs to assure that sellers are truly at arm’s length from buyers to insure that the price discovery process is real and fair.
There are potential concerns with this price discovery process highlighted in my piece Send in the Clown. Are the bank portfolios, located within the largest banks needing to sell toxic assets, attempting to prop the market higher? (more…)
Bank Stocks Soar!! Bank Bonds Plummet!!
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 23rd, 2009 1:27 PM |
The major market stock averages overall and bank stocks specifically are respondingly positively to the Public-Private Investment Partnership laid out by Secretary Geithner. In the bond market, however, prices for bank debt are responding in a dramatically different fashion.
Why the inconsistency? My sense is that long term shorts in financial stocks are being forced to cover. Investors in the bond market are reacting as if this PPIP will create losses for certain assets as it simultaneously brings liquidity for other assets.
In its totality, the conflicting signals in the stock and bond markets for banks tell me that the jury remains out on the overall effectiveness of this plan for the financial industry specifically and the economy in general. (more…)
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…)
