RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
Home“I Want the Truth!”
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 15th, 2009 6:44 AM |
Recall how Hank Paulson compelled every major money center bank to accept government funds via the TARP last Fall. Paulson was concerned that if every institution did not participate in the TARP that the market would punish those institutions receiving funds.
The lack of delineation then and still now is creating stress for individual institutions and the market as a whole. Why? Markets thrive on two factors: capital and information. We have witnessed over the last year what a lack of capital in the form of credit has meant for the economy. We are also experiencing what a lack of information means.
Whether it is industrial and tech companies not providing guidance about their future earnings (GE, Intel just yesterday), banks utilizing relaxed mark-to-market accounting, or now banks being lumped together on Bank Stress Test results, the markets are sufferring as a result.
Are we seeing a version of the classic scene in a A Few Good Men? Who can ever forget this exchange?
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I’m entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You’re goddamn right I did!!
32 Bid/84 Ask
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 3rd, 2009 11:14 AM |
Will banks sell toxic assets? This question is being asked ad nauseum. Investors have indicated a willingness to purchase at the right price. That price has moved up somewhat given the assistance of government financing (read this as taxpayer financing) and government assumption of losses (read this as taxpayer assumption of losses). Bank executives have indicated a willingness to sell, “at the right price.” Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, made that assertion again this morning.
What’s the right price? Well, a Bloomberg survey of investors and banks provided indicated levels of interest as to what the right price for certain of these toxic assets might be. Investors are willing to pay 32 cents on the dollar. Banks are willing to sell at 84 cents on the dollar. In Wall street parlance, between those levels one can drive many Mack trucks!!
Aside from the disparity in perceived value, banks now are further incentivized not to sell given the reprieve they received just yesterday in the relaxation of the mark to market. (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…)
The Economy–What Lies Ahead
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 14th, 2008 10:03 AM |
I share these opinions with you given the historic nature of the events currently going on in our global financial markets and economy. I hope that you find them of interest. I would be very interested in your thoughts as well. Much like that scene in the movie “Trading Places” when the wealthy tycoon “turn those machines back on,” I view this bailout package as nothing more than the best of a litany of very bad alternatives. Without being overly pessimistic, though, if you want to reduce this package to layman’s terms this package is the equivalent of a massive injection of capital/liquidity into a Ponzi scheme that was being played (whether they knew were playing it or not) by certain large financial institutions.
The systemic risk was so massive that something had to be done. That said, this injection of capital will not necessarily fully flow through to the economy.The banking system here in the U.S. likely has $1 trillion in embedded losses. This plan is trying to buy time for the system to recognize those losses. The recognition of those losses will curtail future growth for the banking system and the economy as a whole. The U.S. followed Europe’s lead and specifically Great Britains’ in making the direct capital injections into banks. If the U.S. did not there would likely have been a significant capital flight to Europe. However, while the U.S. is injecting 250mm (i.e., billion) as part of the 700mm package, Europe has injected 10 times that figure. We may still see a flight in capital away from our economy. Not that other economies are necessarily stronger, because they are not, but merely due to the fact that the level of nationalization of deposits is actually deeper. How do all these programs, both here in the U.S. and around the world get funded? What are the implications for the markets?
In my opinion, I see the following:
(more…)
