Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Posts Tagged ‘Toxic Assets’

Questions Left Unanswered

Posted by Larry Doyle on February 7th, 2011 7:13 AM |

Some random thoughts and questions in the midst of trying to determine what is really going on in the markets, the economy, and the world:

1. Just how healthy are our major money center banks? How many toxic mortgage related assets remain on their books? Where are those assets marked? With the housing market continuing to erode, and it is, how can those asset valuations not be eroding as well?

2. Will the American public ever truly learn what happened inside Bernard Madoff’s operations? (more…)

David Levy Provides Sense on Cents

Posted by Larry Doyle on December 7th, 2009 2:50 PM |

I enjoy coming across individuals whom I have not previously met or read. Why? Individuals with new insights and perspectives provide real mental stimulus especially during challenging economic periods. I engaged just such an individual this morning in reading CFO Magazine. David Levy of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center was recently interviewed and provided some fabulous insights on the economy, deflation, corporate earnings, bank balance sheets, and assorted other hot topics. This interview, entitled A Contained Depression, is a must read:

If you’re breathing a little easier because the Great Recession seems to be ending, consider this: the U.S. economy may remain in a “contained depression” for months or years to come. That warning comes from economist David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center, an economic research and consulting firm. Levy originally coined the term to describe the recession of 1990–1991 and the subsequent halting, jobless recovery. Earlier this week, he talked with CFO about the prospect of a similar scenario unfolding today. An edited version of the interview follows.

What is the state of the economy today?
We’re in for a much longer period of contained depression [than we saw in the 1990s]. The single most overlooked observation about the U.S. economy in the postwar period is that balance sheets grew faster than incomes, decade after decade, both assets and liabilities. The problem is that asset values have to be justified by returns they can earn — or by expectations of future capital gains, and that’s where you get into bubbles. What went on in the postwar period couldn’t go on indefinitely. We were able to make it go on longer by dropping interest rates in the last two recessions, but we can’t do that anymore. We have to shrink the value of assets on balance sheets and shrink liabilities. And that makes it very difficult for the economy to operate. (more…)

Geithner: “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”
Sense on Cents: “Challenge!”

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 14th, 2009 8:23 AM |

Treasury Secretary Geithner has adapted to Washington very quickly. How so? His willingness and ability to distort and conceal  the truth is consistent with much of what emanates from our nation’s capital. I literally gagged upon reading the extremely superficial commentary in today’s Wall Street Journal, Geithner Sees Good Vital Signs:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration wouldn’t allow Wall Street to return to such old habits as taking on excessive risk, and that plans to overhaul financial-market regulation were on track.

Does Secretary Geithner think that people do not monitor these issues? His statements in this article are the equivalent of a Wall Street bond salesman’s assertion “trust me on this,” while jamming an overpriced security down his client’s throat. My response, “challenge!!” Let’s navigate.

Geithner asserts:

“I don’t think the financial system is reverting to past practice, and we won’t let that happen,” Mr. Geithner said. “The big banks are running with much less leverage now, much more conservative liquidity cushions, there’s been a significant shrinking of their balance sheets, getting rid of bad assets (LD’s highlight) and cleaning up. And the weakest parts of the system don’t exist anymore.”

Sense on Cents challenge: the system is chock full of toxic assets. The new-issue securitization market for consumer assets remains largely dormant and the TALF and PPIP programs are largely a joke. I submit “PPIP: A Virtual Odd Lot” (July 7, 2009).

The Wall Street Journal continues: (more…)

Sheila “Bair”s Her Mind

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 14th, 2009 12:43 PM |

Sheila Bair, Head of FDIC

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  

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.

LD

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.

Board of Health Condemns Due to Moral Hazards

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 13th, 2009 11:05 AM |

danger-toxic-hazardThe best organizations are managed not only for today but for tomorrow. What do I mean by that?  Great organizations assess risks, develop talent, diversify products, and grow market share. Aside from those basic business tenets, the best organizations respond well in times of crisis. 

Every business and organization is ultimately a reflection of its people. To that end, the depth and quality of the people are the single greatest factors in the long term success of the organization. 

Any individual or organization would relish developing a system that generates untold success and then automates the process. Neither business nor life works that way. Change is constant. How organizations proactively stay ahead of change and respond to change is paramount in succeeding in business and life.

The best sports organizations have developed a deep bench of talent both on and off the field. When players or executives leave – as they always do – the general manager moves another body in and the team does not miss a beat. The same scenario occurs in the best companies. This transition process is part of the culture of the organization.  (more…)

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…)

G-20: Commitments, Comments, Questions!!

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 2nd, 2009 1:14 PM |

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown just delivered a statement highlighting the results of the G-20 conference in London.  There must have been a lot of work done behind the scenes over the last few months because it’s hard to imagine there was a lot of debate over issues within a 36 hour time frame at this conference.  I will grant the world’s political leaders their due as it is most important at times like these to convey a strong, uniform front. 

Let’s review the objectives and commitments, each followed by questions and/or comments that I have:

1. Address countries providing tax havens.
My question:  who will police?

2. Develop a Financial Accounting Stability Board to regulate currently unregulated financial entities, primarily hedge funds. 
My questions: how will it be staffed, operated, and judgments adjudicated? (I don’t like FASB as the acronym to be confused with Federal Accounting Standards Board)

3. Develop global policies and outline to address compensation
My questions: who and how will this be implemented? how will it be regulated? will there be punishments for those not participating?

4. Develop a global systemic risk oversight body. 
My Question: who and how? (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…)






Recent Posts


ECONOMIC ALL-STARS


Archives