August 27, 2013

If the Fed Were Publicly Traded, Wall Street Would Savage Its Stock

Posted in Economy, Stocks, Uncategorized tagged , at 4:12 PM by Robert Barone

In early 2006, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told the senators that the subprime crisis had been “contained.”

If the Fed were a publicly traded company, Wall Street would trash its stock based on the credibility of management, the failure of its policies, the loss of confidence of major constituencies and a weak — if not insolvent — balance sheet.

Reason 1: Some of the FOMC Members Don’t Get It

From the minutes of the July 30-31 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, we find the following excerpt: “…several participants expressed confidence that the housing recovery would be resilient in the face of the higher rates….”

Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates (Freddie Mac) rose from 3.35% in May, before the Fed’s tapering announcement, to 4.58% on Aug. 22. That’s a 36.7% increase. The median price of a new home in July was $257,200, up $7,500, or 3%, from $249,700 in June. (The Fed, by the way, doesn’t believe that there is any inflation in today’s economy.)

If the typical U.S. family buying the median-priced home had purchased in May at $250,000 with a 20% down payment with a Freddie Mac 30-year fixed-rate loan, the principal and interest payment would have been $881 a month. By August, the principal and interest payment on a similar home costing the same amount with the same down payment would be $1,023 a month.

Thus, it isn’t any wonder that new home sales (based on contracts signed) plunged by 13.4% between June and July. One has to wonder about the economic competence of those “several participants.”

Reason 2: QE Has Flopped as a Growth Stimulator

A study by two Fed economists (Curdia and Ferrero), published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Aug. 12, concludes that “asset-purchased programs, [i.e., , quantitative easing] appear to have, at best [emphasis added], moderate effects on economic growth….”

The authors found that in the QE2 program, the asset purchases alone added only .04 percentage points to GDP. That’s about $6.4 billion — not much considering that QE3 purchases are currently $85 billion each month.

Reason 3: Foreigners are Unloading U.S. Treasuries

In June, foreign investors, believing that interest rates would continue to rise, unloaded U.S. Treasuries to the tune of $56 billion. For the same reason, U.S. commercial banks sold $20 billion. In that month, bond mutual funds and ETFs had net outflows of $25.5 billion. (July’s outflow from the mutual funds and ETFs was $15 billion.)  <story_page_break>

Market participants have to be asking the question: What happens if the U.S. budget deficit rises back toward $1 trillion, as expected, and foreigners and the public have stopped buying?

The Fed is either going to have to allow rates to rise to the point where foreigners and the public will buy again, or the Fed will have to continue the QE program and become the major purchaser of the Treasury’s debt.

Those of us old enough remember that in the early ’80s, when then-Fed Chairman Paul Volcker allowed rates to rise, two recessions resulted (January 1980-July 1980, and July 1981-November 1982).

If we’ve reached this point, one must question the credibility of the Fed’s policies.

Reason 4: The Fed May Be Technically Insolvent

The Fed announced in March that it intended to hold all the securities on its balance sheet to maturity.

In an Aug. 1 post, Scott Minerd of Guggenheim Investments said that the duration of the Fed’s securities holdings is 6.5 years, and that the recent run-up in yields has wiped out “all of the unrealized gains that the Fed had accumulated since it began to implement quantitative easing in late 2008.”

The Fed has its own accounting principles and does not record mark-to-market losses. But, what if the Fed had to tighten policy by selling assets, i.e., traditional open market operations? It would have to record the losses.

With rates at current levels (as of Aug. 25), it is likely that the $55 billion of Fed equity capital (as of July 24), which is a mere 1.5% of assets, has already been wiped out on a mark-to-market basis. 

My conclusion can be only that with a dysfunctional and confused Federal Open Market Committee, strategies that have failed to achieve stated objectives, a loss of confidence by major constituencies and a weak if not insolvent balance sheet, if the Fed were a publicly traded institution, Wall Street would savage its stock.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp, Matt Marcewicz and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.

Call them at 775-284-7778.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

August 2, 2012

Equities: Is a bear market inevitable in this economy?

Posted in debt, Economic Growth, Economy, Europe, Finance, government, investment banking, investments, payroll tax reductions, recession, Stocks, Uncategorized, Unemployment tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 7:40 PM by Robert Barone

All of the data and the trends in the data indicate that it is possible that a recession might already have begun.

• Job creation has been dismal in the second quarter, with little hope for improvement soon; jobless claims are, once again, on the rise.

• Retail sales have fallen three months in a row; this has never occurred without an ensuing recession. What is of greater concern is that this has occurred while gasoline prices have been falling.

• While market pundits have cheered small gains in housing data, it is clear that housing is still bottom bouncing. Changes in foreclosure laws have caused supply constraints that have made it appear that home prices are rising again.

• Industrial production, the one bright spot in the economy, showed a decline in May before recovering somewhat in June.

• The drought has caused raw food and commodity prices to spike. These will soon translate into higher food and raw input costs. (Is anyone now questioning the wisdom of the congressional mandate to produce increasing quantities of ethanol from corn instead of sugar?)

 • Consumer confidence continues at levels below those seen in past recessions . Much of this is due to uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy and taxes.

• In the June Philadelphia Fed Survey, manufacturers were asked to list reasons for slowing production; 52 percent cited uncertain tax policy and government regulations.

• Real incomes are falling. The downward bias in the inflation numbers produced by the government inflates the reported GDP numbers. It has been my view that, as a result of the biased reporting, the recession never really ended, and real GDP is much lower than reported.

 Equity market up for year

 Nevertheless, despite all of the poor data, the equity markets have held up. At 1,338 (the closing level on July 25), the S&P 500 is still 6.4 percent higher than it was at the beginning of the year. This is strange, given that every other major market in the world is down 20 percent and in bear market territory. Here are a couple of possible explanations:

• The equity markets used to be a leading indicator of the economy. Severe market corrections (20 percent or more) usually meant recession was either imminent or already here. But, with the advent of computerized trading, the market now appears to be more of a coincident indicator. In late 2007, when the last recession began, the market was only off 5 percent from its October peak.

• Europe: There is such financial chaos in Europe that a flight to the dollar is continuing. Because higher quality bond yields are so low, some of the funds have found their way into the U.S. equity markets, thus keeping them buoyed.

Neither of these two reasons should give investors any confidence that U.S. markets can hold up. Besides the poor internal economic data within the U.S., worldwide data have been weak. In addition to the obvious problems in Europe, China is in a much slower growth mode, as is Japan, the rest of Asia, and even the commodity producers like Australia and Canada.

European soap opera
Europe is a whole other issue. American markets have benefited from their financial issues, but when panic and contagion show up over there, markets behave poorly over here. We have seen this time and again as the European drama (really a soap opera) has unfolded. It would be far better for the European politicians to come up with an
orderly plan for countries to exit the monetary union than to deny that the union isn’t in any danger of falling apart.


Solvable “fiscal cliff”

Finally, the approaching “fiscal cliff” in the U.S. is another wild card that could have a significant impact on capital markets. The good thing about the “fiscal cliff” is that it isn’t an outside force being imposed. The cliff is avoidable and completely under the control of Congress and the president.

With all of this going on, is a bear market inevitable? While I think that the confluence of events (worldwide economic slowdown, slowdown in the U.S., European financial chaos, “fiscal cliff”) make it likely, as I indicated in my last column, the application of “business friendly” policies could prevent it.

Until visibility into policy becomes clearer, investors should continue to be extremely cautious. They should remain liquid.

 Finally, the U.S. economy is so fragile that any external shock, like a financial implosion in Europe, is certain to have negative impacts on U.S. markets. Policy responses to economic slowdown or financial chaos (e.g., printing of money by the European Central Bank or QE3 by the Fed) are likely to have a positive impact on the value of precious metals and commodities. And the ongoing drought will definitely move food and commodity prices upward.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., Economics, Georgetown University) is a Principal of Universal Value
Advisors (UVA), Reno, NV, a Registered Investment Advisor. Dr. Barone is a former Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and is currently a Director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Company where he chairs the Investment Committee.
Information cited has been compiled from various sources which UVA believes to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee as to its accuracy. A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices is contained in its “Firm Brochure” (Form ADV, Part 2A) which may be obtained by contacting UVA at: 9222 Prototype Dr., Reno, NV 89521. Ph: (775) 284-7778.

March 9, 2012

Wall Street gives Hayes the runaround

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Business Friendly, community banks, Economy, Finance, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, local banks, Nevada, Stocks, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , at 4:08 PM by Robert Barone

The S&P 500 closed at 1,342 on Feb 10. It was at that level in May 2008, January 2001 and June 1999. For nearly 13 years, investors in America’s largest companies have essentially made little return on their investments.
But think about all the multi-millionaires and billionaires Wall Street has created f rom within its own ranks in that time span! It’s almost as if the game is rigged against the small investor.
Unfortunately, it is.
M.F. Global, for example, pledged and lost its clients’ assets in a bet on Italian bonds. Had the bet paid off, the firm and its management stood to benefit, not the clients. Yet the clients were on the hook when the bet went sour. In 2009, the government used taxpayer dollars to save the “Too Big To Fail” banks (which have since grown by more than 25 percent), or those in trouble because they had grossly over-levered their balance sheets. As if nothing had happened, in 2010 these institutions paid their management record bonuses ($1 million is chump change).
There is story after story in the investment world of small investors being bilked out of their hard-earned assets. It’s largely due
to a system that always puts the clients last. Here are some examples:
Outside Managers: Oftentimes, broker/dealers and/or supposed investment firms send client assets to outside managers. The client has to pay double fees – one set to the investment firm and another set to the outside manager. The outside managers often rebate part of their fees and expenses to the investment firm. Worse, the outside managers direct their discretionary purchases and sales, especially in bonds, back to the introducing firm’s trading desk. That desk, knowing full well there will be no competitive bid from other trading desks, adds a significant mark up or down from the true market price.
Shelf Space: In order to be available to clients, the large broker/dealers require smaller mutual funds to pay a monthly fee. In addition, all of the funds must rebate to the broker/dealer all or part of the 12b-1 fee that they charge as part of their expenses where these are split between the firm and the account rep.
In today’s world, there is absolutely no reason to pay a front end or back end “load” for a mutual fund. Yet many clients of the large broker/dealers pay loads as high as 5 percent, much of which is retained by the broker/dealer. If you are being charged a “load” when you buy mutual funds, ask yourself if your interests are being put first. Vanguard funds are widely known for having no loads (or 12b- 1 fees) and their expense ratios are among the lowest in the industry. Ask your account rep if you can buy Vanguard funds in your account. If the answer is no, consider whose interests are being put first.
Inappropriate Investments: This is really the biggest issue for small investors. Because of the cost of litigation, most small investors who have lost significant sums due to inappropriate investments cannot afford to fight a legal battle to recoup losses. Most of the time, inappropriate investments occur because the fee to the selling agent or institution is so significant that the clients’ best interests are put behind those of the firm or the account rep. A good practice is to ask your account rep the amount of commission associated with any particular trade.
The accompanying news story about Bobby Hayes of Incline Village, his local attorney, Thomas Bradley, and his broker/dealer Merrill Lynch (now Banc of America Securities) illustrates many of these points:
• In July 2007, Mr. Hayes told his account rep he didn’t want to take any risk with $883,122. His account rep put him into a high risk tranche of a collateralized mortgage obligation. If the value of the assets in the tranche fell by as little as 0.5 percent, Mr. Hayes’ investment would be wiped out. (During the last decade, Wall Street’s financial “rocket scientists” divided up the cash flows from mortgages such that some tranches were quite secure while others were quite risky. Guess which one Mr. Hayes got?) Did his account rep have any idea about the risk inherent in this investment? If the account rep did, he/she clearly violated his/her fiduciary duty to the client, as minimal due diligence (i.e., a call to the New York desk) would have uncovered the risk. Most likely, the account rep was blinded by the large ($37,000) fee associated with the sale of the tranche.
• As it turns out, the loans Merrill Lynch placed into the tranche had already fallen in value by 5 percent before the investment was sold to Mr. Hayes. The investment was worthless at inception. Worse, it looks like the folks at Merrill Lynch who issued the paper knew it.
• After more than five years, arbitrators awarded Mr. Hayes $218,000 in attorney fees. In addition, Hayes had to shell out $23,500 in other costs and was potentially liable for $8,400 in hearing fees.
• Hayes won the return of his investment, interest on it, attorney fees and the other costs, or about $1.38 million, because it was clear, even to the arbitrators, that the paper sold to him was worthless before it was purchased on his behalf and that Merrill Lynch most likely knew it. Yet despite the apparent fraud and Merrill Lynch’s shunning of its fiduciary duties to the client, no punitive damages were awarded. This speaks to the inherent bias against the investor and for the broker/dealer, which appears to permeate the system when it comes to Wall Street.
• It is interesting to note there were two such tranches, one for U.S. clients and another for foreign clients. Mr. Hayes purchased the entire U.S. tranche. The foreign investors, who purchased the other tranche, also sued and settled for an undisclosed amount. Of further interest in this case is that the Massachusetts Secretary of State has subpoenaed the same or similar records to see if Merrill Lynch knowingly overvalued assets it put into investment pools (“Galvin demands B of A records on mortgages,” www. on Feb. 11).
• Mr. Hayes’ attorney, Reno’s Thomas Bradley, has written about other inappropriate investments being foisted on unsuspecting small investors, usually because the commissions on the sales of such instruments are high (see http://blog. mislead-by-brokerage-firms-to- purchase-unlisted-reits.html).
From a lack of any real return to unconscionable fees and costs to an unaffordable and often unjust litigation process, the Wall Street system is rigged against the small investor. Just think of how many small investors were put into similar investments by Wall Street’s major broker/dealers. Few of them have the assets or stamina to fight Wall Street like Mr. Hayes did.
Most, if they actually do pursue legal action, settle for pennies on the dollar because of the costs, effort, and additional potential loss should the arbitrators rule against them.
Despite these abuses, the government continues to come to Wall Street’s aid. No one yet has gone to prison over the sub- prime fiasco. No one is likely to go to prison in the M.F. Global scam. Despite the obvious fraud, no punitive damages were assessed in the Hayes case.
U.S. households have $700 billion in negative equity in their homes, and the government (who had its own fingers in the mortgage fiasco) last week settled with the biggest perpetrators for 3.5 cents on the dollar. With only slaps on the wrist and minor fines or penalties for fraudulent behavior and the shirking of fiduciary obligations, what will incent Wall Street to alter its behavior?
Conclusion: Little is going to change for small investors in America unless and until the Wall Street playing field is leveled.
Robert Barone, Ph.D.

December 13, 2011

How MF Global Almost Got Away With Everything

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Europe, Finance, Foreign, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, sovereign debt, Stocks, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 4:39 PM by Robert Barone

The MF Global (MFGLQ.PK) story is just another chapter in the continuing saga of the legal fleecing of America by a financial system joined at the hip in an “Unholy Washington-Wall Street Alliance.”

The rules of the game are such that the managements of large Wall Street entities are allowed to gamble with assets entrusted to them by an unsuspecting public. If the bets are successful, the spoils flow entirely to the management and the firm, with nothing going to the clients whose assets are at risk. On the other hand, if the bets fail, the clients take the entire loss! Unfair? Of course.

But, as you will see if you keep reading, MF Global’s client assets will not be “found,” and, worse, unless the NY attorney general becomes incredibly creative, no one is likely to go to jail because no laws appear to have been broken. MF Global is just another piece of evidence that the current financial system is addicted to and permits excessive leverage and is deeply flawed.

Until this is recognized and fixed, the financial system will continue to be besieged with crises spawned by Wall Street greed. There are likely other, yet to be discovered, atrocities lurking in the shadows.

Asymmetrical Borrowing Rules

It appears that MF Global, as well as every other major US investment banking firm, has taken “advantage of an asymmetry in brokerage borrowing rules that allow firms to legally use client money to buy assets in their own name,” Christopher Elias notes in a recent Thomson Reuters article.

Simply put, MF Global borrowed money, and, using that borrowed money, purchased the debt of the European periphery (Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal) at very attractive yields. The borrowings and the debt purchased had the same maturity date, so the proceeds of the debt maturities were to pay back the borrowings. MF collected the difference between the low rate it paid on the borrowings and the high rate it received on the debt.

The euro debt it purchased was guaranteed by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). To get the low rate, MF had to pledge collateral. So, it pledged the euro debt, and as additional collateral, it borrowed and pledged its clients’ assets, which assets it held as custodian. Looks like a no-brainer! So thought Jon Corzine and Co.

Margin in the US

In the US, a client with an account at a broker-dealer can place his assets in a “margin” account. The client is then allowed to borrow against those margined assets. There are rules for this called “margin requirements.” Generally, speaking, the value of the assets assigned to “margin” must be greater than the amount borrowed by a factor set by the Federal Reserve under Regulation T.

If the market value of the assets assigned to “margin” falls in value to the point where the margin requirement ratio is violated, a “margin call” is generated. The client either has to assign or pledge more assets to “margin,” or reduce the borrowing via a cash deposit. If the client fails to do either of those in the time allotted by regulation, usually three business days, the assets that were pledged to “margin” are liquidated (sold out) and the proceeds are used to offset the borrowings until the required margin ratio is satisfied.

Of relevance, clients who assign their equities to “margin” (the only other alternative is called “cash”) so that they can borrow against them also automatically grant their broker-dealer the right to “lend” their assets to another investor who wants to “short-sell” that particular asset because a short-seller must first “borrow” existing stock in order to “sell” it. The broker-dealer makes money by lending out equities in margin accounts to short-sellers. The everyday American investor is unaware of this, and earns nothing.


So, how did MF Global lose client assets? In the US, broker-dealers can use margined assets as a funding mechanism, i.e., by borrowing those assets themselves and using them as collateral to borrow. But in the UK, those same borrowed assets can be pledged several times over (called rehypothecation), resulting in very significant leverage. That is, the client assets stand behind several borrowings rather than just one.

Buried somewhere deep in the legalese of the account forms (you know the pages and pages of legal gobbledegook that nobody reads because one has to be an attorney to understand it), the clients gave MF Global the right to transfer those client assets to its UK subsidiary and to “borrow, pledge, repledge, hypothecate, and rehypothecate” those assets.

According to the Thomson Reuters article cited above, such language is common in most large US broker-dealer agreements. That language allows the large broker-dealers to circumvent US law and take advantage of UK law where rehypothecation (leverage) is allowed.

The Impact of Margin Calls

For MF Global, the unanticipated “tail” event occurred. (“Tail” events are only supposed to occur very infrequently. However, in an unstable financial system, they occur often.) When the value of the European periphery debt declined this past fall (even that guaranteed by the EFSF), margin calls occurred. MF Global would have been okay if it hadn’t used so much leverage.

The leverage magnified the margin calls to such an extent that all of the client assets weren’t enough to meet the margin calls. All of the collateral, including the euro debt (at bargain basement prices) and the client assets were sold to offset the borrowings. The clients’ assets are gone. They are not going to be “found.”


No laws appear to have been broken. No one is likely to go to jail. But, as you can see, the financial system is deeply flawed and is rigged in favor of Wall Street and against the ordinary investor. The causes of the financial crisis that appeared in the US in 2009 have not been resolved, only papered over (with money printing). In order to have a “fair” and healthy financial system, the excessive use of leverage, such that success leads to untold wealth for the managers and failure is directly borne by unsuspecting clients or taxpayers, must be changed.  Until this occurs, we will continue to experience such debacles. And the volatility caused by them will continue to keep the financial system unstable and limit economic growth.

Robert Barone  and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment  Advisor. Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal   Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.  Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.   A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive, Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.

December 7, 2011

Severe Europe-Wide Recession Likely for 2012

Posted in Banking, Europe, Finance, Foreign, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, sovereign debt, Stocks, taxes tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 8:25 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Given the speed at which markets move, and given the volatility that accompanies the hopes and fears that occur when the key European leaders meet to try to make progress on the European debt crisis, it is somewhat risky to try to describe what will happen to the European Monetary Union (EMU) in 2012. Something that I write today, in early December, could be obsolete as early as next week. So, I will approach this with what I consider to ultimately be the most likely scenario, why it is most likely, and where the remaining dangers lie.

There are two opposing forces in Europe regarding the approach that should be taken to resolve the crisis:

  • Those that want the European Central Bank (ECB) to act just like the U.S. Fed and rapidly expand its balance sheet, either to support a strengthened European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), or directly. The ECB has no mandate in its charter to do this;
  • Those that want the causes of the crisis, overspending and out of control deficits via entitlement and social welfare spending, to be addressed. While these folks appear to be the minority among the political class, their strength lies in the fact that the politicians representing the economically strongest EMU member, Germany, hold this view.

As an aside, some have wondered why the euro has kept its value high vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. It is precisely because the ECB hasn’t significantly expanded its balance sheet while the U.S. Fed has. In fact, the big worldwide market rally on Nov. 30 due to the “coordinated” central bank policy of insuring liquidity for Europe’s banks, was a “dollar” policy, i.e., dollars, not euros were made available. So far, the ECB appears to have remained faithful to its mandate as the guardian against inflation, and nothing else.

Most Likely Scenario

The U.S. Fed tripled the size of its balance sheet with some apparent success at keeping its financial system from collapsing and, until now, those actions appear to have had no apparent large unintended consequences. There has been some moderate inflation officially reported (and disputed by some), and some believe that the Fed’s balance sheet expansion has been behind the rapid rise in commodity and food prices. But given the apparent success in staving off financial collapse with such policies, the most likely scenario is the first one outlined above, i.e., the use of the ECB or some structure around it (including the EFSF and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)) to directly purchase or partially guarantee the sovereign bonds of the peripheral countries.

>>Saving Euro a Tall Order, Even for Germany

The “bazooka” theory appears to apply here. As long as the market knows that the ECB has a bazooka (the power and authority to print euros), and is willing to use it, it won’t have to. As U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson found out in 2009 that the “bazooka” theory doesn’t always work. Time and again, the capital markets have demonstrated that they are much more powerful than any central bank or sovereign treasury.

Verifiable Austerity

The most likely scenario, then, is an emerging consensus in Europe as follows: Through a series of bilateral agreements to avoid having to get 17 separate countries to approve changes to the treaties that govern the EMU, a painstakingly long process, the offending peripheral countries (Italy, Portugal, Spain, and perhaps, Ireland) may agree to some level of verifiable austerity with benchmarks and external audits. In return, Germany and its political allies will permit the ECB to expand its balance sheet either by directly purchasing the sovereign debt of the peripheral countries, or by making credit available to the EFSF or whatever structure emerges.

Once again, as an aside, under this scenario, you can expect the value of the euro to fall relative to other currencies. Of course, if the U.S. Fed embarks on QE3, the euro’s relative value to the dollar may well hold.


Of course, once the crisis atmosphere passes and things settle down, under this most likely scenario, the peripheral countries may not feel the pressure to continue with their promised austerity. Don’t forget, politics plays a large role and austerity often leads to political defeat for those politicians who negotiated it. Already we have seen political changes in Greece, Italy and Spain as a result of this crisis.

Perhaps these countries will follow Greece’s lead and hire Goldman Sachs to help them issue off the books debt so that they have the appearance of complying with their austerity promises. That could very well buy several years, as it did for Greece. (Ireland appears to be an exception. After their bailout, they appear to have abided by their austerity promises and have made great progress in addressing their fiscal and economic issues. Then, again, none of Ireland’s shores touch the Mediterranean Sea.)

Issues Remain

So, as we enter 2012, the stage is set for some calming over Europe’s sovereign debt and the solvency of Europe’s banks. Mind you, it may be a rocky road over the near term to get there including setbacks and lots of uncertainty and market volatility. The biggest issues will likely revolve around the magnitude of the guarantees and the capacity of the guaranteeing entities. Nevertheless, the most likely scenario is coming into clearer focus.

Unfortunately, this scenario, or any other one that emerges, means recession in Europe, most likely severe recession. This has implications for markets worldwide, as Europe’s economy matches or exceeds the size of the U.S., depending on which countries you include. Once again, the recession, coupled with the austerity measures, may change the political backdrop such that the populations of some of the peripheral countries may well want to exit the EMU.

While 2012 may bring calmer conditions, even if the most likely scenario is executed, the future of the euro and the EMU is still not assured. It rests on the effectiveness of the fiscal controls. If EMU members retain sovereignty over their fiscal policies, then there has to be some mechanism to expel fiscal offenders from the EMU in an orderly manner. Without this, we may well see a replay of this crisis within the decade. Let’s hope there is enough political courage to include such measures.

Robert Barone  and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment  Advisor. Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal   Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.  Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.   A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive, Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.


November 30, 2011

Why Central Banks’ Action Could Make Matters Worse

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Capital, community banks, crises, derivatives, Europe, Finance, Foreign, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, sovereign debt, Stocks, taxes tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 9:47 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Over the past 18 months, we have witnessed the emergence of what has become known as the “European Debt Crisis.” Capital markets have become increasingly concerned over the sovereign debt of the European peripheral countries and the solvency of the financial institutions that hold much of that debt. You can tell from the 10-year borrowing rates shown in the table below exactly where the concerns reside.

Solvency issues manifest themselves in liquidity issues. Looking at the table, you can see that investors are hesitant to lend to the lower tier without significant compensation for the credit risk they know they are taking. The solvency issue also plays havoc with the ability of the banks to access the short-term capital markets for their everyday liquidity needs. And, in some cases, especially among the banks in the lower tier countries in the table, those liquidity strains are huge.

If you were a Greek citizen, for example, wouldn’t you go to your bank and withdraw all of the euros you could and put them in your mattress? That is, in order to protect yourself from the prospect of waking up one morning to find that your account was no longer denominated in euro, but in “new drachma” converted on a 1:1 basis, and the free market value of that “new drachma” was such that it took 4 to purchase 1 euro? So, the silent run currently occurring on Greek banks is not surprising.

>>The Real Reason Behind the Central Bank Scramble

A similar phenomenon is beginning to happen to the continent’s banks. This is showing itself in the form of an unwillingness of financial institutions to lend to each other and a severe tightening of the private sector money markets.

So, the coordinated move of the central banks announced today is a reaction to the near shut down of the money markets and it makes liquidity available to the continent’s banks. But, this is not the end of the story because this move only addresses the symptoms (the resulting liquidity issues), not the cause (the solvency issues). As we know in America, the Savings and Loan Industry in the 80s was able to access the money markets in $100,000 increments due to FDIC insurance. As a result, the solvency issues weren’t addressed early when they were relatively small. But, eventually, they had to be dealt with.

Thus, the move by the central banks, by printing money and making it readily available to the banks, only postpones the inevitability of having to solve the solvency issues. It buys time. The tradeoff is twofold:

1) it increases inflationary pressures;

2) it allows the solvency problem to continue to fester, and perhaps, become even worse.

The sovereign nations have two choices: inflation or austerity. They would choose the former except for Germany’s resistance. That story is still being played out. For the banks, significant recapitalizations must occur. We are likely to see a lot more drama played out on this issue, especially if one of the larger institutions has a misstep or is attacked by the marketplace as we saw in the U.S. in 2009.

Robert Barone  and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment  Advisor. Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal   Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.  Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.   A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive, Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.


November 23, 2011

Super Committee Could Hurt Dollar’s Reserve Currency Status

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Capital, community banks, crises, derivatives, Finance, Forward thinking, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, local banks, municipal bonds, San Francisco, Stocks, taxes tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 4:30 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The decisions of the Super Committee are likely to have more far-reaching implications than are currently envisioned, as the deliberations have been cast only in political terms by the media. There are, however, significant long-term economic implications.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks in Europe, contagion can spread like wildfire. The bond yield spreads to U.S. Treasuries or German Bunds on all European peripheral country debt, and even on the debt of AAA rated (at this writing) France, have widened significantly and are displaying huge volatility depending on the day’s headlines.
>>Debt Super Committee Could Spoil the Holidays
Luckily for the U.S., the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency and, in a world of fiat currencies, shows up as the least risky because of its worldwide liquidity and its unabashed penchant to use its money printing press in a financial crisis. So, despite the imbalances clearly present in the U.S. today (see U.S. Debt Crisis: What’s the End Game? ), there still exists a “flight to the lowest perceived risk” (formerly known as “flight to quality”), when crisis and uncertainty rear their ugly heads.

Benefits of Reserve Currency Status

The rapid spread of the contagion in Europe should be a wake-up call to U.S. policy makers, especially the Super Committee. Any stumble or failure to propose something significant in the form of deficit reduction could further jeopardize the dollar’s reserve currency status and bring the day of reckoning perilously closer. The Nov. 14 edition of Barron’s (Enter the Yuan) set forth five benefits of reserve currency status:
  • Investor willingness to hold your currency and paper;
  • The ability to print money to purchase foreign assets — without paying any interest;
  • Easy issuance of debt and worldwide acceptance;
  • Deeper financial markets ultimately benefiting your financial institutions;
  • Conducting trade in your currency which avoids exchange rate risk and benefits your exporters.
Think of what could happen to the U.S. without reserve currency status. Like what has already happened in the European periphery countries, interest rates would rise. This will occur even if the U.S. shares reserve currency status, which is the most likely initial scenario. I (see Wow-II! That’s A Lot of Interest!) and other prominent economists have estimated the cost of debt in the U.S. if rates rise. Some possible scenarios are truly frightening in that the cost of the debt relative to the federal budget and GDP could put the U.S.’s debt burden on par with or higher than that of Greece, Italy and the other countries involved in Europe’s debt crisis. 
For sure, as I opined in the above referenced blog on Dec. 1, 2010, “[g]iven the structural nature of the deficit and the difficulty of slowing or reversing defense costs or the costs of ‘social’ categories, even small upward changes in interest rates … will exacerbate the deficit and economic growth issues.” Thus, preserving reserve currency status, just for the lower interest rates that accompany it, is critical.

Recession Implications, QEs and the Financial System

While recent data suggest that a U.S. recession is not imminent, some leading edge economists and even the San Francisco Fed believe that the inevitable recession in Europe in 2012, a slowing growth rate in Asia and China, and fiscal austerity at the state and local levels could tip the U.S. into recession. The San Francisco Fed says this probability is above 50%. A renewed recession will certainly cause the Fed to embark upon additional QEs, and the Administration and Congress will react by increasing the deficit (after all, it is an election year!). This will further erode the world’s confidence in the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The U.S. financial system was not “fixed” by TARP or Dodd-Frank. MF Global has shown that some of these institutions still have insanely high levels of leverage and are more than willing to make “all in” bets. An implosion in European financial institutions may negatively impact both the mid-sized and the Too Big to Fail institutions and cause further credit tightening. Under such circumstances, I can envision another TARP-like response from the Treasury and Fed with more money printing and secret lending further eroding the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
One has to wonder why China hasn’t come to Europe’s aid given that China exports as much or more to Europe as it does to the U.S. The answer could be that China has a long-term plan to vault the Renminbi (RMB or Yuan) toward reserve currency status. The benefits are numerous as outlined above. Already McDonalds, Caterpillar, Unilever, UBS, Volkswagen and the World Bank have issued bonds denominated in RMB in the Hong Kong market. It is no secret that China wants its emerging market trading partners to settle merchandise trades in RMB and wants a financial center on par with New York and London on its mainland. So, a flailing Euro and QEs in the U.S. advance the RMB as a potential reserve currency.
The importance of the Super Committee recommendations for the dollar’s status in the world and the special privileges, liquidity, and low borrowing rates that accompany that status cannot be overemphasized. Failure to make significant progress will only hasten the day when there won’t be a “King Dollar.” The end result will be higher borrowing rates, lower economic growth, a continuation of depressed economic conditions, and a further lowering of the U.S.’s standard of living.
Robert Barone  and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment  Advisor. Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal   Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.  Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.   A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive, Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.

November 18, 2011

U.S. Debt Crisis: What’s the End Game?

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Capital, community banks, crises, derivatives, Finance, Forward thinking, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, local banks, municipal bonds, San Francisco, Stocks, taxes tagged , at 11:52 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — It is pretty much settled that the European Monetary Union, as it is now constituted, cannot survive. It is just a matter of whether the course of events will be disruptive, or will be coordinated by the European leaders. Given what we have observed over the past year-and-a-half regarding their unfolding debt crisis, I suspect the former. We may even see bank runs, frozen credit markets, plunging equity values and other ugly stuff if the political forces there don’t get their acts together real soon.

But, let’s not be so naïve as to think that we, in America, are immune from a similar scenario. No, the dollar isn’t going to break down into a set of regional currencies, although I do suspect that the coming QEs (3, 4, 5…) will significantly lower its value. What I am talking about is the inability of the U.S. political system to effectively deal with the economic imbalances that have developed in America, mostly in this century. By always kicking the can down the road, as only the skilled politicians in Europe and America can do, they assume the risk that the inevitable changes that must come to restore balance will be disruptive, even violent, rather than controlled and coordinated.

Nov. 23, 2001 — that is the next critical date for the financialmarkets, as they hang on the pronouncements of politicians, in this case, a subset of the U.S. Congress dubbed the deficit super committee. We have recently witnessed the skill with which Europe’s political leaders manipulated market sentiment each week as they continually showed their mastery of the art of can kicking.

>>Super Committee: Failure Isn’t an Option

In the U.S., progress on its own debt crisis should be much easier to achieve than in Europe, as only two sides have to agree, as opposed to 17 disparate and culturally diverse entities that form the European Monetary Union. But, because we are only 12 months from major U.S. elections, real progress on deficit reduction is unlikely. The U.S. debt crisis will surely be kicked further down the road.

Even in the unlikely event that the deficit super committee finds the $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion that they are looking for (there appears to be a bipartisan subgroup within the super committee pushing for such a result), such cuts will be placed in the out years, only to be recast, manipulated, or simply forgotten or ignored by the next generation of the political elite occupying the halls of Congress in 2021. Further, in reality, $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion is only a drop in the bucket of the spending problem in Washington, D.C., and, even if agreed to, won’t make much of a difference except to instill some hope in the equity markets, perhaps enough for 300 or 400 Dow points on or before Nov. 23.

In reality, the underlying social and economic issues in the U.S. are not really different from those of Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain or Ireland. They revolve around overpromised entitlements and a rapidly developing entitlement mentality, overpaid government workers, an elite class of wealthy, a broken financial system, a business climate stifled by government regulations, a dwindling middle class, and an over-indebted consumer with a shrinking real income. We all recognize these as underlying causes for Europe’s sovereign debt crisis, but each and every one of these is a huge issue in America, none of which are likely to be addressed by the super committee, or, for that matter, by any committee until at least 2013.

Ultimately, failure to address these issues will cause a social backlash. It may well be through the regular political process, but the more the can is kicked down the road, the more likely it is that the social unrest will demonstrate itself through another process altogether. The Occupy Wall Street movement is but a canary in the coal mine.

The following imbalances are well documented:

  • Overpromised entitlements — these include more than $100 trillion of Social Security and Medicare benefits, food stamps for 45 million Americans, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits (while you are only counted as unemployed for 52 of those 99 weeks), underfunded state and local government pension plans, and overpaid government workers relative to the private sector;
  • A corrupt financial system in cahoots with whichever political party is in power that is encouraged to take excessive risks, reap outsized rewards, and is protected from their blunders by a powerful central bank with access to the only money printing press. Interestingly, the investing public has not made a significant return on their investible assets in this century while Wall Street bankers have become uber-wealthy;
  • The middle class in America is rapidly disappearing and the disparity between rich and poor widens every day:

– The cost of a college education (or even sometimes a decent high school one) is out of reach for huge segments of the population. A student loan bubble has developed. Guaranteed student loans are the only loan segment in U.S. banks that have grown since ’07, but given job prospects in a slow growth economy and liberalized rules for repayment, much of the $1 trillion of such outstanding loans are unlikely to be repaid, once again placing the burden of the financing on an unsuspecting taxpayer; – A housing crisis that has significantly impaired the savings and equity of most of America’s middle class, a crisis caused by the easy money policies of the central bank, the ill conceived ideas of a few in Congress regarding housing, and a quasi-government agency with a lust for power and greed on the part of its management;

  • An interventionist government that picks the winners and the losers (Too Big To Fail banks, GM, Solyndra, wind and solar energy) with its army of rule makers, attorneys, and income redistributionists rather than allowing the free market, which gave America its greatness, to choose.

So far, the Washington, D.C. elites have relied on traditional Keynesian means of deficit spending or interest rate manipulation to address some of these issues. But those measures simply do not work. Total debt is already too large, and creating more of it doesn’t help. And, the Fed is now impotent. As Bill Gross recently observed, lowering interest rates will not make U.S. manufacturing more competitive, doesn’t change the dynamics of a retail trade industry impacted by internet shopping, and actually hurts seniors and retirees trying to live off of investment income.

Like in Europe, the ultimate end game in the U.S. will be rebalance. The resolution of the above-mentioned issues can still be addressed within the existing political framework in a peaceful, well thought out, and coordinated way. But, if the can kickers in Washington, D.C. refuse to tackle those issues, they will be taking the risk that the inevitable rebalancing will occur through a disruptive and/or violent process.

Robert Barone  and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment  Advisor. Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal   Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.  Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.   A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive, Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.


November 9, 2011

Euro End Game: All Roads Lead to Monetary Breakup

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Capital, community banks, crises, derivatives, Finance, Forward thinking, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, local banks, municipal bonds, San Francisco, Stocks, taxes tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 6:39 PM by Robert Barone

— Three major issues must be resolved to save the European Monetary Union (EMU): The value of sovereign debt; the European bank capital issues; and the fiscal capacity or will to provide the needed financing. Unfortunately, no feasible solutions exist. The politicians have done everything they could to keep the market on the edge while, at the same time, continuing to kick the can down the road. The farther the can is kicked, the more painful and costly the ultimate resolution — the breakup of the EMU.

The Value of Sovereign Debt

As of this writing, the haircut on Greek sovereign debt currently on the table is 50%. The French want as small a discount as possible (it was originally set to 21% in the July agreement which was just ratified by the EMU countries a couple of weeks ago) because French banks hold volumes of Greek sovereign debt.

Germany, the other major player in the drama, wants a larger discount to force the private sector to contribute to the resolution, and because they know that they, and they alone, are the ultimate guarantor. The 50% haircut, however, is really not 50% because the EFSF and ECB, which hold 55% of all Greek debt, are exempt from the
haircut. So, at the max, Greece will be relieved of 22.5% of its debt.

However, in order to give Greece a half a chance to survive within the euro circle, the discount should be 80%, not 22.5%%. Even at an 80% discount, Greece’s Debt/GDP ratio will still be greater than 90%. At a 22.5% haircut, their Debt/GDP ratio will be so high, and interest payments to outside debt holders so onerous that it will require too much austerity. As we have just witnessed, Greece cannot meet the current required austerity measures imposed by outsiders. If the haircut on the Greek debt is too small and austerity is too severe, which it will be under the current set of principles being discussed, social unrest will continue. 

Ultimately, the Greek people will elect politicians who vow to remove the imposed austerity. The rise of Hitler was partly the result of imposed “reparations” from the previous war and the hyperinflation that resulted. If still inside the EMU, the problem of the value of the Greek sovereign debt re-emerges under the scenario now on the table. So, it is vital that the Greek debt haircut be large enough to give Greece at least a chance to succeed within the EMU. Of course, that assumes that there is a shift within Greece away from the entitlement mentality
that pervades the culture and that, given a second chance, they will adhere to a fiscal discipline. History indicates low odds of this.

But there are more issues that arise in the scenario in which Greece is given a second chance and kept inside the EMU. The slippery slope is that if the bond haircut is high, then Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy see that Greece has been given a second chance with much of its debt forgiven, they will want the same treatment. After
all, why should these countries institute austerity to pay the private sector and often foreign debt holders when Greece doesn’t have to.

In order to avoid the contagion that the others will want the same deal as Greece, there will have to be a consequence that dissuades them. The only consequence I can think of that is serious enough to dissuade them is expulsion from the EMU. Therefore, in order to avoid contagion under a scenario of an 80% bond haircut, it is
essential that Greece leave the monetary union, and that the EU set up and strictly enforce expulsion criteria.

Ultimately, though, because the four problem countries all have the same entitlement mentality, they will never be able to maintain the required fiscal discipline, and will ultimately be expelled. Apparently, the European politicians recognize this.  So, the 22.5% haircut deal currently on the table simply kicks the can further
down the road. The deal on the table cannot ultimately work.

European Bank Capital Issues

No matter how it is sliced or diced, Europe’s major banks are undercapitalized, and that is being kind. If
the sovereign debt they hold is marked to market, they are all insolvent. As we know from America’s S&L crisis in the ’80s and from the recent ’09 meltdown experience, a financial institution can operate in an insolvent condition for years, as long as it can get liquidity. In fact, there may still be such zombies in the U.S.

Enter the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). It’s function will be to support (i.e., buy) the underwater sovereign debt held on the books of Europe’s financial institutions at prices significantly above market, thus transferring the ultimate losses from the private sector to the taxpayer. The Fed did this in ’09, purchasing billions of mortgage-backed securities at above market prices from U.S. financial institutions. In effect, this is equivalent to the taxpayer making a capital contribution to the banks without receiving any ownership
interest. This is just a gift from taxpayers to stock and bond holders.

The ultimate capital contribution to the European banks will be in the trillion euro range, and it is likely that the EFSF will attempt to use leverage. But, because the capital contributions to the EFSF already being discussed (and I expect they aren’t as large as they need to be) are large relative to Europe’s GDP, there are likely to be ratings downgrades, causing interest costs to rise and making austerity in the EU even harder to bear. Under existing discussions, France, one of the two major characters in the whole crisis, is expected to make a contribution to the EFSF that is equal to 8% of its GDP. This alone will surely result in a ratings downgrade, as its Debt/GDP ratio has risen nearly 20 percentage points this year alone.

How long will the public endure the resulting austerity? Only long enough for the political process to elect leaders who promise to get rid of it. And, how do they do that? Exit the EMU.

Fiscal Capacity

It is clear that Germany and France are the key players (who are expected to be saviors) in this European drama. As explained above, as the drama unfolds, it is likely to put a tremendous strain on France’s fiscal capacity making it impossible for France to contribute further resources to the crisis (they are already on the hook for a significant contribution to resolve the Dexia issues). That leaves Germany as the last bastion of the euro. Think of the irony. The German people, by a large majority, never wanted to join the EMU. Their politicians brought them in kicking and screaming. Now, they are going to be asked to pay for all the entitlement and profligacy of their European neighbors. This just isn’t going to fly. When it gets to this point, and it will, Germany will simply say no, and that will be the end of the EMU.


It is already too late. The euro cannot be saved without the adoption of the U.S. federal model where the countries become the equivalent of U.S. states with one monetary and fiscal policy, ultimately run by Germany. Because of culture and history, the odds of this happening are about 0%.

The financial ministers can meet. There can be weekly, or even daily summits between the prime ministers. They can dream up debt Ponzi schemes with the EFSF, and can transfer losses from the private sector to the taxpayer. And, they are likely to do all of the above. But, ultimately, it is too late.

The EMU did not enforce its original rules, and now there is way too much debt. Like the S&Ls in the U.S. in the ’80s, it can be propped up for awhile. But, all of the actions that add debt or transfer it from the private sector to the taxpayer only make the final resolution more gut wrenching, difficult, and expensive. All roads lead to the breakup of the EMU. Better to do it now, in a controlled and orderly way, rather than let the happenstance of random events cause it to happen in the midst of a market crash.

Robert Barone, Ph.D.

Robert Barone and Joshua Barone are Principals and Investment Advisor Representatives of Universal Value Advisors, LLC, Reno, NV, an SEC Registered Investment Advisor.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value  Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

Universal Value Advisors, LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States. A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A). A copy of this Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 9222 Prototype Drive,  Reno, NV 89521, Phone (775) 284-7778.

October 18, 2011

Seven Reasons Bank Stocks May Keep Falling

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Capital, community banks, crises, derivatives, Finance, Forward thinking, government, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, local banks, municipal bonds, San Francisco, Stocks, taxes, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 10:22 PM by Robert Barone

  • Occupy Wall Street – while not a cohesive movement, at least part of its birth can be traced to outsized Wall Street salaries and bonuses, especially since the taxpayer saved most of the TBTF banks.  Bank Transfer Day (11/5), the day on which Americans are supposed to transfer their deposits to community banks, is more symbolic than real, as the “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF) banks core consumer deposits are only a small portion of their liabilities and can easily be replaced with no or low cost funding from the Fed or elsewhere.  Nevertheless, Bank Transfer Day is a PR issue for the large banks;
  • Margin squeeze – TBTF have used the arbitrage spread between borrowing costs (near 0%) and Treasury yields (2%+) to profit.  And, the purchase of Treasury securities requires no capital under the capital regulations, as Treasuries are “risk free.”   The Fed’s new policy of “Operation Twist” targets  longer term interest rates and squeezes this arbitrage spread;
  • Volcker Rule – this has recently been put out for comment by the FDIC.  It severely limits trading profits made for the bank’s own account and is likely to have a big impact on TBTF trading profits going forward;
  • Debit card monthly fees – although such fees are a direct consequence of the limitation on debit swipe fees by the Fed under Dodd-Frank, and it was common knowledge that the TBTF banks would find a way to increase fees elsewhere to make up for their losses on the swipe fees, the timing has turned out to be lousy and the TBTF banks are taking a PR hit from the press, and even from the sponsors of Dodd-Frank who clearly knew that there would be unintended consequences;
  • Exposure to Europe – According to Michelle Bachmann, the U.S. TBTF Banks have a $700 billion exposure to European Banks.  So, a freezing up of liquidity flows to those institutions may have an impact on the value of such holdings.  It is clear that the Fed and the European Central Bank will intervene with massive liquidity injections if such events unfold.  Nevertheless, the risk of such a freeze up exists.  Furthermore, if contagion spreads because of a Greek default, there is no doubt that the TBTF equities will be negatively impacted.  So far, we have seen the equity prices of these behemoths ebb and flow with the news (or hope) out of Europe regarding their evolving “rescue” plan;
  • Mortgages & Foreclosures
    • Foreclosures at the TBTF institutions are rising because moratoriums have expired and “robo” issues have been addressed.  In addition, so called “Prime” loans in portfolios (usually “Jumbo” loans – those that are larger than the FNMA limits) are becoming a big issue as there is a clear trend toward rising “strategic” foreclosures.  In fact, Fitch recently downgraded many of these “prime” mortgage pools.  This calls into question the quality of what may be on the TBTF balance sheets in the form of such jumbo loans.  Furthermore, the fact that FNMA and FHLMC reduced their loan maximums on October 1st is destined to have a huge negative impact in states like CA and FL, where the prices of higher end properties will fall due to the unavailability of financing.  So, expect “strategic” defaults to rise rapidly in these states;
  • Lawsuits
    • Half of America’s mortgages are on MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System), but, in many states, MERS has no standing in foreclosure.  Theoretically every owner of a securitized pool should sign off on each foreclosure in the pool.  There could be hundreds, if not thousands, of owners in these pools.  In addition, many jurisdictions require that title transfers be recorded in county recorder offices.  Since that did not occur, lawsuits are now being developed against the major TBTF players for lost recording/title transfer fees.  The Dallas DA recently sued MERS and BAC for $100 million of such fees.  According to Mark Hanson, since MERS has been operating since 1995, there could be billions of dollars of such thwarted fees.   Because nearly every local governmental entity is hungry for funds, this could catch on like wildfire;
    • Bank of America’s (BAC) $8.6 billion global servicer settlement is in trouble, as NY’s AG Schneiderman says it should be closer to $25 billion, and he is getting support from other states, like CA.  The rumor mill has circulated the theory that if lawsuit settlements become outsized, BAC appears to have the option of bankrupting the old Countrywide unit, which it has kept as a separate legal entity since its purchase in 2008.  Imagine, though, the market reaction to such a move!
    • Lawsuits on mortgage trustees are just starting.  According to Bloomberg, US Bank, Bank of NY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, HSBC, BAC and Citibank (C) are the major mortgage trustees.  Bloomberg speculates that since these institutions didn’t underwrite, sell, securitize, service, or ship loans according to regulations, the odds are low that the trust departments got it right.  So far, NY’s Schnedierman has requested documents from Deutsche Bank and Bank of NY Mellon.
    • In early September the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the receiver for FNMA and FHLMC, sued BAC, C, JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Barclays, HSBC, Credit Suisse, and Noruma Holdings demanding refunds from these institutions for loans sold to FNMA and FHLMC that were based on false or missing information about the borrowers or the properties.  The FHFA said that the two mortgage giants purchased $6 billion from BAC, $24.8 billion from Merrill Lynch which is now owned by BAC, and $3.5 billion from C.
    • Lawsuits and foreclosure issues are making the TBTF banks sorry they are in the mortgage business.  JPM’s Dimon announced that they are going to be leaving the mortgage business, and BAC announced last week that by year’s end they will stop buying mortgages from correspondents.

Not all of this appears to be priced in the market, so there may be continued downward pressure on the prices of financial stocks, especially TBTF, as events unfold, especially the potentially disruptive forces that Europe may unleash, or the conclusion that the foreclosure and mortgage lawsuits are larger and more significant than currently believed.

Robert Barone, Ph.D.

October 12, 2011

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources.  Ancora West Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.Ancora West Advisors LLC is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.  A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices are contained in its “Firm Brochure”, (Form ADV, Part 2A).   A copy of the Brochure may be received by contacting the company at: 8630 Technology Way, Suite A, Reno, NV 89511, Phone (775) 284-7778

Next page