Market Rallies on Bungled Stress Test News Release

 

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

The Federal Reserve released its stress test results of 19 banks two days early yesterday. JP Morgan Chase forced its hand by making a public announcement that it had passed the test. Although the news was not particularly good, nor the results completely believable, U.S. stocks had their best day all year.

The Fed said on Tuesday that 15 of the 19 banks tested would have enough capital, even if they suffered a financial shock.  Citigroup (C), Ally Financial, SunTrust (STI) and MetLife (MET) failed the test. It should be considered shocking that any bank would fail a stress test after all the lavish government bailout and support programs that have funneled considerable amounts of money to them.  The U.S.  government had to semi-nationalize Citigroup and owned 27% of its stock by the time the Credit Crisis was over. Citi received approximately $45 billion in TARP funds alone and when it started paying them back, it got a $38 billion federal tax credit. And it still can't pass a stress test?

Of course, if Citi did pass a stress test, it might bring too much attention to the test's credibility. The Fed claims it set tough conditions and major banks complained that the tests were made too rigorous by considering a scenario where unemployment reached 13% and housing prices dropped 21% (presumably the Fed meant the official unemployment rate being 13% and not the actual rate). While these conditions sound tough, they aren't comprehensive, nor where the attention should be focused.

What prevented hundreds of U.S. banks from failing in 2008 and 2009 was a government willing to provide an effectively unlimited amount of money to keep them afloat.  The feds also propped up the housing market with minimal interest rates and mortgage relief programs and kept the unemployment rate (at least officially) out of double digits by running trillion dollar deficits. It should be expected that these policies will continue, so how could there be any risk to the U.S. banking system?

The policies themselves are creating the risk. Easy money is inflationary and always has been (and no, things will not be different this time). Inflation devalues financial assets and destabilizes banks.  The Fed however denies that inflation exists and that it will exist, so it is not politically tenable for it to do ever include any realistic inflation scenario in its bank stress tests.

Stress tests do not exactly have an unblemished record as is. The ECB tests in Europe passed Dexia bank with flying colors. Only three months later, it was in serious trouble and then it collapsed. Major Irish banks also passed the test, although Ireland itself had to be bailed out shortly thereafter to prevent its financial system from collapsing. Central bank stress tests are essentially public relations gambits meant to tell the public how good things are regardless of the actual state of affairs.

The release of the U.S. stress test also inadvertently revealed the true relationship between the Federal Reserve and the banking system that it supposedly regulates.  Even though the Fed was scheduled to release the stress test results after the market closed on Thursday, Jamie Diamond  announced that JP Morgan Chase (JPM) has passed the stress tests while the market was still open on Tuesday. He also stated that his bank would be raising its dividend and doing a stock buyback. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Bancorp (USB) and American Express (AXP) raised their dividends and announced stock buybacks. Wells Fargo (WFC) and BB&T (BBT) announced that they would be raising their dividend. 

Diamond's announcement forced the Fed's hand and it had to take emergency measures to move its own announcement up. The imbroglio was described by the mainstream media as a "miscommunication" between the Fed and Jamie Diamond. Oh really?  This is quite difficult to accept considering Jamie Diamond sits on the Board of Directors of the New York Fed. A more plausible scenario is that the big banks do what they want and the Fed follows their lead.  This nicely explains how the Credit Crisis came about in 2008 and why the banks will get into trouble once again.

The market rallied strongly on the news starting around 3:00PM with the Dow Jones industrials closing up more than 200 points. Anyone who knew that the accidental "miscommunication" was going to take place made a lot of money.


Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Author: "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s"
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

What's Behind the Move in Gold and Silver Prices

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The euro rescue plan announced pre-market Monday morning has yet to calm jittery financial markets. Gold hit a record high yesterday on rumors that Germany was planning on leaving the currency union and going back to using Deutsche marks. Silver has benefited from a U.S. government investigation of JP Morgan and its possible manipulation of global silver trading.

Gold has been rising for several years now against all major paper currencies and this indicates a massive global devaluation of fiat money (currencies that are not backed by hard assets) is taking place. We are still only in the early stages of that devaluation. When the Greek debt crisis surfaced, gold fell from December to February. Superficially, this makes sense because gold usually trades with the euro and the euro was dropping. After February, gold recaptured its usually safe haven status and starting rising as the euro continued to fall. The trade-weighted U.S. dollar was of course going up at the same time. The dollar is also traditionally a safe haven whenever there is a crisis in the world. In this case though, the dollar is hardly more sound than the euro and a good case can be made that U.S. government finances are even worse than Greece's.

There is no question that the euro currency union cannot continue to operate the way it has up to this point. When the eurozone was created, there seems to have been no consideration of how matters would be handled if problems arose - a truly amazing lack of foresight. The Greek debt crisis also revealed that the eurozone authorities were unwilling to take necessary action to enforce the standards supporting their currency. Greece lied to the EU about it fiscal position for years and its budget deficit to GDP ratio for 2009 is more than four times what is permissible by currency union rules. If this doesn't get it thrown out of the union, it appears that nothing could ever happen that would get a country removed from the eurozone. This is how the rumors that Germany would withdraw from the euro could take hold and gain some credence. At this point in time though, there is a zero percent chance that this would take place. Such an action would create a crash in the world financial system that would be much greater than what occurred after Lehman's collapse. The authorities are well aware of this.

Silver, which trades with gold, has its own unique issues. News sources on May 9th reported that parallel civil and criminal investigations had been launched into whether or not JP Morgan has engaged in manipulative practices to keep down the price of silver. The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) is looking into civil charges, and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is handling the criminal probe. The CFTC has had complaints for years that a few big banks were manipulating silver prices, but just as the SEC ignored complaints against insider Bernie Madoff, the CFTC paid no attention. The CFTC hearings this spring on the silver market blatantly exposed the corrupt practices taking place. Nevertheless, the mainstream media ignored the story (just as a number of press outlets had the Madoff story for years, but failed to publish it). The hearings did get a lot of attention from blogosphere and on You Tube however and this may have finally put enough heat on the CFTC to take action.

From a technical perspective, gold has broken out from a cup structure (without a handle). Going to new highs is always a sign of strength.  Gold price action is being fed by and is in turn feeding a great deal of bullishness.  Too much bullishness though is not a good sign. The dangers for gold are a recovery in the euro (which is extremely oversold) and the market gaining some confidence in the bailout. The situation in Europe is likely to calm down into the summer. In the long-term problems will resurface however. Investors should also keep in mind that the IMF has a lot of gold and has decided to start selling it to pay for its programs (such as the euro bailout for instance). These sales can cause gold to experience a sharp and sudden price drop.

Investors can purchase gold and silver through ETFs (exchange traded funds). Gold ETFs that hold physical metals include GLD, IAU, and SGOL. Silver ETFs include SLV, USV and SIVR. The euro ETF is FXE and the trade-weighted dollar ETF is DXY.

Disclosure: Not relevant.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Big Bank Earnings Contradict Economic Recovery Claims

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


In its recent earnings report, JP Morgan revealed that it had a bigger loss in its retail financial services division in the fourth quarter of 2009, than it did at the height of the Credit Crisis in Q4 2008. Bank of America and Citibank earnings reports for last quarter also indicate that their lending and consumer credit operations remain troubled and that a U.S. economic recovery has yet to take place. The banks are only making money from their investment banking operations and this has offset major losses from lending activities - the core business for any bank.

The loss for JP Morgan in its retail financial services division (which includes mortgages) was $399 million in Q4 2009. The bank lost $306 million in its credit card division and this number would have been even worse if there hadn't been a payment holiday during the quarter. JP Morgan's provision for credit losses was $7.28 billion last quarter. Despite the steep losses in its lending arm, JP Morgan still reported earnings of $3.28 billion or 74 cents a share.

Unlike JP Morgan, Bank of America didn't report positive earnings, but said it lost $5.2 billion or 60 cents a share in the fourth quarter. The bank charged off $8.4 billion in bad loans. While this indicates a severely damaged loan portfolio, it was $1.2 billion lower than in the third quarter. Credit Card losses were $1.03 billion and these were much higher than in the fourth quarter of 2008. Investing banking earnings were up and this kept the reported losses from being much worse.

Citibank also reported a loss in the fourth quarter, 33 cents versus a loss of $3.40 a year ago. Its revenue from trading and investment banking was up 5.9%.  There was a loss of $2.33 billion in it local consumer lending operations. As bad as this was, it was still better than the $4.89 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2008. Net credit losses for the bank were $7.13 billion versus $7.97 billion from a year earlier. Citibank added $706 million to its loan loss reserves.

Earnings for the big banks indicate that the U.S. economy is still in severe recession. Their lending operations are still experiencing massive losses and in some cases these have gotten worse than during the bleakest days of the Credit Crisis. Earnings have been held up through investing banking operations, which in turn have been helped by changes in accounting rules. Illusions can only work for so long for financial companies however. Investors seem to have quickly forgotten what happened to Bear Stearns in 2008. It was about to report positive first quarter earnings before it went under in March of that year. It had an $18 billion funding reserve and claimed it was solvent right up to the end. Even though the company had a reported book value of around $90 dollar a share (the number was slightly different depending on the source), the U.S. government valued it at $2 a share in the takeover its arranged from JP Morgan. Apparently the real numbers can be much worse than the reported ones for U.S. financial firms and investors should keep this in mind.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Trouble in Euro Zone Boosts Dollar, Lowers Commodities

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

What Earnings Are Telling Us

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

In general, company earnings are coming in ahead of extremely lowered expectations this quarter. This is a typical Wall Street game of setting the bar low enough so things look good, no matter how bad they are. The big success stories this quarter are technology firms, such as Intel, Apple, Yahoo and Sandisk. Tech earnings are cyclical however and the big traders tend to sell when earnings look the best. It is not clear yet if we are at that point his quarter. The large majority of tech company earnings come from outside the U.S. and their business picking up says more about the state of the economy in East Asia than it does about the U.S. economy.

In contrast to tech, banks are in increasingly bad shape, even in the cases where they are reporting good earnings. Wells Fargo's earnings were out today. Well Fargo said credit losses rose to $5.1 billion, up from $2 billion a year ago and $4.4 billion in the second quarter. Even though this is the bank's core business, it reported a profit of 56 cents per share last quarter, higher than the 49 cents reported a year ago. Wells is the fourth largest bank in the U.S. The pattern of deteriorating loan portfolios was also seen in Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan. Loan losses also increased in the second quarter. These numbers don't indicate that U.S. consumers and businesses are in good financial shape, nor that any economic recovery is taking place.

As for the the banking system having been saved, we will have to wait to see what happens when the unlimited flow of federal funds is cut off. TARP is supposed to expire at the end of this year. Today, however, President Obama is going to announce a $5 billion program to bail out community banks. Obama will tout the new program as funding to help these banks increase loans. TARP was supposed to accomplish this goal as well. Available U.S. consumer credit has taken a nosedive in the last year since TARP was implemented. There is obviously no lie too outrageous that Washington won't keep repeating it and the U.S. mainstream media won't print it.

It should also be kept in mind that many large cap firms other than tech get a lot of their earnings overseas. As the dollar falls, earnings made in other currencies increase proportionately. Once again this is not an indication of any U.S. economic recovery, but of U.S. economic weakness. The falling dollar is at least finally getting some coverage in the financial press. Business Week had a story on it in its latest issue. This is going to continue to be a big story for many years to come.

NEXT: Dance of the Declining Dollar Continues

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21


This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Bank Profits Soar Even Though Business is Bad

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

The Nasdaq hit a new high yesterday for the rally that began in early March. All the indices have had major rallies in the last several days, rising off a technical picture that indicated extreme weakness. Good earnings news, starting with Goldman Sachs and followed by the other major banks and brokers, bulled the market up. While the headline numbers look good, the rest of the picture indicates business is still deteriorating.

The two poster children of big bank insolvency, Bank of America and Citibank, released earnings today. Both had huge profits, but not because of their lending, which is what they are in business to do. Bank of America claimed a $2.42 billion profit, despite continued losses from failed loans. The bank had to increase its loan loss provisions by $13.4 billion. JP Morgan Chase also had increases in failed loans when it reported earlier. So how did these banks make money? It came from their trading businesses. Goldman also made huge profits from its trading business. It looks like all the big financials are making lots of money from their trading businesses. I wonder where all that money is coming from? Well, I guess it's good to have friends at the Fed and U.S. Treasury.

Citibank reported a profit of $3 billion, but only because it had a $6.7 billion gain on the sale of Smith Barney. As long as it can continue to sell Smith Barney every quarter, it's earnings will hold up. If not, it could be in trouble. Citi also recorded gains on assets that had lost value during the Credit Crisis, but which it claims are gaining back their value. In case you forgot, Washington changed the accounting rules awhile ago to allow the big banks and brokers to create an illusion of prosperity where none really exists. For some reason 'make believe' accounting didn't work for Bear Stearns, which literally went out of business overnight.

The banking system will not be healthy again until banks are lending and making money from their lending operations. This has not happened yet and increases in loan loss provisions indicates things are still getting worse, despite the half a dozen Fed programs to take these bad loans away from the banks. At this point, Bernanke has had two years to deal with this problem and he has yet to show any success with his give-away programs. His efforts have only helped the big banks cover up the existing problems. His side kick Geithner is now busy forcing CIT into bankruptcy, even though it lends money to a million small and medium size businesses. That's certainly going to help get more loan money into the economy. For those of us who want things to get better, 'make believe' seems to be the only option left open. Maybe we should close our eyes and try to wish hard enough.

NEXT: CIT - Last Minute Reprieve

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21


This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Volatility is Back

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

The market was up yesterday almost completely erasing the large losses from the day before. The beaten down financial stocks led the way up as if insolvent banks and brokers are now suddenly doing better. Well they're not, but their stocks were doing better in what is obviously a short covering rally that was pushed to the max by media reports of insider buying (more accurately portrayed as insider manipulation of the media, with full cooperation of the media itself).

The Dow was up 3.5% to close at 8228, above the psychological important level 8000. Nasdaq was up 4.6%. IBM reported (please note the use of the word reported as opposed to had) good earnings. Bank stocks were the big gainers however and this was true in Europe as well as the U.S. Both Citigroup and Bank of America were up 31%, not so difficult when you are selling in the single digits (the low single digits in Citi's case). Bank of New York was up 24%. And Tuesday's poster child for stock market disaster, State Street, managed a 15% rally. The rallies were more muted in Europe however. Barclays, which has lost half its value since the beginning of the year, was up 5% and Bank of Scotland only 9%. In Germany, Deutsche Bank was up 10% and Commerzbank 13%. Belgium's bailout baby, KBC, was still falling though after already losing 70% in the last three weeks and receiving a two billion euro cash injection.

The rally in bank stocks started out as the usual dead cat (or more appropriately dead bank) bounce. It really got going when news hits the wires about top management buying their own beaten down financial shares. Anyone who might think this was a case of blatant manipulation would have a lot of evidence on their side. When was the last time you saw a blaring headline, 'Insiders Dumping Bank Stocks', especially if it happened the day before? Lot's of luck in finding that one. Yet, yesterday's news trumpeted, Bank of America and JP Morgan insiders buying their stock. You would have had to read well into any article however to find out that in the case of JP Morgan, the buying took place last Friday before the stock was pounded down even more on Tuesday. As for the insight of bank management insiders, these were the people who brought us the current Credit Crisis and didn't see it coming. The head of Bank of America thought it was a brilliant move for the bank to buy Countrywide Financial and later on agreed to buy Merrill Lynch, two purchases that are destroying the bank. Now, we should assume his judgement has suddenly sharpened. Yeahhh ..... that can happen!

The earnings of financials are so bad they are disproportionately responsible for dragging down the earnings of the S&P 500. For Q4 of 2008, a 20% drop in corporate earnings is now expected. Before earnings season began a 15% drop was projected, but results have been worse than orginally thought. Wall Street analysts have once again underestimated how bad things are, just as Wall Street economists have done with the economic figures. I have never heard of anyone on Wall Street being fired for being continually and consistently inaccurate. In fact, it seems to be the ticket to getting to the top there. Something to think about for anyone who relies on insider purchases to indicate banks are turning around.

NEXT: Britain Points the Way to U.S. Economic Future

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Real Deflation is Taking Place in Bank Stocks

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

PPI came out this morning and the U.S. government is now claiming that there has been wholesale price deflation in 2008. At least this is what the headline number indicates. Core inflation wasn't as benign, rising the most since 1988. The media is of course now hyping the headline number, which it downplays when it indicates inflation and ignoring the core number which gets a lot of attention when it's the better number (the advantage of having two numbers, one is likely to look better). The prices that are really dropping are assets, not those that are consumer related, with bank stocks yesterday taking a real hit.

According to the BLS wholesale prices in the U.S. fell by 1.9 percent in December. The yearly drop of 0.9% compares with a rise of 6.2% in 2007. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this blog, recent drops in the PPI are due almost exclusively to declining energy prices. These led the price declines last month, with energy prices overall going down 9.3% and gasoline dropping by a record 25.7%. For a change, food prices also fell, or at least the reports indicates a 1. 5% drop for the month (there was no drop for 2008, nor have U.S. food prices fallen year over year in the last four decades). Core inflation told a very different story however. It was up 0.2% in December and 4.3% in 2008. The last time it was higher was 20 years ago.

Mainstream media reporting on the PPI, as has been the case recently, has indicated the risks of consumer price deflation because of the headline numbers. The media usually reassures the public that economists (almost all of whom missed the Credit Crisis, the recession and are usually wrong in almost all of their predictions) have "confidence that the Federal Reserve (which has totally and completely mishandled the Credit Crisis since its inception) has the tools needed to keep deflation from becoming a problem". The media usually follows this up with 'isn't it great that the Fed had the foresight to cut interest rates to zero'. Certainly, you can not argue that what the Fed is doing will keep the threat of deflation away. Central Bank monetary policies that have given rise to hyperinflation in the past are usually very effective in preventing prices from falling.

While there is no actual deflation going on in consumer prices as the mass media would have you believe, assets prices are indeed deflating (the two are not interchangeable) because of the collapsing financial system. That collapse is by no means done. Bank America actually hit a new yearly low in aftermarket trading yesterday. Citigroup fell over 20% into the 4's (its yearly low is just above 3, a price that large cap financial stocks trade at only if they are on the verge of oblivion). Wells Fargo was also down quite a bit. The charts for JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are not looking particularly healthy either. Even after the U.S. government has pumped almost an unlimited amount of money into these companies, they are faltering again. As we have said in the New York Investing meetup over and over, "there is no such thing as a single bailout for an insolvent financial institution". We'll just have to see what the government does next.

NEXT: Bank(rupt) of America Gets Government Bailout

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Tribune Bankruptcy Has it All

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Only minutes ago the Tribune filed for bankruptcy. The failure of the Tribune contains within it a multiplicity of elements from the credit crisis, the economy, and the failure of mass media to adequately inform the public of both. According to its filings, the owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times has $13 billion in debt, but only $7.6 billion in assets. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that it sought bankruptcy protection, but that it managed to avoid doing so for so long. This leads to the obvious question of just how many other U.S. companies have similar finances that are so precarious that it is inevitable that they will go under? Probably quite a few.

The Tribune was taken private under one of the many private equity deals that took place during the low interest rate fueled credit bubble. Just like subprime borrowers for homes, the company was loaded up with debt that could never be successfully paid back if future circumstances proved to be anything less than rosy. And less than rosy certainly describes the recent history of events impacting the Tribune. The current recession, denied until this month by the U.S. government, has caused a dramatic decline during the last year in all of the Tribune's advertising categories (the source of most income for mass media outlets in the U.S.). The credit crisis makes it impossible for the Tribune, as well as all other companies in similar circumstances, to get out from under the stranglehold of debt that it took on earlier in the decade.

Who are the financial geniuses that are the Tribune's creditors? The usual list of Wall Street's who's who of course. The Tribune's biggest unsecured creditors are its lenders, JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch. Others include Deutsche Bank, New York-based investment management firm Angelo Gordon, hedge fund Highland Capital Management and Goldman Sachs Group. Barclays Capital., which bought key assets from bankrupt Lehman Brothers, is also among Tribune's creditors, with about $142.9 million in interest rate swaps (boy, it was a real bargain picking up those assets). Other outlets in the incestuous mass media business are also on the hook, including Warner Bros. Television, Twentieth Television, Buena Vista Entertainment, and NBC Universal Domestic Television. It can not be ruled out that the Tribune's failure will set off a chain reaction of bankruptcies in the industry.

In a broader sense, there is much more of an object lesson from the Tribune's financial difficulties than that dubious lending practices permeated Wall Street (not exactly a new idea at this point). The lack of responsible reporting on the events that led to the credit crisis, giving an outlet to the Wall Street Pollyanna chorus that denied that the problems were serious and which claimed over and over again that they would soon go away, and not looking into the U.S. government's cover up of the current recession with manipulated economic statistics are how the big news outlet have handled things of late. The tribune itself seems to have been victimized by the web of denial that the U.S. mass media fostered on the American public. Poetic justice perhaps?

NEXT: The Latest Washington Free Lunches

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Five Year Lows are Bad, Eleven Year Lows are Worse

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

On Wednesday the Dow hit a five year low. Yesterday the S&P500 broke its key long term support around 775 to hit an eleven year low. The import of this event should not be underestimated. The market sell off that began in the spring of 2000 and which first ended after two and a half years has now been extended to eight and a half years - at least for the S&P500. The Dow and Nasdaq have still not broken their 2002 lows, but the Dow is close to doing so and this would represent another violation of key support that would have ugly implicatons for future stock prices. The Nasdaq is holding well above this support level, but this provides scant comfort considering that that this represents an approximately 78% drop from its 2000 high.

The market statistics for this year alone are already devastating enough. After Thursday's drop the Dow Jones is down 43%, the S&P 500 49% and the Nasdaq 50% in less than eleven months. The S&P's drop matches the one that took two entire years in the crushing market sell off in 1973/74. As of now, it is worse than the 47% drop in 1931 - the year with the biggest drop in stock prices during the Great Depression. All the U.S. indicies had crash level drops once again yesterday, but in an unusal pattern the S&P fell the most with a 6.7% loss and the Nasdaq the least with a 5.1% drop. For the record the closing prices were 7552 on the Dow, 752 on the S&P 500, 1316 on the Nasdaq and 385 on the Russell 2000.

Financial stocks bore the brunt of the selling with Citigroup losing 24% after a 23% loss the day before. Citi closed at 4.71 even after (or possibly because) Saudi prince Al-Waleed said he would raise his stake in the bank back to 5% (this was the amount he has held for many years and if he has to buy to get back to this level, he has obviously been selling recently). Citi announced this morning that it was considering auctioning off the firm in parts or selling itself wholesale. It also requested the SEC ban short selling on its stock again. JP Morgan was damaged almost as much as Citi, with a 18% decline and Bank America did a little better dropping only 14%. GE was down 11%. Morgan Stanley and Goldman fell 10% and 6% respectively. While Goldman did a little better at the close, its intraday low at 49.00 was a much bigger drop. Morgan Stanley fell back into the single digits. So much for TARP, the Wall Street welfare bill, that was supposed to save the financial system from a meltdown.

Wiffs of panic in the financial system were palpable yesterday. The VIX (the volatility index) closed over 80. Interest rates on 3-month T-bills fell to 0.1% in flight to safety buying. A little better than the brief negative interest rate on the 1-month T-bill reached awhile ago, but not by much. Oil continued its relentless decline, falling to $49.42 a barrell. Weekly jobless claims spiked to a 16 year high of 542,000, with continuing claims the highest since 1982 (less than half of employed workers in the U.S. are eligible for unemployment by the way, so you may want to double all numbers to get a more realistic picture of the U.S. employment situation). One market commentator ventured that the current slowdown could be the "worse since the Great Depression". Perhaps he should have used the word than.

NEXT: The Citi that Should be Put to Sleep

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Market Must Hold in Here

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

The major U.S. stock indices hit five year lows yesterday. The Dow and the S&P 500 are now going to test their 2002 lows, also the 1998 low in the case of the Dow, around 7200 and 775 respectively (mentioned many times in this blog as the target price to look out for). Nasdaq is heading toward a support level in the 1250 to 1300 range, the shoulder area of the reverse head and shoulder pattern that it made in 2002 to 2003. Its stronger support is around 1100. This would be the next place to look for a market sell off to stop. The Dow, and even more likely the S&P, would be below their 2002 lows if this happened. The charts offer little guidance for any significant breaks of the 2002 lows, since there is no significant support until much, much lower levels.

Once again yesterday was a crash day, with all the major U.S. indices closing down 5% or more. I have lost count how many times this has happened in the last three months. The gains from last Thursday's mystery rally were completely dissipated in four trading days. The Dow held up the best with only a 5.1% drop, but closed at 7997, the first close below 8000 since 2003. Small caps were the hardest hit, with the Russell 2000 falling 7.9%. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq were in between with 6.1% and 6.5% drops respectively. Financial stocks had the biggest losses, with Citibank leading the way down with a 23% loss (the New York Investing meetup has been saying since fall of 2007 that Citi is insolvent and the market is now realizing it). Bank America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs all had 10% or greater drops. GE, the next major bailout prospect, fell 10%. Autos of course were also hit hard, with GM falling 10% and Ford 25%. Ford barely remained above penny stock levels.

What is currently roiling the market, other than the usual unrelentingly bad economic news, was that the bailout prospects for the auto industry fell apart on Capitol Hill yesterday. Members of congress grilled the auto chieftains on their extravagant spending, including the private jet trips they took to the hearings. While there is certainly profligacy in auto company spending, it can't compare to Wall Street. The TARP legislation failed to eliminate multi-million (or even deca-million) bonuses given to Wall Street management, their high salaries, lavish executive perks as was revealed recently with AIG, nor the dividends they are paying to their shareholders with government bailout money. Suddenly Congress has discovered that taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted irresponsibly with auto companies (whose political contributions can't match Wall Street's). While overall this is certainly a good thing, the economic impact of all the major U.S. auto companies going into bankruptcy should not be underestimated. Market action yesterday made that very clear.

Having a policy of selective government bailouts is the worse of all choices. A government can bail out no company if it wants to maintain a free market system or it can bailout every company if it doesn't. The government certainly shouldn't do bailouts based on political favoritism. At hit or miss bailout policy also is likely to insure the least results for the most money spent -. something the U.S. government has proven particularly adept at in the last several years.

NEXT: Five Year Lows are Bad, Eleven Year Lows are Worse

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Dr. Evil and Mini Me Loot the U.S. Treasury

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

On Monday, U.S Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his look-alike Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, Neel Kashkari (both originally from Goldman Sachs and participants in helping to create the credit crisis) came up with a plan to stabilize U.S banks without nationalizing them. The U.S. will be saved from socialism by pilfering its treasury and giving the money to the U.S. banks and brokers that are considered 'too big to fail' the many teetering regional banks will have to wait and if still in business, might get a share of the government's succor sometime in the future). Pilfering was their intent, along with helping out their other well-placed friends from the beginning (Kashkari drafted the Treasury department's three-page constitutionally questionable, unworkable, and politically inept power grab that was the original Wall Street bailout bill). Interestingly, every major American news outlet seems to have missed the real story about what is taking place.

The story universally reported by the U.S. media, frequently in blaring headlines, was that the government was going to distribute funds to banks in exchange for ownership stakes. No such thing is occurring. In reality, the Treasury is injecting liquidity by buying preferred stock. Preferred stock is loan in perpetuity, it does not represent any ownership rights in a company. Preferred stock is supposed to pay interest (if it doesn't, like all other permanent loans it's a gift). No interest rate was cited in the Treasury announcements, although anything less than the 10% that Warren Buffett got on his recently purchased preferred from Goldman Sachs (along with warrants) or Mitsubishi got on its purchase of Morgan Stanley preferred (backed by a U.S. guarantee), is a government subsidy. No major media source seems to have pointed this out. Instead, they all reported that if rescue plan works, the U.S. taxpayer will benefit because these preferred shares will be sold for a profit. Since preferred share prices fluctuate with interest rates and not the fortunes of a company (as long as it's a viable enterprise), they would go down, not up, if higher interest rates result from the government's inflationary policies. No common share price increases, as happens when a company does better, will benefit preferred share holders. It is of course almost 100% certain the government also overpaid substantially for this preferred stock as well (in the case of AIG, the U.S. government paid ten times the market price for the equity it purchased). The U.S. taxpayer is going to lose somewhere between a little and everything on this deal. There is no chance is will be profitable.

This looting of the treasury is also not going to be terribly effective either. With it, the government has officially established a 'too big to fail' policy. Only big banks intitally get any money. These include J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup., Wells Fargo, Bank of New York, State Street, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan will get $25 billion each (even though it doesn't appear that JP Morgan, nor Wells Fargo are in trouble and need the money). Another $25 billion will be split between Bank of America, and Merrill Lynch, which are merging. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will each get $10 billion, while State Street Bank and Bank of New York (which also doesn't appear to need the money) will get roughly $3 billion each.

This latest move by the Treasury will not only help to continue to put another major dent in the U.S. government's stretched finances, but is helping to create a dangerous concentration of banking power. For 200 years, U.S. policy has promoted a large number of small banks, but now we will be getting a small number of large banks. The thinking behind America's historical approach to banking was to prevent the concentration of too much economic power in too few hands, which could threaten the capitalist and democratic systems. Based on what is happening now, these fears were obviously well justified.

NEXT:

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

A Bridge Loan to Nowhere - the Wall Street Bailout Plan

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Videos Related to this Blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2f4XUpVINs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQieE8Ryvk0

As I write this the U.S. House of Representatives has just defeated the Wall Street bailout plan.

On Sunday, the final details of the bill emerged from the fetid backrooms of the nations capital. After intense negotiations congress and the administration managed to put together the costliest and least effective piece of legislation ever to emerge from Washington D.C. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was supposed to free up the credit markets and get banks lending again. Yet there were no provisions, no mechanism, and no requirements in the bill that would have made this happen. In exchange for their $700 billion dollars, American taxpayers were guaranteed nothing - and they were likely to have received it in abundance.

Even if the bill had had some means in it to revitalize the U.S. banking system, this still would not have happened. The simple reason for this is that the bailout was much too small to have had any significant impact. At no point in the verbose discussions and pontifications in the congressional hearings did anyone specify approximately how large the problem was that this bill was trying to address. I personally had no problem of finding an estimate of $13 trillion of bad loans (which I think is much too low). The Treasury, the Fed and the congressional research staff either couldn't determine this number or didn't want to discuss it publicly. If they had, the absurdity of this latest government endeavor to deal with the credit crisis and its real intent as just a give away to big Wall Street banks would have become immediately obvious.

To make the bailout more palatable, the cost tag was divided into three parts: $250 billion immediately, $100 billion additional at the discretion of the president, and another $350 billion unless congress decided to rescind it (fat chance of that ever happening). The Treasury secretary, not exactly someone known for his good judgment and lack of corruption, still would have had wide leeway in deciding who got the money. Inexplicably, loans up to March 14, 2008 were eligible for government purchase, even though the credit crisis was front page news starting in late July 2007. Why wasn't that the cut off date set for eligible funding?

According to government press releases, the plan was supposed to prevent the big money from profiting big time from the bailout. In reality, the bill insured that this would happen. The bill specifically made banks that acquired assets in a merger or takeover (this includes JP Morgan, Bank America, and Citibank so far) eligible to dump the bad assets they acquired on the taxpayer. This provision was also a de facto bailout for the FDIC, which would itself be bankrupt as of today because of the failure of Wachovia, if it didn't exist.

The taxpayers were supposedly protected in the bill because the government would get some ownership rights in companies that had their bad debts purchased. Rights in a company that fails - and most if not all of these companies will fail - are of course worthless. If after five years the government is facing a loss in the program, the president was required to 'submit a plan'. How submitting a plan would magically restore lost money from out of business companies was not detailed in the bill description.

What about caps on the $50 million dollar paydays for Wall Street executives? The bill created some 'tax restriction' on earnings above $500,000 and imposed some 'limits' on golden parachutes. What those 'tax restrictions' or 'limits' were, seemed somewhat vague. Executives that received huge bonuses in the past were not required to return any of the money before a company received bailout funds from the taxpayer, even if those bonuses had been obtained under false premises.

What direct benefits and new protections would the people paying for the bailout get? The average investor, pension holders, homeowners, people on Main Street in general, those who suffered because of the bad decisions of Wall Street companies weren't to benefit from the government's largess at all - they were only supposed to pay for it.

NEXT: The First Stock Market Crash of 2008

Daryl Montgomery

Organizer, New York Investing meetup

http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

This Week's Largest Bank Failure in U.S. History

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our videos related to this posting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpE0wAz-nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxTlP5FU_Q

Last night, Washington Mutual became the biggest bank failure in American history when it was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (its $307 billion in assets dwarfs the previous record holder, Continental Illinois, which had only $40 billion in assets) . The FDIC was immediately named as receiver and it just as immediately sold Washington Mutual to JP Morgan Chase. The only surprise in Washington Mutual's failure was that it took place on a Thursday instead of the usual bank seizure day Friday (the situation must have really been desperate), although based on news reports, the CEO seemed to have been unaware that it was going to happen. There was a major surprise however in that the FDIC claimed that it will not have to pay any money out of its deposit insurance fund because of the failure (this doesn't mean that the money isn't going to be paid, see below for some insight into the latest scam that the U.S. government seems to have going).

The New York Investing meetup first predicted Washington Mutual would go under last April and again in our September meeting (it was amazing it was still operating at that time). Its impending failure was an open secret in the last few weeks. A slow run on the bank followed, with $16.7 billion (or approximately 12%) of deposits being withdrawn since September 15th. While filings indicate that Washington Mutual had $143 billion in deposits at the end of August and deposits were likely dropping in the first 15 days of September as well as after, the government stated in its takeover press release that Washington Mutual had $188 billion in deposits (interesting arithmetic, but typical of the U.S. government).

Washington Mutual had all the major markers of a bank likely to go under - a huge drop in the stock price (down 95% from the high yesterday); option ARM and subprime lending (as much as half of its $227 billion in loans; massive losses ($3 billion in the last quarter alone) and write downs; a fired CEO; way above average interest rates to get deposits (5% for one-year CDs), and incidents of capital raising. Unlike other failure prone banks, Washington Mutual had only one major capital raising event because the terms granted private equity firm TPG made it impossible to raise additional funds. TPG agreed to rescind those terms a couple of weeks ago, but too late to save the $7 billion it funnelled into the doomed Savings and Loan last April (once again the 'smart' money doesn't seem so smart after all). There was even an additional augur of Washington Mutual's impending end that can not be reliably counted on - S&P downgraded it to junk status on September 15th and then again to even lower junk status on the 24th (with ratings as low as C, only one step above the minimum possible D, which means default). Kudos to S&P for finally downgrading a company before it went out of business.

As for the terms of JP Morgan's takeover, they are quite interesting to say the least. JP Morgan agreed to pay $1.9 billion for the acquisition (similar to the price it paid for Bear Stearns). It has no obligations to Washington Mutual's equity, senior, or subordinated debt holders, all of whom will be wiped out. It is going to have to take a $31 billion write down for Washington Mutual's bad loans however. This figure is approximately what the FDIC would have had to pay out of its deposit insurance fund because of Washington Mutual's failure. It is doubtful though that JP Morgan will really suffer the full cost of this write down. It not only has a major account with the Federal Reserve, but its CEO, Jamie Dimon, has a seat on the New York Fed's board and gets to vote on decisions that could be very helpful to his bank. Somehow, I think the Fed will make sure that JP Morgan is taken care of.

NEXT:

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Bailout to Bailout: The Bear Stearns Bailout and Its Aftermath

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our video for this posting can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Mn67rNCFQ

It was soon realized that the temporary loan given by the Federal Reserve to Bear Stearns would not be enough to keep the company afloat. Indeed this was probably already known before the loan's announcement was made on the afternoon of the 14th. The Fed, particularly the New York regional division, worked feverishly all weekend to find a definitive solution to Bear's insolvency. They decided to have JP Morgan take over Bear at a price of $2.52 a share, a rather sharp haircut to the Friday closing price of $30 a share ... and an even steeper discount to the official book value of $84 to $97 a share for Bear stock, which the CEO had announced was unimpaired only two days earlier.

Not only did JP Morgan get Bear Stearns essentially for free, but the Federal Reserve further guaranteed $30 billion (later reduced to $29 billion) of Bears troubled mortgage bonds. JP Morgan was by no means just a lucky bystander in this transaction. Its CEO sat on the board of governors of the New York Fed and got to influence the decision that proved highly favorable to them - in more ways than one it turned out. JP Morgan was a counter party to a large number of derivatives on Bear Stearns books and Bears failure would probably have sunk JP Morgan shortly thereafter. So the Fed's giveaway bailout of Bear Stearns was also an indirect bailout of JP Morgan. Membership (in the Fed) obviously has its privileges. Bear Stearns not being a Fed member wound up being thrown to the wolves.

While JP Morgan and the Bear Stearns bondholders were winners because of the Fed arranged bailout, stockholders and credit default swap (CDS) holders wound up being the big losers. If Bear Stearns had actually declared bankruptcy, the CDS holders would have had a big payday. However, once again the Fed's interference in the market turned winners who had made the correct investment decision into losers by changing the rules of the game at the last moment.It turned out that the stock holders had more clout and wound up successfully agitating for an increase in the takeover price to $10 a share. Even at that price some of the 'smart money' lost big, including British investor Joe Lewis, who lost over a billion dollars, and renowned mutual fund manager Bill Miller whose fund had large holding of Bear stock. The American taxpayer, as per usual, was put on the hook and would also wind up paying for Bear Stearns mismanagement and the Fed's gifting to JP Morgan.

As a result of being blindsided by Bear Stearns failure, the Fed set up the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) in March of 2008. For the first time in its history, the Fed allowed broker-dealers to also borrow from them, not just commercial banks. Lehman Brothers was an immediate beneficiary of this new program, which probably kept it from failing shortly after Bear Stearns did. The legality of this new Fed operation was at best tenuous, but the Fed seemed to have little concern for following its mandate of controlling inflation or restricting its activities to those specifically granted to it by the U.S government. After all why should the Fed be concerned about such things since it knew the government was unlikely to try to keep it from doing whatever it wanted to do - legal or otherwise.

NEXT: Run on the Bank, 2008 - Indymac

Daryl Montgomery

Organizer, New York Investing meetup

http://investing.meetup.com/21

Bailout to Bailout - The Collapse and Rescue of Bear Stearns

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our video for this posting can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Mn67rNCFQ

By March 10, 2008, rumors were flying everywhere on Wall Street that Bear Stearns was in trouble. In an attempt to counter these rumors, Bear's CEO released a statement to the press that the company had a sufficient liquidity cushion to weather the credit crisis. When a company is going under, it has no choice except to make such claims. Instead of being reassuring, this type of statement is an indication of serious trouble. After all, a sound company has no need to assure the public that its financial position is strong - and Bear Stearns was no exception. Insiders, of course, are not fooled by these proclamations, which are meant for the average investor. Indeed examination of options activity during Bear's last days shows heavy put buying that quickly turned into huge profits for those in the know.

According to an SEC report released the following week, Bear Stearns had a cash shortfall starting on March 11th, only one day after the CEO assured the public that Bear had sufficient liquidity. By the evening of March 13th, Bear was no longer a viable business and behind the scenes it was already working out the details of a bailout plan with the Fed. Ironically, if indeed it was a coincidence, earlier that day, S&P released a cheer-leading report heralding the end to subprime crisis write offs, which in turn led to a strong rally in U.S. financial stocks.

On Friday the 14th, Bear Stearns stock went into free fall. It closed at $30 a share, down from a high of over $171 at its peak in January 2007. Depending on the source, the book value for the company's stock was somewhere between $84 and $97 a share. The market obviously didn't agree and it would turn out the Fed's judgment was even more pessimistic. Nevertheless, after the close, the CEO stated in a conference call with investors that the book value was fundamentally unchanged. He also claimed that Bear's 'liquidity position had markedly deteriorated because of market rumors' indicating that management incompetence, the reporting of misleading financial figures, or that Bear actually being insolvent had nothing to do with the loss of faith in the company.

The CEO also announced an emergency 28-day loan from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Fed had no real legal authority to assist Bear Stearns, so it funnelled the loan through JP Morgan, one of its member institutions. It justified its actions based on an obscure 1930s law that gives the Fed broad ability to grant loans to corporations in crisis conditions. During the weekend, the Fed would became even more proactive and Bear Stearns was no longer be an independent company when the markets opened again on Monday morning.

NEXT: Bailout to Bailout - The Bear Bailout and Its Aftermath

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

What Banks and Enron Had in Common

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

The Subprime Crisis began to take a serious toll on bank and broker earnings by the third quarter of 2007. Merrill Lynch led the pack with a $8.4 billion dollar write down. Citibank reduced its earnings by $5.9 billion, UBS by $3.4 billion, and JP Morgan by $3.1 billion. Deutsche Banks had $3.1 billion in write downs, but still amazingly managed to post a rise in earnings (one wonders who did their accounting). There was of course a lot of chatter from the talking heads in the media about whether or not these write downs were the final word in the impact of the Subprime Crisis on financial company earnings. Even the most casual knowledge of stock market history would have provided the answer - 'no they were not!' Whenever earnings in a group of stocks start to fall apart, the first write downs are never the last and usually aren't even the biggest for that matter. This was the pattern when the tech bubble burst only a few years earlier and yet many media commentators couldn't seem to remember even that far back.
Even without a knowledge of history, there was more than enough evidence to indicate that financial company write offs might get much bigger and go on for a long time. SIVs - structured investment vehicles - had already hit the news many weeks before November of 2007. These off-balance sheet items (think Enron) were so obscure that most people on Wall Street had never heard of them. Suddenly, there were an extra $400 billion of possibly bad debt that was not on the balance sheet of the banks, but would be winding up there eventually. Citibank alone had $100 billion in credit exposure to SIVs. This new wrinkle in the Subprime Crisis was viewed as so serious by the U.S. Treasury Secretary that he attempted to organize a bailout (how he had the authority to do so is unclear) by getting a number of large banks and brokers to create a pool that could buy up SIV assets and thereby support their prices. While much ballyhooed by the press, this effort went nowhere and was eventually abandoned by December.

While the Treasury Department's plans for SIVs fell through, the Federal Reserve created an alternative that could help out the big banks. It allowed them to borrow against their (highly questionable) assets, but this necessitated bringing the assets onto the books. In December, Citibank indeed brought $49 billion in SIV assets onto it balance sheet. It is presumed that the other $51 billion the Citi had originally in SIVs had disappeared because of reductions in value. Indeed, it was reported in December that the total value of SIVs was then only $298 billion (it was quite possible that even this was a significant overstatement of their actual worth). If Citi had lost approximate $50 billion in its SIV investments, it was not fully (if at all) reflected in write offs in its first quarter 2008 earnings report.

Although SIVs were considered a serious threat to the stability of the banking system, little did the public know in the fall of 2007, that they were not the sum total of all off-balance sheet items that the banks were holding. After all, why would a company have off-balance sheet items unless it wanted to hide what it was really doing? Since there purpose is secrecy, how does anyone know how many off-balance sheet items a company has, what assets they contain, and how much those assets are really worth? While it would be reasonable to assume that if there was one type of off-balance sheet item on a companies books, there could easily be others, there was little if any speculation on this matter by the financial media. Only in February of 2008 was it reported that SIVs were actually only one type of off-balance sheet items held by the banks - and the possible losses were much greater than had been previously imagined. The accountants who did Enron's book must have been envious.

Next: Mortgage Insurer Meltdown.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup

For more information about us, please see our web site: http://investing.meetup.com/21.