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.

FDIC Swan Song: 8 Banks a Week

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 FDIC closed down eight banks last week bringing this year's total to 118 so far. Included in this week's closures was the notorious ShoreBank in Chicago. In a separate report, the U.S. Treasury has disclosed that the Obama administration's HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program) seems to be rapidly falling apart. This could further weaken the U.S. banking system.

The FDIC is operating on both borrowed time and borrowed money. This agency is the bulwark protecting American's savings in the case of failed banks, but the FDIC itself is close to going broke. The eight closures this week alone cost the FDIC’s deposit-insurance fund $473.5 million. The deposit insurance fund was already $20.9 billion in the hole at the end of the fourth quarter in 2009. In order to plug the hole and keep going, the FDIC in December forced banks to prepay three years of insurance premiums and raised about $45 billion by doing so. That money had to pay off the deficit already accumulated and then last for the next 156 months of bailouts. There have been weeks this year when the FDIC has had to shell out close to $1 billion for bank rescues. That $45 billion isn't going to last much longer.

ShoreBank was the most significant bailout this week. The bank was founded in the South Side of Chicago in 1973 and was the nation's first community development and environmental bank. Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Morgan Stanley (MS), Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC), American Express (AXP), GE Capital (GE), and Wells Fargo (WFC) were investors. The bank has indirect ties to a number of members of the Obama administration. The bank was under a cease-and-desist order from the FDIC for more than a year before it was finally closed down. Its remaining assets will be transferred to a newly created corporation, Urban Partnership Bank. Some of the same executives from ShoreBank will be running this newly chartered bank (once they drive Urban Partnership Bank into the ground, it too will be bailed out). It looks like the investments of the too-big-to-fail, or even lose any money, big bank funders will also be protected under this arrangement by transferring them to Urban Partnership Bank.

Meanwhile, the poorly thought out and even more poorly run HAMP program is not making a big dent in slowing foreclosures. Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration's flagship mortgage-relief program have already fallen or more likely been pushed out. Mortgage holders blame the banks for not cooperating and banks blame the mortgage holders. According to RealtyTrac, the nation is headed toward more than one million foreclosures this year - a higher amount than the 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009. Boy, HAMP is certainly doing a great job in significantly reducing the number of foreclosures. Well, I guess it's just too much too expect that something will be accomplished for only $75 billion in taxpayer money.

Based on this week's events, I have written the following theme song for the FDIC (maybe Sheila Blair will sing it at the next board meeting) to be sung to the tune of the Beatles 'Eight Days a Week':

Oh I'll bail out your bank babe,
Guess you know it's through,
Hope you like the money banker,
When I'm funding you,
Spent it, Lost it, Pay Me, Save Me
Don't do nothing but bailouts,
Eight banks a week


Disclosure: No positions

Daryl Montgomery
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.

Market Sell Off on Goldman News Has Deeper Roots

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 SEC's announcement on Friday (April 17th) that it was investigating Goldman Sachs on fraud charges seems to have been the cause of a serious market sell off, but other factors were at work as well. While major financial stocks took a hit, so did gold, gold miners, and oil. The tech heavy Nasdaq also had a sharp decline. The market was overbought and options expiration added an extra impetus to the volatility.  In such circumstances, any bad news can cause contagious selling.

While selling was broad based, large cap financials were indeed the epicenter of the damage. Goldman (GS) itself closed down 13% on the day. JP Morgan (JPM) was down 5% and Morgan Stanley (MS) down 6%. XLF, the financial ETF, was down 4.5%. Inexplicably, the gold mining index HUI was down 4.4% and gold and oil were each down over 2%. Gold should have seen safe haven investing flows, but did not.

As for the major market indices, the financial heavy S&P 500 had the biggest drop, falling 1.6%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down only 1.1% and the small cap Russell 2000 ended 1.3% lower. Nasdaq lost 1.4%. On the daily charts, the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 reached overbought territory in the middle of last week. Nasdaq became extremely overbought at the same time. If selling hadn't started on Friday, it would have done so probably at the beginning of this week.

Although the Dow has not gotten to overbought territory, it has other technical issues, namely volume or lack thereof. The Dow finally had a high volume trading day on Friday ... on heavy selling, which added even more weight to the technically negative picture. Overall volume on the Dow has been dropping since the bottom was put in last March, something that should not be taking place during a rally. Even worse, selling has been occurring on above average volume recently. This is known as distribution and indicates big money is getting out of the market. The only above average volume day so far in April was last Friday. The only high volume day in March also saw selling. February was more mixed, but the four highest volume days in January, all well above average, saw selling. 

Where the buying has been taken place in the market is also not encouraging. Only six stocks frequently account for up to 30% of the buying on the NYSE - Citigroup (C), AIG (AIG), Ambac (ABK), Bank of America (BAK), Popular (BPOP) and Fannie Mae (FNM). Considering that AIG and Fannie Mae are nationalized enterprises owned by the U.S. government and Ambac, Citigroup and Popular were penny stocks selling for 1.00 or less during the Credit Crisis, this is not exactly a sterling list of solid growth companies leading the market.

Liquidity is what makes markets go up (good earnings are the result of liquidity, although in the current rally, liberalized accounting standards may be even more important). The fed and other central banks throughout the world have pumped an almost unlimited amount of it into the world financial system since the Credit Crisis began. Too much liquidity over too long a period of time though pumps up stocks to unsustainable levels as happened in 1929, 1987 and 2000. Under such circumstances withdrawing even small amounts of liquidity can have the effect of sticking a pin in a very over inflated balloon.

Disclosure: Long oil.

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.

U.S. Plays Shell Game with Bailout Money

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.

Citibank is planning on paying back $20 billion of the $45 billion in TARP funds that it received last year. In exchange for the $20 billion in repayment, the U.S. government is giving it $38 billion in tax credits. So of course Citi is actually receiving an additional $18 billion in bailout money, but this is being delivered indirectly and not through an official bailout program. For once, and this happens only on the rarest of occasions, one of the U.S. governments behind the scenes funding scams has been revealed. Investors should assume that this is only the tip of a very huge iceberg that includes changes in accounting rules that have allowed the big banks to unjustifiably report rosy income numbers, off-balance sheet items in the federal budget, slight of hand reporting of who is actually buying U.S. treasuries, and doctored government economic statistics.

Citi's motivation for paying back the $20 billion of TARP funding is to remove executive pay limits imposed on TARP recipients. To make it happen, American taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes to make up for the lost $38 billion in government revenue and have less disposable income so rich Wall Street bankers can get higher salaries. The other $25 billion Citi received from the government doesn't count for the pay restrictions because it was converted to a 34% equity stake in the bank. Citi is a partially nationalized company. Citi is issuing new stock at $3.15 to pay off the $20 billion and this is therefore diluting the equity stake of existing shareholders. The stock offering was poorly received however. This is not surprising. What is surpising is that anyone would buy it. Citi traded as low as 97 cents last year, a price level the U.S. market reserves for impending bankruptcies.

The Federal Reserve said in its post-meeting statement on December 16th that it expects to wind down several emergency lending programs that are set to expire next year. TARP was supposed to expire this year, but it was extended another year when the time came. Even if the programs are closed down, the recent Citi incident indicates that the bailouts won't be reduced, but merely shifted elsewhere in the hopes of misleading the public about what is really going on.

Fed chair Bernanke said last month that " we'll be showing the taxpayers fairly significant extra income" when discussing the bailout programs (read that statement very carefully). What he meant was that money would be showing up on the Fed's books. He didn't claim that the taxpayers would be receiving those gains. It should be kept in mind that the Fed is only a quasi-governmental organization (claims that is completely private are overstatements). The Fed was funded by the big U.S. banks originally, who still hold stock in it and have seats on its regional boards of directors. These banks receive yearly dividend payments from the Fed for their investments. If the Fed is making money, the big banks will be the beneficiary, not the American public.

Bernanke failed to see the Credit Crisis coming and then when it blew up, he used it as an opportunity for a Fed power grab and a chance to loot the U.S. Treasury and transfer taxpayer money to Wall Street firms. This sterling record has caused Time Magazine to just name him person of the year. Bernanke joins previous illustrious winners, such as Adolf Hitler (1938) and Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942). The notice of the award was conveniently released the day before the U.S. senate banking committee was to vote on Bernanke's reconfirmation. Bernanke was of course confirmed by the panel.

Disclosure: No positions in Citibank.

NEXT: Gold Rally Still Holding Up

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 Earnings Reveal True State of Economy

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:

Consumer spending represented 72% of the U.S. economy before the Credit Crisis hit. During the 2000s, that spending was fueled by easy credit and free money thanks to Federal Reserve and legislative policy. The borrowing binge hid a deteriorating economy for years and alternative economic statistics indicate that the U.S. has really been in a recession almost the entire last nine years. The bill has now come due and it is going to take many years to pay it off. The economy can not have a sustainable recovery under such circumstances no matter how many times Ben Bernanke and mainstream economists say this is happening. Wishing just doesn't make it so.

Bernanke has repeatedly told the world how he and the other central bankers saved the financial system from disaster (modesty along with good reality perception are not his strong points). It would be more accurate to state that they postponed disaster with their actions. It addition to an almost unlimited amount of money pumped into the global financial system (much of it freshly off the proverbial printing press), the U.S. changed its accounting rules on the toxic debt held by the big banks so massive losses could suddenly disappear into thin air. Big bank earnings rose spectacularly last quarter as a result. This blog pointed out at that time that losses for the lending operations - the reason banks are in business - were deteriorating however. This deterioration was being hidden by big 'gains' in bank's trading operations (thanks to the change in accounting rules). Those losses have continued to grow this quarter and for many banks are now outpacing the phantom gains from accounting tricks.

The two biggest U.S. banks at the beginning of the Credit Crisis were Citigroup and Bank of America. Last quarter Citi lost 27 cents per share versus a 61 cents loss in Q3 in 2008. Citi had $8 billion in net credit losses and increased its net loan loss reserves by $802 million between July and September. Bank of America lost 26 cents in Q3 versus a gain of 39 cents a year ago. Bank of America's credit losses last quarter were almost $10 billion ( a billion higher than in Q2) and it added a whopping $2.1 billion to its loan loss reserves. Credit card losses for Bank of America were $1.04 billion last quarter versus only $167 million a year earlier.Supposed 'gains' from trading operations kept the top line numbers from being much worse.

Does this look like a banking system that has been saved? Does this look like what would happen in a recovering economy? If the government took back the $45 billion in TARP funds from Citigroup would it be in business the next day? If not, it is insolvent. Ditto for Bank of America. As long as these banks (and others) are in the too big to fail category, money printing is going to be necessary to pay for the continued bailouts that they'll need. Government largess is the reason the stocks of these banks have not collapsed back to last years levels. The same can be said for the stock market overall.

NEXT: Big Bust on Wall Street

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.

Commodities Rumble, Financials Tumble

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:

Alcoa was one of the biggest movers in the market yesterday. At one point it was up over 20%. It was also the stock that I pounded the table to buy at Tuesday night's class on Technical Analysis. Our February choice, DXO, is up over 50%. Basically every stock I mentioned during the class had a good to huge rally. Even FCX, used to illustrate a number of technical points and well advanced in its rally would have made you good money. It was in the upper 34's on Wednesday morning, but over 42 at its high yesterday (there are better bargains in the market at this point). Even a Canadian Royalty Trust that I only mentioned in passing that I had purchased, went up nicely. A couple of attentive attendees took the hint. Coal stocks across the board had terrific rallies. We spent a lot of time looking at coal in the class. While I wasn't sure steel had bottomed, it rallied sharply nevertheless. No one apparently picked up on the shipping company that I made a gratuitous remark about, probably because I didn't state that I owned it. It was up 28% yesterday.

What wasn't up yesterday were financials. Citigroup was down 26% at its low, but closed down 16%. It is planning a reverse split. Wells Fargo was down 10% and Regions Financial down 12%. Broker, Morgan Stanley was down 13%. Insurance companies were clobbered (watch this space for a future bailout). Prudential was down 25% and Met Life, 12%. While you can make good money day trading financials, their long term picture is down while the long term picture for commodities is up. You can no more walk away while holding these positions than you could leave a big pile of chips unattended at the gambling tables in Vegas or Atlantic City. Of course you would eventually not have that pile of chips anyway since gambling, unlike investing, is ultimately a losing activity.

While the precious metals rallied yesterday, beaten down silver did much better than gold. Both were significantly down on Wednesday morning and shot up like rockets after the Fed announcement. It looks like a lot of traders were stopped out of both during the drop. I've seen this Wall Street racket played repeatedly over the years. Manipulators drive down the stock price driving the small players out and then a sudden reversal takes place and it shoots up to the sky. The inside players get the stock cheap and makes big profits, while the small investor is left holding the bag . Only if you have a accurate big picture of what is going on can you protect yourself from this type of shake down.

Oil continued its rally yesterday, closing at 51.61. This was the highest close since December 1st and represents a very significant breakout. Next resistance for the futures contract around $57. Natural gas finally joined the party and was up 42 cents to $4.10. This is a rally right off the bottom. Probably best to wait for some pull back from the initial rally if you want to buy. Gasoline and even heating oil had significant rallies yesterday as well. Oil has now rallied from the high 33's to over 52 in a month. During this entire time, the mainstream financial media has published one story after another about how oil can't rally until the economy improves and how oil can't rally because demand is declining. Nevertheless, oil has rallied sharply. Apparently the smart money doesn't pay any attention to the media, nor should you if you want to join the big money some day.

NEXT: Making a Silk Purse Out of a Sow's Ear

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.