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 Bankruptcy Bonanza

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:

CIT filed for bankruptcy in New York on Sunday. This is the fourth biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history, just behind number three General Motors (Lehman Brothers was number one). The CIT bankruptcy filing followed nine bank failures on Friday, which coincidentally involved the 4th largest bank failure this year. The FDIC Insurance fund which pays off depositors of failed banks is itself bankrupt. CIT itself is a bank holding company and became one last year in order to TARP funds. It will not be countered as a failed bank since it is expected to come out of bankruptcy.

The amount of money the government put into CIT was a small $2.3 billion (compared to $45 billion put directly into Citibank). CIT was not deemed too big to fail. It has actually been on the verge of collapse for several months now and almost went under in July. Lots of parties have been holding it up, including Goldman Sachs, with temporary measures since then - and for good reason. CIT is the largest loan provider for small and medium sized business in the U.S and 300,000 retail outlets are at least partially dependent on it for their merchandise. Imagine the impact on the holiday shopping season (goods are already at the stores by this point) if CIT had failed in the summer? The U.S. economy would have taken a major hit since retailing is its largest industry.

The federal government's indifference to CIT puts the lie to Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner's claims that the TARP government bailout money was to restore lending and support the economy. The biggest U.S. lender to small and medium size businesses has been allowed to fail. Before the failure, its was drastically cutting its loans to try and stay afloat. CIT lent $11.3 billion in the first half of 2008, but only $4.4 billion in the first half of 2009. While this was taking place the large banks, who got copious amounts of TARP money to increase lending, were cutting consumer credit sharply. So the U.S. has moved toward an economy where only big businesses and the rich are supplied with adequate credit (a third-world model). There is no way an actual economic recovery can take place given this situation.

Of course the government will probably come up with a plan for the CIT post-bankruptcy. I imagine a Cash Loans for Clunker Businesses program where huge amounts of money are lent to insolvent subprime businesses that don't have a chance of every making any money (businesses with Washington connections will be at the top of the list and get 99% of the funding). Bernanke is probably starting up the printing presses right now to pay for it. Just as a reminder, Bernanke claims he and the other central bankers 'saved' the financial system last year and he has been heralded by Obama for preventing another depression. With 115 bank failures this year and counting, a major financial company bankruptcy, and an insolvent FDIC bank insurance fund, the financial system isn't looking so 'saved' lately. Well, at least we've got the stock market, which just had its best seven month performance since 1933 . Hey, wasn't that during the Great Depression?

NEXT: Markets Roller Coaster Ride Powered by Media Hype

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.

Citi Dives, GDP Plunges - Both Off the Cliff

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:

Washington's mantra should be, "if it's broke, don't fix it and when it's not fixed, fudge the numbers". News of the latest government plan to rescue Citigroup came out this morning as did the revised GDP figures for Q4 2008. Today's government rescue of Citi is the third one in five months. Those rescues followed about half a dozen U.S. government assisted rescues that took place earlier. Note to Geithner, Bernanke, and Obama - doesn't look like what you are doing is working guys, you might want to consider Plan B. Citi's rescue isn't the only thing not working either, all the policy moves to prop up the ailing U.S. economy are fizzling as well and apparently the 'just lie about it and no one will notice' approach is falling apart too. The GDP figures for last quarter had a major downward revision (they are still much rosier than the actual numbers however, so don't get too excited just yet).

The Citibank bailout du jour can be summarized as 'U.S. taxpayers get screwed again' (just another example of how the government keeps your interests in mind). Taxpayers are going to get up to a 36% stake in the insolvent bank that has a net negative worth in exchange for the $25 billion (out of a total of $45 billion) of TARP funds that were previously provided to Citi. The remaining $20 billion of taxpayer provided funding will still be in the form of preferred that pays a dividend, but the option exists for also converting this to the worthless common stock. Other holders of 'bailout preferred', such as the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, Capital Research Global Investors and Capital World Investors will be paid $3.25 per share for their preferred, instead of being forced to convert it to common stock that traded as low as $1.55 this morning (a deal that is more than 100% over market price sounds good to me - unfortunately only the well-connected rich and powerful get these arrangements, the small investor and taxpayer get the losses).

To say the least, the market didn't react favorably to the government's latest move on Citi. The stock was down as much as 37% at its low so far. Considering the dilution though, existing shareholders could see their stake fall to only 26% of the bank, this was really not a big drop at all. Still, $1.55 is above the penny level usually reserved for stocks in official bankruptcy and is well more than $1.55 above the real value of the company. New York Investing first said Citi was insolvent in late 2007 and well over a year later, the market is finally catching up with us. We have also said repeatedly that there is no such thing as a single bailout for an insolvent financial institution - Citi has shown just how true that statement is.

Another thing New York Investing has frequently pointed out is how the U.S. government is fudging its GDP reports. This blog scoffed at the original Q4 2008 report of a minus 3.8 decline in the economy and pointed out several absurd figures that were being used to calculate this number. Well, the government started to fess up this morning, when it stated there was actually a 6.2% decline in GDP last quarter (a drop of 8% to 9% is more likely). Certainly a step in the right direction, although the government is still claiming that the U.S. economy grew 1.1% in 2008. Maybe this is possible in some alternate universe, but not in the reality that most of us live in.

The next meeting of the New York Investing meetup is on Tuesday, March 3rd at PS 41, 116 West 11th Street (at 6th Ave) from 6:45 to 8:45PM. Click on the link below my name to RSVP. If you are in the New York metro area, you should attend.

NEXT: Technicals Ugly, Risk of Domino Bank Collapses

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.

Retail Sales Plummet, More Trouble in Banks

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:

Retail sales dropped 2.7% in December, far more than Wall Street's prediction of 1.2% (just another example of how to this day Wall Street is continually underestimating the impact of the Credit Crisis on the economy). For the year, retail sales were down 0.1%, the first drop since the series has been reported by the government. Since retail sales have accounted for approximately 72% of the U.S. economic activity in recent years, whether or not they rise or fall has a strong impact on GDP. Since the Credit Crisis is by no means over yet, clearly indicated by today's news about Citibank, HSBC and Deutsche Bank, retail sales are likely to continue to be weak into the foreseeable future.

The drop in retail sales in December was a record sixth drop in a row. Virtually all areas of retail sales showed declines. Auto sales fell by 0.7 percent and are down 22.4 percent year over year. Excluding autos, retail sales were down 3.1%, the most ever since the report has been published. Retail sales did not drop during the recession of 2001, the only recession in history where this unlikely condition took place (this was only possible because of vast consumer credit expansion at that time which we are now paying for with the current Credit Crisis). When interpreting retail sales figures, it is important to realize that they are not adjusted for inflation. Gasoline sales dropped by 15.9% in December, but this is the result of falling oil prices, not a big decline in actual sales. While some of the drop in the December report took place because of lower prices, most of it did not. On the other hand, much of the gain reported in retail sales in the last several years has been a consequence of price rises and not a better economy.

The Credit Crisis backdrop is not likely to improve any time soon either. Three international banks made the news today. Deutsche Bank announced it expected a $6.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter. A brokerage report cited the need for global bank HSBC to raise up to $30 billion in new capital, citing 57% of its loan exposure was in the troubled UK and US markets. Finally in a deal between the dead and the dying, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are creating a new business entity consisting of Citigroup's Smith Barney's unit and Morgan Stanley's wealth management (some would say mismanagement) business. Morgan Stanley gets a controlling interest and Citigroup gets $2.7 billion in desperately needed cash.

For many years, Citibank was the largest bank in the United States. If the U.S. government hadn't bailed it out both behind the scenes and more publicly in November 2008, it would possibly already be out of business. Citigroup was created by a merger of Citibank and Traveler's Insurance in 1998. This was hailed as a brilliant move by Wall Street. Only four years later Citigroup spun off Travelers Insurance (many things Wall Street considers brilliant fall apart within a few years or so). Ten years later the financial supermarket approach that Citibank built itself on is disintegrating, much like the entire global banking system.


NEXT: The Real Deflation is Taking Place in Bank Stocks

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 Cost: $8.5 Trillion so far ... and Counting

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:

One analysis has calculated that so far the bailout efforts of the U.S. government are up to $8.5 trillion. This is almost as much as the U.S. National Debt was when the bailout efforts began. So basically in a year the U.S. government has managed to double a debt level than took well over 200 years to accumulate. Don't expect to see all of these bailout costs included in the official National Debt figures however since the U.S. government engages in more off-balance sheet accounting than Enron ever dreamed of.

While these figures would seem alarming to even a casual observer, many mainstream economists don't find them troubling. Recent Nobel winner Paul Krugman claims the U.S. National Debt could be twice GDP (which would be around $28 trillion if you believe the official overstated GDP figures). How this could be a sustainable debt load for the U.S is hard to fathom, especially since we have a huge stream of social security and medicaid payments coming due in the next couple of decades because of retiring Baby Boomers (there is no money in either of these trust funds by the way, all the funds are used to support current government spending the moment they are received). Economists are also not worrying because over 50% of the bailout costs so far have been structured in the form of a loan. Much of those loans are backed by the truly worthless assets though - apparently the hope that sub-prime borrowers (this time companies) will by some magic pay back their loans still lives on and on in the fantasy land of modern economic belief. While up to now over 95% of bailout costs have been in the form of corporate welfare, expect this to change starting next year with a shift toward more support for individuals.

Although the inflation implications of U.S. government bailout profligacy should be ratcheting government bond yields to record levels, this has not happened yet. A flight to safety among desperate investors had kept U.S. bond yields unusually low (corporate bond yields are at a record spread to treasuries however). The drop in yields combined with the plunge in U.S. stocks has actually caused S&P 500 yields to be greater than 10-year U.S. Treasuries for the first time since 1958. Before that date this relationship was the norm. Don't assume that norm is returning however as some pundits are claiming. Stock yields are being kept artificially high by the bailout programs, which have allowed some companies to fund their dividends with U.S. taxpayer money. Stock dividends are going to come down and U.S. bond yields will eventually go up when they adjust to the inflationary realities of government spending.

Meanwhile, the bailout programs are not nearly at an end yet. As we have said in the New York Investing meetup since the credit crisis began, there is no such thing as one bailout for an insolvent financial firm. No firm has been better than Citigroup in proving this point. After five private bailouts earlier in the year, Citi got $25 billion from TARP and only weeks later had to have a much bigger government cash infusion to stay afloat. The auto makers are in Washington hat in hand at the moment with a low entry level bailout request - expect those costs to keep going up next year as well. And of course, their are more bailouts waiting in the wings.

NEXT: Economic Predictions for 2009

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 Citi That Should be Put to Sleep

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:

A constant refrain that has been heard from the New York Investing meetup since the Credit Crisis began is "there is no such thing as one bailout for an insolvent financial institution". If there was a poster for credit crisis relief, Citibank's picture would be on it with words underneath, "Can you bail me out? We accept funds from Arab sheiks, sovereign wealth funds, foreign banks, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the FDIC, and any welfare program for banks the government can invent - and we take food stamps". As with the daily crashes in the stock market,the bailouts for Citibank have become so common it's easy to lose track of them. From the end of 2007 into the spring of 2008 there were five different bailouts five months in a row. The Fed has pumped substantial amounts into the bank through its various lending facilities. Citi got the biggest chunk of funds from the TARP bill just recently. The 'success' of these efforts came to fruition last week when Citi (C) stock went into a death spiral losing 60% of its value to close at $3.77 (it was over $55 last year).

But not to worry, the U.S. government brain trust that has come up with one ineffective failed program after another to handle the credit crisis put together a bailout package for Citi over the weekend. If they are lucky, this one will work for more than just weeks, but will stabilize things for months before the next rescue package is needed (consider this to be the optimistic scenario). Citi will get another immediate cash infusion of $20 billion from TARP funds. Treasury and the FDIC will guarantee against the "possibility of unusually large losses" on up to $306 billion of risky (a code word for worthless) loans and securities backed by residential and commercial mortgages (please note that commercial mortgages are now collapsing). Citi will assume the first $29 billion in losses on this risky pool of assets. Beyond that amount, the government would absorb 90 percent of the remaining losses, and Citi 10 percent. Money from TARP and funds from the FDIC would cover the government's portion of potential losses (this is deposit insurance money). The Federal Reserve would finance the remaining assets with a loan to Citigroup of freshly printed dollars.

So that this bailout doesn't look like the handout that it is, the U.S. government is getting $7 billion in preferred shares of Citigroup. In addition, Citi will issue warrants to the U.S. Treasury and the FDIC for approximately 254 million shares of the company's common stock (4.5% of the total) at a strike price of $10.61. It is of course possible the Citi stock could hit this level, especially if the U.S. government provides at least $10.61 of funding per share. Citigroup is also barred from paying quarterly dividends to shareholders of more than 1 cent a share for three years (it makes no sense that it should be allowed to pay any dividends, since they are being funded by the U.S. taxpayer). Citi has to additionally take steps to help distressed homeowners.

New York Investing has repeatedly said in its talks in the last year that Citi is too big to fail and the government will bail it out no matter how big a financial black hole it is. This sentiment was echoed in press coverage of the most recent bailout effort with financial commentators saying things such as"If they didn't help, the damage would be beyond imagination" and "It would create chaos [if there hadn't been a bailout]". We have also discussed how Japan followed similar policies with it banks in the 1990s and 2000s. During that time, the Japanese economy has been unable to recover and the stock market has sold off for 18 years. U.S. policy makers will have to come up with a different approach than the one used by the Japanese if they want to avoid this scenario in the U.S. So far, they haven't.

NEXT: Geithner's Appointment to Treasury, A Golden Opportunity

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.

No Assurance in Insurance; Wachovia's Deal is Not a Deal

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:

Apparently you can't rely on anything that U.S. government officials say, whether it comes from politicians or federal agencies. As is the case for those with severe psychological disturbances, reality has no permanence, but can change from moment to moment. Today's illustration of this 'Washington psychosis' comes from the Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, and the FDIC, the people who are supposed to be protecting your bank deposits. Reid publicly stated that a major insurance company was about to go under and then later backtracked (apparently the amnesia drugs had kicked in by that time). The FDIC announced on September 29th that Wachovia had been purchased by Citibank and provided detailed terms of the transaction. This morning, Wells Fargo announced that it was taking over Wachovia in an all stock deal. This leads to the immediate question of who paid whom a bigger bribe to make this happen.

Reid's statement was, " We don't have a lot of leeway on time. One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt". Insurance stocks were already down before this comment because of exposure to AIG, Lehman, and Washington Mutual debt, not to mention derivatives. The selling accelerated after Reid spoke. In a very carefully worded statement (note the italics), a spokesman for Reid later stated, "Senator Reid is not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy. He has no special knowledge about [a bankruptcy], nor has he talked to any insurance company officials." There were four insurance companies, which might be considered household names, that had double digit sell offs on Thursday - Hartford Financial Services (down 32%), MetLife (down 15%), Prudential (down 11%), and Lowes (down 10%). Both Met Life and Hartford released statements that they were not on the verge of bankruptcy (one wonders why they felt a need to do so).

Below is all the U.S. listed insurance companies with a market cap over one billion that had 10% or greater sell offs on Thursday:

Hartford Financial Services (HIG) - down 32%
Principal Financial Group (PFG) - down 16%
MetLife (MET)- down 15%
AXA (AXA) - down 12%
State Auto Financial Corp (STFC) - down 12%
Delphi Financial Corp (DFG) - down 12%
Prudential Financial (PRU) - down 11%
Unitrin (UTR) - down 11%
Everest Real Estate Group (RE) - down 11%
Loews (L) - down 10%
Cincinnati Financial Corp (CINF) - down 10%

The Reid insurance bankruptcy comments were just a moment of truth accidentally slipping out. The takeover of Wachovia by Wells Fargo after there was a done deal with Citibank is far more serious however. This represents a fracturing of the capitalist system in the U.S. Such niceties as contract and property rights no longer seem to be necessary, as indeed is the case in backward, undeveloped economies (which remain backward and undeveloped because these underpinnings for successfully doing business are missing). Of course, things may not actually that bad. This could merely be a case of the FDIC publishing completely false information about its activities and what is going on in the banking system. Well, that's certainly a reassuring thought.

NEXT: The House Caves in, but it's the Market that Collapses

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.

Banks and Brokers Most Likely to Fail - The Big Players

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=sBhEO14lwMg

Other videos on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxTlP5FU_Q

At our September 8th meeting, the New York Investing meetup presented a talk on the 'Banks and Brokers Most Likely to Fail'. This was a follow up to material that was already presented in our April meeting 9th meeting talk, 'The Dirtiest Dozen Financial Companies' (the notes for both of these talks were posted on our web site at: http://investing.meetup.com/21/files). Putting together all the criteria that should be considered in determining whether or not a bank of broker could be insolvent or heading in that direction the following list of large banks or brokers resulted (how much their stock was down from the high is the figure next to their name):

Washington Mutual -down 93%
Lehman - down 91%
Wachovia - down 87%
Merrill Lynch - down 78%
Citibank - down 75%
UBS - down 73%
Royal Bank of Scotland - down 73%
Keycorp - down 82%

With the exception of Wachovia, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Keycorp, these companies had already appeared on our April list.

Washington Mutual and Lehman were obviously both in desperate shape and jocking for the number one position of who would be gone first. Washington Mutual had the highest one-year CD rates in the U.S and the willingness to pay a lot more for funds than its rivals indicated how urgently it needed funds. It could also not raise capital because it had sold stock at $8.75 a share with an agreement to reimburse the buyer for the price difference if it sold stock again at a lower price. It's price had fallen so low (it's price dipped to $1.75 a share the day of our meeting) that if it sold new stock, it would have to pay more to this purchaser per share than it would from the sale. Lehman on the other hand, had been in serious trouble since March and would have gone under right after Bear Stearns failure except for Federal Reserve cash infusions into the company from the newly established PDCF (Primary Dealer Credit Facility). It had just released its earnings and had lost $5.62 a share in the third quarter versus $5.19 a share in the second quarter. Its stock was falling rapidly and would close at $3.65 on Friday.

Lehman had been trying to sell some of its operation or part of the company for the previous several weeks. The Korean Development bank finally withdrew from negotiations claiming they were asking too much. Lehman had deteriorated so much that an emergency meeting was held at the New York Fed's office starting Friday evening and going into Sunday. The Treasury secretary and all of Wall Street's movers and shakers were there. Even then, nothing could be worked out for Lehman. For the first time, the Treasury refused to offer government guarantees. This should not be interpreted as the Fed and Treasury finally realizing the danger of Moral Hazard, or that no one voted for the U.S. becoming a socialist state, but rather that they themselves are out of funding sources.

Without a government rescue, Lehman was forced to declare bankruptcy Monday morning. Ironically, Bank of America agreed to buy Merrill Lynch as a result of the emergency meeting (both were there), apparently with some prodding from government officials. Elsewhere, insurance giant AIG requested access to the Fed's lending facilities, in order to stave off its own impending bankruptcy.

NEXT: Lehman, Merrill Lynch, and AIG - the Morning After

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.


























































































































NEXT: The Banks and Brokers Most Likely to Fail








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.

Credits of Mass Destruction

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 New York Investing meetup has made a companion video to this blog entry. You can find it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGoOE2SwhY.

In the week of February 14, 2008, the Auction-Rate Securities market collapsed with almost 1000 auctions failing. Auction-rate bonds were long-term debts that had their interest rates reset in a Dutch Auction every one to 35 days. The market had been created in 1984 and from that time until the end of 2007, only 44 auctions had failed. The market had grown to over $300 billion and was a favorite place to borrow for local governments, hospitals, museums, student-loan agencies and closed-end mutual funds. As long as the auctions worked the rates for these borrowers remained as low as 3%, but if they failed (something no one worried about since this almost never happened), the rates could be punitively high - as much as 20%. Wall Street raised money from some of its best clients to fund these auctions, with promises that these investments were 'as good as cash'. After 24 years without problems, the end came suddenly and without warning. The big banks and brokers withdrew their support and overnight their clients who had invested in these 'good as cash' investments couldn't get their money back. The borrowers suddenly found themselves paying junk bond rates.

At almost the same time, VIEs 0r variable interest entities (also known as conduits or special purpose vehicles) made the news. VIEs are off-balance sheet items for banks (contary to popular belief, the Enron scandal did not do away with off-balance sheet items) and their amounts were revealed to be around $800 billion. The first major news of off-balance sheet items for banks concerned SIVs (structured investment vehicles), which are a type of VIE. This news appeared in the fall of 2007. SIVs were estimated to have an original value of $400 billion and this amount was considered so great that the U.S. Treasury department attempted to arrange an SIV bailout. This effort never got anywhere and was abandoned by December. Only two-months later, the off-balance sheet problem was revealed to be twice as large as originally thought. Furthermore, it was estimated that the VIEs were worth only 27 cents on the dollar. In an SEC filing, Citibank indicated that it had $320 billion in VIEs, which would mean it might have lost approximately $240 billion off-balance sheet. It had only written off $22 billion in losses up to that time.

While problems with the auction-rate securities market and VIEs had not been predicted and appeared seemingly out of nowhere, warnings were being made about the Credit Default Swaps market (CDSs). These were derivatives that were a type of bond insurance and the functioning of this market was threatened on a number of fronts - particularly from bond insurers losing their top credit ratings or a failure of a major counter-party (any large bank or broker). The Fed would have to publicly bail out Bear Stearns in mid-March 2008 to prevent the collapse of this market. The CDS market was so huge at $62 trillion that it was four times the size of the U.S. economy and was effectively a financial nuclear weapon that could wipe out the entire system. If this happened, it would likely be sudden and without warning just like the collapse of the auction-rate security market (and Bear Stearns).

NEXT: Gold, Silver, and Oil - The Basics of Price Movements

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup

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

Sovereign Wealth Funds Bail Out the Banks

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.

As the credit crisis unfolded in the fall of 2007, a number of big banks and brokerage houses were desperate for capital - far more desperate than was ever admitted publicly. While they needed large cash infusions to continue operating, a number of sovereign wealth funds in the oil-rich Gulf and the Far East had swollen coffers of dollars that they needed to place somewhere. It was therefore almost inevitable that some of the first bailouts (an insolvent financial institution requires multiple bailouts) of struggling financial institutions would be done by sovereign wealth fund purchases. By the end of 2007, it was estimated that these funds would make at least $37 billion of investments in Western financial companies.

The idea of foreign investment as a means of providing capital was not a completely new one. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia had purchased 5% of Citibank (then Citigroup) when it was reeling from the Savings and Loan Crisis in the early 1990s. Earlier in 2007, China purchased a $3 billion stake in Blackstone's IPO, which debuted just before the collapse of the private equity bubble and promptly plummeted in price. By November, Abu Dhabi had bought a 4.9% stake in Citibank for $7.5 billion. At the time of the purchase, rumors were circulating on Wall Street that Citi might be insolvent. U.S. government officials admitted being involved in the transaction, which begs the question as to whether or not they would have allowed the deal to go through if it wasn't absolutely necessary for Citibank's survival.

In early December, the Government of Singapore Investment corporation got 9% ownership in UBS for a little less than $10 billion and an unnamed middle eastern investor (thought to be Oman) bought a 2% stake. China then bought a 9.9% stake in Morgan Stanley only days before Christmas. Singapore's Temasek Holdings then helped bail out Merrill Lynch on December 24th. By mid-January, Citibank was already in need of a second bailout by the sovereign wealth funds, only two months after the first one had taken place. The Government of Singapore, the Kuwait Investment Authority and Price Alwaleed were part of a $12.5 billion capital infusion for which they got some ownership of the bank in return. On the same day, only weeks after its first cash infusion from a sovereign wealth fund, Merrill Lynch received an additional $6.6 billion from parties including the Kuwait Investment Authority and the Korean Investment Corp.

None of these deals had to undergo scrutiny by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, which only examines whether acquisitions by overseas buyers compromise national security when their stakes rise above 10%. Given the large number of sovereign wealth funds and wealthy individuals in the Gulf States and Far East, it would be possible for their aggregate ownership to reach 100% without a review ever taking place.

Next: Government Investment Pools Dry Up

Daryl Montgomery

Organizer, New York Investing meetup

For more about the New York Investing meetup, please go to our web site: 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.

More Collateral Damage from the Fed's First Helicopter Drop

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 impact of the Fed's September 18, 2007 rate cut was not limited to the panic sell off in the dollar and the incipient bubble in gold, silver, oil, and food commodities. The lower rates that were supposed to help the housing market didn't materialize. By the end of the month, mortgage rates were actually higher than they had been before the Fed's action. Instead of helping the beleaguered housing industry and homeowners , the Fed's rate cut was actually ineffective at best and did nothing to decrease costs for those struggling to deal with ballooning mortgage debt.
Of course, in reality it was the big banks and broker-dealers that were stuck with increasingly worthless securities backed by subprime loans that were the real target of the Fed's beneficence. It would prove to be too little too late however. By October, the first of a series of multi-billion dollar quarterly write offs would start - $5.5 billion for Merrill Lynch, $3.4 billion for UBS, $3.3 billion for Citibank, and $3.1 billion for Deutsche Bank. As bad as these write offs looked at the time, they were not nearly as bad as what was to come.

The Fed cuts also gave the Wall Street Pollyannas ammunition to game up the market, since Fed cuts were traditionally bullish for stocks. The financial media had wall to wall coverage of talking heads urging viewers to buy stocks now because they were at fantastic bargain prices (of course at a real bottom no one appearing in the media urges viewers to buy stocks). Any experienced trader looking at the market rally that ensued knew something was terribly wrong however. While the market had sold off in heavy volume in late July and the first half of August, it rallied on light volume and then hit new highs on even lighter volume. Trends on low volume are usually soon reversed and the September rally would prove to be no exception.

Next: The U.S. Government Goes from Lying with Statistics to Just Lying

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup

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