JP Morgan: The Whale Wagging the Dog

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.

JP Morgan Chase revealed yesterday that one of its traders, Bruno Iksil (known as the London whale), was responsible for a $2 billion loss in the last six weeks. Apparently, little has changed since 2008, when the irresponsible activities of the big banks and trading houses almost brought down the world financial system.

Iksil's trading was hardly secret. His positions were well-known among traders and Bloomberg published an article about their high-risk nature on April 5th. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), dismissed the report as overblown. Amazingly, the massive losses took place in a portfolio that was supposed to hedge against risks. Because of this, the company claims that these trades would not have violated the Volcker Rule — designed to curtail risky trading by banks and prevent just such occurrences. The Volcker Rule is not scheduled to be enforced by the Federal Reserve until 2014 as is. Jamie Dimon has been one of its major critics.

Jamie Dimon does as he pleases as is. He jumped the gun on the Fed's stress test announcements in March by announcing JPMorgan Chase had passed. The Fed was then forced to release the rest of the information early. Communication's problems were cited for the foul-up. Apparently, Dimon didn't read the memo about the announcement schedule. He sits on the board of the New York Fed (for a list of directors, see: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html). All of the Fed's regional boards have three representatives from the banks they "regulate".

JP Morgan was quick to point out that no laws were broken by the activities that led to the $2 billion trading loss ($2 billion so far that is). The public should be very worried about this. When banks are considered "too big to fail" and expect bailouts when they screw up, the public is the one that pays. The liquidity that JP Morgan Chase and all the other big banks are trading with comes directly from the Fed, supported by its zero interest rate policies (free money) and quantitative easing (fake money). Even though the trading loss indicates serious problems in the financial system, the U.S. stock market was up minutes after it opened. And why not?  It knows the Federal Reserve will make up the losses one way or the other and if that's not enough, it expects more government bailout money for the banks. 

The Fed followed the same strategy in 2008 and still a major collapse took place. Central banks do not have unlimited resources and when the rot builds up too much in the system, everything falls apart. The public today is also not likely to put up with another massive bank bailout. In 1998, it took only one overleveraged hedge fund — Long-Term Capital — to almost bring down the financial system. Today, there are potentially any number of banks and hedge funds that represent major risks.  JP Morgan's trading losses indicate little has been done since 2008 to prevent the next market meltdown. 

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.

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.