Saturday, February 28, 2009

Money Supply, M2, Year over Year Change


Money supply is growing very fast. It has not yet had an impact on inflation. Delays in this effect usually take 12-18 months. The last trough in M2 occurred in December, 2007. Since then, M2 has been growing at an unprecedented pace.

It should be clear from the chart that the Federal Reserve Board has decided that deflation and the current financial crisis are more important that the risk of inflation.

Most forecaster see no inflation problem on the horizon. Many of these same forecasters didn't see a problem in housing. Of course, they failed to add in other components like consumer debt and the unprecedented leveraging of bank and Wall Street balance sheets.

I like to watch stocks like MOO to get a feel about inflation. Gold and MOO are telling a very different story than that being told on television.

By now you may have realized that the more things change the more they stay the same. This unprecedented growth in M2 will lead to a pick up in demand. It is only going to take a small incremental increase in demand for commodities to send the inflation indexes up. We already had a taste of this before the bubble burst.

A picture is worth a thousand words. You are looking at money stock. Think of it as fuel. Commodity prices should be rising soon--lets say in the second half of the year.

10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate


Ten year Treasury yields are at their lowest levels in more than 45 years. You will notice the peak yield, above 15 percent, occurred in 1982. File this one under food for thought. Click the link in the chart for the larger view or to change the time frame.

Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Investors (Synopsis)


The following are the highlights from Warren Buffett's annual letter to shareholders.
  • Book value per share, fell 9.6% in 2008, its biggest decline since Mr. Buffett took over the company in 1965.
  • Only the second year in more than 40 years that Berkshire posted negative results.
  • Berkshire still outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index which fell 37% last year, including dividends.
  • Berkshire's fourth-quarter net income was $117 million, a whopping 96% decline from last year's $2.9 billion fourth-quarter income.
  • This is the fifth straight year over year quarterly decline in net income.
Mr. Buffett predicted the economy "will be in shambles throughout 2009 -- and, for that matter, probably well beyond."
The CREDIT MELTDOWN

"By the fourth quarter, the credit crisis, coupled with tumbling home and
stock prices, had produced a paralyzing fear that engulfed the country. A
freefall in business activity ensued, accelerating at a pace that I have never
before witnessed. The U.S. -- and much of the world -- became trapped in a
vicious negative-feedback cycle. Fear led to business contraction, and that in
turn led to even greater fear."

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Factbox

ON THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS

"As the year progressed, a series of life-threatening problems within many
of the world's great financial institutions was unveiled. This led to a
dysfunctional credit market that in important respects soon turned
nonfunctional. The watchword throughout the country became the creed I saw on
restaurant walls when I was young: "In God we trust; all others pay cash."

2009 OUTLOOK

"Most of the Berkshire businesses whose results are significantly affected
by the economy earned below their potential last year, and that will be true in
2009 as well. Our retailers were hit particularly hard, as were our operations
tied to residential construction."

MAKING MOVES IN THIS MARKET

"During 2008 I did some dumb things in investments. I made at least one
major mistake of commission and several lesser ones that also hurt. I will tell
you more about these later. Furthermore, I made some errors of omission,
sucking my thumb when new facts came in that should have caused me to
re-examine my thinking and promptly take action.

"Additionally, the market value of the bonds and stocks that we continue to
hold suffered a significant decline along with the general market. This does
not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have
funds available to increase our positions. Long ago, Ben Graham taught me that
'Price is what you pay; value is what you get.'

"Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality
merchandise when it is marked down."

OWNING A HOME


"Home ownership is a wonderful thing. My family and I have enjoyed my
present home for 50 years, with more to come. But enjoyment and utility should
be the primary motives for purchase, not profit or refi possibilities. And the
home purchased ought to fit the income of the purchaser.

"The present housing debacle should teach home buyers, lenders, brokers and
government some simple lessons that will ensure stability in the future. Home
purchases should involve an honest-to-God down payment of at least 10 percent
and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower's income.
That income should be carefully verified.

"Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn't be our
country's primary objective. Keeping them in their homes should be the
ambition."

IDENTIFYING ACQUISITIONS

"Our long-avowed goal is to be the 'buyer of choice' for businesses --
particularly those built and owned by families. The way to achieve this goal is
to deserve it. That means we must keep our promises; avoid leveraging up
acquired businesses; grant unusual autonomy to our managers; and hold the
purchased companies through thick and thin (though we prefer thick and
thicker).

"Our record matches our rhetoric. Most buyers competing against us,
however, follow a different path.

"For them, acquisitions are 'merchandise.' Before the ink dries on their
purchase contracts, these operators are contemplating 'exit strategies.' We
have a decided advantage, therefore, when we encounter sellers who truly care
about the future of their businesses."

GEICO

"As we view GEICO's current opportunities, Tony (Nicely) and I feel like
two hungry mosquitoes in a nudist camp. Juicy targets are everywhere."

REINSURANCE BUSINESS

"From year to year, Ajit (Jain)'s business is never the same. It features
very large transactions, incredible speed of execution and a willingness to
quote on policies that leave others scratching their heads. When there is a
huge and unusual risk to be insured, Ajit is almost certain to be called.

"Ajit came to Berkshire in 1986. Very quickly, I realized that we had
acquired an extraordinary talent.

"So I did the logical thing: I wrote his parents in New Delhi and asked if
they had another one like him at home. Of course, I knew the answer before
writing. There isn't anyone like Ajit."

HOUSING MELTDOWN

"At that time, much of the industry employed sales practices that were
atrocious. Writing about the period somewhat later, I described it as involving
'borrowers who shouldn't have borrowed being financed by lenders who shouldn't
have lent.'

"To begin with, the need for meaningful down payments was frequently
ignored. Sometimes fakery was involved. ('That certainly looks like a $2,000
cat to me' says the salesman who will receive a $3,000 commission if the loan
goes through.) Moreover, impossible-to-meet monthly payments were being agreed
to by borrowers who signed up because they had nothing to lose. The resulting
mortgages were usually packaged ('securitized') and sold by Wall Street firms
to unsuspecting investors. This chain of folly had to end badly, and it did."

MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE

"When faced with large revenue shortfalls, communities that have all of
their bonds insured will be more prone to develop 'solutions' less favorable to
bondholders than those communities that have uninsured bonds held by local
banks and residents. Losses in the tax-exempt arena, when they come, are also
likely to be highly correlated among issuers. If a few communities stiff their
creditors and get away with it, the chance that others will follow in their
footsteps will grow. What mayor or city council is going to choose pain to
local citizens in the form of major tax increases over pain to a far-away bond
insurer?

"Insuring tax-exempts, therefore, has the look today of a dangerous
business -- one with similarities, in fact, to the insuring of natural
catastrophes. In both cases, a string of loss-free years can be followed by a
devastating experience that more than wipes out all earlier profits. We will
try, therefore, to proceed carefully in this business, eschewing many classes
of bonds that other monolines regularly embrace."

MAKING MISTAKES

"Without urging from Charlie or anyone else, I bought a large amount of
ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research) stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak. I in
no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last
half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher
in the future than the current $40-$50 price. But so far I have been dead
wrong. Even if prices should rise, moreover, the terrible timing of my purchase
has cost Berkshire several billion dollars.

"I made some other already-recognizable errors as well. They were smaller,
but unfortunately not that small. During 2008, I spent $244 million for shares
of two Irish banks that appeared cheap to me. At yearend we wrote these
holdings down to market: $27 million, for an 89% loss. Since then, the two
stocks have declined even further. The tennis crowd would call my mistakes
'unforced errors.'"

DERIVATIVES

"Derivatives are dangerous. They have dramatically increased the leverage
and risks in our financial system. They have made it almost impossible for
investors to understand and analyze our largest commercial banks and investment
banks. They allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to engage in massive
misstatements of earnings for years. So indecipherable were Freddie and Fannie
that their federal regulator, OFHEO, whose more than 100 employees had no job
except the oversight of these two institutions, totally missed their cooking of
the books."

Berkshire's Annual Letter to Shareholders

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. In addition to being an experienced writer he taught at the University of Georgia , was an Associate Diretor and Limited Parther at Bear Stearns, CEO of IP Group, and is a mentor. He currently resides in Delray Beach, FL where he cares for his mother, Dorothy, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. The content ha been syndicated by Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, BlogCritics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor




Friday, February 27, 2009

Stock Market still under extreme pressure--25 year look--Chart


The chart below spans twenty five years for the S and P 500. Each bar is one month.

I have been writing for two weeks about the downside range expansion in the market (see previous posts). The range expansion is still in force. Last time, I mentioned that the market rarely closes lower 7 days in a row and it was due for a rally from the 741 area. The rallies which usually last two days came and went like the weather in Amarillo.

I want to issue a major note of caution here. The formation above could be signaling a market capitulation. Think about it like flushing a toilet. You know what goes down the toilet=, but then the bowl fills right back up. My guess is, if flushed it will be a great opportunity. Markets rarely capitulate, however, when everyone is looking for it.
A look at this long term pattern shows that the market is extremely vulnerable. The fundamental news, especially the size of budget deficit continues to weigh on the market. The only question now is do we go down slow or fast.

For today, the S and P will find good support on any thrust under 732. So don't get nutty with the short positions.

This will be the third straight week down and sixth out of the last seven. This indicates the market is due for a good rally soon. But from what level? New shorts at this level don't make much sense.
clipped from charts.barchart.com

Chart for S and P 500



Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


Follow us on Twitter

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. In addition to being an experienced writer he taught at the University of Georgia , managed on Wall Street at Bear Stearns, was CEO of IP Group, and is a mentor. Bob currently resides in Delray Beach, FL where he cares for his mother, Dorothy, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. His content has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, BlogCritics, and a growing list of newspaper websites (15). Bob is actively seeking writing assignments and syndication.


More from All American Investor




Eight Stocks now make up Fifty Percent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average


These eight stocks now make up 50 percent of the Dow Jones Industrial average.

Stocks and weighting in percent.
  • IBM (9.4)

  • ExxonMobil (7.89)

  • Chevron (6.96)

  • McDonalds (5.95)

  • Johnson and Johnson (5.91)

  • Proctor and Gamble (5.47)

  • Walmart (5.39)

  • 3M (5.11)

Cumulatively that is 52.08 percent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW).
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter



U.S. to Take Big Citi Stake and Overhaul the Board


Main points:
  • We didn't put in any more taxpayer dollars (not yet anyway).
  • The deal addresses the issue of the Board of Directors. The Board will be constructed of new, independent members. I wonder why this took so long?
  • Chief Executive Vikram Pandit keeps his job.
  • If full dilution occurs we the taxpayers end up owning 36 percent of the bank. We are way underwater.
  • The deal boost the bank's tangible common equity ratio. Makes the bank look good for now.

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


U.S. to Take Big Citi Stake and Overhaul the Board


U.S. to Take Big Citi Stake and Overhaul the Board

By KEVIN KINGSBURY and MAYA JACKSON RANDALL

Struggling banking giant Citigroup Inc., moving aggressively to shore up its equity base, announced a stock swap Friday that if successful will leave the government owning more than a third of the company and wipe out nearly three-quarters of existing shareholders' stake.

The move is an acknowledgment that more than $50 billion in government capital and a backstop on more than $300 billion in troubled Citigroup assets haven't been enough to stop the bank's slide. It also represents a deepening of the government's role in trying to prop up the U.S. banking sector.

Under the deal, Citigroup said it will offer to convert nearly $27.5 billion in preferred stock sold to private investors and the public and up to $25 billion in preferred stock bought by the government into common stock. The exchange, if fully executed, would leave the U.S. government with 36% of the bank's shares. Existing shareholders' stake would be cut to 26%. Shareholders will have to approve much of the common stock issuance.

Additionally, the government is demanding that the company overhaul its board of directors. Citigroup's board will soon include a majority of new independent directors, the company said Friday. Chief Executive Vikram Pandit is expected to keep his job under the agreement.

The bank's stock plunged on the news.

The terms are onerous for both sides. While common shareholders will see their stakes severely diminished, preferred shareholders are being asked to swap their holdings for riskier common stock, whose holders are the first to get wiped out in times of trouble.

Neither has much choice, however. To motivate investors to sign up, Citigroup is suspending its payment of dividends on preferred stock. And to spur common shareholders to vote for the deal, Citigroup will issue securities to preferred shareholders that agree to the swap that let them buy common stock for a penny a share if shareholders don't approve the deal.

The swap won't involve any additional investment in Citigroup by either the government or the private shareholders, but will boost the bank's tangible common equity ratio, which is closely watched by analysts. It will also relieve the bank of the need to pay more than $5 billion in annual preferred stock dividends.

"This securities exchange has one goal -- to increase our tangible common equity," Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said.
[Citigroup Center in New York] Bloomberg News/Landov

A pedestrian walks past the Citigroup Center in New York.

Separately, Citigroup announced it will record $10 billion in write-downs for the fourth quarter, boosting the year's net loss to $27.7 billion. Citi is also suspending dividend payments on common shares, which had already been slashed to 1 cent a share per quarter.

The conversion rate for swapping the preferred stock to common shares is $3.25, a 32% premium to Thursday's closing price.

The Treasury will only convert its preferred stock into common shares if other preferred-stock holders -- namely sovereign wealth funds that plowed billions into Citigroup in early attempts to bolster capital levels -- also do so. Holders including the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. and longtime shareholder and Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal are among those of have said they will participate in the exchange.

Treasury said it will match private investors' conversions dollar-for-dollar.

"Treasury will receive the most favorable terms and price offered to any other preferred holder through this exchange," the department added in the statement.

If the maximum conversion levels are hit, that would boost Citi's TCE from the fourth quarter's $29.7 billion to as much as $81 billion.

The agreement marks the third time since October that Washington has come to Citigroup's rescue. Since then, the government has pressured Citigroup to partially break itself up by selling big chunks of its businesses and to overhaul its board. But U.S. ownership has also created a murky situation in which it's unclear who's in charge, leaving Citigroup executives often groping for guidance.

Citigroup will still have to endure the so-called "stress test," which examines banks ability to withstand various chilling economic scenarios, and could be required to raise additional capital.

The company will reconstitute its board to include a majority of new independent directors. It said of the 15 current directors, three will not stand for reelection and two will reach retirement age, and it will announce new directors soon.

Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons has been scrambling to lure new directors. That has proven an uphill battle, with two candidates Citigroup approached rebuffing the overtures, according to people familiar with the matter.
—Deborah Solomon and David Enrich contributed to this article.

Write to Kevin Kingsbury at kevin.kingsbury@dowjones.com and Maya Jackson Randall at Maya.Jackson-Randall@dowjones.com

Follow us on Twitter

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. In addition to being an experienced writer he taught at the University of Georgia , managed on Wall Street at Bear Stearns, was CEO of IP Group, and is a mentor. Bob currently resides in Delray Beach, FL where he cares for his mother, Dorothy, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. His content has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, BlogCritics, and a growing list of newspaper websites (15). Bob is actively seeking writing assignments and syndication.


More from All American Investor




The Case For and Against Bank Nationalization


These paragraphs were extracted from Nouriel Roubini's GlobalEconoMonitor. The article contains a discussion of insolvency and the Pros and Cons of nationalization. Must reading for the well informed.
As an example, consider the poster child for the “freebie” programs, the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, started in late November of 2008. For a cost of 0.75%, it allows banks to issue bonds backed by the government, i.e., essentially risk free. The banks have accessed this market 97 times for $190 billion!

The biggest pig at the trough - Bank of America 11 times for $35.5 billion. But close behind, JP Morgan at $30 billion, GE Capital $27 billion, Citigroup $24 billion, Morgan Stanley $19 billion, Goldman Sachs $19 billion and Wells Fargo $6 billion. A not so surprising correlation with their respective writedowns (including merged entities), Bank of America $96 billion, JP Morgan $75 billion, Citigroup $88 billion, Morgan Stanley $22 billion, Goldman Sachs $7 billion and Wells Fargo $115 billion.

In terms of helping us move forward out of the financial crisis, this program has many problems. It charges the same amount for each institution, so it hardly separates the solvent from the insolvent institutions. It charges a fee which is grossly below what these institutions could issue in the marketplace given their current balance sheets, distorting the system. Wasn’t this the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problem? And it makes it less likely to cleanse the system of the toxic assets because these institutions can continue their way out-of-the-money option and hope that the prices of the toxic assets increase. In effect, the access to this capital allows them to continue to make the original bet.

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Follow us on Twitter

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. In addition to being an experienced writer he taught at the University of Georgia , managed on Wall Street at Bear Stearns, was CEO of IP Group, and is a mentor. Bob currently resides in Delray Beach, FL where he cares for his mother, Dorothy, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. His content has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, BlogCritics, and a growing list of newspaper websites (15). Bob is actively seeking writing assignments and syndication.


More from All American Investor




Economy shrinks 6.2%


The Commerce Department says the U.S. economy shrank at an 6.2% in the fourth quarter.

Listening To The Secretary


The Baseline Scenario

Secretary Geithner spoke with NPR’s Adam Davidson today and the result, on the Planet Money podcast, is a helpful guide to official thinking.

The Secretary’s best line, at around the 18 minute mark is, ”If you underestimate the problem; if you do too little, too late; if you don’t move aggressively enough; if you are not open and honest in trying to assess the true cost of this; then you will face a deeper long (sic) lasting crisis.”

The contrast he draws is with those who favor a more gradual approach to banking system problems that would “stretch it out.” After about 17 minutes (and again around 20 minutes), Secretary Geithner contrasts what he is doing with “letting the market sort it out by itself”.

He does not even hint at the possbility that there is a government-led strategy that could faster than what he has in mind. So could it be that he really has in mind something that will actually be bold and move fast?

I don’t think so. He says we will “make capital available where it is necessary”. But he also stresses, in response to Adam’s last question (after around 25 minutes), “[Nationalization] is not the right strategy for the country.” And Secretary Geithner says clearly “that broad strategy” would do more damage than his policies.

The bottom line is that the government will support the credit system a great deal and in many innovative ways, but Treasury will try really hard to avoid FDIC-type takeovers/reprivatizations of large banks. This is quite striking, and presumably the hope is that a big “no nationalization” rally in the price of banks’ common equity will turn the tide more generally.
Go to The Baseline Scenario for more.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Economists question budget's economic assumptions


Does anyone really know?
GDP plays the biggest role in determining the accuracy of deficit forecasts because weaker-than-expected growth swells government payments for such things as unemployment benefits and food stamps and reduces tax receipts.
True.
In its budget, the administration predicted that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will shrink by 1.2 percent this year but will grow by a solid 3.2 percent in 2010. That growth would be followed by even stronger increases of 4 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
Impossible to predict.
By contrast, the consensus of forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators in February predicted that the GDP will fall by a larger 1.9 percent this year and then increase at weaker rates of 2.1 percent in 2010, 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 2.8 percent in 2013.
Everybody has an opinion.
"When a country is griped by a financial crisis, the ensuing downturn often lasts much longer than normal," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at the Martin Smith School of Business at California State University. "I think this downturn is gong to last longer and the rebound will be fairly anemic."
Trends tend to persist.
But Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said he believed the extent of the downturn will be more severe than the administration's forecast for this year and that this will prompt even larger policy responses on the part of the government, including increased help for homeowners facing foreclosure and another stimulus from Congress a year from now.
This guy is really smart, I bet even he hopes he is wrong.

Conclusion. Stocks going lower.

Source: Economists question budget's economic assumptions
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. In addition to being an experienced writer he taught at the University of Georgia , managed on Wall Street at Bear Stearns, was CEO of IP Group, and is a mentor. Bob currently resides in Delray Beach, FL where he cares for his mother, Dorothy, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. His content has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, BlogCritics, and a growing list of newspaper websites (15). Bob is actively seeking writing assignments and syndication.


More from All American Investor




Thursday, February 26, 2009

I.O.U.S.A. the Movie




Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Follow us on Twitter

Food for thought on the Budget Deficit


One thing that is being overlooked in this budget deficit mess is payback. If these TARP loans get paid back the future deficits are likely to be better than is currently being forecast in the market.
New bull market down the road? Remember these factors always influence stock market action:
  • Perception
  • Better than expected
  • Consumer and investor confidence


Feel free to comment or share you thoughts on this and the budget deficit.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter



$1.75 trillion Deficit


The big number is bad enough but this amounts to 12 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Once again I have to start wondering to myself, is the U.S. in for a future downgrade of its bonds. The thought of this is horrific.

Highlights:
  • $250 billion in new aid to the financial industry (could be $750 billion)

  • $635 billion for nation’s health-care system (first down payment)

  • $75 billion this year for Iraq and Afghanistan war

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Sources and more information:
In President's Budget Plan, Broad Agenda and a Few Gaps
Obama’s Proposes Up to $750 Billion More for Bank Aid
Obama budget moves toward universal health care

More from All American Investor




Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Bank Stress Test Economic Scenarios and Questions


The Bank Stress Test Questions and Purposes

Why are supervisors performing the capital assessments?

A: The U.S. Federal bank and thrift supervisors (supervisors) are conducting this exercise to determine if the largest U.S. banking organizations have sufficient capital buffers to withstand the impact of an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated.

Q2: Why is the exercise limited to banking organizations with assets greater than $100 billion? Will capital be made available to smaller financial institutions?

A: The banking organizations included in this exercise comprise the core of the US banking system representing roughly two‐thirds of aggregate U.S. Bank Holding Company assets. Eligible U.S. banking institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion may also obtain capital from the CAP. Eligibility will be consistent with the criteria and the deliberative process established for identifying Qualifying Financial Institutions (QFIs) in the existing Capital Purchase Program.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Also see: Bank Stress Test FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Supervisory Capital Assessment Program


Q2: Why is the exercise limited to banking organizations with assets greater than $100 billion? Will capital be made available to smaller financial institutions?

A: The banking organizations included in this exercise comprise the core of the US banking system representing roughly two‐thirds of aggregate U.S. Bank Holding Company assets. Eligible U.S. banking institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion may also obtain capital from the CAP. Eligibility will be consistent with the criteria and the deliberative process established for identifying Qualifying Financial Institutions (QFIs) in the existing Capital Purchase Program.

Q3: How will the capital assessment be conducted?

A: The supervisors will conduct these capital assessments on an interagency basis to ensure that they are carried out in a timely and consistent manner. Each participating financial institution has been instructed to analyze potential firm‐wide losses, including in its loan and securities portfolios, as well as from any off‐balance sheet commitments and contingent liabilities/exposures, under two defined economic scenarios over a two year time horizon (2009 – 2010). In addition, firms with trading assets of $100 billion or more are being asked to estimate potential trading‐related losses under these same scenarios.
Participating financial institutions will also forecast internal resources available to absorb losses, including pre‐provision net revenue and the allowance for loan losses. As part of the supervisory process, the supervisors will meet with senior management at each financial institution to review and discuss the institution’s loss and revenue forecasts. Based on those discussions, the supervisors will assess institution‐specific potential losses and estimated resources to absorb those losses under the baseline and more adverse case, and determine whether the institution has a sufficient capital buffer necessary to ensure each institution has the amount and quality of capital necessary to perform their vital role in the economy.

Q4: What scenario(s) will be used in the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment will cover two economic scenarios: a baseline scenario and a more adverse scenario. The details provided to participating financial institutions on these macroeconomic scenarios are attached as an Appendix to these FAQs.

Q5: Which asset categories will be covered by the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment is intended to capture all aspects of a financial institution’s business that would be impacted under the baseline and more adverse scenarios.

Q6: What will the supervisors do with the forecasts generated by the participating financial institutions? Will these forecasts be accepted at face value?

A: Supervisors will carefully evaluate the forecasts submitted by each financial institution to ensure they are appropriate, consistent with the firm’s underlying portfolio performance and reflective of each entity’s particular business activities and risk profile. The assessment of the firm’s capital and the size of any potential needed additions to capital will be determined by the supervisors.

Q7: What is the key capital measure/objective that will be targeted in the capital assessment?

A: The assessment of capital adequacy considers many factors including: the inherent risks of the institution’s exposures and business activities, the quality of its balance sheet assets and its off balance sheet commitments, the firm’s earning projections, expectations regarding economic conditions and the composition and quality of its capital.

Specific factors supervisors consider include: uncertainty about the potential impact on earnings and capital from current and prospective economic conditions; asset quality and concentrations of credit exposures; the potential for unanticipated losses and declines in asset values; off‐balance sheet and contingent liabilities (e.g., implicit and explicit liquidity and credit commitments); the composition, level and quality of capital; the ability of the institution to raise additional common stock and other forms of capital in the market; and other risks that are not fully captured in regulatory capital calculations.
Under current rules for bank holding companies, supervisors expect bank holding companies to hold capital above minimum regulatory capital levels, commensurate with the level and nature of the risks to which they are exposed. That amount of capital held in excess of minimum capital requirements should be commensurate with their firm‐specific risk profiles, and account for all material risks. The assessment of capital under the two macroeconomic scenarios being used in the capital assessment program will permit supervisors to ascertain whether the buffer over the regulatory capital minimum is appropriate under more severe but plausible scenarios.

Q8: What will be the source of capital if supervisors determine that a banking organization requires an additional capital buffer?

A: An institution that requires additional capital will enter into a commitment to issue a CAP convertible preferred security to the U.S. Treasury in an amount sufficient to meet the capital requirement determined through the supervisory assessment. Each institution will be permitted up to six months to raise private capital in public markets to meet this requirement and would be able to cancel the capital commitment without penalty. The CAP convertible preferred securities will be converted into common equity shares on an as‐needed basis. Financial institutions that issued preferred capital under Treasury’s existing Capital Purchase Program (TARP 1) will have the option of redeeming those securities and replacing them with the new CAP convertible preferred securities.

Q9: What recourse does a financial institution have if it disagrees with the outcome of the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment is part of the supervisory process and thus subject to the same framework used for bank examinations or bank holding company inspections. There will be ample opportunity for discussions between the financial institutions and supervisory agencies regarding the loss estimates and earnings forecasts during the capital assessment process.


Q10: When will the process be completed?
A: The Federal supervisory agencies will conclude their work as soon as possible, but no later than the end of April.

Appendix ‐‐ Macroeconomic Assumptions

For implementation of the supervisory capital assessment program, the baseline assumptions for real GDP growth and the unemployment rate for 2009 and 2010 are assumed to be equal to the average of the projections published by Consensus Forecasts, the Blue Chip survey, and the Survey of Professional Forecasters in February. This baseline is intended to represent a consensus view about the depth and duration of the recession. Given the current uncertain environment, there is a risk that the economy could turn out to be appreciably weaker than expected than in the baseline outlook. To aid financial institutions in their ongoing risk management practices, the supervisors have also put together an alternative “more adverse” scenario. By design, the path of the US economy in this alternative more adverse scenario reflects a deeper and longer recession than in the baseline. The consensus expectation is that economic activity is likely to be better than shown in the more adverse alternative; nonetheless, an outcome such as the alternative cannot be ruled out.

The assumptions for the baseline economic outlook are consistent with the house price path implied by futures prices for the Case‐Shiller 10‐City Composite index and the average response to a special question on house prices in the latest Blue Chip survey. For the more adverse scenario, house prices are assumed to be about 10 percent lower at the end of 2010 relative to their level in the baseline scenario.



The “more adverse” scenario was constructed from the historical track record of private forecasters as well as their current assessments of uncertainty. In particular, based on the historical accuracy of Blue Chip forecasts made since the late 1970s, the likelihood that the average unemployment rate in 2010 could be at least as high as in the alternative more adverse scenario is roughly 10 percent. In addition, the subjective probability assessments provided by participants in the January Consensus Forecasts survey and the February Survey of Professional Forecasters imply a roughly 15 percent chance that real GDP growth could be as least as low, and unemployment at least as high, as assumed in the more adverse scenario.
2 Based on the year‐to‐year variability in house prices since 1900, and controlling for macroeconomic factors, there is roughly a 10 percent probability that house prices will be 10 percent lower than in the baseline by 2010.

More from All American Investor




Dividend to Earnings Payout Ratio--Chart


This chart is a little disconcerting. On the other hand it is rapidly approaching the area we saw in 1982--the last major low in the market. File this one under food for thought. Feel free to comment or interpret.


Click on the chart for a better view.

Thanks to the Big Picture.

Stress Test Good, Could lead to a Bottom in the Stock Market


This is one of the better articles I have read on the stress test--Stress Test for Banks Exposes Rift on Wall St. It has me thinking about the long term direction of the stock market.

I think if you read this article carefully you might conclude that much of what is being written about banks is getting discounted in the stock market. I am not saying everything is beautiful. Quite the contrary, we are teetering on the brink of disaster. But, I find myself asking myself constantly--has the market discounted the news. It is always hard when things look bleak to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the market always discounts the future long before the future gets here. The market always bottoms when things look bleakest to the herd. The herd tends to focus on the recent past, rarely looking forward into the future.

I am reminding myself that back in 1990-91 Ross Perot was shorting Citibank stock. If you had bought the stock back then you could have made more than 30 times your money by 2006.

At the time of the 1991 recession there were many that felt the banks were going to go broke. Remember, we were just coming through the S and L Crisis and the failure of some major banks in the southwest. The stock market had crashed in 1987 and we were entering a recession. The time really looked bleak. Most investors had thrown in the towel and were focusing on the past.

If you are old enough, you might remember that from 1966 to 1982 the market traded in a broad trading range that was capped by Dow 1060. Up and down, up and down, The Dow did crash down to the 550 area in 1973, and the 750 area in 1980.

Most of you are too young to remember that the S an P 500 traded around 102 in 1973 and again in 1982 (you read that right 102). It turned out that August, 1982 was the bottom of a long term consolidation and the beginning of the bull market. The Dow crashed through the ceiling and the market soared.

I am starting to believe we are nearing a major low in the market. So put me down the way I have been for some time--long term bullish, short term bearish. Not quite ready to the jump all the way into the pool. It is a good time to stick your foot in the water and check the temperature.

These hot flash day rallies in this stock market downturn are not making me feel like I am missing out on anything. I do find it amusing that every time we have a nice up day the talking heads on television get all excited and start talking bull market.

The market rarely goes up or down in a straight line. The rallies right now are for suckers who think every tiny piece of news is what is going to make the market go up or down long term. Each piece of news is like a piece of the puzzle. It is not the puzzle.

These hot interpretations of every little blip on the news screen makes the market go up and down like a yo-yo. But, it is the long term trend of the market that is most important; and, the big picture fundamentals set the stage for the big big moves. You make the big bucks by spotting the long term trends and being patient once they get underway.

I'll leave with two things. First, read the article about stress testing banks--to me this is a good thing and might be an event that could put in the bottom for the stock market. I am thinking we could be in for a 20-30 percent rally soon. Second, the major trend of the stock market is still down--so it is very risky to have the boat loaded. Foot in the water--good, water up to your neck--not good. Chicken on hill, maybe.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


Stress Test for Banks Exposes Rift on Wall St

The New York Times
By ERIC DASH

Big banks keep insisting that they have all the capital they need — a claim that might strike many people as absurd at a time the government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the financial industry.

So here is a surprise: By some common measures, the banks do have enough capital.

The problem is, it is not the kind of capital investors think the banks need.

For years, the question of what constitutes a bank’s capital, and how to measure it, was largely academic. But the issue is coming to the fore as federal regulators start administering a tough new “stress test” to 20 large banks on Wednesday to determine how the banks would withstand a severe economic downturn.

Investors in the stock market and the banks are increasingly at odds over how to assess the health of financial institutions. Where regulators side could determine the fate of many lenders, particularly big banks like Citigroup and Bank of America, whose share prices have plummeted this year on fears the government will increase its ownership of them.

Until the financial system deteriorated last fall, investors focused on what is known as Tier 1 capital, which consists of common stock, preferred stock and hybrid debt-equity instruments.

Now, however, they are focusing on what is called tangible equity capital, which includes only common stock, saying it is a better way to measure the risk in bank shares.

The difference might sound like something only an accountant would worry about, but it lies at the heart of two questions confounding both Washington and Wall Street: Are the nation’s banks sound? And are bank shares a good barometer for the health of the financial system?

Sheila C. Bair, the head of the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, said on Tuesday that the nation’s banking industry was safe. “All these large banks exceed regulatory standards for being well capitalized, so for right now, they’re fine,” Ms. Bair said on CBS television’s “The Early Show.”

“I think the big issue is how much of an additional buffer they have to withstand more adverse economic situations and that’s something we’re going to try to figure out with a stress test.”

But Citigroup, which maintains that it is well capitalized by its regulators’ standards, was nonetheless locked in negotiations with the government on Tuesday over a third rescue. Under the plan, the government is expected to raise its stake in Citigroup to 30 to 40 percent, from about 8 percent now. The deal, which was moving toward completion and could be announced as early as Wednesday, would bolster the level of common stock that investors are focused on.

At Bank of America, Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive, assured the bank’s employees on Monday that Bank of America has enough capital, including common stock. “I have said repeatedly that our company does not need further assistance today and I don’t believe we’ll need any more in the future,” Mr. Lewis wrote in a memorandum.

Like regulators, investors are struggling to determine how much additional capital banks might require if the recession deepens and unemployment rises, developments that would almost certainly lead to new, heavy losses at banks.

Institutions that fail the stress test will be required to raise new capital, probably through more money from the government.

Beaten-down financial shares rallied on Tuesday after Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, seemed to rebuff suggestions that banks might be nationalized outright. Even so, Mr. Bernanke offered a sober assessment of the economy to Congress on Tuesday.

Details of the bank stress test are scant, but federal regulators are expected to examine the ability of banks to cope with a situation in which unemployment rose to 10 to 12 percent and home prices declined by an additional 20 percent, according to Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials. While officials say they don’t expect such a severe downturn, some economists aren’t ruling one out.

In recent weeks, federal regulators were planning to continue to demand that banks maintain Tier 1 capital equivalent of at least 6 percent of total assets adjusted for risk. Regulators also want at least half of it in common stock, but have given banks some leeway.

On Monday, the federal banking regulators issued a statement saying that if the stress test indicated an “additional capital buffer” was necessary for some institutions, it “did not imply a new capital standard and is not expected to be maintained.”

But stock investors are homing in on tangible common equity. Whereas Tier 1 capital gives regulators comfort because it captures a bank’s ability to weather a financial storm, stock investors, who suffer the first losses, are worried about their own exposure. Tangible common equity, or T.C.E., they argue, is the best measure for them.

Until last fall, there was little difference between the two measures. But when the government made big investments of preferred stock to shore up banks, common shareholders became more vulnerable.

John McDonald, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, compared the move to an army reinforcing its troops from the back. “Any reinforcements improve the chances of winning the battle,” he said. But if you are a stockholder, “you are still the guy taking the first hit on the front line.”

Regulators worry that banks’ depositors and trading partners might interpret more bad news for banks — including a continued decline in share prices — as a sign confidence is flagging. As a result, regulators, too, are focusing more on tangible equity.

“If our banking system looks frail and hobbled, we care since there could be a loss of confidence” Mr. McDonald said. “But the stock price may very well not be a reflection of the broader risk.”

Louise Story contributed reporting.



More from All American Investor




Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Stupid Question of the Day




If we already own 80 percent of AIG, why are we negotiating at arms length with them?

Answer below in the comments section.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


Follow All American Investor on Twitter.

Is saving the answer to our economic problems--Paradox Squared


I believe savings is the answers to our economic woes. I wrote about this previously on this blog.

Our government policy makers seem to think the opposite is true. George Bushs' solution to our problems was to tell us to "go shopping". Later he tried to get everyone to go shopping by sending them a stimulus check. My mother put hers in the bank. She will put the next stimulus check she is getting in May--in the bank. She is 92 and lived through the "last" depression. Don't get me wrong, she still likes to buy new cloths and likes to go out and have fun on Friday night. But, at the age of 92 you tend to think like a squirrel and not like a rabbit.

I ran across a really intriguing article by Paul Kasriel--Paradox Squared. Here is a snippet from the last paragraph of the article.
The most rapid real GDP growth we experienced in the 1951 through 2008 period occurred in the 1960s, a period when the consumption ratio was relatively low. My bet is that when we come out of this current deep recession (Q4:2009?), the recovery and expansion will be accompanied by a much lower consumption ratio than we have experienced in recent years and higher export and business capital spending ratios than we have experienced in recent years. But most importantly, I expect that these changing ratios will be accompanied by higher growth in real GDP ex federal government than we have experienced in recent years. Why? Because, as I stated at the outset, the pace of economic growth is a function of productivity and thrift. And no less an authority than the editor of Vogue says that thrift is in vogue again!
I believe savings is in vogue right now. I also think savings leads to investment which leads to economic growth.

I wonder what Larry Kudlow would have to say about this?

To read the complete article--Paradox Squared--and see the accompanying chart go here. This is worth reading and considering. If nothing else it is pleasant to think there could be a light at the end of the tunnel.

That is my 92 year old mother, Dorothy, up there on the right. Looks pretty good for her age--don't you think?
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


More from All American Investor




Think WE Have it Bad---What about Japan?


On February 25, 1983 the S and P 500 closed at 149.74.

Do you think that could happen here?
clipped from www.usatoday.com
Japanese shares tumbled Tuesday after a plunge on Wall Street overnight, but the sell-off eased as the government signaled it may move to prop up stock prices.

The benchmark Nikkei 225 stock average lost 1.5%, or 107.6 points, to 7,268.56. That's just above the 26-year low of 7,162 set on Oct. 27.

Worries that Citigroup and other U.S. banks will keep suffering severe losses sent U.S. stocks tumbling overnight amid pessimism about a quick economic recovery. The Obama administration tried to pacify fears, saying it would launch a revamped bank rescue program this week. But the Dow Jones and Standard & Poor's 500 indexes plummeted to their lowest closes since 1997.