Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts

Friday, April 24, 2009

Bear Bailout Cost Fed $3 Billion, So Far


The U.S. Federal Reserve report showed a $3 billion loss on the books from its deal to rescue investment bank Bear Stearns.

The number of greater concern is The Fed's combined assets of $2.25 Trillion as of Dec. 31. This number compares with $1.3 Trillion a year earlier.

The Fed balance sheet is inflationary and anyone who believe otherwise has their head in the sand.

We continue to watch the yield on the Ten Year and Thirty Year Treasury closely. We will be looking at the yield curve and its implications tomorrow.

Fed data shows big losses on Bear Stearns deal
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email



Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist and twenty year Wall Street veteran. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. Content from All American Investor has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor





Follow All American Investor on Twitter

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Good Deal for Banks -- FDIC Loans and TARP



Source Nww York Times
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Cosmo Kramer always wanted to be a banker


The latest from the Econtrarian, Paul Kasriel.
We suspect that the regulators will “encourage” this latter group of institutions to sell their impaired assets. After all, one of the arguments for not marking down the value of legacy assets to market was that there was no market. In the not-too-distant future there will be a market. But what if selling legacy assets into the PPIP results in a selling institution becoming under capitalized? The regulators will tell said institution to raise additional capital in the private market. But what if the cost of this new capital is prohibitive? This is where Cosmo Kramer comes in.
Does Kramer Finally Get to Be a Banker and Does There Have to Be Skin in the Game for CDS?
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Is the new Toxic Asset Plan a Mirage?


More and more, it appears the new toxic asset plan is a mirage--it is being done with smoke and mirrors.

Current talk is that the Treasury is going to buy $1 trillion in troubled mortgages and related assets from financial institutions. It should be noted that this means we, the taxpayers, are going to be buying these toxic assets.

The plan is being designed to rescue the nation’s banking system by taking the toxic assets off their balance sheets. Does that sound familiar?

Nouriel Roubini has been writing about this for some time, and if he is right the numbers are staggering. More than the $2 trillion that is currently being forecast.

It appears the plan has three parts:
  • The FDIC will set up investment partnerships and lend 85 percent of the money needed to buy up troubled assets that banks want to sell. This will be accomplished with low interest, non-recourse loans, and lots of taxpayer money. It remains to be seen how purchased assets will be priced. Incidentally, this is how the Resolution Trust Corporation ( RTC) unloaded much of the real estate from the savings and loan crisis--non recourse loans.
  • The Treasury will hire four or five investment management firms, matching the private money that each of the firms puts up on a dollar-for-dollar basis with government money. If this turns out to be part of the package then one can assume they have the managers lined up.
  • The Treasury plans to expand lending through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. The plan is to buy up as many toxic assets as possible so that banks can get back to lending. The available monies to the Treasury will be running out of money soon so the key word here is--leverage. We never learn.
This is not very different from what was proposed last September. It has more buzz words and wrinkles but one thing remains the same--lots of taxpayer money; and hope that this strategy will help avoid the inevitable nationalization of banks.

There is one big wild card. Will the banks be willing to sell the mortgages at prices substantially below the prices they paid for these securities. Stay tuned--I doubt it.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Condition of Banks Continues to Deteriorate (Chart)


Condition of Banks

The Report of Condition and Income for All Insured U.S. Commercial Banks continues to deteriorate and is worrisome.

This really calls into question if the new bank bailout plan is going to work. The newest proposal is similar, if not the same, as the plan that was put into effect in September. However, if conditions continue to deteriorate it is likely that banks will need to be seized by the Federal government much like what happened during the Savings and Loan crisis.

Right now the hope remains that banks can earn their way out of the problem. This explains, in part, why the Federal Reserve is keeping interest rates artificially low and is buying Treasury securities. This strategy worked for the banks in the 1992-1993 period. It is not well known but many banks were "technically" insolvent at the time.

It appears that bank failures, a bank panic, and bank nationalizations are all still real possibilities.

We will continue to watch this situation at All American Investor.

Sidenote: Federal regulators Friday seized control of the two largest wholesale credit unions — U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union — which together had $57 billion in assets. This went virtually unnoticed.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist and twenty year Wall Street veteran. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. Content from All American Investor has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.

Follow All American Investor on Twitter

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Credit Crunch Are Credit Cards the Next Shoe to Drop-


Without doubt, credit was extended too freely over the past 15 years, and a rationalization of lending is unavoidable. What is avoidable, however, is taking credit away from people who have the ability to pay their bills. If credit is taken away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should tread carefully and act collectively.
I am reading stories about consumers complaining that their credit card limits are being reduced. In addition, I wrote recently about consumer complaints about sharp increases in the annual percentage rates they are paying on their credit card. It seems that credit lines are getting cut, and APRs are going up, regardless of the quality of the consumers' credit. It appears credit card companies are using zip codes to determine your credit worthiness. In other words, if the zip code you live in is experience high housing default rates or price deterioration--you are going to pay higher rates regardless of your credit history.

Today, Meredith Whitney is writing about the behavior of credit card companies. She says,
...available (credit) lines were reduced by nearly $500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, and she estimates over $2 trillion of credit-card lines will be cut within 2009, and $2.7 trillion by the end of 2010.
When you couple this with the rising savings rate, you could easily conclude that the economy is going to grow slowly for the foreseeable future.

You should read the article below carefully and to the end.

There are going to be investment opportunities based on this trend. For example, is it a good idea to be short the major credit card companies? Are travel companies going to get "killed"? While it is not well known, a large fraction of senior citizens use credit cards to purchase their medication, is this trend going to effect the health of older people and retiring baby boomers? Or, the earnings of pharmaceutical companies?

Are you listening? Your thoughts?
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Credit Cards Are the Next Credit Crunch


Washington shouldn't exacerbate the looming problem in consumer credit lines.
By MEREDITH WHITNEY

Few doubt the importance of consumer spending to the U.S. economy and its multiplier effect on the global economy, but what is underappreciated is the role of credit-card availability in that spending. Currently, there is roughly $5 trillion in credit-card lines outstanding in the U.S., and a little more than $800 billion is currently drawn upon. While those numbers look small relative to total mortgage debt of over $10.5 trillion, credit-card debt is revolving and accordingly being paid off and drawn down over and over, creating a critical role in commerce in America.

Just six months ago, I estimated that at least $2 trillion of available credit-card lines would be expunged from the system by the end of 2010. However, today, that estimate now looks optimistic, as available lines were reduced by nearly $500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. My revised estimates are that over $2 trillion of credit-card lines will be cut inside of 2009, and $2.7 trillion by the end of 2010.

Inevitably, credit lines will continue to be reduced across the system, but the velocity at which it is already occurring and will continue to occur will result in unintended consequences for consumer confidence, spending and the overall economy. Lenders, regulators and politicians need to show thoughtful leadership now on this issue in order to derail what I believe will be at least a 57% contraction in credit-card lines.

There are several factors that are playing into this swift contraction in credit well beyond the scope of the current credit market disruption. First, the very foundation of credit-card lending over the past 15 years has been misguided. In order to facilitate national expansion and vast pools of consumer loans, lenders became overly reliant on FICO scores that have borne out to be simply unreliable. Further, the bulk of credit lines were extended during a time when unemployment averaged well below 6%. Overly optimistic underwriting standards made more borrowers appear creditworthy. As we return to more realistic underwriting standards, certain borrowers will no longer appear worth the risk, and therefore lines will continue to be pulled from those borrowers.

Second, home price depreciation has been a more reliable determinant of consumer behavior than FICO scores. Hence, lenders have reduced credit lines based upon "zip codes," or where home price depreciation has been most acute. Such a strategy carries the obvious hazard of putting good customers in more vulnerable liquidity positions simply because they live in a higher risk zip code. With this, frequency of default is increased. In other words, as lines are pulled and borrowing capacity is reduced, paying borrowers are pushed into vulnerable financial positions along with nonpaying borrowers, and therefore a greater number of defaults in fact occur.

Third, credit-card lenders are currently playing a game of "hot potato," in which no one wants to be the last one holding an open credit-card line to an individual or business. While a mortgage loan is largely a "monogamous" relationship between borrower and lender, an individual has multiple relationships with credit-card providers. Thus, as lines are cut, risk exposure increases to the remaining lender with the biggest line outstanding.

Here, such a negative spiral strategy necessitates immediate action. Currently five lenders dominate two thirds of the market. These lenders need to work together to protect one another and preserve credit lines to able paying borrowers by setting consortium guidelines on credit. We, as Americans, are all in the same soup here, and desperate times are requiring of radical and cooperative measures.

And fourth, along with many important and necessary mandates regarding fairness to consumers, impending changes to Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) regulations risk the very real unintended consequence of cutting off vast amounts of credit to consumers. Specifically, the new UDAP provisions would restrict repricing of risk, which could in turn restrict the availability of credit. If a lender cannot reprice for changing risk on an unsecured loan, the lender simply will not make the loan. This proposal is set to be effective by mid-2010, but talk now is of accelerating its adoption date. Politicians and regulators need to seriously consider what unintended consequences could occur from the implementation of this proposal in current form. Short of the U.S. government becoming a direct credit-card lender, invariably credit will come out of the system.

Over the past 20 years, Americans have also grown to use their credit card as a cash-flow management tool. For example, 90% of credit-card users revolve a balance (i.e., don't pay it off in full) at least once a year, and over 45% of credit-card users revolve every month. Undeniably, consumers look at their unused credit balances as a "what if" reserve. "What if" my kid needs braces? "What if" my dog gets sick? "What if" I lose one of my jobs? This unused credit portion has grown to be relied on as a source of liquidity and a liquidity management tool for many U.S. consumers. In fact, a relatively small portion of U.S. consumers have actually maxed out their credit cards, and most currently have ample room to spare on their unused credit lines. For example, the industry credit line utilization rate (or percentage of total credit lines outstanding drawn upon) was just 17% at the end of 2008. However, this is in the process of changing dramatically.

Without doubt, credit was extended too freely over the past 15 years, and a rationalization of lending is unavoidable. What is avoidable, however, is taking credit away from people who have the ability to pay their bills. If credit is taken away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should tread carefully and act collectively.

Ms. Whitney is CEO of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, LLC.

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. 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, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites (15). Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.




Roubini on Global Recession, Credit Crunch, and Deflation (Part Two)


Part two of Nouriel Rubini's speech at the 2009 CBOE Risk Management Conference. He discusses several topics including: the credit crunch,  global recession, and deflation.



Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Sunday, March 08, 2009

60 Minutes Your Bank Has Failed What Happens Next?


60 Minutes Gets A Rare Look At How The FDIC Takes Over Banks And Reassures Depositors


Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

(CBS) As staffers of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation enter the Heritage Community Bank on a Friday night - surprising employees with the news they are taking over the failing institution - 60 Minutes cameras and correspondent Scott Pelley are there to report on a process that's happening more and more in a foundering economy.

Pelley's report, including an interview with FDIC chair Sheila Bair, will be broadcast this Sunday, March 8, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Bair says 25 U.S. banks failed last year and expects many more this year. "It's going up. There have been 16 already now," she says. 60 Minutes was there for one of the latest ones.

On Friday evening Feb. 27, 60 Minutes recorded the arrival of the FDIC team as they entered Heritage Community Bank in Glenwood, Ill. The employees reacted mostly with shock and dismay. "I would say a large majority of the employees don't know that the bank is in trouble and is about to close until we walk in the door," Arthur Cook, the FDIC supervisor of the Heritage takeover, tells Pelley.

Heritage Community operated for 40 years, had 12,000 deposits totaling more than $200 million and was warned by the FDIC and Illinois state banking regulators more than four months ago that it was in trouble due to bad real estate loans. The FDIC takes total control. "We have accountants, asset specialists who specialize in loans…the physical facilities," says Cheryl Bates, the FDIC’s closing team manager. "We have a group of investigators that come in and do a review on the reasons of the bank failure."

Cook and Bates work for the FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receivership.

Then they alert the media and the bank opens the next day, in this case under the name of the new owner, MB Financial, which bought the bank in a secret auction. This is one of the ways that the FDIC takes over a bank; in other cases, it may close the bank and pay off depositors or it may choose to run the bank itself.

The next day, the doors open, and as 60 Minutes cameras roll, anxious customers - including one carrying an empty briefcase - came into the bank. Only one withdrew a great deal of her money. The man who intended to close his account left with his valise empty, satisfied that the bank was in good hands. MB Financial is now in control and it's almost as if nothing happened. "Almost nothing did happen," says MB's CEO Mitchell Feiger, there to greet his new customers. "It's the same products, the same services, it's the same people taking care of the same customers."

The cost to the FDIC insurance fund of taking over Heritage and making a deal with MB Financial to buy it could end up costing $41 million and none of that money comes from taxpayers. "It is money from our reserves…and we are funded by insurance premiums that are assessed on banks," says Bair.

Asked why large, troubled banks like Citibank can't be saved by the FDIC and must rely on taxpayer bailouts, Bair explained that the FDIC deals only with federal or state chartered depository institutions.

She would not comment specifically on any bank but said "[these institutions] are really very large financial organizations….it's more than a bank. It's a broker dealer. It's offshore operation. It's foreign deposits," says Bair. Companies like Citigroup are large holding companies, with a variety of assets operating around the world.

She says because of this, there is no equivalent resolutions procedure to what the FDIC currently does that could encompass such an broad-based financial company with so many entities.

But Bair believes Congress should consider whether to let such banks get so large. "I think taxpayers rightfully should ask, that if an institution has become so large that there is no alternative except for the taxpayers to provide support, should we allow so many institutions to exceed that kind of threshold?" she asks.



Produced by Henry Schuster

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 , was an Associate Director and Limited Partner 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, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor





Thursday, March 05, 2009

Americans Falling Behind on Mortgage Payments


I really believe that part of this problem that has been caused by the Federal government. Many Americans were lead to believe that in order to get bailed out they needed to get into foreclosure. Much of the talk back in September and October was about saving the butts of investors that were screwed by mortgage bankers. As it turns out, the plan to save homeowners--Mortgage Modification Plan--Making Homes Affordable--is not going to help speculators, or those who bought second home for "investment purposes".
A record 5.4 million American homeowners were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of 2008.
That translates to almost 12% of mortgage holders. The biggest increases in loans 90-days past due were in Louisiana, New York, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi. No California or Florida. I guess they beat everyone to the "punch" in these states.

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 Director and Limited Partner 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, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.



Is Principal Reduction or Refinancing the Answer to the Subprime Mortgage Crisis


The article presented below--Matters of Principal--is well written and thought provoking. The article addresses the current situation in the subprime mortgage market and proposed bailout of homeowners by the Obama administration. The authors make the case that refinancing won't work, and that the it would be cheaper and more effective for the Federal government to write down the principal on these distressed mortgages.

The reasoning behind the article is compelling and I can't say I disagree. I can say I think the approach the Obama administration is taking is more realistic and the best way to go in the current political and economic environment.

I believe most Americans are honest and they will ride out the drop in the value of their homes and make their mortgage payments. It is clear to me that a simple refinancing of the mortgage that allows them to continue to pay a more affordable amount each month--is the best answer.
What leads me to believe that honest Americans will keep paying even though the value of their home is substantially under water? I did it myself and I watched my neighbors do it while I was living in Texas. I bought a house in 1982 and then the price started dropping. It took more than 13 years before the house returned to my original purchase price. After 20 years, it was worth about 2.6 times my original purchase price. Here is the most important point--I only put five percent down when I bought the house. So, I didn't feel like I was losing much of anything while I lived there. I stayed because I needed a place to live, I liked where I was living, and I was honest.
At the end of 20 years my home was worth more than 40 times what I put down. My return on investment was excellent. This in spite of the fact that it was under water for 13 of those 20 years. The bad news--the home was located in Dallas Texas , not South Florida. Imagine how I would have been feeling in 2006 after owning that place for more than 20 years. The good news -- it has not dropped in value like a lead brick in the last few years. I no longer live in the house, rents have gone up in the last five years.

It is true that I could have walked away and rented cheaper. I didn't.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Matters of Principal

By JOHN D. GEANAKOPLOS and SUSAN P. KONIAK

TO stanch the hemorrhage of foreclosures, we don’t need another bailout. What we need is a fix — and the wisdom to see what is in our own self-interest.

An avalanche of foreclosures is coming — as many as eight million in the next several years. The plan announced by the White House will not stop foreclosures because it concentrates on reducing interest payments, not reducing principal for those who owe more than their homes are worth. The plan wastes taxpayer money and won’t fix the problem.

For subprime and other non-prime loans, which account for more than half of all foreclosures, the best thing to do for the homeowners and for the bondholders is to write down principal far enough so that each homeowner will have equity in his house and thus an incentive to pay and not default again down the line. This is also best for taxpayers, who now effectively guarantee the securities linked to these mortgages because of the various deals we’ve made to support the banks.

For these non-prime mortgages, there is room to make generous principal reductions, without hurting bondholders and without spending a dime of taxpayer money, because the bond markets expect so little out of foreclosures. Typically, a homeowner fights off eviction for 18 months, making no mortgage or tax payments and no repairs. Abandoned homes are often stripped and vandalized. Foreclosure and reselling expenses are so high the subprime bond market trades now as if it expects only 25 percent back on a loan when there is a foreclosure.

The taxpayers need not and should not be responsible for making up the difference between the payments due bondholders before a loan is modified, and those due after modification. Why? Because the bondholders and the banks, the ultimate beneficiaries of homeowner payments, will be better off if mortgages are modified correctly and foreclosures stopped. The government “owes” them nothing more than that.

Why is writing down principal, which the Obama plan rejects, so critical to stopping foreclosures? The accompanying chart, courtesy of Ellington Management, an investment firm in Old Greenwich, Conn., tells the story.

It shows that monthly default rates for subprime mortgages and other non-prime mortgages are stunningly sensitive to whether a homeowner has an ownership stake in his home. Every month, another 8 percent of the subprime homeowners whose mortgages (first plus any others) are 160 percent of the estimated value of their houses become seriously delinquent. On the other hand, subprime homeowners whose loans are worth 60 percent of the current value of their house become delinquent at a rate of only 1 percent per month.

Despite all the job losses and economic uncertainty, almost all owners with real equity in their homes, are finding a way to pay off their loans. It is those “underwater” on their mortgages — with homes worth less than their loans — who are defaulting, but who, given equity in their homes, will find a way to pay. They are not evil or irresponsible; they are defaulting because — for anyone with an already compromised credit rating — it is the economically prudent thing to do.

Think of a couple with a combined income of $75,000. They took out a subprime mortgage for $280,000, but their house has depreciated to a value today of $200,000. They’ve been paying their mortgage each month, about $25,000 a year at a 9 percent rate including principal and interest. But the interest rate is not the problem. The real problem is that the couple no longer “own” this house in any meaningful sense of the word.

Selling it isn’t an option; that would just leave them $80,000 in the hole. After taxes, $80,000 is one and a half years of this couple’s income. And if they sacrifice one-and-a-half years of their working lives, they will still not get a penny when they sell their home.

This couple could rent a comparable home for $10,000 a year, less than half of their current mortgage payments — a sensible cushion to seek in these hard times. Yes, walking away from their home will further weaken their credit rating and disrupt their lives, but pouring good money after bad on a home they do not really own is costlier still.

President Obama’s plan does nothing to change the basic economic calculation this hard-pressed family and millions of others like it must make. The Obama strategy — which involves reducing their interest rate for five years and giving them, at most, $5,000 for principal reduction over five years — will still leave them paying much more than the $10,000 it would cost to rent.

And five years later, after the Obama plan has run its course, this couple will still not “own” this house. Those who accept an interest modification under that plan are likely to realize at some point that they are essentially “renting” a home and paying more than any renter would. Many of those families will re-default, and see their homes foreclosed.

Bondholders today anticipate making as little as $70,000 on a foreclosed home like that in our example. But consider how much might change simply by writing down the principal from $280,000 to $160,000, 20 percent below the current appraised value of the house. The homeowner might become eligible to refinance the $160,000 loan into a government loan at 5 percent, which would be impossible on the $280,000 mortgage.

Even if the couple couldn’t refinance and still had to pay the original rate of 9 percent, the payments would be reduced to $14,400 a year, considerably less than the $25,000 now owed, and no longer wildly more than renting would cost. And the couple would have $40,000 of equity in the house: a reason to continue to pay, or to spruce up the house and find a buyer. Either way, the original bondholders would have a very good chance of making $160,000, instead of the $70,000 expected now. Everybody wins.

If writing down principal is such a good idea, why aren’t banks and servicers (the companies that manage the pools of mortgages that have been turned into investment vehicles) doing it now? Many banks are not marking their mortgages down to the foreclosure values the market foresees, hoping instead that we taxpayers will buy out mortgages at near their original inflated value —another government bailout. Reducing principal would force them to take an immediate markdown, but a smaller one. The servicers, meanwhile, are afraid that bondholders, their clients, will sue them if they write down principal — a real prospect because the contracts that allow servicers to modify securitized mortgages put restrictions on the kinds and number of modifications they may make. Moreover, making sound modification decisions is costly; servicers don’t want to spend the money and lack the personnel to do the job.

Beyond all that, the servicers have a conflict that all but guarantees they will not modify loans to maximize bondholder value. Once a homeowner is in default, the servicer must advance that homeowner’s monthly payments to the bondholders, getting repaid itself only when the house is sold or the loan is modified. So cash-strapped servicers want to foreclose prematurely or do a quick-and-dirty modification (without due diligence and thus without considering principal reduction) to get their money back fast.

Paying servicers, these conflicted agents, $1,000 per mortgage to reduce interest payments, as the Obama plan provides, is a bad use of scarce federal dollars. Last October, on this page, we proposed that Washington pass legislation that would remove the right to modify loans or decide on foreclosure from the servicers and give it to community banks hired by the government. These community organizations would have the power to modify mortgages (including reducing principal) when doing so would bring in more money than foreclosure — particularly loans that are now current but are in danger of delinquency. Those now current would be presumed ineligible if they default before the trustees arrive to modify. Our plan is simple and would require little government spending, somewhere from $3 billion to $5 billion over three years, as opposed to the $75 billion or higher price tag for the Obama plan.

We know there are some who will be outraged at the idea that their neighbors might get a break, while they — so much more responsible — get nothing. To these outraged folks we say, you would benefit too. It is not just your home values and your neighborhoods that will deteriorate if you insist that your underwater neighbors not get relief; it is your tax dollars and that of your children that will be needed to make up for the plummeting value of those toxic assets held by banks, which we taxpayers now guarantee and may soon own outright. It is your job that will be at stake when your neighbors can no longer afford to buy goods and services, causing more companies to cut jobs. So you need to act responsibly again, for your own sake and for the welfare and future prosperity of the entire nation.

John D. Geanakoplos is a professor of economics at Yale and a partner in a hedge fund that trades in mortgage securities. Susan P. Koniak is a law professor at Boston University.

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 Director and Limited Partner 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, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor





Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Mortgage Modification Plan--Making Homes Affordable


The Treasury Department released the guidelines of its mortgage modification today. The program will help up to 9 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. The guidelines will enable mortgage servicers to begin modifying mortgages right away. Please note: the Treasury program also includes incentives for removing second liens on loans.

You can follow this link,
Making Home Affordable , and find the links to self assessment questionnaires and contact information.

Or hit these links:

Here is the link to the main website Financial Stability.gov. The links below lead to the detailed information (PDF format):
Ok, you are good to go. Good luck. If you found this information helpful let us know.
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 , was an Associate Director and Limited Partner 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, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor





Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Plan to Move Distressed Assets Could Move Stocks Higher


Put me down as a fan of this plan. It could end up being a stroke of genius. This definitely trumps the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) plan that was used to dispose of the assets from failed Savings and Loans.

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
The Obama team announced its intention to partner with the private sector to buy $500 billion to $1 trillion of distressed assets as part of its revamping of the $700 billion bank bailout last month.

...private investment managers would run the funds, deciding which assets to buy and what prices to pay. The government would contribute money from the $700 billion bailout, with additional financing likely coming from the Federal Reserve and by selling government-backed debt. Other investors, such as pension funds, could also participate. To encourage participation, the government would try to minimize risk for private investors, possibly by offering non-recourse loans.

'Bad Bank' Funding Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out


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 Asociate Director and Limited Partner 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 syndication and writing assignments.




Monday, March 02, 2009

AIG poses systemic risk to the world economy


No never mind that the regulators allowed a single company to underwrite over a Trillion dollars of credit default swaps--a pile of garbage so high that it could destroy the entire world economy. From: U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board Announce Participation in AIG Restructuring Plan

Given the systemic risk AIG continues to pose and the fragility of markets today, the potential cost to the economy and the taxpayer of government inaction would be extremely high. AIG provides insurance protection to more than 100,000 entities, including small businesses, municipalities, 401(k) plans, and Fortune 500 companies who together employ over 100 million Americans. AIG has over 30 million policyholders in the U.S. and is a major source of retirement insurance for, among others, teachers and non-profit organizations. The company also is a significant counterparty to a number of major financial institutions.
Interpretation: you can complain about the bailout of AIG all you want, if we don't bail them out they well suck the economy down the drain with them.
The U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board today announced a restructuring of the government's assistance to AIG in order to stabilize this systemically important company in a manner that best protects the U.S. taxpayer...
Systematically important company? Who taught these chumps how to write? This means these suckers (AIG) were so dumb and greedy--they leveraged the company up so far beyond its means--that if they default on all the credit default swaps they underwrote the market would go down the toilet. Wink wink, we have to protect all the suckers that bought all these credit default swaps before they go in the toilet.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board Announce Participation in AIG Restructuring Plan

Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board today announced a restructuring of the government's assistance to AIG in order to stabilize this systemically important company in a manner that best protects the U.S. taxpayer. Specifically, the government's restructuring is designed to enhance the company's capital and liquidity in order to facilitate the orderly completion of the company's global divestiture program.

The company continues to face significant challenges, driven by the rapid deterioration in certain financial markets in the last two months of the year and continued turbulence in the markets generally. The additional resources will help stabilize the company, and in doing so help to stabilize the financial system.

As significantly, the restructuring components of the government's assistance begin to separate the major non-core businesses of AIG, as well as strengthen the company's finances. The long-term solution for the company, its customers, the U.S. taxpayer, and the financial system is the orderly restructuring and refocusing of the firm. This will take time and possibly further government support, if markets do not stabilize and improve.

Given the systemic risk AIG continues to pose and the fragility of markets today, the potential cost to the economy and the taxpayer of government inaction would be extremely high. AIG provides insurance protection to more than 100,000 entities, including small businesses, municipalities, 401(k) plans, and Fortune 500 companies who together employ over 100 million Americans. AIG has over 30 million policyholders in the U.S. and is a major source of retirement insurance for, among others, teachers and non-profit organizations. The company also is a significant counterparty to a number of major financial institutions.

AIG operates in over 130 countries with over 400 regulators and the company and its regulated and unregulated subsidiaries are subject to very different resolution frameworks across their broad and diverse operations without an overarching resolution mechanism. Within the options available, the restructuring plan offers a multi-part approach which brings forward the ultimate resolution of the company, has received support from key stakeholders and the rating agencies, and provides the best possible protection for taxpayers in connection with this commitment of resources.

The steps announced today provide tangible evidence of the U.S. government's commitment to the orderly restructuring of AIG over time in the face of continuing market dislocations and economic deterioration. Orderly restructuring is essential to AIG's repayment of the support it has received from U.S. taxpayers and to preserving financial stability. The U.S. government is committed to continuing to work with AIG to maintain its ability to meet its obligations as they come due.

Treasury has stated that public ownership of financial institutions is not a policy goal and, to the extent public ownership is an outcome of Treasury actions, as it has been with AIG, it will work to replace government resources with those from the private sector to create a more focused, restructured, and viable economic entity as rapidly as possible. This restructuring is aimed at accelerating this process. Key steps of the restructuring plan include:

Preferred Equity
The U.S. Treasury will exchange its existing $40 billion cumulative perpetual preferred shares for new preferred shares with revised terms that more closely resemble common equity and thus improve the quality of AIG's equity and its financial leverage. The new terms will provide for non-cumulative dividends and limit AIG's ability to redeem the preferred stock except with the proceeds from the issuance of equity capital.

Equity Capital Commitment
The Treasury Department will create a new equity capital facility, which allows AIG to draw down up to $30 billion as needed over time in exchange for non-cumulative preferred stock to the U.S. Treasury. This facility will further strengthen AIG's capital levels and improve its leverage.

Federal Reserve Revolving Credit Facility
The Federal Reserve will take several actions relating to the $60 billion Revolving Credit Facility for AIG established by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) in September 2008, to further the goals described above.

Repayment by Preferred Stock Interests
The Revolving Credit Facility will be reduced in exchange for preferred interests in two special purpose vehicles created to hold all of the outstanding common stock of American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) and American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA), two life insurance holding company subsidiaries of AIG. AIG will retain control of ALICO and AIA, though the New York Fed will have certain governance rights to protect its interests. The valuation for the New York Fed's preferred stock interests, which may be up to approximately $26 billion, will be a percentage of the fair market value of ALICO and AIA based on valuations acceptable to the New York Fed.

Securitization of Life Insurance Cash Flows
The New York Fed is authorized to make new loans under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act of up to an aggregate amount of approximately $8.5 billion to special purpose vehicles (SPVs) established by domestic life insurance subsidiaries of AIG. The SPVs would repay the loans from the net cash flows they receive from designated blocks of existing life insurance policies held by the parent insurance companies. The proceeds of the New York Fed loans would pay down an equivalent amount of outstanding debt under the Revolving Credit Facility. The amounts lent, the size of the haircuts taken by the New York Fed, and other terms of the loans would be determined based on valuations acceptable to the New York Fed.

Restructuring of Other Terms
After the transactions described above, the total amount available under the Facility will be reduced from $60 billion to no less than $25 billion. In addition, the interest rate on the Facility, which is three-month LIBOR plus 300 basis points, will be modified by removing the existing floor (3.5 percent) on the LIBOR rate. The Facility will continue to be secured by a lien on a substantial portion of AIG's assets, including the businesses AIG plans to retain. The other material terms of the Facility remain unchanged.

Issuance of Preferred Stock
As required by the credit agreement governing the Revolving Credit Facility, AIG has agreed to issue on March 4, 2009, shares of convertible preferred stock representing an approximately 77.9% equity interest in AIG to an independent trust for the sole benefit of the United States Treasury.

AIG must be in compliance with the executive compensation and corporate governance requirements of Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, including the most stringent limitations on executive compensation as required under the newest amendments to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Additionally, AIG must continue to maintain and enforce newly adopted restrictions put in place by the new management on corporate expenses and lobbying as well as corporate governance requirements.

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 Asociate Director and Limited Partner 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 syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor




Sunday, March 01, 2009

Another $30 Billion into the AIG Roach Motel


In AIG Whose Your Daddy? , I made the same point I have been making for a long time--there is no hope for AIG. Never mind me, it is going to cost the U.S. taxpayer another $30 billion to keep this "roach motel" of a company going.

AIG wrote more than $1 Trillion dollars of phony baloney paper--otherwise referred too as--credit default swaps (CDS). A Credit Default Swap is insurance on debt. In other words, if you own a bond (debt) you could buy insurance for that bond from AIG. For a tiny fee, AIG insured that if a company goes bankrupt and you own the worthless debt you get all your money back.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

The bad news for us taxpayers is that the CDS market is not regulated. So when AIG got in trouble and the regulators came in--lo and behold--they found that AIG had so much of this paper that if they went under the entire world financial system would come crashing down. This left no choice--bailout AIG.

At this point in this article I will suggest you take a look at the documentary--Inside the Meltdown--How the Economy went so Bad so Fast. There is a good description of the situation the regulators faced when they walked into AIG. When the regulators walked in the door they found out for the first time that AIG owed on a mountain of credit default swaps. Nobody had a clue beforehand. Put it this way, AIG made major bets-- they gambled-- against a scenario like we are seeing today. I guess you could say they hit the Powerball lottery 1000 times in reverse.

The mistake that AIG made was not running this so called portfolio of CDS like you run an insurance business. A typical insurance company might sell insurance in areas where hurricanes occur, as well as, locations all across the country. If there are a lot of hurricanes like we saw back in 2004-2005 insurance companies can lose a lot of money. However, they are still make money in other parts of their business not effected by hurricanes. What AIG did is the equivalent of the insuring the entire world against a natural disaster. Unfortunately for AIG, the entire world got hit by a natural disaster--a financial tsunami. AIG leveraged their balance sheet into near infinity via credit default swaps and now they are broke.

You probably didn't remember this, but, the original $85 billion we loaned to AIG back in September was supposed to be paid back in two years. Never.

Ok, count along with me, one potato--$85 Billion, two potato--another $38 Billion, three potato--a new deal for $150 Billion, four potato-- another $30 Billion, five potato Citigroup.....I think we are running out of potatoes.

AIG to Receive Additional $30 Billion in Federal Assistance

By DEBORAH SOLOMON and LIAM PLEVEN

American International Group Inc. will receive up to an additional $30 billion in federal assistance as part of the latest revamp of its government bailout, according to people familiar with the matter.

The new funding is intended to support AIG as it absorbs $60 billion in quarterly losses and operational and competitive upheaval. Under the plan, the insurer will repay much of the $40 billion it owes the Federal Reserve loan with equity stakes in two AIG units overseas -- Asia-based American International Assurance Co. and American Life Insurance Co, which operates in 50 countries.

Repayment was originally supposed to be in cash with interest. In addition, AIG will securitize $5-$10 billion in debt, backed with life insurance assets, to further reduce its debt burden.

Following these moves, the $60 billion Federal Reserve credit facility AIG received in November will be reduced to $25 billion. AIG has already drawn down $40 billion of those funds.

The plan reflects the deepening exposure of the U.S. taxpayer to the embattled insurer. The assets AIG is transferring to the government in lieu of cash repayment are difficult to value. A recent auction for AIA, for example, failed to draw any bids. The goal of the original AIG rescue in September was to achieve repayment within two years. The latest version will likely leave the U.S. government entangled with AIG for years to come.

AIG's board was meeting Sunday afternoon to vote on the plan and was expected to give its approval.

Major credit rating agencies have already signed off on the deal. Without the support of the credit rating agencies, AIG would have faced crippling cuts to its ratings. The downgrades would likely have forced it to post billions in collateral on an array of financial contracts. It would have also triggered the termination of many corporate insurance policies, costing AIG billions more.

Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com and Liam Pleven at liam.pleven@wsj.com

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 Asociate Director and Limited Partner 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 syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor




Friday, February 27, 2009

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




Thursday, February 26, 2009

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



Wednesday, February 25, 2009

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