Tuesday, May 31, 2011

More Political Capture: Goldman Hires Top Republican Fed Transparency Foe; Spends More Time With SEC Than Any Other Bank


The name Judd Gregg is not new to Zero Hedge readers. Back in the 2009-2010 battle for Fed transparency, which continues to be only fractionally on the way to being won, Gregg, who then served as the top Republican on the Budget Committee and a member of the Banking Committee, said that "opponents of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's second term are guilty of "pandering populism,"." Odd that these populism panderers, of which Zero Hedge was a proud member, ultimately succeeded in not only getting a one time Fed audit, but also won the legal case initiated by Mark Pittman to expose the Fed's dirty laundry, without which we would not know that not only did the Fed bail out primarily foreign investment banks during the financial crisis, but also that the biggest user of the Fed's somewhat secret Short Term Open Market Operations facility, also known as a 0.01% subsidy, was none other than Goldman Sachs, contrary to the firm's sworn statements that it did not really need bailing out. Gregg continued: "There's a lot of populism going on in this country right now, and I'm tired of it." Gregg warned that the growing tide of populism would threaten some of the most central institutions to the economy's recovery. "What it's going to do is burn down some of the institutions which are critical to us as a nation and as an economy to recover and create jobs," he warned." It was therefore only a matter of time that Gregg, following the end of his political career, has decided to step down, and work for one of these "central institutions to the economy's recovery" - Goldman Sachs. As such we present the list of companies that courtesy of their "top contributor" status with the senator over the years, are about to get preferential treatment from Goldman's sell side analysts, and see a prompt upgrade to Buy and/or Conviction Buy list in the near term. After all there is no such thing as squid-pro-zero in a world controlled by Wall Street's institutions "central to the economy's recovery."

From Open Secrets:

And speaking of Squid Pro Quo, readers may be surprised (or not at all) to discover that of all bankers, the SEC's Mary Schapiro, better know for letting the whole Madoff fiasco slip through her fingers, and letting Goldman get away with nothing more than a wristslap for the Abacus scandal, spent more time with Lloyfd Blankfein than any other executive from Wall Street. One wonders just what they were talking about for so long and on so many occasions.

Bloomberg reports:

After eight days on the job, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro sat across from Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., for her first meeting with one of the Wall Street executives she would regulate.


Following that Feb. 5, 2009, meeting, Goldman officials were frequent guests during her first two years, logging 10 meetings with the chairman — more than any other bank — according to her personal calendar for 2009 and 2010.

So for all those hoping for change to Wall Street's criminal practices, the focus should first be on changing those in both the legislative and regulatory bodies who not only allow, but actively encourage this kind of behavior. But this naturally harkens to the whole topic of just how real the US democratic regime truly is. And for an indepth observation on this so critical topic, we refer readers to Paul Craig Roberts recent interview with Max Keiser in which he so correclty pointed out: "There is no democracy, there are oligarchies, some of these smaller European countries are not even run by their own governments, they are run by Wall Street... There is probably more democracy in China than there is in the west. Revolution is the only answer... We are confronted with a curious situation. Throughout the west we think we have democracy, we hold ourselves up high, we demonize China, we talk about the mafia state of Russia, we talk about the Arabs and so on, but where is the democracy here?" He is spot on. Nothing short of a revolution has any chance of changing an embedded regime whose status quo demands, in plain view of the "law",  the routine rape of the middle class to the benefit of the uber-wealthy.



View the Original article

Mike Krieger Interviewed


You read his weekly articles on Zero Hedge, now here if your chance to listen to Mike Krieger interviewed by Future Money Trends. Among the now topical issues discussed are the debt ceiling, QE3, geopolitical instability, US and global economies, $100 silver (as well as the recenty take down of the metal), market manipulation and much more, as well s Krieger's several proposed scenarios for the future.

Part 1

Part 2



View the Original article

Spiegel Greek Hit Piece #2: Bailout Troika Finds "Greece Missed All Fiscal Targets" - Next Steps: Game Over?


Germany's Der Spiegel seems hell bent on getting sued to hell and back by Greece. After a few weeks ago it "broke" the news of a secret meeting that would consider the expulsion of the country from the Eurozone, it is once again stirring passions with an article claiming that Greece has missed all fiscal targets agreed under its bailout plan, according to a mission from an international inspection team, putting further funding for Athens at risk, Reuters summarizes. "The troika (aka the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank) asserts in its report to be presented next week that Greece had missed all its agreed fiscal targets," weekly Spiegel magazine reported in a prerelease. In other words, this could be the political game over for Greece, whose fate as has been disclosed recently, is intimately tied with the perception that it is following the troika's demands for fiscal change. If the three key bailout institutions are already leaking that Greece is done, next week could well be the beginning of the end for the €. In about 48 hours, even as America is enjoying a Monday off (or precisely because to that, to avoid a market panic), the European market could be digesting a very bitter pill of testing just how well pre-provisioned all those German, French and Dutch banks really are.

From Reuters:

The mission will be holding meetings next week before an expected finalisation of the report.

"The deficit in the public budget was higher than expected," the magazine said, referring to the report's findings.

"The reason is that the Greek government still spends more than agreed in the aid programme. On top of that tax income is still lower than demanded."

The IMF has already said it cannot release its part of a 12 billion euro aid tranche to Greece next month if fiscal conditions underpinning the bailout are not met and the European Commission's top economic official was quoted as saying the EU was setting the same conditions.

"We Europeans have the same conditions as the IMF," EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn was quoted as saying in the same prerelease for Monday's Spiegel magazine.

"We will decide on the next tranche after the troika's report. The situation is very serious," Rehn added.

There is, however, one possible last ditch rescue: a firesale, pardon privatization, of Greek assets.

EU officials have asked Athens to step up privatisations urgently and suggested setting up a trustee institution to help oversee the process, similar to the body that privatised East German companies after the fall of communism. Spiegel magazine also said the troika's experts estimated Greece had assets worth 300 billion euros, which it could sell off to meet its targets.

That said, good luck selling the idea that Greece has to sell the Cyclades only to provide another year or so of banker bail outs, now that virtually everyone knows who the only benefactors from the can kicking exercise are.

And not even an hour has passed since the article that Greece has already had to issue a formal lie:

Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou on Saturday denied a German magazine report that an international inspection team had concluded Greece had missed all its fiscal targets.

"Reports such as the one in Spiegel have no relation to reality. Negotiations continue and will be completed in the next few days. We have every reason to believe the report will be positive for the country," he told Greek Mega TV.

Wrong again. And confirming that it is basically game over should the troika wash its hands, is the latest note from Goldman's Dirk Schumacher:

Eurogroup head Juncker said yesterday that the IMF would probably not be able to make the next disbursement disbursement, as the re-financing of Greece over the next 12 months is not secured (the €26.7 billion Greece was supposed to get from private investors in 2012). By August 20 the Greek government has to redeem €7 billion in debt falling due, though there are of course other payments the Greek government has to make, implying that Euro-zone governments need to come up with a solution fast.

There are two issues Euro-zone governments have to deal with. First, whether (and how) to bridge the funding hole that will open up over the next couple of months if the IMF does not disburse its tranche. Second, what to do about 2012, ie, should there be a second package and under what conditions?

There are in principle several options available for how to replace the IMF money for the next tranche if governments were to deem the risk for the financial system of any early debt restructuring too big – the ECB has been vocal over the last couple of weeks with respect to these risks. Stepping up the current bilateral loans would be one option, though politically difficult as this would need to be approved by parliaments, at least in some cases. Also, several countries will find it rather unattractive to fund these loans right now in the market. Tapping either the EFSF or the EFSM to replace the missing IMF money would be easier, as – with the exception of Finland – parliaments would not need to be asked. One open question, however, is whether an end of IMF money flows, even temporarily, means that access to EFSF money also needs to be declined, as the EFSF should only provide money together with the IMF.

Whichever option is chosen, this will create some noise in several countries and the official explanation for why the IMF is no longer funding will be crucial in that respect. If it is indeed only the question of guaranteed funding over the next twelve months, Euro-zone governments may argue that the IMF will return once an agreement has been found over the second package. However, if the troika’s assessment states that debt sustainability is not given and/or the slippage in terms of implementing the reforms has been too big, it will be difficult even to come up with bridge financing for the next months.

With respect to the second package, a necessary, though not sufficient, condition, seems to be that the troika will still conclude that Greece can “make it” in principle and the slippage has not been too big – and that the Greek government will intensify its efforts. The question in that case, however, is still what the second package should look like, i.e. to what extent should the private sector participate? It is noteworthy in that respect that the German finance minister has backpedalled from his earlier calls for a soft-restructuring in conjunction with a second program for Greece, stressing the risks associated with this, though he also said that once the ESM is in place, private sector participation will be necessary.

It is difficult to say at this stage how important it will be to have the participation of the private sector in order to overcome public resistance in some creditor countries to another aid package. In any case, without more credible efforts from the Greek government to reform/privatise, this hurdle could be too high to overcome, and there might be not a second package.

The first task at hand for Euro-zone governments is to find a replacement for the IMF money if the IMF does decide it is not in a position to disburse the next tranche.

Otherwise, we may get a Greek debt restructuring much faster than previously thought.

Conclusion: for those who did not sell in May, selling in June may be the next best option, or at least until Jon Hilsenrath reports QE3 is imminent (October/November).

P.S. we continue to hold our breath for Handelsblatt to issue an apology for fooling millions of its readers into buying Greek bonds.



View the Original article

Fadel Gheit Throws Wall Street's Big Banks Under The Oil Speculating Bus


By EconMatters

Public Relation people at Goldman Sachs can not be too happy about this.

Fadel Gheit, a veteran of Oppenheimer and oil and gas industry dating back to the Mobil era, went on record and called the Big Banks--Goldman Sachs. along with Morgan Stanley--out on manipulating the oil market during a Bloomberg TV interview on May 25. 

Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley published notes on Monday, May 23, to clients recommending taking a long position on Brent crude oil. Specifically, Goldman boosted its year-end target for Brent by 20% to $120 per barrel from $105 and its 2012 forecast to $140 from $120. Goldman also raised its three-, six-, and twelve-month Brent price target to $115, $120 and $130 a barrel respectively.  Morgan Stanley raised its 2011 Brent crude price forecast to $120 per barrel from $100 a barrel, and its 2012 forecast to $130 from $105. 

Although the firm was not mentioned in the Bloomgerg interview, JP Morgan also reiterated its forecast that Brent should reach $130 a barrel by the third quarter of 2011. 

Remember Goldman was the one telling clients on Monday April 11 to liquidate "CCCP” commodities basket for a 25% profit, which partly prompted a broad selloff in commodities including crude oil.  Furthermore, at the time, Goldman said Brent would correct towards $105 a barrel in coming months.

So this flip flop just a short six weeks later not only contradicted some of the macroeconomic projection of Goldman itself, but also prompted a fire storm of criticism even from its peers.  (Morgan Stanley at least has been consistent with its commodity bullish position.) 

I'd imagine Goldman's surprise bear call in April probably threw a lot of investment houses under the bus as most of them are consistent in their long commodity call, and most likely invest and advise clients accordingly. 

Here are some notable quotes from Gheit:

“...They can invent reasons why oil prices go to $130 or $150, but history has shown that these people are able to move markets. It is not Exxon or BP or Shell that moves the oil markets. It is the financial players. It is the Goldman Sachs, the Morgan Stanley, all of the other guys. It is a shame on the government that allows them to get away with that.”
“It is not illegal. All banks need to make a profit. The M&A business is not doing too well. Therefore, they need to improve their profit outlook and commodities has been the area where they make a lot of money. Commodity speculation is now a big driving force in Wall Street."
"Why did they [Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley] control hundreds of millions of barrels of oil if they cannot refine or mine. Because it is because it is legal and they can get away with it. As long as they make a profit, that is fine. Basically, the consumer will pay the price. The economy will slow down because of the few that will make a huge amount of profits.”
"[CFTC] has absolutely done nothing. They talked about this for three or four years. Nothing happens. Nothing changes and I think nothing will change. Any changes will be cosmetic because financial institutions have a lot of clout and the financial lobby is very strong. Much stronger than the oil lobby.”

Now that's a punch that packs a wallop and tells it like it really is pointing squarely at the real bigger fish than the three small companies and two oil traders that CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) is suing right now.

(Watch the Bloomberg clip on our blog or on Zero Hedge.)

Further Reading - Is Speculation The Reason For High Oil and Gasoline Prices?



View the Original article

Monday, May 30, 2011

Guest Post: Bankrupt Nations Try To Stop The Future From Happening, Fail


From Simon Black of Sovereign Man

Bankrupt Nations Try To Stop The Future From Happening, Fail

Debt is slavery… or at least indentured servitude of the worst kind.  That looming mortgage, the high interest credit card debt, the short-term car loan– these are the forces that keep people from breaking free and taking action.

Ironically, debt begets more debt. According to FinAid, the average US student loan debt for a four-year private university graduate is nearly $36,000, and $24,000 for public. Throw in that first car loan and maybe a mortgage, and suddenly you’re staring at hundreds of thousands of dollars in demoralizing claims on your future income.

At this point, most people figure… ‘hey, I’m already in debt up to my nose, might as well get in up to my eyeballs and buy a new plasma screen on credit.’

Debt is an enormous psychological burden that influences life’s major decisions. It’s why so many people stay committed to jobs that are unfulfilling in cities they detest under conditions they find disheartening. Nobody wants to rock the boat too much… take too many risks and you could lose your job, and hence the ability to make those monthly payments.

This familiar story has been playing out across the developed world for years. This is not an ill, however, that exclusively affects individuals and families. Even at the macro level, debt has the power to subjugate entire nations to the whims of their creditors.

Enter the IMF.

In July 1944, world leaders gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to be dictated terms of the new global financial system. The US dollar was set as the global reserve currency, and the International Monetary Fund was established to shower the world’s nations with the dollars they needed to participate in this system.

Like most governmental and non-governmental organizations, however, the IMF eventually took on a life of its own.

(The CIA is a perfect example of this; formally established in 1947, the CIA was charged with… wait for it… being the ‘central’ agency to coordinate US intelligence. It grew quickly into its own beast, culminating in the creation of the post-9/11 National Intelligence Directorate. It’s job? You guessed it: being the ‘central’ agency to coordinate US intelligence.)

Over the years, the IMF became the roving economic police force of the ruling class, coercing developing nations to take enormous loan packages they had no hope of paying off.

As a result, the local IMF (or World Bank) representative in developing countries became extremely powerful figures. Leaders in poor countries were so terrified of loan default, the IMF was able to shape policy and allocate national resources as the west saw fit.

Clearly the tables have turned.

By 2011, the IMF’s biggest customers have become ‘developed’ (i.e. contracting) countries like Greece which are relying more and more on the generosity of China. Now with the IMF’s former chief locked up in disgrace for the foreseeable future, the race is on to see who will replace him.

The new order of things is very clear. The western hierarchy of the past is insolvent, and its capital has migrated south and east. Western leaders refuse to acknowledge this reality and are clinging desperately to antiquated institutions like the IMF in order to retain control of a now defunct financial system.

Newsflash: the IMF is only relevant to western leaders who live in the past. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde’s official bid to become the new IMF chief only shows how pathetic their intentions are. It’s like someone trying to take command of the Titanic as she’s headed toward the ocean floor.

China, the world’s second largest economy, is routinely relied upon to bail out the west… yet it has a paltry 3.65% of the IMF’s voting power. Europe, however, is arguably the most insolvent region on the planet, though it insists on remaining at the helm. Ultimately, the market doesn’t care and has been orienting itself towards the developed world for years.

Little by little we are seeing signs of a revolution in the financial system– grumblings from Zimbabwe about establishing an asset-backed currency, new exchange-traded gold contracts in Asia, more bank wiring routes that bypass New York City, and corporations in the developing world issuing debt on the international market in local currency with ease.

I’ve written extensively that China’s renminbi is being increasingly considered a reserve currency to compete with the dollar and euro. Other developing countries have already entered into swap agreements to accumulate renminbi reserves, and even western companies are issuing renminbi-denominated debt.

There are signs of more liberalized exchange controls all the time; it’s possible for individuals and corporations to hold savings in renminbi through a variety of ways… you can even walk into the New York City Bank of China branch and open an account.

The latest move is American Express’s new renminbi-denominated Travelers Cheques– a ‘cash equivalent’ issued by a non-Chinese financial institution. This is a major step, and its implications are far, fare more important than whichever white person is jonesing to head an irrelevant organization of the past.

Western leaders simply don’t want to accept their loss of primacy; they’ve become enslaved themselves, not only by the insurmountable sovereign debts they’ve accumulated, but by their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the simple reality of a new system they can’t stop and don’t control.



View the Original article

Why A Hedge Fund Comprised Of Junior Congressional Democrats Should Outperform The Market By 9%


That insider trading in Washignton occurs with a greater frequency than at Galleon is no secret. Courtesy of various loopholes, members of both the House and Senate have long been allowed to trade on inside information, something that grabbed the media's attention when back in November 2005 someone, somewhere sent the stock of USG Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., and Crown Holdings higher even though there was no public information. Only later would it become known that then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would deliver a speech announcing new legislation to relieve companies of asbestos litigation. Subsequent studies (such as Ziobrowski et al's 2004 paper “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the United States Senate.”) confirmed substantial market outperformance by members of Senate. A few days ago, Ziobrowski et al, have released a follow up study "Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" which confirms that not only do congressional critters consistently outperform the market, but does a granular analysis of just who it is in congress that should consider leaving the public arena, and raising capital to start their own hedge fund: simply said, junior, democratic congressmen beat the market by roughly the same amount, with the same consistency (and probably with the same Sharpe ratio) that allows SAC to charge 3% and 35%.

In a nutshell, the latest stereotype is that if one is a junior democrat in Congress, and one trades for their own discretionary account, one most likely is doing so using insider information.

From the authors:

We find that stocks purchased by Members of the U.S. House of Representatives earn statistically significant positive abnormal returns. The returns outperform the market by 55 basis points per month (over 6% annually). As additional evidence of information advantage, the trade-weighted portfolio of purchased stocks significantly outperforms the equal-weighted portfolio indicating that Representatives invested much larger amounts in those stocks that performed best. The regression coefficients also suggest that House Members favor the common stocks of smaller growth companies with slightly above-average risk.

Who is a better daytrader: republican or democrat?

When stock purchases are equal-weighted we find no significant abnormal returns for either Democrats or Republicans. When the  portfolios are tradeweighted, the samples of both Democrats and Republicans produce positive, statistically significant CAPM alphas. Only the Democratic, trade-weighted portfolio yields a significant positive Fama-French alpha. Furthermore, the nested test for significance of party affiliation indicates that the Democratic sample significantly outperformed the Republican sample. The Democratic sample beat the market by 73 basis points per month (nearly 9% annually) versus only 18 basis points per month (approximately 2% annually) for the Republican sample.

One explanation for this bias:

Given the almost folkloric belief that Wall Street invariably favors Republicans, the superior performance of trades made by Democratic Representatives may seem surprising. However, it should be noted that Democrats controlled the House for 10 of the 17 years covered by this study. Furthermore, Democrats were deeply entrenched in the leadership of the House for decades prior to the study. Thus when Republicans finally took control in 1995, they arguably had far less experience at handling the reins of power and may therefore have been unable to immediately enjoy all its perquisites.

Additionally, greedy junior politicians are more adept at "beating" the market than more senior ones.

In addition, stocks purchased by Democratic Representatives significantly outperform stocks purchased by Republican  Representatives. Stocks purchased by Representatives with the least seniority significantly outperformed stocks purchased by Representatives with the most seniority.

The explanation: risk versus return:

Again we find this result counterintuitive. In theory, Representatives with the most seniority possess the most power and thus should have the greatest opportunity to trade with an informational advantage. However, although the most senior Members may have the most opportunity, they may lack the strongest motive. It is no secret that money is the lifeblood of politics. Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.

The conclusion.

In sum, the findings from this study of the U.S. House of Representatives’ common stock transactions are generally supportive of the previous study of the U.S. Senate. We find strong evidence that Members of the House have some type of nonpublic information which they use for personal gain. That having been said, abnormal returns earned by Members of the House are substantially smaller  than those earned by Senators during approximately the same time period. These smaller returns are due presumably to less influence and power held by the individual Members. The nature and source or sources of information is unknown, but clearly further research is warranted. We recommend that congressional committees should be studied for abnormal returns and indications that members of those committees may favor stocks in industries their committees oversee. Abnormal returns associated with the common stocks of specific industries or companies should be investigated for patterns of potential misconduct. We suggest the examination of the relationships between campaign contributions, common stock acquisitions, and abnormal returns.

In other words, everyone is trading on inside information, but nobody more so than those who write the laws that determine just what is considered Insider information, and the penalties associated with it. In the meantime, let the public lynching spectacles of such prominently irrelevant fund managers as Raj Raj continue: the people need their bread and circuses. Especially as fund of funds round up all junior democrats and start roadshowing them to yield-hungry QIPs.

Full report:


Abnormal Returns

View the Original article

NIH on Abbott Labs - "They lied"


If you watch TV you’ve seen these ads. They’re lies.





Abbott Lab's cholesterol drug, Niaspan, got a patent way back in 1997. The folks at Abbott have been selling a ton of this crap ever since. It is in the Top 50 of all drug sales. I don’t have the total cumulative sales, but in 2009 global revenue came to $717,000,000, in 2010 it was more than $900mm. Over the life of the drug, total sales are in the tens of billions. The stuff is worthless. It might even be bad for you.

The National Institute of Health did a five-year study. The conclusion:

"The lack of effect on cardiovascular events is unexpected and a striking contrast to the results of previous trials and observational studies," said Jeffrey Probstfield, M.D.



NPR had this guy (another expert) on air to discuss the findings. When asked to comment on the results of the NIH study he had this to say:




"The drug did not change the health outcome at all."


"We’re not as smart as we thought we were."

The Congressional Budget Office did a write up about this last week. The CBO found that in 2008 spending for drug promotion came to $21 billion in just the US. Of that ¼ was spent on ads to consumers. The CBO raises the very legitimate question of whether this promotional effort by the drug companies is actually educating the public or just manipulating the public to buy drugs that are either not needed or simply don’t work at all.

I bitch and moan about the banks, the Fed, Treasury, the SEC and the other financial players that seem to be lying and cheating us on a regular basis. Add to that list the drug companies. The big pharmas are the same as the banks. They don’t really care about their customers. They just want to sell pills and make profits. They have the FDA in their pocket. As usual, the average citizen gets thrown under a bus.

 



View the Original article

Europe Goes From Worse To Horrible: Ireland Broker Than Expected, Greece Mulls Splitting Up Into "Good" And "Bad" Greece


Greece hasn't even filed for bankruptcy yet and the "unexpected" consequences are already coming. In comments to The Sunday Times newspaper, Irish Transport Minister Leo Varadkar said the country will likely need another "unexpected" loan from the troica, after he became the first cabinet member to cast doubt in public on Ireland's ability to raise cash. In other words once on the temporary bailout wagon, always on the temporary bailout gain. Reuters reports: "I think it's very unlikely we'll be able to go back next year. I think it might take a bit longer ... 2013 might be possible but who knows?" Varadkar was quoted as saying. "It would mean a second program (of loans from the EU/IMF)," he said. "Either an extension of the existing program or a second program. I think that would generally be most people's view." We wonder how German taxpayers will fell now that they realize they have not one, not two, but three (and soon 5 or more) heroin addicts they need to clean, wash, scrub, and feed on a monthly basis (with their, and US money, but Americans continue to not care that the biggest source of capital for the IMF is them). And speaking of ground zero, Greece is now scrambling after the Independent said that even Sarkozy is now prepared to let the Greek chips falls where they may. Following earlier news that the troika believes that the privatization plan it itself set up is not ambitious enough, Greece which now realizes that Germany, the EU, IMF, and Franch all are prepared to let it go, the country is now coming up with last ditch ideas faster than a speeding bullet: according to Reuters: "A Greek paper reported on Sunday that the government was considering setting up a Spanish-style "bad bank" to clean up its lenders' accounts from "toxic" Greek bonds and make them more attractive to potential buyers." Of course since it is toxic Greek sovereign bonds we are talking about, this implies that the country will somehow be split into a "good" and "bad" version of itself. And who thought financial innovation only comes out of the US.

From Reuters:

A 'bad bank', formed to hold risky assets owned by a state guaranteed bank, could be set up to absorb the risky Greek bonds held by state-controlled lenders slated for privatization, such as the Savings Post Bank, To Vima said.

"With problematic, Spanish savings banks (cajas) as a model, the finance ministry is examining proposals to implement the idea in the country," it said, without citing any sources.

Spain's Bankia, created from the merger of seven cajas, said last month it would create such a unit in a bid to attract investors ahead of a stock market listing.

Probability of success: 0.0%

As for Ireland being broker than expected:

Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore told broadcaster RTE that fears of a domino effect from Greece's problems were overblown. The possibility of a Greek default has sent bond yields rocketing for indebted Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

"It's not a situation that if Greece defaults then there are immediately implications for Ireland," Gilmore said.

"If Greece defaults there are implications for the wider euro zone and obviously we are part of that."

Ireland, meanwhile, wants to tap investors for funding in 2012 before its 85 billion euros EU-IMF bailout runs out the following year.

But investors believe Ireland will be unable to return to the market and instead will have to tap the European Union's permanent rescue fund in 2013, which might require some restructuring of privately held sovereign debt.

Reflecting this medium-term risk, Ireland's two-year and five-year paper are yielding close to 12 percent, more than its 10-year bonds on the secondary market.

Some 50 billion euros of the existing EU-IMF bailout has been earmarked for sovereign funding requirements with the remainder set aside to prop up the country's ailing banks.

Earlier this month, the IMF said whatever was left over after recapitalizing the banks could be channeled to the sovereign if there was a delay in returning to markets.

At the end of March, the Irish government said the banks needed 24 billion euros to bulletproof their balance sheets but Dublin hopes some five billion euros can be raised from imposing losses on junior bondholders and asset sales, meaning that 19 billion euros of the 35 billion would be tapped.

Gilmor's best defense: "It is wrong to put Ireland in the same basket as Greece."And coming soon to a theater next to, the story of the deputy PM who cried not bankrupt wolf.

The US may be on vacation, but the EUR, at a third of its regular volume and with substantially more volatility, sure won't be come 5 pm EDT.



View the Original article

Guest Post: Change In Corporate Profits Leads To Market Movements


Submitted by Lance Roberts of StreetTalk Advisors

Change In Corporate Profits Leads To Market Movements

Part 1

 

Change In Corporate Profits Leads To Market Movements

Lately analysts have been stumbling all over themselves to raise estimates for earnings growth over the coming quarters based on recent earnings announcements by various companies.   However, one of the things that should be paid attention to, besides rising input prices and weakening economic variables, is the Year Over Year Change (YOY %) in corporate profit margins.

The BEA released the latest corporate profit figures today stating:  "Corporate profits in the first quarter expanded to $1.450 trillion annualized-up from $1.369 trillion in the fourth quarter. Profits in the first quarter were up an annualized 25.6 percent, following a 12.6 percent drop the quarter before. Profits are after tax but without inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments. Corporate profits are up 5.8 percent on a year-on-year basis, compared to up 11.4 percent in the fourth quarter."

The key to note here is the decline of the YOY rate of growth in profits.   It has markedly declined since the peak in 2010 which historically is a good signal that we are near a market top as stocks are currently pricing in earnings and economic perfection.  Of course, as we have warned in the past, it only takes a small stumble for stocks to return to fair market valuation quickly.  

Currently, the market is ignoring the decline in YOY corporate profitability due to the massive amounts of artificial stimulus and most of the mainstream media is still trying to put out positive spins on slowing economic growth.  Just as a reminder in December of 2007, when the media was still touting that  "subprime was contained" and we would have a "soft landing in the economy", we stated that "...we are currently in or about to be in a recession."   Then in March of 2008, as the media was proclaiming that we would have a "goldilocks economy" - we stated that "...we are about to be in the worst recession since the Great Depression."  The evidence was much clearer then and there wasn't the invisible hand of the government supporting virtually every sector of the economy.   

Therefore, while it is currently unclear whether "QE 3 to Infinity" will continue to support a flailing economic recovery or whether there is true organic recovery embedded in the bowels of the economy; it is clear is that the decline in corporate profits is something that should be paid attention to.    The markets always overshoot on the upside and the downside and stocks are currently priced for economic perfection that simply does not seem to be in the cards.

Remember - it is always easier to make up a lost investment opportunity than lost capital.

Part 2

 

Slide In Corporate Profits - Part II

Yesterday we posted a piece on the recent slide in the Year-Over-Year change in corporate profits as compared to the S&P 500.   During a discussion with my friend Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, Tyler gave me the brilliant suggestion to also compare the change in corporate profits to both the change in economic growth as well as jobless claims.

Tyler's insight was right on track as show in the chart.   When corporate profits are overlaid against an inverted scale of jobless claims we find a very high correlation.   What might be the explanation of this?   As corporations get lean during a recessionary period profitability rises due to layoffs and cost cutting.   Remember - the two biggest expenses to companies are healthcare benefits and labor costs.   When they layoff employees those costs drop straight to the net income line.   However, since the peak in corporate profits - companies have been slowing hiring again, unfortunately not to great degree, but enough to begin impacting profitability.  

Secondly, when looking at profits compared to GDP we find, again, another very high correlation.  With the economy weakening and consumer spending declining due to lack of wage growth, and now a decline in government support as well, it is not surprising to see a decline in corporate profit growth.   With the consumer making up 70% of the current economic growth rate through consumption any impact on the consumer is going to quickly filter through to corporate profitability, and as we showed yesterday, stock market prices.

Finally, the evidence is mounting that corporate profits are under attack due to rising input costs through high commodity prices, weakening support from the consumer and an overall weakening state of manufacturing and employment completing the feedback loop into the domestic economy.    While economists are still predicting just a slowdown in the economy before a reacceleration - my thoughts, as stated before, is that we will either see close to zero economic growth by the end of the summer or QE 3.



View the Original article

Brian Sack And The Robots Claim Another Market Neutral Victim As The Market Continues To Reward Only Failure


While it may not be Duquesne or Shumway or even Icahn, it is merely the latest in a string of hedge fund closures, in this case market neutral, thus without a long or short bias, that was just put ouf of business by the ongoing streak of market surreality courtesy of $5+ billion in daily average POMOs, and the complete dominance of momentum driven, algo sponsored and robot implemented market strategies. The pioneer James Advantage Market Neutral Fund is now closing. "We have some important news to pass along on the James Advantage Market Neutral Fund (JAMNX). We have decided to close the Fund before June 30, 2011. While it was one of the first Market Neutral mutual funds to come out in 1998, times have changed and the investment approach has not been accomplishing what we originally intended." Chalk one for robot assisted central planning. And confirming that the "market" no longer rewards "quality" companies and merely encourages failure (thank you Uncle Fed) are the latest observations from Barclays's Matt Rothman: "Despite the retrenchment last week, in quant land the euphoria gripping the market has manifested itself in a continuing struggle for High Quality companies. Our long/short Quality index last month turned in notable underperformance, returning -1.64%. As this index generally runs at approximately 1/3rd the volatility of broader market indices such as the SPX, this underperformance is eye-opening to us. We were hoping that earnings season and the ensuing news by just a few companies might have been responsible for the strong underperformance of Quality – that it was a few outlier stocks, a few big names that drove our index down. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Quality as style just failed...This is the second worst monthly stock picking performance for Quality since we launched our model in July 2007... To see large stable companies, with solid profit margins, strong balance sheets and repeatable earnings underperform in this manner month after month now is distressing." Someone please inform the Chairsatan that he has flipped the core premise of the stock market 180 degrees upside down...

James M/N Fund swan song:

James MN Fund

And now the most recent commentary by one of our favorite quants, Barclays' Matt Rothman, who confirms that risk and reward are now irrevocably flipped.

Earnings season is winding down and we have seen 83% of companies within the Russell 1000 now reporting results. It has been an eventful earnings season with over 65% of reporting companies beating estimates by an average margin of 12.1%. The markets have, overall, liked what they have seen from most companies.


Despite the retrenchment last week, in quant land the euphoria gripping the market has manifested itself in a continuing struggle for High Quality companies. Our long/short Quality index last month turned in notable underperformance, returning -1.64%. As this index generally runs at approximately 1/3rd the volatility of broader market indices such as the SPX, this underperformance is eye-opening to us.


We were hoping that earnings season and the ensuing news by just a few companies might have been responsible for the strong underperformance of Quality – that it was a few outlier stocks, a few big names that drove our index down. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Quality as style just failed. 55% percent of our High Quality names underperformed the market and 60% percent of Low Quality names beat the market. This is the second worst monthly stock picking performance for Quality since we launched our model in July 2007.


To see large stable companies, with solid profit margins, strong balance sheets and repeatable earnings underperform in this manner month after month now is distressing. Of course, we understand that in periods of relatively easy money, High Quality will generally underperform. This is to be expected, in fact. But the length and the degree of the underperformance has become historically significant. As shown in Figure 3 below, the prior most recent time that valuation spread between High Quality and Low Quality companies was this large was in the summer of 1999 – in retrospect, this was not a time renowned for its rational pricing of risky assets.


While our credibility may be waning here as we continue to make this call and pound the table on this theme, we remain firm that large Quality stocks remain cheap and present an attractive investment opportunity. As the valuation discount for High Quality stocks  approaches historically significant levels coupled with a nearing potential withdrawal of liquidity by the Federal Reserve, we believe High Quality stocks should be poised to outperform in the relatively near future.

Good luck Matt: many a person before you has tried to take on the Fed. None has yet succeeded.

 



View the Original article

Carl Icahn Confesses That The "System Is Not Working Properly", Warns Of Another "Major Problem" Coming


Confirming our ongoing observations that the pursuit of leveraged beta is the only game in town ("Levered Beta Uber Alles: NYSE Borse Margin Debt Jumps To Three Year Highs, Investor Net Worth Remains At Record Lows") is this surprising confession by hedge fund titan Carl Icahn, who not only warns that the levels of leverage achieved in the current centrally planned regime is as bad as it ever was, and that some form of Glass-Steagall should return, but that, stated simply, the entire "system is not working properly." His warning, stated in a very politically correct fashion, is that "there could be another major problem" either next week, or next year. Which is not surprising: after all not only has anything changed, but the very same drivers of risk that nearly crashed capitalism in Q3 2008, are back and arguably stronger than ever. That the Fed is the last recourse mechanism preventing an all out systemic wipe out probably should not be a source of comfort to anyone. In the end, the Fed, as any other authoritarian institution promoting central planning, will always lose.

Relevant transcript:

"I do think that there could be another major problem. Now, will it happen next week, next year, i don't know and certainly nobody knows, but i don't think that the system is working properly. I really find it amazing that we're almost back to where it was, where there's so much leverage going on in the investment banks today. There's just way too much leverage and way too much risk-taking, with other people's money. I know a lot of my friends on Wall Street will hate my saying this, but the Glass Steagall thing or something like it wasn't a bad thing. In other words, a bank should be a bank. Investment bankers should be investment bankers. Investment bankers serve a purpose, raising capital and whatever, but i think today, and i know a lot of people won't like hearing this, what's going on today, i think we're going back in the same trap, and i will tell you that very few people understood how toxic and how risky those derivatives were. CDS were extremely risky the way they were used, and you look at Wall Street and you say, hey, they did it, but then you can't really blame the Wall Street guys. You can't blame a tiger. If you take a fierce man-eating tiger and put him in with a lot of sheep, you can't blame the tiger for eating the sheep. And that's the nature of the tiger. And that's the nature of Wall Street. I'm not saying they're bad but that's their nature, and the government should regulate finance."

Full interview:

h/t Scrataliano



View the Original article

Guest Post: Dollar Got Me Down: A Down Dollar Roadmap


Submitted by JM

Dollar Got Me Down:  A Down Dollar Roadmap

All the talk about a dollar currency crisis is getting ahead of itself.  Quoting Mises won’t make it happen overnight.  It takes years, even decades for a reserve currency to dissipate.  Instead of wholesale collapse, the most likely outcome is a steady decline in the dollar over an extended period of time.  Of course there is a tail possibility of a collapse, and that is why hedges exist.  But the high likelihood trend is persistent policy action to drive the dollar lower with respect the United States trading partners’ currencies, combined with a decline in the dollar’s use as a vehicle currency.  This means serious dollar weakness for the next three years (or more), but not collapse.

The Case for No Collapse

A currency collapse isn’t an issue of preferences or sore feelings about getting screwed by any given printing press.  As long as there is minimal rule of law there will be contracts legally required to settle in a given currency.  This is the interlocking stability of debtors and creditors that inflation will impact by diminished term risk, but as long as contracts remain, the dollar is going nowhere.  The currency is bound tightly to political order, which is more stable than anywhere else in the world.

Second, there is a network of liquidity providing and withdrawing institutions made up of central banks.  If a currency makes a multi-sigma move and the central bank that issues the currency can’t handle the strain itself, other central banks can act in concert to assist.  Note the massive central bank currency swap action that stopped the herd of Mrs. Watanabe’s from skyrocketing the yen back in March.  This can just as easily be accomplished for the dollar or the euro or the dong.   

Further, the dollar holds a privileged place as it is more than a mere national construction.  Like it or not, the dollar is still viewed as more desirable than many emerging market currencies.  The dollar holds a special place in the world.  It is the reserve currency, meaning it is a standard of valuation for international commerce.  More than this it is the vehicle currency for much of the world’s debt.  This international interlocking network of debtors and creditors makes the dollar even less capable of “collapse” than the good old boy central bankers club.
So you have a clear signal that the dollar is going to slide into the gutter for the next few years thanks to the Fed.  This dollar weakness will become self-reinforcing when international debtors and creditors decide to ditch it as the vehicle currency.  Technology and preference to not be screwed will make this happen.  At the same time, there will be bouts of major volatility in the dollar as the interlocking network of debtors scramble to pay off their creditors from time to time.  This volatility will diminish as the dollar’s role diminishes.  There are ways to take advantage of these trends.

Some Right Tail Exposures

CME  All the vol talk to CME, of recent “poison the silver spikenard” and “clearing evil CDS” ill fame.  CMS has a much more lucrative money-maker than these doo-dads that have potential as a great way to exploit the end of the dollar as a vehicle currency.  This is because their currency settlement technology is catching up to the realities of a world that doesn’t want dollars.  CME makes it possible to not use the dollar as a trade vehicle so much.  Here’s a clue to the future:  CME launched a postexecution clearing service for nondeliverable forwards on the U.S. dollar versus the Chilean peso, marking the first step in offering clearing services for over-the-counter foreign-exchange transactions.  Imagine that a transaction can be marked in a currency and then a nanosecond later it is converted into another currency.  This is going from high latency to low latency in touching the stinky dollar. In effect, technology makes getting out of the dollar easier than ever, because conceivably CME can hold a “settlement account” for anybody in any currency.  CME is placed to live off the skim.

TIF  A weak dollar is easier on the rich than it is on the poor.  Because of costs of entry, people with low incomes are forced to store their wealth in dollars, so they will be mercilessly screwed by the Fed and the politicians.  This screwing of the dollar makes exports cheaper, hopefully creating jobs for younger people.  These young people really need the jobs, because they bear the brunt of funding all the welfare, transfer payments, retirement benefits, paying the medical bills for people that have smoked for the last forty years, bailing out mismanaged union pensions, contributing to bank executive bonuses, funding congressional pay raises, and buying school supplies and aerosolized mace for their kids.  They also need a therapist on retainer.  

However, the wealthy take much less of a hit because their wealth is more allocated into real assets.  Because they are wealthy, they spend their money on high-end goods.  Further, as the dollar continues its decline and inflation pressures pick up, there will be persistent over-blown fears of hyperinflation that will drive even more wealth into real assets.  A part of this will end up as shopping sprees for the better halves.  In a word:  Tiffany’s.

SINGY  The growing rich versus poor divide combined with a steady dollar decline will help airlines because there will be plenty of people flying out this country for better opportunities and societies that respect capital.  Southwest is the most financial stable of the airlines, and there will be plenty of people filling their seats as they fly out of here.  Further, when the Gramma and Grandpa want to visit their almond-eyed grandkids, it will increasingly require a flight to the Orient and not a road-trip.

WYNN  As the dollar continues its unrelenting decline, people will be more willing to throw their lot in with gambling what dollars for a random payoff based on well-defined probabilities as opposed to rigged financial market payoffs.  Further, as emerging world incomes move up as the dollar moves down, gambling is a sweet spot.  Wynn understands that there are two things about China that cannot be broken.  One is that a Chinese mother will never ever choose anyone over her only son.  The second is that a Chinese person’s eyes gleam most brightly when they are gambling.  Wynn Resorts provides international exposure to eye-gleaming high-rollers and it has a CEO that verbally flips off the American establishment for killing the dollar every time he gets on Bloomberg TV.    

The Center:  Commodities and the Carry Trade

It is natural to throw out the gold card here.  No offense, but I refuse.  Gold is a measure of financial system risk and uncertainty in general.  But it is now a levered position on general uncertainty, so real chaos will screw it as a derisker.  Also, general uncertainty eventually comes to focus on specific issues, and since it is expensive, there is no justification to buy up here.  Now a declining dollar does make a case for commodities, but as the heightened sense of risk fades, commodities with more inelastic demand (demand that is relatively insensitive to price) are better.  

Also, because emerging markets will develop and become increasingly financialized, these countries will have less organic demand for gold as a store of value.  Their societies will become less cash/hoarding-based and more credit-centric.  That is to say:  if the “developed” world goes all mad max and we live off hard-tack and true little house on the prairie grit, China and the “emerging” world won’t use silver coins when they go to Applebee’s for Dim Sum.

Finally, it will take nothing short of a calamity to get to a gold standard.  Any such calamity will delever the crap out of real assets like gold as people rush to dollars to settle their dollar debts.  Also know that a gold standard takes all the economic adjustment pressure off the currency and on the labor and capital markets.  Emerging societies that place a high premium on employment won’t like this at all.  The gold standard may be stable in a local sense of currency stability, but it is very unstable in a broader social sense.

It is likely that the United States will have sustained low interest rates anchored to Fed policy compared to less demographically challenged countries (fewer old people getting assistance from  taxes on the young).  As a result, just like in Japan, the already massive carry trade will continue to spew out of the front end of the yield curve.  It will grow like the Blob, enveloping everything and then collapsing everything in periodic return crashes.  It is only natural that investors will want to get out of dollars and buy higher yielding local currency debt and equities.  There will be shocks when people cash out when they need liquidity in dollars.  

The Left Tail Hedge is Term Risk

If you want cheap exposure to shocks, buy vol.  Since it probably the most mean-reverting of all things in the universe, it is reliably cheap only when it falls below its long term average.  Even so, there is a carry cost to factor in.  And be careful of the vol you buy.  Those ETFs don’t give you the bang for the buck you may expect.  See below.  Normalizing the price action of VIX, a VIX ETN, and a VIX ETF show major tracking error exactly when VIX provides the most bang.  This can lead to severe disappointment.  VIX call spreads are well-understood way to cheapen this exposure. 


 
Keep in mind that tail-risk killers won’t let the uncontrolled chaos manifested in volatility run around butt-naked for long.  So a hedge needs to function not only for quick-reversing tail events but also for extended grinding dollar rallies that no type of volatility picks up very well.  Pure term risk is the solution to capturing dollar rallies here.  When I say “pure”, I mean minimize hybrid betas:  combining credit risk with the term risk screws up the hedge. 

So the natural exposure to term risk is long dated, dollar denominated bonds.  In my experience, static hedges don’t work well.  So you need bonds liquid enough to trade to make this hedge cost efficient.  Buy when they are cheap within your system and sell when they are rich in your system.  The coupon can fund volatility exposure or accumulate cash that can be reallocated to risk.

As credit risk increases with United States debt levels, protection could make the hedge too costly to keep.  This credit risk will either force the hedge to become static, or the term risk component to be eliminated.  Hedges based on systemic liquidity stress like TED spread widening are an alternative. 

Sayonara 

Guess what.  If you believe what I am saying, then you believe we are pretty much following Japan.  Almost everything I’ve said comes straight out of Japanese contemporary history.  Our demographics are more favorable (better young tax-payer/old check-taker ratio). Our debt situation is different but still a disaster (less corporate debt; more household debt; government debt like a mushroom cloud just like Japan’s did in the nineties, naughties, and now).  However, Japan’s debt is not external.  Generally people and businesses are both creditors and debtors, so impairments to on one side benefit the other side.  Also, when the declining dollar hits incomes sufficiently, there will be less need for Japan (and other marginal buyers) to manage its currency by buying Treasuries.  They will look elsewhere for sales:  emerging markets.  But this will work itself out over slow as molasses. 

The “exodus” theme I threw in is different from the Japanese experience, and this is no wonder.  It is much less likely in recent history, but not rare either, for a Japanese family to uproot and become a stranger in a strange land.  It was more common in the past.  Japanese culture is more homogeneous, elders are respected because they lived responsibly over the years, and there is an implicit belief that, despite poor government and institutions, society as a whole will not permit egregious exploitation.  The United States has none of these things.  Instead, there is a fractured sense of community that exploits division and interlocking handouts from which everyone directly or indirectly benefits.  It has baby boomers—arguably the most selfish, irresponsible jackasses the world has ever seen.  And it has a government that has always been happy to kill its sons in wars for things even less tangible than a barrel of oil. 



View the Original article

Three Trillion Dollars Later: Charting A Recovery Only Failed Fiscal And Monetary Policy Can Buy


Another indicator of what the US "recovery" looks like come courtesy of the Chicago Fed National Activity Index. As can be seen in the chart below, one can only wonder just what recovery the US would have if it did not spend $3 trillion to kickstart the virtuous (or better make that virtual) economic cycle when it did. And by the looks of facts (and not Tim Geithner spin), the downward inflection point has now arrived. Next up: another $1-1.5 trillion in monetary stimulus, although admittedly in a form that may be slightly different from the LSAPs we have all grown used to love and expect each and every day at 11:00 am EST.

courtesy of John Poehling



View the Original article