22 July 2009

"Build America Bonds" Paying a Shocking Premium to Corporates


The “Build America Bonds” were created by Bill S.238 called "The Build America Bonds Act of 2009 which provides $50 billion of federal taxpayer funds to subsidize state and local government tax free bonds in support of 'shovel ready' infrastructure projects.

The U.S. Government gives the issuing municipality or state a 35% rebate on the interest that the issuer pays to the bond holders. This is a huge benefit for local governments.

We have not yet found out why, but it is apparently giving a big benefit to the buyers of the bonds who are getting an income stream at well below market prices for comparable issues. In some cases the BAB bonds are pricing at 149 basis points over comparably rated corporate bonds.

Where is the inefficiency coming from in this bond offering? Who is taking the differential, the vigorish, being granted to the state and cities? Who are the underwriters and the market makers? Who are the big market makers besides Pimco? What are the fee structures being charged compared to the overall bond market?

Meredith Whitney, star analyst that she is, was the closest with her $4.65 prediction. She thinks the stock has lots of room to run, notes Fortune. Goldman, in her mind, will surf the economic woes now roiling the country. Goldman is a top underwriter of municipal bonds and the No. 1 underwriter of Build America Bonds. "These are a new type of municipal bond, part of the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus plan. Cities, states, universities and government entities use BABs, as they're known, to finance infrastructure projects. This is a potential $50 billion annual market, Whitney says, and Goldman currently holds a 25 percent share," reports a Fortune article.
Oh now it all makes sense. Droit de Seigneur.

Bloomberg
Taxpayers Inferior to Shareholders With Obama Bonds
By Michael McDonald and Bryan Keogh

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- State and local governments, forced to close budget gaps by firing workers and shutting schools, may pay at least $4.2 billion more in interest than companies with similar credit ratings on Barack Obama’s Build America Bonds.

The $17.4 billion of Build America Bonds sold since April pay an average yield that’s 0.96 percentage point more than corporate securities with the same ratings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and based on the 25 largest deals.

“Taxpayers are taking it on the chin,” said G. Joseph McLiney, president of Kansas City, Missouri-based McLiney & Co., a firm that specializes in selling municipal bonds that qualify for federal tax credits. “There should be no spread.”

While Build America Bonds opened credit markets to municipalities after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., states and cities are being penalized compared with corporations, which are 90 times more likely to default than local governments, according to Moody’s Investors Service....

‘Disserving Their Constituents’

The difference in borrowing costs shows elected and appointed officials are failing taxpayers, said Stanley Langbein, a banking and tax law professor at the University of Miami and former counsel at the U.S. Treasury in Washington.

Issuers are “supposed to get the best rate available,” Langbein said. “To me they’re disserving their constituents. Their responsibility is to get the lowest rate available, which is the corporate rate.”

Congress included the Build America Bonds program in the $787 billion stimulus President Obama signed into law in February, after sales of fixed-rate municipal bonds fell 17 percent last year to $281.1 billion, according to Bloomberg data. Most of the drop followed Lehman’s bankruptcy in September.

The initiative, which expires at the end of next year, provides a federal subsidy for 35 percent of the interest costs on taxable bonds sold by states, local governments and universities to finance capital projects that create jobs. Borrowers say they save money compared with tax-exempt debt because the interest after the federal payments is lower than tax-exempt benchmarks.

‘Priced it Right’

“We feel like we priced it right,” Jennifer Alvey, Indiana’s public finance director, said of the June bond sale. Indiana is paying a rate of 4.28 percent after the subsidy, lower than on tax-exempt bonds, she said. “That’s the difference I care about.”

Investors demand higher rates from municipal borrowers because Build America Bonds are 91 percent smaller than company offerings on average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

While California sold $5.23 billion in April, the largest issue so far, Avondale, Arizona, offered $29.8 million on July 6 for sewer and other public improvements. The average par amount for Build America Bonds is $102.5 million, compared with $1.16 billion for the 611 U.S. investment-grade corporate bond offerings this year, according to Bloomberg data.

‘Pricing Power’

Investors also require higher yields because they say the securities may become difficult to trade if the program isn’t extended past 2010, said Natalie Trevithick, a senior vice president at Pacific Investment Management Co. The Newport Beach, California-based firm runs the world’s biggest bond fund, the $161 billion Total Return Fund.

“We do have much more pricing power in these deals,” Trevithick said.

Endowments, foundations and pension funds are overlooking the securities because unlike Pimco, they don’t have expertise to analyze municipalities, said Peter Coffin, president of Boston-based Breckinridge Capital Advisors, which oversees $10 billion in bonds.

“You have a lot of big buyers so there’s less price competitiveness,” said Scott Minerd, the chief investment officer at Santa Monica, California-based Guggenheim Partners, which manages $100 billion.

Alan Krueger, the Treasury’s chief economist in Washington, said Build America Bonds succeeded in reviving the municipal market by lowering debt costs. He said municipal and corporate securities are different, so they are difficult to compare.

‘Good Start’

“Build America Bonds are doing what they were designed to do, which is lower the cost of capital for municipalities and increase access to capital markets,” Krueger said in a July 15 telephone interview. “That’s what Build America Bonds are intended to do, and they’re off to a good start doing that.”

State tax collections fell 11.7 percent to $160 billion in the first quarter compared with the same period in 2008, the largest drop in at least 46 years, the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, said in a July 17 report.

Congress’s Joint Tax Committee estimated in February that the Treasury would spend $9.8 billion through 2019 subsidizing the bonds. Matt Fabian, a managing director at Municipal Market Advisors in Westport, Connecticut, said in a June 22 report that the program’s price tag may reach $27.3 billion by the time all such securities mature in 2044...

The spread is even wider when considering more of the smaller Build America Bond deals, according to Philip Fischer, a strategist in New York at Merrill Lynch & Co., a unit of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America. He found that on July 15 the average yield on bonds of more than $100 million compared with an index of AA corporate rates was 1.49 percentage point.

Munis and corporates are apples and oranges in terms of the credit, but does that justify that kind of spread? Not for me,” said Ben Watkins, the director of Florida’s state bond division. Investors in the corporate bond market are “taking advantage of an opportunity.”


SP Futures Hourly Chart at 2:30 EDT


Some short term indicators are flashing that we are nearing at least a short term top. There is also indication of distribution of stock here by insiders to the public, which is also an indication of a possible top. This judgement is based on many charts and indicators not shown here.

Having said that, our discipline will not prompt us to do any seriously non-hedged shorting until the 'trendline' Key Pivot is violated at least on a daily close, and then confirmed by a move lower.

The market is rising on thin volumes, and unless the sellers come back in, it can continue to drift higher on program trading and short squeezes.

We are within two weeks of a potential 'crash window' where a final top will be made, and a selloff with a significant leg lower will be seen into the end of year. The window is a bit wide for now, a six week period starting around August 17th. We will hope to tighten that up by the end of July.

This is only a probability, not a hard forecast. But it has us edgy to be on the long side, even in precious metals miners, without hedging a general market decline. The Cashflow in the market is looking a bit stretched. We may have to wait until later in earnings season for this to shake out.

In sum, the markets seem 'precarious' and unstable to us, but not enough to jump in front of the market to the bear side yet.

As an aside, we are seeing quite an increase in 'screwy fills' on the bid ask level II where fills on the retail side seem to be made 'out of bounds' of the usual bid/ask action.

We do not use market orders normally and would not suggest them here for those that do. The market makers are shaving fills and front running perhaps although that is harder to spot except on the thinly traded stocks where other issues may come into play.

But we are seeing far too many fills BELOW our limit bids on some stocks to believe this market is functioning normally.



The Allure of Outsourcing Financial Regulation


One has to be fascinated with the proposal by the Obama Administration to effectively outsource the regulation of US markets and the protection of consumers to the Federal Reserve, an agency that is owned by the industry which it would be asked to regulate.

It is especially interesting given the recent history of the failure of that organization to do its job properly, failure to engage in open and transparent dialogue about its non-core (non-monetary) operations, and continuing resistance to taking direction from the government in matters related to fiscal and legislative policy that would fall under its regulatory purview while asserting its independence.

Its almost surreal. I cannot believe anyone is taking this proposal seriously.

There are three reasons why the Obama Administration is proposing it and the Congress is giving it serious consideration.

1. The special interests, the banks, who are significant donors to the Democratic and Republican parties would like to have it since they effectively own the Fed, and Wall Street likes no regulation better than self-regulation.

2. Government enjoys outsourcing its responsibilities to outside agencies like the Fed, because when the lapses and failures come, it gives them a great opportunity for finger pointing and hearings to chastise the party that failed, and shift the blame for the responsibility for the failure from themselves to someone outside their organization.

3. Larry Summers wants to be both the chairman of the Federal Reserve and of the SEC and a proposed Financial Consumer Protection Agency to attempt to maximize his ability to manipulate and control the financial system. And Larry does not work for you or your interests.

Would you like to have seen Alan Greenspan as not only the chairman of the Federal Reserve, but also the head of the SEC and the Consumer Protection Agency for financial products?

What is being proposed amounts to a financial Star Chamber. It makes the machinations behind the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913 look tame by comparison.

Has the US a shred of common sense and regard for democratic principles left?

21 July 2009

China Seeks to Lessen Its Reliance on US$ Through Aggressive Acquisition of Real Assets


“Everyone is saying we should go to the western markets to scoop up [underpriced assets],” said Chen Yuan. “I think we should not go to America’s Wall Street, but should look more to places with natural and energy resources.”

Financial Times
China to deploy foreign reserves
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
July 21 2009 19:09

Beijing will use its foreign exchange reserves, the largest in the world, to support and accelerate overseas expansion and acquisitions by Chinese companies, Wen Jiabao, the country’s premier, said in comments published on Tuesday.

“We should hasten the implementation of our ‘going out’ strategy and combine the utilisation of foreign exchange reserves with the ‘going out’ of our enterprises,” he told Chinese diplomats late on Monday.

Mr. Wen said Beijing also wanted Chinese companies to increase its share of global exports.

The “going out” strategy is a slogan for encouraging investment and acquisitions abroad, particularly by big state-owned industrial groups such as PetroChina, Chinalco, China Telecom and Bank of China.

Qu Hongbin, chief China economist at HSBC, said: “This is the first time we have heard an official articulation of this policy ... to directly support corporations to buy offshore assets.”

China’s outbound non-financial direct investment rose to $40.7bn last year from just $143m in 2002.

Mr Wen did not elaborate on how much of the $2,132bn of reserves would be channelled to Chinese enterprises but Mr Qu said this was part of a strategy to reduce its reliance on the US dollar as a reserve currency.

This is reserve diversification in a broader sense. Instead of accumulating foreign exchange reserves and short-term financial assets, the government wants the nation to accumulate more long-term corporate real assets.”

State-owned groups, particularly in the oil and natural resources sectors, have stepped up their hunt for overseas companies and assets on sale because of the global crisis.

China Investment Corp, the $200bn sovereign wealth fund, has been buying stakes in overseas resources companies and has taken a 1.1 per cent stake in Diageo, the British distiller.

In an interview published in state-controlled media, the chairman of China Development Bank said Chinese outbound investment would accelerate but should focus on resource-rich developing economies.

“Everyone is saying we should go to the western markets to scoop up [underpriced assets],” said Chen Yuan. “I think we should not go to America’s Wall Street, but should look more to places with natural and energy resources.”