More Big Banks On the Verge of Failure

The next wave of the financial crisis is fast approaching.

Fortune
Big Texas bank on verge of failure
By Colin Barr, senior writer
Last Updated: July 31, 2009: 1:53 PM ET

Guaranty Bank, which counts Carl Icahn as one if its backers, is teetering on the edge of insolvency. But it may not be easy for regulators to find a buyer.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Guaranty Bank is hardly a household name. But the Austin, Texas-based thrift's looming failure is shaping up as a big headache for bank supervisors -- not to mention a black eye for Carl Icahn and others in the smart money set.

Guaranty (GFG) could be soon seized by the government in what would be the biggest bank failure in a year that has already had 64 of them. Last week, the bank warned investors to expect a federal takeover after regulators forced a writedown of its risky mortgage investments and a bid to raise new capital failed.

Guaranty has $13.4 billion in assets and operates 160 branches in Texas and California -- two of the three best banking markets in the nation, thanks to their size and population growth.

But the bank's capital problems and its smallish, scattered network of branches could detract from Guaranty's appeal, making it tough for regulators to find a buyer quickly -- or without substantial federal subsidies.

"This may not be closed as quickly as you think, since it will require bids and rebids," said Miami banking consultant Ken Thomas.

That means resolving Guaranty's failure is likely to be costly to the FDIC's deposit insurance fund, whose balance is at its lowest point in almost two decades.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. isn't the only one taking its lumps. So have some big investors.

Shares of the bank's parent, Guaranty Financial, have dropped 97% since a group led by billionaire Texas hotel mogul Robert Rowling and Icahn, the renowned New York corporate raider, poured $600 million into the company in June 2008.

Other big Guaranty holders whose stakes stand to be wiped out include hedge fund managers David Einhorn, who was among the most persistent skeptics of Lehman Brothers before its collapse, and Dan Loeb.

"Relatively low franchise value and the fact that two big money investors already got burned on this bank may suggest less interest than with BankUnited," said Thomas, referring to the Florida thrift that failed in May and was bought by a group of private equity investors.

BankUnited had half as many branches and operated in only one state, but had a strong competitive position in the most lucrative counties -- something Guaranty lacks.

Despite BankUnited's relative attractiveness, its sale to investors led by vulture investor Wilbur Ross was hardly a walkover for the FDIC. The deal cost the FDIC insurance fund $4.9 billion.

A big tab on Guaranty would be costly to the deposit fund, whose balance was $13 billion at the end of the first quarter. The FDIC has estimated failure costs on cases since then at $11.2 billion.

A spokesman for the FDIC stresses that it has already set aside an additional $22 billion for failure-related costs in 2009, and adds that congressional action this spring gave the agency access to $500 billion in Treasury credit.

Though Guaranty has been around since 1988, it came public less than two years ago. Guaranty was part of the Temple-Inland (TIN) cardboard-box conglomerate until Icahn pressured the company to split up at the end of 2007. Guaranty shares were then distributed to Temple-Inland holders.

Guaranty's chief executive at the time, Ken Dubuque, assured investors that despite the gale force winds sweeping the financial world, the bank would be safe.

"We're keenly aware of the importance of good credit, disciplines and effective risk management, in good times and in difficult times," he said on the bank's first earnings conference call in February 2008.

But Guaranty's risk management soon was found wanting. The bank aimed to expand beyond lending to the builders of office buildings, shopping centers and houses to new areas such as small business and corporate energy lending.

Because its thrift charter obliges Guaranty to keep 70% of its assets in housing-related investments, the bank matched growth in other areas with expanded investments in housing. That, Dubuque said, is how the bank ended up taking on a giant portfolio of mortgage-backed securities, backed largely by option adjustable-rate mortgages in California and Texas.

"We needed to increase the size of the balance sheet, so that was a relatively risk-free way of doing it," Dubuque told investors in 2008. "We also have liked the returns in that business as well."

But securities backed by option ARMs are anything but risk-free, as investors have learned. Among institutions that dealt most heavily in those were Washington Mutual, the Seattle thrift that collapsed in September with $307 billion in assets, and Wachovia, which was sold to Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) later in 2008. Other big option ARM users included failed California savings banks Downey Financial and PFF.

Losses built at Guaranty over the past year, and Dubuque quit without explanation in November. In April regulators told Guaranty to raise more capital. When that effort failed, they told Guaranty to write down the value of the mortgage-backed securities by more than $1 billion. That move, announced this month, left the bank with negative capital of $748 million, according to filings....

Job Prospects: Wall Street and the Government

Who says there are no new job opportunities in the financial bubble economy?

Wall Street is hiring, and there are entry level positions for internment/resettlement specialists with the government.

Progress! But towards what? That is the question for America.

The queue for your swine flu shots is on the left. Oink.

TheDeal.com
Hiring: Goldman Sachs, Fifth Third, Wells Fargo
July 31, 2009

It looks like the tide may be turning slightly. If you are looking for a job, there are some more opportunities at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS), Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ:FITB), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC), Barclays plc and more banks around the world.

Here are more details.

•Fifth Third Bancorp plans to hire 50 employees for its sales force and small business teams. The bank is also looking for branch managers, according to The Charlotte Observer.

•Goldman Sachs is adding staff to its equity research team in Japan, according to Bloomberg.

•Bank of America is expanding its equity businesses in Japan and is hiring bankers in Canada, according to Bloomberg and Dealbook.

•Barclays is looking for 10 equity sales and trading staff in Tokyo, London and New York by Sept. 30, according to Bloomberg.

•Standard Chartered plc and Merrill Lynch & Co. are hiring business school graduates, especially those in accounting, according to AsiaOne.

•Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE:WFC) will be hiring branch support as it integrates Wachovia Bank, according to The Philadelphia Business Journal....


iHispano.com
Corrections Officer: Internment/Resettlement Specialist

Company Name: Army National Guard
Job Category: Legal/Law Enforcement/Security
City: Pensacola/Panama City
State: Florida
Country: USA

As an Internment/Resettlement Specialist for the Army National Guard, you will ensure the smooth running of military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility, similar to those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers.

This will require you to know proper procedures and military law; and have the ability to think quickly in high-stress situations.

Specific duties may include assisting with supervision and management operations; providing facility security; providing custody, control, supervision, and escort; and counseling individual prisoners in rehabilitative programs.

By joining this specialty, you will develop the skills that will prepare you for a rewarding career with law enforcement agencies or in the private security field...

Looming Financial Crisis Dampens German Banker's Earnings

We would have to agree that there is another significant wave incoming a from different set of bad loans in this financial crisis.

Contrast Deutsche Bank's actions with those of its Wall Street counterparts and remember this in the fourth quarter when they start queuing up at the trough for bailouts, warning of martial law, food shortages, and a breakdown of the financial system.

The Obama economic team's handling of the banks is disgraceful, serving a few politically connected Wall Street firms at the expense of the nation's interests.

The banks must be restrained, and the system brought back into balance, before there can be a sustained economic recovery.

Bloomberg
Ackermann Says Bad Loans Are ‘Next Wave’ of Crisis
By Elena Logutenkova

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Rising delinquencies among consumer and corporate borrowers are the “next wave” of the financial crisis and may affect banks that have avoided losses so far, said Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann.

“This crisis has consisted of a series of earthquakes, with changing epicenters,” Ackermann said late yesterday at an event in Zurich. “Bad loans are the next wave. Banks that have fared relatively well so far will also be affected by this.”

Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest lender, said this week it set aside 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) for risky loans in the second quarter. The seven-fold increase in provisions and below- forecast revenue from trading sent the Frankfurt-based bank’s shares to the biggest decline in four months on July 28. (Why don't they just ignore such risks like the American banking system and keep the bonus machine rolling? - Jesse)

“We were struck by the 44 percent increase in problem loans in the quarter,” Morgan Stanley analysts Huw van Steenis and Hubert Lam said in a note today, cutting their rating on Deutsche Bank shares to “equal-weight” from “overweight.”

Deutsche Bank fell 1.30 euros, or 2.8 percent, to 45.39 euros in Frankfurt trading, making it the worst performer on the 63-company Bloomberg Europe Banks and Financial Services Index over the past five days with an 11 percent drop.

‘Crisis Not Over’

“The crisis is not over,” Ackermann said. “When one looks at the developments of global economic growth, then it can be expected that starting in the second half of this year we slowly move into the positive territory. But we’re still moving on a low level.”

Banks that were forced to take government aid and are now encouraged to increase domestic lending may be more in danger from rising loan defaults than companies that can expand internationally and diversify risks, Ackermann said.

Deutsche Bank “intentionally” reduced its balance sheet and risk-taking this year, he said. (No soup for you, Deutsche Bank employees. - Jesse)

“We were disciplined in our considerations about what risks which should take,” Ackermann said. “If we had played it out to the full extent, we could have earned significantly more.” (And if you were front running the DAX with high frequency trades using government funds you would be rolling in profits - Jesse)

NAVs of Certain Precious Metal ETFs and Funds

SP Futures Hourly Chart Updated at 3 PM

See why we put *IF* the neckline is broken on that potential H&S top?

Goldman, Wall Street and their friends in government and the media came out swinging this morning. The SP futures took off from the neckline on some fairly thin rationales, but good enough for an end of month paint job.

This is starting to feel like a real top being formed, with the Wall Street crowd and their demimonde out with the pom poms trying to cheer the institutions and smaller investors with end of month 401k money into the market to buy them out of this anemic rally near a high note.

If you are long or hedged as we are in a paired trade then you are doing all right for a choppy market, and if you are short your timing is probably a little ahead of the market at least, and you are feeding the machine. If you are long and strong, well then, good luck to you.

Be careful. For the longer term this rally appears to be just business as usual into the end of the month with insiders selling vigorously and with a few of the Wall Street crowd front running it with positional and inside information on every turn.

As a reminder watch the VIX and the NDX futures, and perhaps a broader index or two, as well as the SP 500 since those futures are the paintbrush most highly favored by the tape painters.

GDP tomorrow. Who can tell how it will turn out, except to say it will likely be revised. We'll ignore the headline and look more deeply into the numbers.

SP Futures Hourly Chart at 2:30 PM EDT

A potential Head and Shoulders top has formed. It will be a valid formation but the objective will not be activated until and unless the neckline is broken.

Volumes remain light, with lots of technical gamesmanship that contributes to quite a bit of volatility in the short term, aka a 'daytrader's market.'

There is quite a bit of 'tension' in the market ahead of the GDP report tomorrow. The consensus is for growth of 1.5%. We are still a couple of weeks short of the timeframe we have projected for a top and the beginning of a leg down in markets, but some data or exogenous surprise could accelerate this.

There is a de facto partnership between the government and the banks with regard to the financial system and the economy which is spilling over to the equity markets. This is a similar arrangement that brought us the housing bubble and the credit crisis after the tech bubble and crash of 2001, which itself was a reaction to the Asian and Russian currency crisis of the late 1990's.

The financial engineers will likely not abandon their efforts until they either succeed, or finally shake the real economy apart and destroy the US financial system and currency. How they define 'success' is likely to be stability at the price of freedom, a classic oligarchy with 'enlightened despots.' Their financial engineering will require ever greater control over policy and priorities to maintain its artificial equilibrium.

The banks must be restrained, the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into balance before there can be a sustained recovery.

Janet Yellen Channels Ronald Reagan: "Deficit's Don't Matter"

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."Dick Cheney to Paul O'Neill

The mainstream media is reporting that Fed governor Janet Yellen, a noted dove on inflation as Fed governors go, just told a gathering of bankers in Idaho that "deficits do not cause inflation" and summarily dismissed any concerns in that regard.

So, consulting the source material which is included just below, I am struggling to understand what she is saying, and to believe that she said it with a straight face, and was not just jawboning.

What Janet Yellen seems to be saying is:

First, that deficits do not matter unless they are 'structural' and not temporary. It does not matter how much, for example, we give to the banks. When the crisis is over, the deficits will remain, but will not grow larger, and will be offset by higher taxes, that will come from the improved economy.

Secondly, that developing countries have independent central banks that know how to and are willing to fight inflation, as opposed to the central banks of undeveloped countries where the government impedes their ability to fight inflation and to monetize the debt.

Thirdly, monetary inflation only occurs where excess demand for goods and services is generated. Until that point, unless there is this demand, increased money supply does not generate inflation. We might call this the reverse Laffer, in that it is a Demand side view of inflation that tends to discount the supply side completely.

One would not think that the US had recently seen the collapse of an enormous housing bubble, following the collapse of a large but less enormous stock bubble. Janet brushes this off faster than a stock strategist on CNBC.

Although she received her Ph.D. from Yale in 1971, she surely must have subsequently studied the stagflation of the 1970's in the US, where demand remained relatively stable but a supply shock on the oil side, together with the egregious monetary policy of a pliable Fed that had been accommodating Richard Nixon, finally triggered a rather nasty stagflation that the hairy-knuckled resolve of tall Paul Volcker was finally able to overcome.

Janet Yellen is greatly mistaken, but almost emblematic of the thinking in some circles that can see only the demand side of the equation, which is most common in a layperson relating to their common domestic experience. What is frightening in a way is that she is not some blogger out on the net, or a talking head for the extended infomercial that is financial reporting in the US, but is a Fed governor.

And she is no outlier. Her thinking underpins the basis for Bernanke's strategy of packing the banks with liquidity, monetizing their assets, but maintaining control of that added liquidity by having the ability to attract bank reserves into the Fed where they can be managed through the ability to pay interest on those reserves.

Can the Sorcerer's apprentices keep a steady hand on this latest monster from their laboratory? Every time they try this, something unexpected happen, and we go to the brink, to be rescued by another patch, another new experiment, designed to save us from the last one gone wrong.

Her arrogance toward 'developing countries' is absolutely appalling, and sure to come back to haunt her at some later date. If one looks at the performance of the dollar and its long term purchasing power under the Fed, it appears that Janet is a proud member of the subjective idealist school of behavioural economics. What we do not admit to be real cannot exist, and will not hurt us.

So, we can inflate our way to prosperity, provided that we control the perception of the results of our actions. Jigger the CPI so its no longer valid, suppress long term interest rates by buying the curve selectively and suppressing gold (See Gibson's Paradox by Larry Summers), and coerce the world's central banks through various means to support our monetary inflation step for step. After all, everything is relative. Until it is not.

OMG. Our entire financial system is based on the sufferance and good will of potential adversaries to do what is in our best interests because the fragility of our currency frightens them. And well they might be fearful, when they read this from Ms. Yellen, and see how many true believers in the omnipotence of the Fed take it seriously.


Large deficits don't cause inflation: Fed's Yellen
By Greg Robb
Jul 28, 2009, 1:06 p.m. EST

(MarketWatch - Washington) -- Concern that the massive federal budget deficit will cause inflation is misplaced, said Janet Yellen, the president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve on Tuesday. Deficits don't cause inflation, she said. Instead, the worry is that they might cause interest rates to rise. "Right now, private investment spending is extremely weak, so financing for the large federal deficits is readily available. But once private spending recovers, the competition for funds between the government and private sectors could drive interest rates up," Yellen said in a speech to bankers in Idaho.

Jesse here. The relevant quote from Janet Yellen's speech to the bankers in Idaho is excerpted below from the San Francisco Fed's website.

Let me now address another issue that is garnering attention—inflation. This is a subject rife with contradiction. Almost without exception, my business contacts report downward pressure on wages and prices. At the same time, they tell me they worry that the United States is on the threshold of serious inflation. They see large federal budget deficits today and more looming on the horizon. They also note that the Fed has pumped up bank reserves and expanded its balance sheet to fund its financial support programs. They worry that this may amount to financing deficits with money creation. Surely, they say, these things will eventually have to lead to higher inflation.

I’ll begin with budget deficits. The gap in the federal budget for the current and the next fiscal years are projected to exceed $1 trillion, far larger than anything we’ve ever seen before. But a large part of these current deficits are temporary. A portion stems from the impact of the weak economy on the budget. In a recession, tax collections fall and spending on programs such as unemployment insurance rise automatically. A significant portion is due to the fiscal stimulus that has been put in place over the next few years to address the recession. Antirecessionary fiscal policy, in my view, is entirely appropriate. Since that stimulus is temporary by design, the resulting deficits will shrink as the stimulus phases out. But federal deficits will not disappear completely even when the economy has recovered and the stimulus program has phased out. On the contrary, these ongoing or “structural” deficits are anticipated to stretch indefinitely into the future and to escalate over time in a manner that ultimately is not sustainable. The long-term projected structural budget deficit mainly reflects the impact of an aging population and rapidly rising health-care costs on spending for federal entitlement programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid.

Economists have known, worried, and warned the public about the damaging consequences of escalating long-term budget deficits in the United States for decades. It’s high time for our country to tackle the problem head-on. But the main concern with these deficits relates to productivity and living standards, and not high inflation. Large budget deficits do not cause high inflation automatically. In fact, since World War II, large deficits have been associated with high inflation only in developing countries. That’s because developing countries often have central banks that are under the sway of the government, which sometimes induces them to print money to finance government spending. The connection isn’t found in countries such as ours with advanced financial systems and independent central banks. Remember that, in the 1980s, the United States ran large deficits just as inflation was coming down. And Japan has had huge deficits through much of the past two decades, yet its problem is persistent deflation—precisely the opposite of inflation. The United States and most other industrialized countries have central banks with long traditions of independence and deep-seated support for keeping politics out of monetary policy. In those countries, the monetary authorities generally have stuck to their inflation objectives, even when governments ran large budget deficits.

In advanced countries, the problem isn’t that large deficits cause inflation. Rather it’s that they raise long-term interest rates, thereby crowding out private investment, which holds back advances in productivity and living standards. Right now, private investment spending is extremely weak, so financing for the large federal deficits is readily available. But once private spending recovers, the competition for funds between the government and private sectors could drive interest rates up. A decline in productivity growth is a serious problem—one we should strive to avoid—but it is not the same as inflation.

So what about the Fed’s unprecedented balance sheet expansion? Our strong steps to avert financial and economic meltdown have caused our assets to more than double, from under $900 billion at the start of the recession to over $2 trillion now. This expansion is largely financed by increases in excess reserves that banks deposit with us.

Now we come to the crux of the issue: Will this expansion of credit and bank reserves create high inflation? My answer is no. And the reason again is because of current economic conditions. Monetary policy fosters inflation when it loosens the stance of policy enough to create excess demand for goods and services. Right now, we have exactly the opposite—an excess supply of goods and services. We need more demand—not less—to offset slack in labor and product markets. We have seen a noticeable slowdown in wage growth and reports of wage cuts have become increasingly prevalent. Businesses are cutting prices to boost sales. As a result, core inflation—a measure that excludes volatile food and energy prices—has drifted below 2 percent, a level that I and most of my colleagues consider consistent with price stability. With unemployment already substantial and likely to rise further, and industrial capacity utilization at record low levels, downward pressure on wages and prices isn’t likely to go away soon. I expect core inflation to remain below 2 percent for several more years.

Of course, the economy will eventually recover and we will need to withdraw monetary accommodation. If we were to fail to do so, we would indeed have higher inflation. The Fed is keenly aware of this. We have the tools to tighten policy when the time is right and we have the will to use them. First, many of our emergency programs are already tapering off as market conditions improve. Second, many of the assets that we have accumulated during the crisis—such as Treasury and mortgage-backed agency securities—have ready markets and can be easily sold. Finally, the Fed can push up the federal funds rate and tighten policy by raising the rate of interest paid to banks on the reserves they deposit with us—authority granted by Congress last year. An increase in the interest rate on reserves will induce banks to lend money to us rather than to other banks, thereby pushing up rates in the interbank market and, by extension, other interest rates throughout the economy. This is an important tool because, even if the economy rebounds nicely, the credit crunch might not be fully behind us and some financial markets might still need Fed support. This tool will enable us to tighten credit conditions even if we maintain a large balance sheet for a time. The experience of central banks in Europe, Japan, and Canada suggests that this approach can be effective.

Full Text of Janet Yellen's Speech to the Idaho Bankers here.

Martin Meyer on Credit Default Swaps

The current state of the Credit Default Swaps market represents a risk similar in quality to that of portfolio insurance just prior to the market crash of 1987.

What is alarming that in terms of quantity there is no comparison, as the risks now are probably an order of magnitude greater in that the risk in concentrated at the heart of the US banking system. In 1987 the US was still at least partially protected by Glass-Steagall.


On Credit Default Swaps: Comments at AIER
By Martin Mayer
June 25, 2009

Let me open with a large thought you can carry with you when you leave. Note how we are no longer being told that the chairman of the Federal Reserve is the second most powerful man in America. Why do you think that is true?

One of the truly awful moments of my time in this business was the early evening of December 9, 1982, an incident not in any of the histories but highly revelatory. What happened that evening was that Banco do Brasil failed at CHIPS (the Clearing House Interbank Payments System). Neither National City Bank nor Chemical, which represented Banco d Brasil in New York, was willing to pony up the $300-plus million the Brazilians couldn't find. So they kept the window open until midnight, while the Fed worked its necromancy on its member banks and the money was found.

Subsequent examination revealed that after the Mexican collapse the previous summer, Banco do Brasil had found it increasingly difficult to roll over its loans, and had steadily switched a higher and higher share of its borrowings out of the conventional lending and borrowing market and into the overnight infrastructure market. For more than six months, the Brazilians had increased the size of its overnight position, until somebody at National City noticed and said, No more.

The Treasurer of Chemical was an exceedingly able young man who went on to a great career at AIG, oddly enough. I went to see him to help my understanding of what had happened. Finally, he said, "You have to understand. They were paying an extra eighth." A banker will turn himself absolutely inside out for what looks like a safe extra eighth of a point. The change over the quarter century is that now he will probably do it for five basis points. (And this is why banks must be regulated and their speculation firewalled from the public funds. Why? Because they are human. - Jesse)

Meanwhile, on a less cosmic scale, let us start with the thought that Wall Street gets in its worst trouble not by taking risks but by following false prophets who promise to make finance risk-free. The nomenclature and some of the equations change, but the truth is that there are only six scams, and each of these financial panics is rooted where the others were. (In defense of false prophets, Wall Street and others too often use them as a convenient excuse to do what they are already inclined to do in the first place. - Jesse)

What made the market break of 1987 so sharp and so deep was the widespread adoption of dynamic hedging, a mathematically proven plan to provide portfolio insurance by selling futures contracts on stock indexes if the stocks themselves fell hard. Dumbest idea ever accepted by any substantial part of mankind, said Howard Stein, who then ran the Dreyfus fund. How could anybody believe that everybody could sell at the same time?

It then took twenty years for the magnificently rewarded innovators of the new paradigm in banking to find an even dumber idea that everybody could safely and profitably hedge everybody else's risks through credit default swaps. (Quite so. The resemblance between portfolio insurance and the current state of Credit Default Swaps is apparent, but even worse, because they are so heavily written and held by the major money center banks, with their risk spread to the public compliments in part to Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm - Jesse)

We make bad policy in this country because we do not inquire about how we got to where we are. There are every few second acts in American finance. Not one in a thousand of the people now commenting on the future or regulation of the CDS knows where the instrument comes from. The truth is that the CDS is one of many of what I shall call GSIs - "Government Supported Instruments" -- that would never have come into existence without dumb ideas from on high.

The Collateralized Debt Obligation or CDO, which came into existence in the late 1980s, is a single instrument expressing a garbage pail of loans and notes and bonds. It is all but impossible to value because it mixes together many disparate risks. Most people who think about it at all come to the conclusion that its not very useful for trading or for investing. In short, it is an excrescence that ought not to exist.

The CDO came about because Bill Seidman, when he was given control of the S&L workout in the late 1980s, wanted to sell whole banks rather than gather the tainted assets in FDIC control and auction them off in the usual FDIC procedure. Instead of taking, say, the real estate loans of six failed S&Ls and lumping them together as an offering on which real estate experts could paste a price, he wanted to take the entire portfolio of one or more failed thrifts and sell it off for what it would bring. (Marty is being a bit hard on Bill Seidman. There was nothing inherently fraudulent in the manner in which they packaged the sales related to the S&L crisis. It took Wall Street and the Rating Agencies to provide the real dose of fraud and larceny in the misrating and intentional mispricing of risk. - Jesse RIP Bill Seidman)

Note that this multiplied the amount of business Wall Street would get from the workout. The way you got people to bid on this sort of package was to give them the right to substitute other assets for assets in the package, or to guarantee the cash flow from the package.

The idea that a bank could be rid of its bad stuff through the device of a bad bank was then picked up by Mike Milken, and carried through with Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, where the operation was funded through junk bonds. I wrote a piece for Barrons about how intelligent all this was. I spoke with some of the brilliant kids Milken assigned to this project.

The damage these CDS instruments do has not yet been exhausted. The publicized stress tests to which the federal bank examiners recently subjected the 19 largest banks was not really a serious enterprise, because all these banks rely on swaps to protect them against their losses on the toxic legacies they accumulated under the gaze of these same examiners -- and nobody knows whether or not these hedges will pay out if they are needed. (They will only pay out in full with government monies, which is the dirty little secret that the Treasury and Fed are desperate to hide from the public. And when they fail, they will bring down the top four or five banks in the United States. - Jesse)

Swaps, after all, are bilateral contracts, and if the loser under the contract can't pay, the fact that he has theoretically hedged his risk in a separate contract with a third party does not necessarily mean that the winner can collect. Hence the "systemic risk" when AIG or Lehman, signatories to tens of thousands of these contracts, blows up, leaving a paper litter of unimaginable dimensions.

Sixteen years ago, I testified before the House Banking Committee to urge that it should be public policy to discourage over-the-counter derivatives contracts and encourage the use of exchange-traded instruments instead. To assure that losers pay, exchange-traded contracts impose overnight deposits to meet margin requirements rather than collateral that may show up some day. The Treasury Department, after years of fighting on the other side, has now discovered the virtues of settling derivative contracts through clearing houses.

But what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has proposed will not do the trick, because it leaves the actual trading of these instruments in the hands of inter-dealer brokers who do not publish the prices at which they arrange the deals (and may not offer the same prices to all bidders). And because it does not show the way to meeting the legitimate needs that spawned this illegitimate market, the Geithner proposals invite evasion of the rules. (Geither's solution was designed in large part by the banks themselves who do not wish the game to end just yet - Jesse)

The legitimate need is for a place where traders can short bonds.

Shares of stock scan be borrowed (fees for such borrowings are an important source of income for brokers) and delivered to buyers who don' know that what they have bought is borrowed stock. Much publicity has been given to traders who abuse these rules, sell what they have not borrowed and then fail to deliver and suffer no significant punishment for their failure. The SEC had been and remains asleep at the switch when it comes to this issue. And even when stock cannot be borrowed, there is an options market offering puts in a trading context where open interest is public knowledge. No such institutions exist in the bond market.

It was the difficulty of shorting bonds that produced the T-bond contract at the Chicago Board of Trade thirty years ago, permitting participants in the fixed-income markets to protect themselves against interest-rate fluctuations. Interest-rate futures are a legitimate instrument because there is a generic interest-rate risk, expressed in the market-determined yield curve.

It is easy to understand that traders once they have hedged interest-rate risks would seek to insure also against credit risks. But there is no such thing as a generic credit risk that can be traded. Like all instruments with a trigger option, they promote the illiquidity that drives markets out of the patterns the white swan people need.

Hat tip to Institutional Risk Analytics for the article

The Bull Market in Financial Fraud in the US

Does it, should it, surprise us that there is a bull market in financial fraud in the United States, to accompany the bubble economy and the deterioration in government and corporate financial statistics and accounting?

A society where the capital allocation in the bond and equity markets have become the domain of organized manipulation, theft, and insider trading? Where the major media is owned by a handful of corporations dedicated to selectively spinning the truth for their own benefit and point of view? A nation whose very money supply has become a thinly disguised Ponzi scheme?

A wise old hand of many years in government of our acquaintance told us once that he did not think there were more people of questionable virtue in the world today. Rather it is the tolerance of bad behaviour from the top down that emboldens those who are so inclined to lie, cheat, and steal in greater numbers than at other times.

All that is required for society to decline is for good people to do nothing. Those who tolerate or ignore such widespread deceit are enablers. The rest of the world must begin to stand up to the American Wall Street crowd, first in their own countries, their regions, and then in all free economies.

The Economist
Fraud reporting
Jul 21st 2009

The rise in financial crime in America

OVER 730,000 counts of suspected financial wrongdoing were recorded in America last year, according to recent data from the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Institutions such as banks, insurers and casinos are required by law to report suspicious activities to federal authorities under 20 categories. Financial institutions filed nearly 13% more reports of fraud compared with 2007, accounting for almost half of the increase in total filings.

The number of mortgage frauds alone rose by 23% to almost 65,000. But not all categories saw an increase: incidents suspected terrorist financing fell. Just under half of all filings are related to money laundering, a proportion that is little changed in over a decade.

Hat tip to Tim Dossman for the article.

"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?

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.”

The Fed's Currency Swaps

Some controversy was triggered over a line of questioning this morning during Ben Bernanke's testimony before Congress, as reported on top financial blog sites Zerohedge and Naked Capitalism. We read them both daily and are often envious of the depth and breadth of their expertise.

Congressman Grayson's line of questioning implied that the Fed was providing loans to foreign companies. Others wondered if the Fed was engaged in propping up the dollar by forcing central banks to buy US dollars in these swaps.

During the current credit crisis the Fed first reacted to market conditions and requests from central banks starting in September 2008 by expanding its currency swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank, and creating new swaps with the Bank of Japan, Bank of England and the Bank of Canada for $180 billion.

What Is a Currency Swap?

A currency swap is a transaction where two parties exchange an agreed amount of two currencies while at the same time agreeing to unwind the currency exchange at a future date.

The currency swap is executed at a given exchange rate, generally the market rate, in order to provide liquidity in a specific currency to a specific banking jurisdiction. Here is an example of a swap that was conducted with the BOE at the rate of 1.8173.



The reason for the swap is to provide the BOE with additional US dollars to meet the short term needs of its client banks, and the dollar demands of their customers.



In September private banks were reluctant to lend to one another or engage in private swaps because of a prevailing fear in the market of potential bank insolvencies and the counter party risk which that entails.

At the same time there was a 'run' on dollar assets in Europe as customers sought to liquidate their investments, denominated in US dollars, but held by foreign banks. Some of these investments ironically enough were collateralized debt obligations that had been sold by Wall Street. TED Spread Soars to New Record - Symptom of the Eurodollar Squeeze?



Did Wall Street set up their foreign counterparts, and then squeeze them mercilessly when they needed dollar assets? Probably giving the Street too much credit for planning. It is more likely a case of simple misrepresentation, followed by fear when the misrepresentation had been discovered.

The Ted Spread is the difference between the US Dollar LIBOR and the 3 Month US T Bill. It intends to measure the difference in 'price' between dollars in the US and dollars overseas. Nine out of ten people might notice a sharp spike in this spread as the credit crisis hit full fury in September 2008. Demystifying the TED Spread



As one can easily see, the TED Spread began to decline after the Fed and the Central Banks began to provide dollar liquidity where it was required.

There is concern amongst some people that the Fed was engaging in these currency swaps to prop the dollar, as expressed in the US Dollar Index (Dx).

There was no need to do these swaps to support the dollar, as the US dollar was already enjoying a strengthening as the 'flight to safety' currency. The original September tranche created by the Fed grew to 500 billion dollar swaps line as the Central Banks sought to prevent a currency crisis, an artificial dollar shortage in what amounted to a run on foreign banks for dollar holdings, as the credit crunch hit with its full fury.



The DX index is a somewhat imperfect gauge of the dollar value as it is heavily weighted to the Euro and Yen, and has a no exposure to some of the most important developing industrial powers.

More importantly, here is the Euro - Dollar Exchange Rate. Again, the 'jitters' over the state of the European Banking System were causing a steep decline early on and a flight to safety in the US Dollar. The Dollar Rally and the Deflationary Imbalances in the US Dollar Holdings of Overseas Banks



Ben Bernanke is no Alan Greenspan in that his deportment in front of Congress is rarely calm, but I did not find any particular 'tells' in his responses to Mr. Grayson beyond his usual skittishness and unease in the public spotlight.

Quite frankly, my initial take was that Ben was incredulous that the Congressman was asking such naive questions, particularly when the congressman started asking about the source of the Fed's authority to conduct foreign exchange operations.

Personally I wondered if it was a 'red herring' served up by a friendly Democrat. There are much more penetrating questions to be asked of Mr. Bernanke and his Fed, and these are not among them. Ron Paul is much closer to the mark than Congressman Grayson.

The concern about the swaps seemed a bit misplaced and confused. But the obvious opacity of the Fed and its operations does underscore the political naïveté in promoting the Federal Reserve as the uber regulator of the system.

One must wonder who is so politically tone deaf on the President's economic staff? Or is Larry Summers really that arrogant to think that he can be the next Fed chief and chairman of the SEC all rolled into one? Considering Larry's past performances, the answer may very well be yes.

Postscript: The emails show that there are those who observe, somewhat correctly, that if the Fed had done nothing to alleviate the eurodollar short squeeze then the dollar would have most likely appreciated in value, perhaps moreso than it had done.

The proponents of this solution do overlook the problem that the private markets for overnight loans had utterly seized, and to not provide central bank liquidity in this situation would have most likely have caused a cascade of significant failures, and a backlash from the rest of the world that would have been equally impressive.

There is the substantial issue, raised rather stridently by some of the central banks, that it was the US financial institutions and ratings agencies that had caused the problem in the first place by selling large amounts of fraudulent assets to trusting private bankers around the world. You know, those funny foreign folks who the US, as a net debtor with debt load growing mightily, is going to continue to ask to buy its debt and financial instruments now and for the forseeable future, and continue to support the dollar as a reserve currency.

Is Change Coming to Japan?

It will be good news for Japan indeed if the opposition Democratic Party in Japan can win their August 30 elections.

The LDP has been in power since 1955!

Can you imagine what kind of corporatocracy the US would have if the Republicans had won every election since Eisenhower? This is what exists today in Japan.

There is an embedded bureaucracy in the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry that is formidable, and that will resist policy change. So there is room for pessimism.

And the election is far from won. Do they use voting machines in Japan?


Bloomberg
Aso Dissolves Japan’s Parliament, Admits Failings
By Sachiko Sakamaki and Takashi Hirokawa

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Taro Aso dissolved Japan’s parliament, clearing the way for an Aug. 30 election that polls indicate will hand power to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan for the first time.

Lower-House Speaker Yohei Kono announced the dissolution in parliament today to a chorus of cheers. Aso’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, in power for all but 10 months since 1955, will defend a two-thirds majority in the election.

“The era of one-party dominance is over,” said Gerald Curtis, professor of Japanese politics at Columbia University in New York. “This is the first election since the LDP was formed when just about everybody believes that the chance for a change of the party in power is very real.”

The DPJ plans to encourage consumer spending by providing as much as 5.3 trillion yen ($56 billion) in child support, eliminating road tolls and lowering gasoline taxes. The party also aims to shift tax money from public works spending to strengthen social security, DPJ legislator Tetsuro Fukuyama said in a July 14 interview.

“They are going to increase the purchasing power of the people directly and they are going to fund this by cutting out wasteful spending,” said Jesper Koll, Tokyo-based chief executive officer of hedge fund adviser TRJ Tantallon Research Japan. “That’s a good, sensible economic policy to have.”

Poll Lead

Forty-two percent of respondents in an Asahi newspaper poll published yesterday said they would vote for the DPJ, compared with 19 percent for the LDP. The opposition, which has controlled the less-powerful upper house since 2007, had a public approval rating of 31 percent, compared with 20 percent for the LDP, according to the poll.

Aso, who came to office last September, has resisted calls from within his own party to resign before the election. His administration has been plagued by cabinet scandals and a deepening economic recession.

“I’m sorry my unnecessary remarks damaged credibility in politics,” said Aso in today’s televised press briefing. Since taking power, he has said doctors lack common sense and mothers need discipline more than their children, angering both groups. “I also apologize the LDP’s lack of unity” created public mistrust.

Aso, 68, pledged to revive the world’s second largest economy and improve the financial security of voters with free pre-schools and higher wages for part-time workers....

United States Postal Service Faces October Default Along With...

This is making the rounds, so we thought we might include both this article and its source article, with some commentary.

The postal unions are raising red flags, and using the "D" (default) word to bring attention to a gap in the forward funding of their retirement benefits which they see coming in the autumn.

Most federal agencies pay their retirement costs as they are incurred. The Postal Service pre-funds their projected retirement benefit costs a few years in advance.

The issue here with the unions is a bit bigger than just the September preparyment. The Postal Service has funds set aside for future retirement costs in a way that is similar to Social Security. Indeed, one might think of this system as their version of Social Security.

There is about $32 billion set aside (on paper) for their needs. The unions would like the postal service to get access to that money now. Think of it as taking the Social Security Trust Fund out of the Treasury and making it available for management by some private entity now.

What's the issue? Since the system has been in place for so long, and only now is such a fuss being raised, there is an obvious fear on the part of the Postal Employees of a government default and a devaluation of their pension fund, along with Social Security.

Make sense? I think it does when viewed in that light. Employees close to the government are fearful of a general default at the end of September that will erode the value of their own Pension Trust Fund.

There are other explanations of course. Union Management may wish to take over the management of their $32 billion pension fund to allow some of the Wall Street banks to help them 'improve earnings' and generate hefty fees.

The fear of default driven by rumours circulating amongst Federal employees and their kin makes a bit more sense, but we will not know for certain until the fall.

My Federal Retirement
USPS May Be Unable to Make Payroll in October and Retiree Health Plan Costs, Unions' Letter to White House Says
July 19, 2009

On July 14, unions representing United States Postal Service (USPS) workers wrote the White House with "extreme urgency" asking for a meeting to address lack of funding for both employee payroll in October and health benefits for retired employees.

The letter, which the FederalTimes.com blog provided a scanned copy late last week, says:

"[USPS] top executives are now saying that the USPS will default on a $5.4 billion payment to prefund future retiree health benefits on September 30, 2009. And its government affairs representative are now telling Congressional staff that the Postal Service may not be able to make payroll in October and will be forced to issue IOUs instead."

The letter was co-signed by the presidents of the American Postal Workers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, National Association of Letter Carriers and National Postal Mailhandlers Union, and sent to White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina.

GovExec.com reported more on the letter in this column on July 17 which is included here below:

Postal unions seek White House help on pay, benefits
By Carrie Dann
CongressDaily
July 17, 2009

Four unions representing the nation's postal workers are pleading for a meeting with the White House to address possible funding shortfalls for workers' payroll and retiree health benefits, according to a letter obtained by CongressDaily.

The presidents of the American Postal Workers Union, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, National Association of Letter Carriers and National Postal Mailhandlers Union co-signed the Tuesday letter to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, warning that the U.S. Postal Service is at risk of defaulting on a $5.4 billion payment to prefund retiree health benefits at the end of September.

The letter alleges that USPS "may not be able to make payroll in October and will be forced to issue IOUs instead."

Yvonne Yoerger, a spokeswoman for USPS, confirmed that the unions wrote the letter but disputed the claim that payroll deadlines will be missed.

"That's not something that's been discussed at all," she said. "We are committed to making payroll."

Yoerger said USPS will continue to work with OMB and the Office of Personnel Management to determine if and how the Postal Service can meet the Sept. 30 deadline to pay forward $5.4 billion in future health liability costs.

The Postal Service is required by law to set aside funds for future retiree health care costs, rather than paying recipients as costs are incurred as other government agencies do. As a result of a $3 billion loss to date this year, the unions wrote, no money is available for those future payments, and regular payroll deadlines may not be met unless other funds are tapped.

"Such a [financial] collapse can be averted without resort to a taxpayer bailout by reforming the retiree health prefunding provisions of the law and [by] giving the Postal Service access to its own resources in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, which now has a balance of $32 billion," the unions wrote.

But that transfer of funds would require congressional approval, and the unions fear that pressure from the White House will be needed to prompt quick action. "We believe that the Obama administration must intervene now to avoid both a political and economic train wreck," they wrote.

Reps. John McHugh, R-N.Y., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., introduced legislation this year that would amend the law to allow USPS to reach deeper into the flush Retiree Health Benefits Fund, but the unions argue the measure would not do enough to fix the financial problems.

CIT Averts Bankruptcy: Another Sunday Night Save (Perhaps)

It is good to hear that the 'well capitalized' CIT may strike an eleventh hour deal with its creditors and financiers to avoid an ugly bankruptcy for now.

Now if only the United States can do the same thing for itself with its bondholders...

Let's see if it is real, and what happens. Remember that what is being discussed here is 'bridge financing' for a company that is in a debt death spiral. The plan for their recovery will be more important than any temporary deal.

Financial Times
CIT seals rescue package
By Henny Sender and Francesco Guerrera in New York
July 20 2009 04:31

CIT on Sunday night clinched a two-year, $3bn rescue financing with its creditors that will enable the troubled US finance group to avoid a bankruptcy filing.

After round-the-clock weekend talks that included the possibility of a Chapter 11 filing, CIT and its main creditors sealed an agreement on the financial lifeline, according to people close to the situation.

“This paves the way for an orderly restructuring of the balance sheet with time and capital,” said one participant in the likely financing. “And it will give CIT’s customers plenty of capital.”

The company, which provides finance to nearly a million small and medium-sized companies in the US, and its creditors had to move quickly to arrest a slide into bankruptcy and prevent its best customers from defecting for fear that the lender could no longer support them. (We had thought the problem was that their customers had no alternative - Jesse)

The group of at least six creditors who are planning to provide the capital comprise a mix of traditional money management firms and hedge funds who bought into the debt at much less than 100 cents on the dollar. They include Baupost, a Boston-based hedge fund, CapRe, hedge fund and private equity firm Centerbridge Partners, Oaktree Capital, Pimco and Silverpoint Partners. Barclays is expected to act as agent on the financing package.

CIT’s board met on Sunday night and approved the financing. If the agreement holds, CIT will have enough time to work out which, if any, assets it should sell. The next step will likely involve cajoling other holders to exchange their debt into equity and then, having demonstrated that CIT has a viable survival plan, to go to the government and ask for help.

Jeff Peek, CIT’s chief executive who led negotiations with creditors, was likely to stay on following the financing, people close to the situation said. The management has been criticised for diversifying into high-risk businesses such as subprime lending and student loans and relying on capital markets to fund CIT’s balance sheet.

CIT’s creditors stepped in after it became clear that the government was not willing to provide any emergency assistance, whether in guaranteeing CIT’s debt, or in accepting assets in exchange for cash from the Federal Reserve or in allowing CIT to transfer more assets into the bank holding company it set up at the end of December.

The rescue financing will come as a relief to the government – had CIT filed for bankruptcy protection, the Treasury would likely have lost the $2.3bn of bailout funds CIT received late last year.

It would also have been a huge embarrassment for the Fed, which had described CIT as adequately capitalised when it approved of its banking application.

The creditor-led rescue of CIT may stave off political criticism of the government’s handling of the crisis. If CIT had gone under, at least some of its smallest customers in the business world would probably have had a hard time finding alternative sources of capital, adding to economic weakness.

New Silver Fund

Silver Bullion Trust, an all silver fund from the CEF/GTU closed-end fund group, has its roadshow going on now.

Initially it will only be available in Canada. It will trade on the TSX to start, then on the AMEX once it has risen to $75 million of assets which is a similar process used in the introduction of GTU.

It will trade in Canada in both U.S. and Canadian dollars.

The initial offering is reported to be for up to $200 million, so the $75 million threshold could be met immediately depending on the bid size of the deal.

It is expected to price at around US $10 (1 share + 1 $10 warrant) by July 29th.

This could be a interesting alternative to SLV and to CEF for those who wish to invest more heavily in silver.

Paper, Scissors, Gold

As you may have heard recently, the Comex has asserted their right under their rules to deliver the equivalent paper interest in Exchange Traded Funds such as GLD in lieu of the delivery of physical bullion for those standing for delivery under the rules of the commodity exchange.

Is GLD really the same as physical bullion?

"...it appears that a lot of investors believe and trust that investing in GLD is the same thing as buying physical gold bullion. A close reading and analysis of the GLD Prospectus, however, reveals that investing in GLD is drastically different from owning gold. This analysis will show why GLD is nothing more than another form of a derivative security which is loaded with counter-party default risk."
Owning GLD Can Be Hazardous to Your Wealth

Here is a recent statement from Dennis Gartman who most often derides those he calls 'goldbugs.'

"To finish, we do agree that recent decisions to allow for the "delivery" of ETF shares in the stead of actual physical gold against a futures position does cause us some concern. Indeed, it causes us some very real concern, for if we stand for delivery of wheat we expect to receive wheat, not paper. The same holds true for delivery processes on the COMEX, and if GATA and the "Bugs" have a complaint it is this new decision by the COMEX. On this, we’ll grant that the "Bugs" have something to complain about." Dennis Gartman in The Gartman Letter

We have often said that when the real crisis of liquidity comes, and the final flight to safety from the credit bubble collapse begins in earnest, the exchanges will alter the rules to allow for cash and paper settlement of claims for bullion, which they cannot or will not be able to deliver at the agreed upon prices.

This is what makes the current structure of the short positions held by a few banks on the precious metals exchanges a 'racket,' a type of Ponzi scheme where the same thing is sold repeatedly with no means of satisfying the aggregate of the claims and ownership.

We are sure the Comex is "well capitalized," and will continue to be so, even as it is rocked by de facto delivery failures and the substitution of more paper to back up the general failure of paper.

The wheels of justice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine.

CIT Called "Well-Capitalized" Even As It Teeters on Bankruptcy

This underscores the charade that is the Fed and Treasury stress testing. There is a cloak of accounting fraud covering many US financial institutions, even as their value soars on paper and the public continue to be robbed of their savings.

The Fed and Treasury are using their current position as de facto crisis regulators of US financial insitutions and pseudo-banks to cover up the deep problems of regulatory failure and financial fraud, largely their responsibility as the overseers of US credit and monetary policy and the financial system during the credit bubble.

They seem to have taken on the role of the Ratings Agencies in perverting their stewardship to serve the Wall Street bankers.

The Fed should not and cannot be allowed to obtain any more power over the US regulatory process. That they even resist a fair and honest audit of their lendings of public monies is an insult to our Republic.

Until the banks are restrained, and balance restored to the economy, and the financial system reformed, there can be no sustained recovery.

Bloomberg
CIT Group’s ‘Capital’ Was All Talk, No Trousers
by Jonathan Weil
July 15, 2009 21:00 EDT

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even as CIT Group Inc. teetered near collapse this week, neither the company nor its overlords at the Federal Reserve Board ever backed off their official position that the struggling lender was “well capitalized.”

Coming from the world’s most powerful central bank, that designation used to mean something about a company’s financial strength and ability to absorb losses. Not anymore.

Investors watched yesterday as yet another major financial- services company angled for a government bailout -- this time unsuccessfully -- while still sporting U.S. banking regulators’ highest capital rating. It’s a sure thing CIT won’t be the last.

Even the regulators say their capital standards are broken. Just last month, in an 88-page report outlining its regulatory overhaul plans, the U.S. Treasury Department wrote: “Most banks that failed during this crisis were considered well capitalized just prior to their failure.”

It was only last December that the Fed’s board of governors voted unanimously to let CIT become a bank-holding company, making the commercial lender eligible for federal rescue funds and allowing it to borrow from the Fed’s discount window. In doing so, the Fed said CIT would be well capitalized once it received its $2.3 billion of bailout money from the Treasury’s Troubled Assets Relief Program, which CIT got later that month.

CIT’s bosses, led by Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Peek, had been touting the company’s well-capitalized status repeatedly ever since, in financial filings and investor presentations. In reality, whatever capital CIT possessed existed only in its executives’ heads -- literally.

Accounting Standards

The problem here is with the accounting standards as much as the government’s capital rules. Consider this disclosure from the footnotes to CIT’s latest annual report. As of Dec. 31, CIT said the fair market value of its loans was $8.3 billion less than the value it was using on its balance sheet. Loans at the time were about two-thirds of its $80.4 billion of total assets.

By comparison, New York-based CIT had $7.5 billion of so- called Tier 1 regulatory capital as of Dec. 31, and $8.1 billion of shareholder equity. Take away the inflated loan values, and CIT’s capital and equity would have been less than zero. CIT hasn’t said what its loans’ market values were as of March 31.

The craziest part is that the difference in the loan values came down to nothing more than CIT executives’ state of mind. (And the Fed's and the FASB's tacit endorsement of this accounting fraud on investor - Jesse)

Had CIT classified the loans as “held for sale,” the accounting rules would have required the company to carry them on its balance sheet at their cost or market value, whichever was lower. By labeling almost all its loans as investments instead, CIT got to avoid writing them down to market values.

Say the Word

So, for capital purposes, the only difference between an insolvent CIT and a well-capitalized CIT was a mere utterance by management that it planned to keep holding the loans. No wonder so many zombie banks continue to roam the country. All they have to do is wish away their ruin, and the rules let them.

There is one catch. As CIT said in its annual report, it’s allowed to classify loans as investments only if it “has the ability and intent” to hold them “for the foreseeable future or until maturity.” Otherwise, it must book the market losses.

It’s hard to see how CIT’s management could believe the company still has the ability to keep holding onto its loans now. Not with more than $3 billion of reported losses in the past eight quarters, a looming cash crunch, and its debt trading in the bond market as if the company might fail. A CIT spokesman, Curt Ritter, declined to comment.

Not Making Sense

Think how arbitrary these accounting labels are. A declining asset doesn’t stop falling in value just because its owner intends to keep it. Nor, if you were applying for a loan today, would a bank value your collateral based on what you think it might be worth someday after the economy rebounds. Its value would be what you could sell it for now.

Back on Dec. 22, when it approved CIT’s application to become a bank-holding company, the Fed released a nine-page statement explaining its rationale. While the Fed said its board considered “all facts of record,” nowhere in that document did it discuss the possibility that CIT’s loans might not be worth what the company’s balance sheet said, or that CIT might lack the ability to hold them for as long as it claimed.

The current capital rules “simply did not require banking firms to hold enough capital in light of the risks the firms faced,” the Treasury Department said in its report last month. The financial crisis, it said, “has demonstrated the need for a fundamental review of the regulatory capital framework.”

That review, to be led by the Treasury Department, won’t be completed until the end of this year. Whatever form the new rules take, the report said they must be “credible and enforceable.”

What a welcome change that would be.

(Jonathan Weil is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)