Front Running the Fed In the Treasury Market

I had a friend from the old neighborhood who was Comptroller of a major casino in Las Vegas in 1970-80s, where I also was married in 1981. Only lasting win from there, ever.

According to this dour son of Italy the way he could spot a problem, besides the more aggressive methods of observation and detection, would be to examine the returns on a table basis. In the short run they will vary, but in the longer term each game will provide a statistical return that rarely deviates from the forecast, unless someone is cheating. We would walk through the casino, and he would point to a table game and say "at the end of the month, this table will bring in xx percent."

It was he who introduced me to Bill Friedman's book, Casino Management, which is a useful read if you wish to learn more about that end of the speculative business from the house perspective.

Attached is some information from a reader. I cannot assess its validity, not being in the bond trading business. But it does sound like someone has tapped into the Fed's buying plans to monetize the public debt and is front running those buys, essentially 'stealing' money from the public. Its what they call 'a sure thing.'

To try and figure out who might be doing it, I would look for some big player who is showing extraordinary returns on their trading, with consistent profit that is not statistically 'normal,' too consistently good. The problem with cheaters is that they sometimes get greedy and call attention to themselves.

In Las Vegas the bigger cheats were often taken out into the desert for further inquiry and final disposition. On Wall Street they are somewhat more arrogant and persistent, defying resolution with that ultimate defiance, "We'll just find other ways to cheat again."

Time for a trip to the desert?

Here are a reader's observations from the bond market.

From a reader:

I used to work for a BB on a prop desk until the financial crisis took hold and they fired the less senior guys on the desk. I now trade US Treasuries, for a small prop firm in xxxxx, to scalp basis trades in mostly on the run securities. Occasionally, I will also take position in the repo markets for off the runs if I see something "mispriced." Your recent article piqued my interest because we too have noticed "shenanigans," of sort, in the QE program of USTs.

What we noticed, especially in smaller issues like the 7 Year Cash is that before a Fed buy back would be announced the price would pop significantly as buyers would run through all the offers on two major electronic exchanges (BGC Espeed and ICAP BrokerTec). This occurred more than several times as the 7 Year Cash would be overvalued both by its BNOC by 20-30 ticks and its relative value to similar off the runs. This buyer(s) would lift every offer they could, driving the price substantially above its "value" for sometimes a week at a time. After this buying would occur, the Fed would then announce the purchase of that security sometimes a handle above its approximate value. This "luck" did not just occur in the on the run 7 Year sector, it also occurred in the 30 Year Cash, 3 Year Cash, and more than several off the runs. Again, it was especially prevalent in the less liquid treasury products. Often the "appetite" for these securities would begin approximately 2 weeks to 1 week before the official Fed announcement. The buying was well organized and done in such a way as to completely knock it off kilter from its relationship with like cash Treasuries and the CME Ten Year Contract. If you examine the charts of some of the selected buy backs before the official announcement, you will see a similar occurrence.

While I have not broken this down into a paper to prove it (and I see nothing positive coming out of contacting the ESS-EEE-SEE about this issue), I can assure you that it was occurring on a consistent basis across the entire curve.

A certain issuance would be bid up through the market (substantially above value, as derived by several metrics) only to be later gobbled up by the Fed at the unreasonable price. These player(s) had substantial pockets as we, the small guys (but with a decent capital base), would take the other side of what seemed to be an obvious fade. While this did not occur in every single issuance of the QE program, it occurred often enough to be obvious to any learned observer.

While I am not sure if this can be attributed to purposeful Fed policy or someone at the Fed talking to his pals, I am certain it transpired."

Corruption is inevitable when the government is engaged in manipulating the markets with public monies. That portion of the Fed's activities needs to be scrutinized by the GAO on a continual basis. And the activities of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the Treasury in market intervention should be subject to review by the legislative branch on behalf of the people.

Of course another option is to keep the Fed and the Treasury out of the public markets altogether excepting short term interest rates and specifically identified emergencies.

About Those MBS Purchases in Option Expiry Week

Several readers were kind enough to write in with more material about this correlation as noted in the ContraryInvestor as I had requested.

If the Fed is buying in the TBA portion of the MBS, it is clear that this is a cross-correlation, since both this market and option expiration have similar dates.

Friend Lee Adler over at the Wall Street Examiner has also been tracking this and notes:

"Jesse (whose work I greatly respect or I wouldn't feature it) is wrong on this count in my view, but correct in that the MBS purchases do have an impact on stocks, as does any liquidity pumping. But that impact is far less than the direct impact of open market operations directly with the Primary Dealers, as was the case in the direct Treasury purchases, and the GSE purchases. When the MBS liquidity is withdrawn it will have an impact, but mostly on the Treasury market. The impact on stocks will be secondary, and not pretty, I might add."

He specializes in this area, and his analysis seems to be 'spot on.' But I have to add to this that Jesse is not the Contrary Investor, although I would be glad to be the author of his databases and excellent analysis on the markets, on the whole, week in and week out. And I often rely on information and perspectives from a variety of connoisseurs of financial data, who add immeasurably to the daily fare here.

Here is what JESSE said.

"The data is intriguing to say the least. As you may recall, option expiration in the US stock indices occurs on the third Friday of every month. We have pointed out in the past that this monthly event is often the occasion of some not so subtle racketeering by the funds and prop trading desks of the banks in separating the option players from their positions, and pushing prices around to maximize the pain.

Why would the Fed wish to provide extra liquidity, to the tune of $60 billion or so, for the banks during that week? There must surely be other ways to support the equity markets. Such as buying the SP futures in the thinly traded overnight session. I am not aware of a strong correlation for stock selloffs or extraordinary weakness in option expiry weeks per se.

It might not be a coincidence, but there could be some unrelated event in the mortgage markets that also occurs on the third Friday or Thursday of each month. We are not aware of it, but that does not mean it does not exist. They might also be making the purchases more randomly, but reporting them on some schedule as the Fed does its H.41 reports, for example. Anyone who might know of such a cross correlation would be kind to let us know of it."

And here is my addendum from today.

Addendum 22 Jan: Several readers have written to suggest that the Fed is buying
in the TBA markets, new issues, and that they have fixed settlement dates that
roughly coincide with stock options expiration. That does not remove the
potential material effect of providing liquidity in options expiry week, but it
certainly does nullify the imputation of deliberation. I think the front running
as noted in the blog today in Treasuries is more obvious and plausible."

I was intrigued but skeptical of the meaning of this correlation, confessed my lack of specific knowledge, AND suggested an unrelated cross-correlation, with a request for input from readers. It was just too obvious and did not seem to have a point. Option expiry is a week of back and forth manipulation and not a substantial ramp. It also goes against my basic model that the Fed minds the bond market, and the Treasury, as head of the Working Group on Markets and the Exchange Stabilization Fund, keeps it eye on stocks via the SP futures. And a defendant will have gone to prison on weaker circumstantial evidence than that which supports the case for central bank manipulation in the precious metals markets.

"Jesse" is often on the edge in his inquiry, and asks a lot of questions, reads lots of material, but always seeks the data, and cuts it with a skeptical eye. That is the method of preparation in Le Cafe.

Related, here is some additional information on how MBS Analysts Watch the Fed's Every Trade.

I think the real question does remain, "What happens when the Fed stops buying?" and of course, "Is someone front running the Fed's purchase in the Treasury markets (and perhaps MBS for that matter)?"

Audit the Fed, and we will know much more.

Why Are 86% of the NY Fed's MBS Purchases Occurring During Option Expiration Weeks?

My friends at ContraryInvestor have published some remarkable data this evening in their twice weekly (subscription) analysis of the economy and the markets. This is one of the best analysis sites we follow, and highly recommend that you at least take advantage of their complimentary monthly newsletter.

This data suggests that the Fed's purchases of Market Backed Securities serves not only to artificially depress mortgage rates and the longer end of the yield curves. The purchases occur, with a remarkably high correlation of 86%, during monthly stock market options expiration weeks in the US.

"...since July, there has only been one options expiration week whereby the Fed did not buy at least $60 billion of MBS during the options expiration week itself, providing instant and meaningful liquidity during options expiration weeks that have historically had an upward bias anyway! Talk about timing of liquidity injections to get maximum effect in the equities market."

The data is intriguing to say the least. As you may recall, option expiration in the US stock indices occurs on the third Friday of every month. We have pointed out in the past that this monthly event is often the occasion of some not so subtle racketeering by the funds and prop trading desks of the banks in separating the option players from their positions, and pushing prices around to maximize the pain.

Why would the Fed wish to provide extra liquidity, to the tune of $60 billion or so, for the banks during that week? There must surely be other ways to support the equity markets. Such as buying the SP futures in the thinly traded overnight session. I am not aware of a strong correlation for stock selloffs or extraordinary weakness in option expiry weeks per se.

It might not be a coincidence, but there could be some unrelated event in the mortgage markets that also occurs on the third Friday or Thursday of each month. We are not aware of it, but that does not mean it does not exist. They might also be making the purchases more randomly, but reporting them on some schedule as the Fed does its H.41 reports, for example. Anyone who might know of such a cross correlation would be kind to let us know of it.

Addendum 22 Jan: Several readers have written to suggest that the Fed is buying in the TBA markets, new issues, and that they have fixed settlement dates that roughly coincide with stock options expiration. That does not remove the potential material effect of providing liquidity in options expiry week, but it certainly does nullify the imputation of deliberation. I think the front running as noted in the blog today in Treasuries is more obvious and plausible.

See Also About Those MBS Purchases in Option Expiry

But otherwise, it would be a good question to ask of the Fed. Are they in fact supplying extra liquidity to the banks at certain intervals to support a manipulation of the market to boost their prop trading results?

Perhaps at the next occasion of Ben's visit to Congress. Or maybe the SEC can pick up the phone and call NY Fed CEO Bill Dudley, formerly of Goldman Sachs. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Tel: (212) 720-5000.

ContraryInvestor is one of the more 'squared away' analysts we follow, and they do go to some pains to stress their reluctance to ever take the conspiratorial route. There may be a perfectly innocent reason why the Fed buys the MBS when it does. Some correlation based on the calendar.

Inquiring minds would like to hear all about it, Revelations-wise.

"...in trying to follow the money we know the bulk of Fed money printing has gone to support the mortgage markets with the Fed buying up a huge swath of MBS since March of last year. From the summer of 2008 until the present, the Fed has been a huge help in getting conventional 30 year mortgage paper costs from the mid-6% range to the high 4% range. Quite the accomplishment.

But if you take a very careful look at the character of the Fed balance sheet since the big time money printing effort started in March of 2009, you'll see that their buying of MBS has been a bit of a multi-use exercise. Without trying to sound conspiratorial, we believe they have also used the MBS buying program to help "support" equity prices by essentially providing liquidity to the aggregate financial market at quite the opportune times...

You may have seen that recently Charley Biderman at MarketTrimTabs has been suggesting that he cannot account in aggregate for just who has been buying equities since March of last year. He suggests that although he cannot prove it, the Fed may indeed be a key buyer. MarketTrimTabs is the keeper of the records of the kingdom when looking at equity mutual fund flows, etc. We even did a bit of this ourselves in a discussion a while back by documenting that traditional equity buyers that have been households and corporations (buybacks) were essentially nowhere to be found in 2009.

In fact, households were selling and on a net basis corporations were issuing equity, not buying it back. That leaves institutions, banking sector prop desks, the hedge community, etc. as the key provocateurs of equity price movements in the rally to date. No wonder Charley is scratching his head a bit and wondering just how we could have scaled the largest 10 month rally in market history without households and corporations playing along. But like Charley, we can prove nothing about the Fed actually acting to buy equities or futures, etc.

But there just happens to be one thing we can prove when we “follow the money” that the Fed has been doing. And it ties right back to their purchasing of MBS in the marketplace. Remember, when the Fed buys a mortgage backed security from the financial sector, it provides liquidity that can 1) be lent out, 2) reinvested in other mortgage backed securities (not a chance), 3) used to buy bonds, or 4) used in prop desk trading. We already know the lending is not happening, MBS purchases have been the province of the Fed with few other buyers, banks have bought bonds, but in moderation, and finally banks are announcing “record trading profits” as per their prop desk activities. Get it? Of course you do. The prop desk destination has been a liquidity magnet.

So here’s the important issue regarding the Fed's MBS purchases relative to equity market outcomes. It’s the timing of the Fed’s MBS purchases that has been the key support to equity prices. And we see it that way when we analytically follow the money. Ok, the chart below chronicles ALL Fed purchases of MBS by the week since March of last year. The blue line is the ongoing level of Fed ownership of MBS as this position has been accumulated over the last 10 months. It’s an almost perfect stair step higher pattern. Although it may seem random, the dates we input into the chart happen to be the weeks ending on a Friday. Friday's of options expiration weeks. Notice a pattern here?



Of course you do. It’s blatantly obvious. To the bottom line, the Fed has been very significantly goosing its purchases of MBS during equity options expiration weeks. In fact, since July, there has only been one options expiration week whereby the Fed did not buy at least $60 billion of MBS during the options expiration week itself, providing instant and meaningful liquidity during options expiration weeks that have historically had an upward bias anyway! Talk about timing of liquidity injections to get maximum effect in the equities market.

Folks, this is right out in the open. No mysteries and fully disclosed on the Fed’s own balance sheet. And guess what? It gets better. The second largest weekly period for Fed purchases of MBS outside of the expiration week itself? You guessed it - month end week. Another maximum effect week where we usually see institutions engage in a bit of window dressing. Nothing like providing a few extra chips "on the house", no?



To put a little summation sign around this section of commentary, the chart below breaks down the timing of Fed purchasing of MBS since June of last year. Yes, 86% of all Fed purchases of MBS since that time occurred directly in equity options expirations weeks. Another 7.8% of total MBS purchases occurred in final weeks of each month. And an overwhelming 5.8% of total Fed purchases of MBS occurred at other times.

In following the money, this is the only thing we can prove in terms of actual Fed actions relative to the equity market itself. A mere coincidence? Not a chance. As we see it, the Fed printing of dough to buy back MBS has had a dual purpose. The ultimate new age definition of cross-marketing? Yeah, something like that.

Now that we have covered this data, the question of "what happens when the Fed stops printing money in March?" takes on much broader meaning and significance. Of course the Fed has not directly been buying equities with their clever and clearly very selective timing of MBS purchases, but they sure as heck were providing the immediate and sizable liquidity for "some one else" to do so during equity periods where they could achieve "maximum effect".

Wildly enough, at least as of last week's option-ex, the Fed was still purchasing $60B in MBS. So, as we stand here today, there are now two more options expirations weeks prior to us theoretically reaching the end of the game for Fed printing and MBS buying. You already know we'll be watching, errr.. following the money that is.

When/if the Fed stops printing to buy MBS, do we also lose an options expiration week and month end equity liquidity sponsor? Something we suggest you think about as we move forward. See why we suggest following the money is a key theme?

Goldman Expects to Keep Cake, Eat Same, Stick Public with Tab

Dick Bove says that Obama's proposal will be good for Goldman Sachs because it will take away the prop trading from banks that have deposits, but will not affect Goldman Sachs who will once again eliminate more competition.

So buy the stock. Hard to imagine anything short of Armageddon that would cause the word 'sell' to emanate from his bloviateness when he is talking his book.

And Goldman Sachs says that it is 'unrealistic' to take away their place at the Fed's teats as a subsidy sucking bank holding company.

"Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status."

Perhaps they will lobby for a special category of bank. Some banks are more equal than others? The public might be dumb enough to buy it, but doubtful Lloyd's peers on the Street would not raise a fuss.

More likely that the corrupt Congress takes this idea of Volcker's, and leads it up a blind alley, and strangles it with delays, transitions, and deceptions, and grandiose discussion of new regulatory architectures, rather than simple but elegant focus on primary mission, and the elimination of conflicts of interest.

The threats of 'lack of competitiveness,' 'stifling the recovery,' and 'portfolio diversity' are already resounding from the canyons of Wall Street and their pond skimming sibyls on financial television.

Bloomberg
Goldman Will Benefit From Obama’s Proposal, Bove Says
By Rita Nazareth

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will benefit from President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit Wall Street risk because it may force deposit-taking banks to unwind trading operations, Rochdale Securities analyst Dick Bove said.

Obama called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce the risk of another financial crisis. The proposals would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

He also proposed expanding a 10 percent market-share cap on deposits to include other liabilities such as non-deposit funding as a way to restrict growth and consolidation.

“Banks with large deposit bases have distinct advantages in certain sectors of the market,” Bove wrote in a report today. “If the banks are told they cannot use deposits in this fashion in the future, it ‘levels the playing field’ for companies like Goldman Sachs. This is not a time to sell this stock, it is a time to buy it.”

Goldman Sachs shares erased an early advance as Obama prepared to outline his proposal. The shares lost 4 percent to $161.15 in New York at 2:56 p.m. after rising as much as 1.9 percent at the start of trading.

Bonus Pool Slashed

Goldman, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, reported record earnings that beat analysts’ estimates as the bank slashed its bonus pool. Net income of $4.95 billion, or $8.20 per share, for the three months ended Dec. 31 compared with a loss of $2.12 billion, or $4.97 a share, for the same period in 2008. The average estimate of analysts in a Bloomberg survey was $5.18 a share.

The record profit came as Goldman Sachs, facing criticism from politicians and labor unions for near-record compensation, set aside $16.2 billion to pay employees, the smallest portion of revenue since the firm went public in 1999.

“The adjustment of compensation lower leaves more money for shareholders,” Bove wrote.

Bove said that if the bank had not slashed its bonus pool, earnings may have been only about 3 cents to 5 cents a share in the quarter, “under certain assumptions concerning compensation,” because of a slowdown in trading.

“Investors are reacting sharply to the fourth quarter results at this company,” Bove wrote. “However, all indicators -- M&A, new financings, increasing volatility in a number of markets, growth in the money supply -- all suggest that this quarter may be a one-time event.”

Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status.

Obama Proposes to Restrain the Banks from Speculation

A good first move, but almost a year late.

It still remains to be seen if it can pass with any teeth in it through a deeply conflicted and compromised Congress. The devil is in the details, loopholes, and exceptions.

Allowing the banks to speculate for their own accounts in the markets inexorably intermingles their risks with those of the broader financial system. It is also a tilt to the playing field to allow these market makers with access to proprietary information, very favorable positioning with the exchanges, and the Fed discount window and special programs to sit at the same table with other investors and funds.

This is so basic a move that one has to wonder why Obama waited so long to propose it. Or rather to listen to Paul Volcker who has been advising it, and largely unheeded.

Goldman and perhaps Morgan Stanley will give up the charade of commercial banking to become a full time investment bank, aka hedge fund, again. One positive outcome is that the next time they get into trouble they are on their own. And given their blind greed it won't be all that long before they do.

It is nice to see Paul Volcker gaining a voice in an administration dominated by Wall Street sychophants.

Let the threats, whining, tales of doom, financial media spin, and an army of lobbyists now go forth from Wall Street to try and stop this very basic reform.

It's a beginning. Barney Frank is already talking about putting a five year transition period on the change. Ludicrous really considering the banks that just grabbed their charters. Barney is part of the problem. A bigger part than most people probably suspect.

A good next step would be fire Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, and to permit Bernanke to gracefully step aside and go back to grading term papers. Obama needs to nominate someone with a stronger practical experience profile in that job. Volcker could do quite well.

National Post
Wall Street reels over plan to ban prop trading
Jeff Mason and Kevin Drawbaugh, Reuters
January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama proposed stricter limits on financial institutions' risk-taking Thursday in a new populist-tinged move that sent bank shares tumbling and aimed to shore up the president's political base.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat who is just starting his second year in office, laid out rules to prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He also called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Mr. Obama told reporters, flanked by his top economic advisors and lawmakers.

"Too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward."

The rules, which must be agreed by Congress, would also bar institutions from proprietary trading operations, unrelated to serving customers, for their own profit.

Proprietary trading involves a firm making bets on financial markets with its own money, rather than executing a trade for a client. These expert trading operations, which can bet on stocks and other financial instruments to rise or fall, have been enormously profitable for the banks but also increase market volatility.

The White House blames the practice for helping to nearly bring down the U.S. financial system in 2008.

Mr. Obama's move is the latest in a series to crack down on banks and comes as he reels from a devastating political loss for his Democratic Party in Massachusetts on Tuesday, when a Republican captured a U.S. senate seat formerly held by the late Democratic senator Edward Kennedy.

Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies after Mr. Obama's announcement.

JPMorgan Chase & Co fell 5.8%, helping push the Dow Jones Industrial average lower.

Citigroup Inc fell 6.36% and Bank of America Corp fell 7% while Goldman was down 5.5% despite posting strong earnings Thursday.

"This is going to have a tremendous impact on big-name brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan," said Ralph Fogel, investment strategist at Fogel Neale Partners in New York.

"If they stop prop trading, it will not only dry up liquidity in the market, but it will change the whole structure of Wall Street, of the whole trading community."

Mr. Obama targeted banks for taking big risks while assuming taxpayers would bail them out if they failed.

"When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide, which includes lower-cost capital, it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit," Mr. Obama said.

"That is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers' interests," he said.

Before the announcement, Mr. Obama met with Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who heads his economic recovery advisory board and who favors putting curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The House approved a sweeping financial regulation reform bill on Dec. 11.

The House bill contains a provision that empowers regulators to restrict proprietary trading by financial firms subjected to stricter oversight because they are judged to pose a risk to the stability of the financial system.

The Senate has not yet acted on the matter, but the Senate Banking Committee continues to seek bipartisan agreement on financial regulation reform.

Employment Numbers Surge (at the New York Fed) To Manage Its Bank Subsidy Programs

It is good to see that the downturn in employment is being counteracted by robust hiring and promotion in the cost-plus, quasi-governmental, financial service sector, or more specifically, a bull market in central banks managing subidies to the banking sector.

It appears that this flurry of promotions and hiring is for the new group that will oversee the bank's investments in Maiden Lane III and of course, AIG.

Ah, to be employed in a cost plus monopoly. What a sinecure.

NY Fed
New York Fed Creates New Group and Names Sarah J. Dahlgren Executive Vice President and Head of Group
January 21, 2010

NEW YORK—William C. Dudley, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, announced today the formation of a new Special Investments Management Group. The Bank’s board of directors promoted Sarah J. Dahlgren to executive vice president and named her as head of the new group. She will also become a member of the Bank’s Management Committee.

This move represents an additional enhancement to the Bank’s governance and risk management in light of the tremendous expansion of the Bank’s balance sheet over the past eighteen months by separating out the management of the new investments from the Bank’s financial risk management. Among the Group’s responsibilities will be managing the Bank’s credit extension to AIG and its Maiden Lane LLC portfolios.

Ms. Dahlgren has been the senior vice president in charge of the AIG relationship since September 2008. Prior to that, Ms. Dahlgren was responsible for the relationship management function in the Bank Supervision Group, with oversight responsibility for the Group’s portfolios of domestic and foreign banking organizations. Previously, Ms. Dahlgren was responsible for the Bank Supervision Group’s information technology and payments systems exam programs, as well as its Year 2000 readiness efforts....

NY Fed
New York Fed Names Seven Senior Vice Presidents and Ten Vice Presidents
January 21, 2010

NEW YORK – The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that its board of directors has approved the promotion of seven senior vice presidents and ten vice presidents.

NY Fed
New York Fed Names 11 Assistant Vice Presidents and 29 Officers
January 21, 2010

NEW YORK—The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that its board of directors has approved the promotion of eleven officers to assistant vice president and named twenty-nine new officers at the Bank.

The Republicans Have Taken the Massachusetts Senate Seat

Morgan Paying Out 62% of Revenues in Bonuses and Pay While Average Families Face 'Years of Pain'

One has to wonder how much of that 'revenue' is merely the result of artificial mark to market accounting and prop desk speculation, and not real cash flow from commercial banking operations.

That is not the pay method for a bank. That's a hedge fund. And that would be all very well and good if they were a hedge fund and responsible for their own failures and successes, but they are obtaining the discount window and federal guarantees and subsidies from the taxpayers as though they were a commercial bank.

This highlights the problem with this 'trickle down' approach that characterizes neo-liberal stimulus versus the approach of, let's say, the Roosevelt administration, that of putting people to work and keeping their savings safe as the first priority.

The US and UK are packing the banks with public money to 'save the system.' Their hope seems to be that as the banks recover, they will start lending to the private sector again, and eventually this money will trickle down to the public as real wages generated by organic economic activity.

Another approach would have been to guarantee the people's savings in banks and Credit Unions, the cash value of insurance policies, and money market funds, up to let's say $2,000,000 per individual and $5,000,000 per couple.

Keeping the people whole, the government would have then been able to effectively place the banks in receivership as required, and work them through the resolution of their problems, handing out some stiff losses to shareholders and speculators and the debt-holders.

No mechanism to do this? They could have nationalized the banks temporarily with a single executive order, as readily as it took Hank Paulson and Tim to type up a ten page document to give away $700 billion. The guarantees on all savings and private investments would have prevented a panic from the public, but quite a few more bankers and hedge funds might have taken the hard results of their recklessness.

This would have placed all the bailout money in the hands of the people, who could have chosen where they wished to place it after the nationalization process as the banks were either shuttered or restored. We would have ended up with fewer big banks, but more regional banks with real depository bases.

As it is now, the money being given to the banks is being 'taxed' at a fairly stiff rate by the unreformed bonus system, and the problems are not being resolved, since the bankers have every incentive to keep the money and not write down their losses, which is the great lie in this 'profit' picture being spun for the bailouts.

This is not over, not by a long shot. And if the bankers keep taking 50+% of all the cash that touches their hands from the public subsidy, then what trickles down to the people won't accomplish anything. Years of zombie-like stagflation look to be the prognosis.

As Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said, "Families face years of pain...The patience of UK households is likely to be sorely tried over the next couple of years" as inflation cuts into their meager wages in order to pay for this. Families Face Years of Pain - UK Telegraph. Don't expect such honesty from the US Federal Reserve or the government. The realization of how bad stagflation is going to be will sift slowly down through the smug layers of the stuporati.

The economic hitmen and the corrupt politicians are taking their pay, and the people and their children and most likely grandchildren will be stuck with unpayable debts. Just like a third world nation, which is what the US will look like when they get done cutting health, infrastructure, education, and basic services to pay for this.

Daily Mail UK
Morgan Stanley ignores calls for restraint and doles out £8.8bn to bankers
By Simon Duke
20th January 2010

Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley has defied the growing calls for restraint after doling out huge rewards to its staff.

The salary and bonus pot at the bailed-out U.S. firm jumped 31per cent to £8.8billion last year (about $14.4 Billion), despite turning a profit of just £705million (about $1.15 billion) in 2009, it revealed today. An astonishing 62 per cent of revenues were set aside for pay - the highest level in at least a dozen years and nearly twice the 33 per cent level earmarked by rival JP Morgan.

Under Morgan Stanley's Premier League-style wage structure, an average employee will have banked £144,500 ($235,400) in salary and bonuses for their efforts last year. However, many of its high-flying traders and rain-makers will have 'earned' seven- and eight-figure pay days.

In 2008, the average Morgan Stanley worker took home £150,000. The company, which employs around 5,000 staff in the City, added 15,000 to its global workforce after buying the Smith Barney brokerage from ailing rival Citigroup.

The lavish payouts are likely to anger taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic, who will have to pay for the cost of the mammoth banking bailout for many years to come.

President Barack Obama last week slammed the 'obscene' rewards dished out on Wall Street at a time when many 'continue to face real hardship in this recession'. The U.S. government is now planning to hit American banks with a punishing levy to help re-coup the estimated £72billion US taxpayers have lost from bailing out its financial industry.

New York-based Morgan Stanley was rescued from the edge of oblivion with a £6.1bn taxpayer handout in late 2008. Although it has since re-paid the loan, it still operates with an effective guarantee of the taxpayer.

Morgan Stanley's pay-outs came as rival Goldman Sachs prepared to publish its 2009 financial results tomorrow. Wall Street's most profitable firm is expected to reveal a dramatic bounce in the bank's profits thanks to the colossal economic packages implemented across the world.

The earnings bounce is expected to see Goldman raise its total pay pool to more than £12 billion. This equates to a pay and bonus of nearly £400,000 for each every worker of the firm, which employs around 5,500 people in London.

However, Goldman has delayed telling its staff how much they'll receive for their efforts in 2009 in the wake of Obama's planned raid on Wall Street.

US Dollar (DX) Longer Term Charts

Here is the longer term view of the US Dollar as measured by a basket of currencies.

Can it 'break out' here? Yes, certainly. Europe and Japan have their problems, and in the world of fiat, the grading of the paper is done 'on a curve.' The central banks and their mavens, who intervene at least indirectly in the currency markets with a certain obsessiveness these days of non-stop financial engineering, like to shove their manipulation around the plate as well. They don't 'tweak' the economy; they are the economy, at least at the margins.

Can it also fail and break down here? Yes, certainly. A stronger dollar will step hard on the weak US economic recovery. It will serve to lower import prices, but dampen exports, which is what they call 'bad news' when your domestic demand is slack.

There is the fundamental detail an enormous amount of dollars being held overseas that are not in circulation so to speak. At some point they, like the swallows of Capistrano, will return, and have trouble finding a place to comfortably roost.

But the market does not care about our theories, or even the charts. They are just rough estimates of a very complex reality. This is a disclosure that all pundits should place on their prognostications.

And in these days of thin markets and bank prop desks as a major source the income, the fundamentals are less relevant than the short term reality of the squid's need to feed.

Let's see what happens. Then we will know something actionable.

There Can Be No Bubble in China and the Madness of the Nobility

Just now on Bloomberg Television Peter Levene, the former Lord Mayor of London and distinguished chairman of Lloyds of London, said that there is no bubble in China because "China is so big, their domestic markets are so big, you cannot have bubbles there."

A sincere interpretation of the theoretical underpinnings of this statement would be that the potential demand in China is so great, there can be no possible bubbles there because they are incapable of excess. Interesting theory. Perhaps the US relief effort in the Caribbean is on the right track but insufficient. They can ship their excess and foreclosed housing for the poor souls there. Think of the demand gap that exists between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Well perhaps not.

My God, could this be a variant of Efficient Markets Theory? Or a cousin of Too Big To Fail? Apparently the logic in 'The bigger they come the harder they fall" has been repealed.

Of course China is in a financial bubble. It has been caused by years of pegging their currency at an artificially low rate to stimulate exports, multiplied by a state banking system that acted with command and control subsidies. And of course the US can been exporting monetary inflation for years through its dollar reserve currency. Someone had to absorb it.

But it is what China does next, how they react to the bubble, how they manage the consequences of their financial engineeering, that matters. The US has been in several bubbles of late, and is handling them rather badly, as a result of their tolerance for Mad Hatters like Larry, Tim, and Ben in key policy positions.

To be fair, Chairman Greenspan came out with his own howlers of this caliber, and was accepted by many intelligent people in the States for years. In fact, a whole industry was based on ideas and falsified evidence about the impossibility of a housing bubble in the US that in retrospect seems like barking madness.

Come to think of it, both of these fine men are nobility, KBE, Knights of the British Empire. Perhaps it is something deleterious, or even contagious, that occurs when one is subsumed into nobility? Caligulitis? Did the Queen give them a concussion in the ceremony?

I suspect Lloyds is exposed rather badly to China, and m'Lord is talking his book. What is Greenspan's excuse? Whose book was he talking?

This is why the banks and financial organizations must be retrained, because they seem to be peopled by an ersatz nobility that is disposed to spectacular flights of self-serving fantasy. Come to think of it, there is room in the asylum for the government as well.

The US needs a political system that is not so amenable to soft bribery in campaign contributions, and the world needs a reserve currency that is not controlled by the Anglo-American banks. Control the currency, control the world.

And as for the bubbles that keep taking down the developing nations, well, here is their mother.







When these trends break, and they will as all Ponzi schemes do, it will be notable.

US Financial Markets: A Broader Perspective

Wall Street feeds on a short term mentality, as it herds the crowd from one investment to the next. This is because it makes its steady income on transactions, as well as front running the short term moves and gaming the system in general.

Yesterday some of the Wall Street mouthpieces were urging the rally on because of a potential Republican victory in Massachusetts. Today the market sells off hard on that Republican victory. In the short term, its all a game.

Let's see if the support holds, or if we are finally getting that correction to the intermediate trends. I would like to finally be able to hold a short position for more than a day. 1110 on the SP futures is key support if the trendline at 1126 breaks.

Here is some perspective from the daily charts.

HUD Suspends Anti-Flipping Rule for FHA Loans

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." Prov 26:11

"Mortgagees" in this case would be the banks and their subsidiaries that have foreclosed on the home. So all you entrepreneurial flippers need to check the fine print, and perhaps team up for a percentage from the banks, who are in the driver's seat on this HUD exception to the anti-flipping rule passed in 2003.

This does provide yet another opportunity for the banks and their subsidiaries to skin more money from the foreclosure transaction with the help of public subsidy. So if you are the entrepreneurial sort, you'll have to grease the palms of the banks to gain access to the FHA for those quick flips.

The waiver from the HUD Website is here.

HUD No. 10-011
Lemar Wooley
(202) 708-0685 FOR RELEASE
Friday January 15, 2010

HUD TAKES ACTION TO SPEED RESALE OF FORECLOSED PROPERTIES TO NEW OWNERS

Measure to help bring stability to home values and accelerate sale of vacant properties

WASHINGTON - In an effort to stabilize home values and improve conditions in communities where foreclosure activity is high, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan today announced a temporary policy that will expand access to FHA mortgage insurance and allow for the quick resale of foreclosed properties. The announcement is part of the Obama administration commitment to addressing foreclosure. Just yesterday, Secretary Donovan announced $2 billion in Neighborhood Stabilization Program grants to local communities and nonprofit housing developers to combat the effects of vacant and abandoned homes.

"As a result of the tightened credit market, FHA-insured mortgage financing is often the only means of financing available to potential homebuyers," said Donovan. "FHA has an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill its mission by helping many homebuyers find affordable housing while contributing to neighborhood stabilization."

With certain exceptions, FHA currently prohibits insuring a mortgage on a home owned by the seller for less than 90 days. This temporary waiver will give FHA borrowers access to a broader array of recently foreclosed properties.

"This change in policy is temporary and will have very strict conditions and guidelines to assure that predatory practices are not allowed," Donovan said.

In today's market, FHA research finds that acquiring, rehabilitating and the reselling these properties to prospective homeowners often takes less than 90 days. Prohibiting the use of FHA mortgage insurance for a subsequent resale within 90 days of acquisition adversely impacts the willingness of sellers to allow contracts from potential FHA buyers because they must consider holding costs and the risk of vandalism associated with allowing a property to sit vacant over a 90-day period of time.

The policy change will permit buyers to use FHA-insured financing to purchase HUD-owned properties, bank-owned properties, or properties resold through private sales. This will allow homes to resell as quickly as possible, helping to stabilize real estate prices and to revitalize neighborhoods and communities.

"FHA borrowers, because of the restrictions we are now lifting, have often been shut out from buying affordable properties," said FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens. "This action will enable our borrowers, especially first-time buyers, to take advantage of this opportunity."

The waiver will take effect on February 1, 2010 and is effective for one year, unless otherwise extended or withdrawn by the FHA Commissioner. To protect FHA borrowers against predatory practices of "flipping" where properties are quickly resold at inflated prices to unsuspecting borrowers, this waiver is limited to those sales meeting the following general conditions:

•All transactions must be arms-length, with no identity of interest between the buyer and seller or other parties participating in the sales transaction.

•In cases in which the sales price of the property is 20 percent or more above the seller's acquisition cost, the waiver will only apply if the lender meets specific conditions.

•The waiver is limited to forward mortgages, and does not apply to the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) for purchase program.

Specific conditions and other details of this new temporary policy are in the text of the waiver, available on HUD's website.

The Banking Oligarchy Must Be Restrained For a Recovery to Be Sustained

Brilliant article really, in its simplicity.

Despite Obama's recent brave words, the US is lagging the world recognition that because of systemic distortions in the financial system the banks are in fact exercising a tax on the real economy that is impeding global recovery. As recently noted in London's Financial Times regarding the structural imbalances in the financial system:

"...as long as they are not addressed, the banks will make profits – or more accurately, extract rents – out of all proportion to any contribution they make to the wider economy."

The US is going in absolutely the wrong direction, lessening competition and strenghtening the grip of a financial oligarchy through its policy of focusing relief efforts on a small group of Too Big To Fail Banks, at the expense of the broad economy. Despite assurances to the contrary, this is the policy being administered by Washington.

This institutionalization of distortion was easier to understand under the Bush Administration with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson guiding policy, and the Clinton Administration under banking insider Robert Rubin. But why this sort of response from the new reform government? The answer most likely is centered on three men: Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernanke. None of the three has practical experience in business. All three are creatures of the banking system, and are heavily indebted to the status quo.

The first practical step for Obama would be to dismiss Summers and Geithner, and if he is wise, the person or persons who recommended them. He also should encourage the Congress to investigate the bank bailouts in general, and tie this to Bernanke's reappointment to the Chairmanship and the movement to audit the Fed.

The most recent scandal regarding the collusion between the government and the Fed to mask the backdoor bailouts to a few big banks via AIG should be proof enough that the Fed has no intentions of acting honestly and openly, and is far exceeding its mandates in its aggressive expanding its balance sheet and the selective monetization of private debts.

There are disturbing indications that the US is using a few of its large banks as elements of its policy to achieve certain objectives in the world markets. Such collusion between the corporate and the government sectors is the prelude to fascism.

We should keep in mind that financial crisis was indeed created during both Democratic and Republican administrations, and that simply replacing the Democrats with traditional opponents is unlikely to achieve genuine change.

Change is what is required. But while the foul stench of corruption hangs over the political process in Washington, where Big Money readily buys influence and control over legislation and regulation, there will be no significant changes, and no economic recovery. Recovery will be in appearance only.


Financial Times
How the big banks rigged the market
By Philip Stephens
18 January 2010

When Lloyd Blankfein met politicians in London a little while ago he brushed aside warnings that investment banks faced higher taxes if they ignored the rising public outcry about multibillion-dollar bonus pools. The Goldman chief executive seemed to believe governments would not dare.
That misjudgment – a measure of the breathtaking hubris that, even after all that has happened, continues to separate bankers from just about everyone else – may explain Goldman’s response to the British government’s decision to apply a 50 per cent tax to this year’s payouts

In the description of Whitehall insiders, Goldman executives reacted with anger and aggression. The threat was that the bank would scale back its business in London. For a moment it seemed Gordon Brown’s administration might wobble. In the event, Goldman’s lobbying failed to persuade it to soften the impact of the tax.

Britain, of course, is not alone. France has imposed its own bonus tax. Barack Obama’s administration has just announced a levy to recover an estimated $90bn (£55bn, €63bn) over 10 years. The centre-right government in Sweden has gone further by introducing a permanent “stability levy” to discourage excessive risk-taking.

It is a measure of how far the political debate has shifted against the financial plutocrats that George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor, has applauded the Swedish plan. If the Tories win the coming general election, they would support a worldwide levy along similar lines. It is “unacceptable”, Mr Osborne remarked the other day, for the banks to be paying big bonuses rather than building resilience against future crises.

So far, so encouraging. But the process cannot end here. Irritating as it may be to Mr Blankfein, a one-off bonus tax is not going to change anything in the medium to long term. Levies such as that in Sweden mark a recognition that the profits and remuneration policies of the banks are more than a fleeting problem. But forcing bankers to strengthen balance sheets with money they would rather put in their own pockets addresses only part of the problem.

The next stage must be scrutiny of the structural distortions that allow these institutions to rack up such huge profits. Broadly speaking, the leading players in at least three areas of investment banking – wholesale markets, underwriting and mergers and acquisitions – have been operating natural oligopolies.

Their profits have been in significant part a reflection of the absence of robust competition. There are different reasons for this in the different areas of business – what economists call asymmetries in some and market dominance in others. But as long as they are not addressed, the banks will make profits – or more accurately, extract rents – out of all proportion to any contribution they make to the wider economy.

Read the rest of this article here.

Triple Digit Oil and Economic Change

Triple digit oil and the economic change that it would bring is something that intrigues, and will have a cascading impact on the real economy and globalization.

It is not that we will be running out of oil. Rather, we will be running out of cheap oil, light sweet Arabian crude, to be replaced eventually by synthetic oil rendered from tar sands and shale. The implication is $200 per barrel oil and $7.00 per gallon gasoline.

Demand for oil is peaking in developed nations like the US and Canada, and may never exceed the levels of the past few years. But demand growth in the developing nations is increasing, and perhaps dramatically.

World gasoline production has not grown in the past four years.

The oil shock may hit the economy within 12 to 15 months according to Jeff Rubin.

There are several things with which I do not necessarily agree, but his talk his interesting and thought-provoking. We do need to start thinking about how to make sure that peak oil does not translate into peak GDP.

This may require a shift from a global economy to more local economies. And I have been thinking about this for the past five years. It is coming. The only question is when.

Jeff Rubin, former Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets and the author of Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller

Ron Paul: "Prepare for Revolutionary Changes in the Not-too-distant Future.”

It certainly sounds as though Representative Paul expects some significant developments.

Change is in the wind.

“Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It's surreal; it's just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.

We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.

We're now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars--spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth.

A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit.

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.

The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking.

We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially.

Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.”

Prince Alwaleed Needs a Turnaround at Citigroup - Or Else

Prince Alwaleed has given Vikram Pandit one year to shape up or else.

I wonder what sharia has to say about investing like a doofus, throwing more money on a losing position, and then expecting common taxpayers to bail you out.

"Last week, Alwaleed boosted Kingdom Holding’s balance sheet by transferring $600 million worth of his own Citi shares onto its balance sheet. Shares of the investment group -- of which Alwaleed is a 95% owner -- have lost about half their value since 2007 and it’s had capital losses of 65% as of the end of the third quarter. The transfer of Alwaleed’s Citi shares should help secure its borrowing capacity, and it also means that the Citi shares aren't going to be sold anytime soon." Citi and Its Princely Problem

It appears as though the Prince's investment empire is on shaky ground.

No wonder Vikram Pandit has been noticeably absent from such recent, unimportant meetings like those with the President and the Congress.


Business Standard India
Perform or perish, Saudi Prince tells Vikram Pandit
Washington January 16, 2010, 14:05 IST

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who is a major shareholder in the Citigroup, has told the bank's Indian-American CEO Vikram Pandit that his two-year honeymoon is now over and 2010 is a make or break year for him.

"I don't threaten those CEOs that I meet but I told him (Vikram Pandit) that the market gave you two years' leeway, but I think now it's time to deliver and 2010 for him is really the year to make it or break it and he has to deliver," Alwaleed said in an interview.

Alwaleed had recently met with Pandit and he had told him that he must deliver solid results in 2010.

"It's very important... For the shareholders that have been very patient with Citibank that the honeymoon is over now; two years is enough and I think he will deliver in 2010," Alwaleed said.

At the interview, the Saudi Prince also acknowledged that China is an economic power and eventually, it would translate that into political power.

"China is a rising power. For sure now, China is amassing huge power economically, financially, not yet politically, but I think eventually it is going to ask for this power to be translated to politics — no doubt about that," he said.

On the latest spat between China and the global search engine giant Google, the Saudi Prince sided with China arguing that firms should abide by the rules of a country or leave that nation. (I guess aggressive cyber attacks and human rights violations are just a cost of doing business. At least Steve Ballmer and the Prince see eye to eye on this one. Microsoft doesn't believe in human rights either. No wonder the prince is talking joint ventures with Rupert Murdoch. - Jesse)

"All these have to apply by the rules that are applied in that country. If you cannot play by the rules, then you should leave that country," he said.

Alwaleed also opposed the US President Barack Obama proposal to impose tax on large banks so as to recover the federal money used to fund these institutions during the global financial meltdown. (Abide by a country's rules or leave, Prince. LOL - Jesse)

US Commercial Real Estate a Multi-Trillion Dollar Bloodbath in Progress

Residential Real Estate in the US is in serious trouble, and a drag on the real economy. And yet it is holding up a bit because the Fed is buying over $1 Trillion in mortgage debt, presumably at artficially high prices to support it, and of course the too big to fail Wall Street Banks who were wallowing in the residential real estate bubble.

Commercial Real Estate is much worse, a bloodbath in progress. Down 42% and dropping with store, office and apartment vacancies soaring. And much of that paper is held by regional banks and REITs like Boston Properties (BXP), Vornado Realty Trust (VNO), Brookfield Properties (BPO), and a host of private firms and trusts.

Like the residential market, the pain in commercial real estate is not distributed evenly across geographic regions. So far the public equities have recovered reasonably after a breathtaking plunge, as compared to the SP 500's decline from the top. I am watching them for an indication or at least a confirmation of a double dip, a potential next leg down in the real economy and the financial markets.

I hope Ben is wearing a truss if he tries to put a floor under this one.

At least the rental market will be more economical for the foreclosed homeowners, but its hard to see who will be opening new retail stores and commercial businesses in the near future.

My Budget 360
Commercial Real Estate Is $3.5 Trillion Time Bomb Hitting the Economy

Some of you are probably not aware that the commercial real estate market has crossed a dreaded line in the sand. Commercial real estate (CRE) that includes apartments, industrial, office, and retail space is now performing worse than residential real estate. Not just by a little but by a good amount. While the CRE bust took about a year longer than the residential housing bust, once problems started hitting in this market prices have been steadily collapsing. At the peak, it was estimated that CRE values hit $6.5 trillion in the country. With $3.5 trillion in CRE debt outstanding, this seemed to provide a nice equity buffer. That buffer is now erased.

First we, need to examine the actual decline in CRE values by looking at data gathered by MIT:



Putting together all CRE values we find that the market has fallen by a significant 42 percent. Now assuming this figure, that $6.5 trillion is now “worth” approximately $3.7 trillion giving us an equity cushion of $200 billion for all CRE properties in the U.S. I doubt this figure is even that high. It is safe to say that commercial real estate is now in a negative equity position. The U.S. Treasury has discussed plans on bailing out this industry but not much has been done on this front since all the bailout funds have been concentrated on residential real estate and protecting the too big to fail banks. Many CRE loans are held in the smaller regional banks that are actually small enough to fail. The FDIC will be busy in 2010 given the above data.

Now looking at the residential market, prices fell earlier but have recently stabilized because trillions of dollars have been used to prop up the system:



Read the rest of the story here.

Weekend Highlight: The Bankers Testify to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

High drama.

Wes Craven's remake of It's a Wonderful Life



concept h/t Barry Ritholz

A Brief Bio of the Star of the Proceedings.



"The details of my life are quite inconsequential. My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring, we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really."

Up Next: A Pop on the Long End of the Yield Curve



Weapons of Mass Distraction
Fox Business News

Guest Post: An Analysis of JPM's Credit Card Business

2009 Credit Card Segment Results: JPMorgan Chase
By Keith Hazelton, The Anecdotal Economist

Credit Card Fee and Interest Income Soar as Nation's Largest Credit Card Company Hammers the Customers Who Bailed It Out in 2008

While we are waiting for the December Federal Reserve G.19 Consumer Credit report due February 5th, which will confirm 2009's complete collapse of Revolving Consumer Credit resulting from millions of the insolvent and near-insolvent 60 percent or so of Americans who carry credit card balances month-to-month but who desperately are trying to reduce the hideous debt-shadow which has remained long after the afterglow has faded from years of restaurant meals, trips to Disney World, flat-screen televisions, college tuitions and entrepreneurial forays, inquiring minds may care to put JPM Morgan Chase's full-year card services results under the microscope.

In JPM's January 15, 2010 earnings release, on pages 18-20 of its Earnings Release Financial Supplement, the nation's largest credit card company by cards and balances details the sorry state of what in better years was its most profitable segment.

JPM's 2009 Card Services segment results are summarized in the table above, which highlights some of the lowlights:

• End of year balances, both held and securitized (so-called Managed Card Assets), fell 14.1 percent in 2009 to $163.4 billion. The number of cards issued (not detailed above) also fell 14.0 percent to 145.3 million from 168.7 million at the end of 2008.


• Notwithstanding a $26.9 billion decline from 2008, JPM's credit card fee income (late fees, overlimit fees, telephone payment fees, balance transfer fees, annual card fees) soared 30.5 percent to $3.6 billion, and net card interest income jumped 26.4 percent to $17.4 billion as the bank clearly scrambled to raise interest rates on as many cardholders as possible ahead of 2010 rule changes.


• Reflecting those abominable fee income and interest income grabs from the very taxpayers who enabled their own misery by allowing JPMorgan Chase to be bailed out in 2008 along with the rest of the "too big to fails," the bank's credit card net revenue as a percentage of average balances grew 15.7 percent in 2009.


• JPM's 2009 total charge volume fell 11.0 percent to $328.3 billion, reflecting the nation's newfound preference for debit cards and cash.


• 2009 charge offs nearly doubled to $16.1 billion (Managed Card basis), representing 9.33 percent of average card balances.

So, JPM Chase in 2009 oversaw the charge-off of $16.1 billion of its own and securitized credit card balances, and its still-solvent card debt-slave customers paid down (or transferred, however unlikely) another $10.8 billion, which equals the $26.9 billion decline in EOY balances.

So far, according to the Fed, 2009 revolving consumer credit balances have plunged more than $100 billion through November, and it looks like JPM Chase, which held a 22 percent card market share in 2008, is accounting for slightly more of the decline than its market share would warrant.

Bank of America, the nation's number two credit card company, which reports 4Q and 2009 results January 20th, has been writing off its managed card balances at an annual rate of more than 13 percent, and we will look forward to seeing its grim full-year results, as well as those of the other dozen or so financial institutions which now control nearly 90 percent of the racket industry.

The nation's big banks in the 1990s and early 2000s wanted to consolidate the then-immensely profitable credit card industry in the worst way, and, as 2009 results will prove, they got it - in the worst way.

And to remind readers where we think revolving consumer credit balances are headed (to $300 billion - $500 billion from the nearly $900 billion last month) over the coming decade, here's a repost of a chart we first published in December.

Big Banks Demand Cash Payments "Off the Books" from Homeowners to Avoid Foreclosure

"The Hobbs Act defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. S 1951."

Interesting story in which Citi and J.P. Morgan among second lien holders are demanding cash payments "off the books" from homeowners in order to allow a short sale to proceed in lieu of a foreclosure, a total loss and a black mark on their credit record.

Was my characterization of the big Wall Street banks as 'sociopathic' a bit harsh as a reader asked?

No, more likely understated. Remember, this is not some small local lender facing a loss and trying to get something out of it for their trouble. These are the TARP-sucking, discount window-feeding, bonus paying, fraudulent flim-flam 29.9% interest-charging pigmen who are demanding a pound of flesh from the down and out and the dispossessed as a consequence of their own reckless lending practices.

Change you can believe in.

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

CNBC
Big Banks Accused of Short Sales Fraud
January 15, 2010, 12:55 pm EST

Just as regulators, lawmakers and all forms of financial oversight boards are talking about new regulations to guard against mortgage fraud and another mortgage meltdown, there appears to be yet a new mortgage fraud out there today, allegedly perpetuated by agents of, yes, the big banks.

I was first alerted to this by Jeremy Brandt, the CEO of several companies that bring short sale agents, investors and sellers together.

His companies include 1800CashOffer, HomeFlux.com and FastHomeOffer.com. Brandt has a huge network of short sale real estate agents, and over the past several months he's been receiving all kinds of questions and complaints about trouble with second lien holders.

As we all know, during the housing boom, millions of Americans pulled cash out of their homes in the form of home equity loans and lines of credit. They also used "piggy back" loans in order to get even lower interest rates on their primary mortgages. Now, many of the borrowers in trouble, and many who are so far underwater on their loans that they don't qualify for any refi or modification, are choosing short sales as a way out. (Short sales are when the lender allows the home to be sold for less than the value of the loan). About 12 percent of all home sales by the end of 2009 were short sales, according to the National Association of Realtors.

In order for a short sale with two loans to happen, the second lien holder has to drop the lien.

If they don't, and there's no short sale, the home goes to foreclosure and the first lien holder gets the house because second liens are subordinated debt to the primary loan.

In short, the second lien holder gets nothing. In order to get the second lien holder to drop the lien, the first lien holder generally negotiates some partial payment to the second lien holder. The second lien holder doesn't have to agree, but more and more are doing so.

That's all legal.

But here's what's not legal and what's apparently happening quite often recently. Since many second lien holders are getting very little, they are now allegedly requesting money on the side from either real estate agents or the buyers in the short sale. When I say "on the side," I mean in cash, off the HUD settlement statements, so the first lien holder doesn't see it.

"They are pretty clear and pretty upfront about the fact that if the first lender knows they are getting paid, the first lender will kill the short sale," says Brandt. "So these second lenders are asking for the payments off the closing documents, off the HUD statement, usually in a cashiers check prior to closing. Once they receive that payment, they will allow the short sale to go through, which according to RESPA laws and the lawyers that we have spoken to on the topic is not legal."

(RESPA is the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the 2008 law requiring that consumers receive disclosures at various times in the transaction. It outlaws kickbacks that increase the cost of settlement services. RESPA is a HUD consumer protection statute designed to help homebuyers be better shoppers in the home buying process, and is enforced by HUD. Read more about it here.).

I told RESPA specialist Brian Sullivan over at HUD about all this and he replied, "That's a red flag!"

Clearly illegal.

Brandt told me he's heard from at least 200 agents that they've had these requests made by representatives of Citi Mortgage, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other large banks.

Most agents wouldn't go on the record with me, for fear of retribution by the banks with whom they have to work every day. But one agent, Kayte Gentry, of Keller Williams Integrity First Realty, was brave enough to blow the whistle.

"I think it's wrong, and I think somebody needs to hold them accountable, and every time I lose a house in foreclosure because of this, it hurts my client," says Gentry matter-of-factly. "Aside from being illegal and a violation of RESPA, it's immoral and truly it's just sad for the client that it's hurting."

Gentry says she has had the requests made three times and claims she lost one sale because of it.

"The big banks that have recently made this request, specifically payments outside of the closing statement have been Citi Mortgage and JP Morgan Chase."

Read the rest here...