Jim Welsh Investment letter – February 2009

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 9:15AM

Jim Welsh of Welsh Money Management has been publishing his monthly investment letter, “The Financial Commentator”, since 1985. His analysis focuses on Federal Reserve monetary policy, and how policy affects the economy and the financial markets.

~~~

Investment letter – February 17, 2009

ECONOMY

On Friday, February 13, Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus plan. I’ll bet every member in Congress stayed up until the wee hours of Friday morning reading every one of the 1,434 pages needed to express the vision of the 110th Congress. About 40% of the total will be discretionary spending on education and job training, highway and bridge construction, modernization of the electricity grid, health and science research, housing programs and extending food stamp benefits. About 24% of the total will be spent in direct aid to states to supplement Medicaid costs, extend unemployment benefits, and expand health care programs for the needy. And almost 30% of the total goes for tax breaks for individuals and families, a temporary alternative minimum tax patch, state tax credit bonds to finance public education facilities, renewable energy incentives, and a $3 billion tax break for General Motors.

This legislation has ignited a contentious debate on whether it is too big or not big enough, or whether it contains too little or too much in tax cuts, at the expense of those who have lost their job or home in this crisis. Even more remarkable, not a single defender or detractor noted the inauspicious date it was passed – Friday the 13th! Yikes! Those who have consistently underestimated the magnitude and scope of the credit crisis, and its impact on the economy, seem impressed and hopeful about the plan’s effectiveness. They believe it is the right medicine to not only arrest the deep economic contraction and serious wave of deflation we’re experiencing, but also believe it will have enough muscle to launch a sustainable recovery. This is stimulus on steroids.

My concern is that this plan is being cheered by those who still don’t appreciate the structural nature of the problems we’re facing. It’s like a doctor who prescribes aspirin for a patient with a fever. Hours later, the fever is down, but the patient is admitted to the hospital with acute appendicitis. The doctor treated the symptom successfully, but not the cause of the fever. The Federal Reserve initially misdiagnosed the problem, thinking it was just a sub-prime mortgage problem that would run its course by the end of 2007. The collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008 was certainly a wake up call. But over the next few months, two Fed members were more worried about inflation and voted against additional easing. It really wasn’t until the demise of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and of course Lehman Brothers that the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department realized how far behind the curve they were. Unfortunately, they are still behind the curve, and now the patient has more than just a fever. In fact, an emergency room doctor might describe it as multiple organ failure. Large segments of the U.S. banking system are effectively insolvent. The securitization markets remain inoperable. The consumer is still in shock, and the global economy has pneumonia. The triage needed to save and revive the patient goes well beyond the scope of the stimulus plan. Remarkably, the majority of economists and investment professionals still believe all that’s needed is aspirin.

In my September 2007 letter I used the metaphor of a tsunami to describe the convulsion that swept through the credit markets in August 2007. Seismologists usually know within hours whether a 100 foot tsunami traveling 500 miles per hour, or a 2 foot wading wave was created by an underwater earth quake. I noted then we wouldn’t know for a number of months the full economic impact, but the displacement in the financial markets left no doubt that a significant seismic event had occurred. The majority of economists and investment professionals saw it as nothing more than a speed bump. There is the perception that a tsunami is a single giant wave of water that sweeps away everything in its path once it reaches land. As financial market participants have painfully learned since August 2007, a tsunami is actually a series of giant waves, each one causing more destruction. After the first wave hits, survivors feel a sense of relief, as the sea water retreats. But that respite is brief, as the second, third and fourth tsunami waves crash on shore. They seem to arrive without warning.

After the first wave in August 2007, the second wave took Bear Stearns down in March 2008. The third and fourth waves hit in July and September 2008 and brought the financial system to its knees. The fifth wave has pushed every developed economy into recession, creating the deepest synchronized global economic contraction since the 1930’s. Although not yet visible, there is a sixth wave coming, as the global recession creates more losses for banks, prolonging this period of weakness and increasing the risk of a much deeper contraction.

Two weeks ago, the Commerce Department reported that fourth quarter GDP fell at an annual rate of 3.8%, which was the largest drop since 1982. Though bad, that figure grossly understates the degree of actual weakness. Since sales were weaker than production, inventories grew. If sales and production had been in balance, GDP would have been lowered by 1.32%. Instead, the unwanted inventories will cause companies to reduce production in the first quarter. The GDP report measures domestic output, so the Commerce Department subtracts imports to determine domestic production. In the fourth quarter, imports plunged and boosted GDP by 2.93%. The collapse in domestic demand for imports is hardly a sign of economic strength. Without the misleading additions from inventories and imports, GDP would have been down 8.0% in the fourth quarter.

In last month’s letter, I discussed how the slowdown would create excess capacity, forcing companies to reduce investments in new plants, equipment and software. In the fourth quarter, business investment dropped at a 28% annual rate. This is significant since business investment is a key driver of growth, representing up to 15% of GDP, and a big contributor to gains in productivity. The decline in sales volume and increase in excess capacity is forcing companies to aggressively cut costs. In the last five months, almost 2.5 million jobs have been eliminated and the average work week is at a record low of 33.3 hours. Personal income fell .2% in December for the third consecutive month. Personal spending has declined for five consecutive months, after plunging 1% in December.

In the last twelve months, the unemployment rate has soared from 4.9% to 7.6%, and could exceed 9% by the end of 2009. The surge in unemployment will result in higher default rates on every type of consumer credit and lead to more losses for banks. A 1% increase in unemployment leads to a 1% increase in the credit card charge-off rate. The huge jump in unemployment over the last year, and especially the past five months, means banks are facing a big increase in credit card losses. As the unemployment climbs further, more prime borrowers, who tend to have larger loan balances, will be affected. This suggests bank losses could accelerate, as the unemployment rate rises in coming months.

From 2002 to 2006, banks originated an average of $557 billion a year in jumbo mortgage loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, and a total of $750 billion of option adjustable-rate mortgages. As of December, the percent of jumbo loans that are at least 90 days delinquent has surged to 6.9% from 2.6% in December 2007. Moody’s Investor’s Service has downgraded 75% of all prime jumbo loans originated in 2006 and 2007 that previously carried the top rating of triple-A. According to LPS Applied Analytics, 28% of option ARM mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. More than 55% of borrowers with option ARMs owe more than the value of their home, which means these borrowers have no option to refinance.

A year ago, I noted that it was not a good sign for the banking system or the economy that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was hiring. Although FDIC bank examiners have increased the frequency of examinations for at-risk banks, many are falling into trouble faster than in previous downturns. Of the 25 banks that failed in 2008, 9 collapsed before regulators could respond, including Washington Mutual and IndyMac, two of the largest failures in history.

In recent weeks, the International Monetary Fund increased its estimate of total global banking losses from $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion. The IMF said the world’s advanced economies – the U.S., European Union countries, Britain, and Japan – are “already in depression.” The IMF estimates that United States banks have a capital shortage of $500 billion, and that’s if things aren’t worse than expected. Keep in mind that future lending will be reduced $10 for every $1 of capital shortage. A reduction of $5 trillion or more in future lending will dampen economic growth for at least two years.

Prior to August 2007, more credit was created by the securitization markets than through bank lending. Unfortunately, the securitization markets are in worse shape than the banking system, with the volume of securitization down 70% over the last year. In November, the Federal Reserve announced a plan to resuscitate the securitization of auto loans, student loans, and credit card debt. Almost 3 months have passed since the Fed announced its plan, but nothing has been done. Obviously, the complexity and size of the task has proven more daunting than expected. It took years for the securitization markets to develop, and central to that growth was the trust buyers of securitized debt placed in the rating agencies. That trust was destroyed, when investors were told their ‘AAA’ holdings were really junk, virtually overnight.

The collapse of the banking system and almost complete breakdown of the securitization markets represent a structural fissure in the credit creation process. What many economists and investment professionals have failed to understand is that there is no easy or quick fix. By their nature, structural problems take years to repair, not just a few quarters. Unfortunately these are not the only structural problems challenging policy makers.

Read the rest of this entry »

ABC News: Nationalizing the Banks

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 8:30AM

Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Suzy Welch and George Will


click for video

Options for Auto Bankruptcy

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 8:15AM

>

Sources:
Bankruptcy Funding Solicited for Car Makers
JEFFREY MCCRACKEN and JOHN D. STOLL
WSJ, FEBRUARY 23, 2009, 1:16 A.M.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535613910745405.html

Why Bankruptcy For Autos But Not Banks?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 7:09AM

The news this morning would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.

The Obama administration is undergoing a battle between its own good instincts with those of its Treasury Secretary.

Away from Treasury, on the side of intelligence,  new policies, a clean break from the Paulson/Bush plans — I believe during the campaign, it was called CHANGE — and inevitability, are prepackaged bankruptcies, clean balance sheets, and a fresh start. This is reflected in the Fed exploration of $40 billion in bankruptcy funding for GM.

On the side of more of the same, bad decision making, regulatory capture, worshiping sacred cows, and a hard-to-understand goal of saving the banks rather than the financial system, is the utterly absurd proposal to somehow spend 10X the market cap of Citigroup for a 40% stake in the apparently insolvent firm.

This is an accounting maneuver, a convertible preferred that greatly dilutes the common shares, and adds no new capital. Put on paper, it allows the leverage to look less egregious.

One can imagine an incredulous junior Treasury staffer — one who hasn’t been captured by the big banks, and is capable of basic arithmetic — saying the following:

“Explain this to me again: We put in many times the value of this company — we have already given them $45 billion dollars, and guaranteed almost $300 billion dollars worth of bad paper — and we get less than 50%? WTF? How the hell does THAT work? “

Its apparent that this sleight of hand doesn’t work to just about everyone except Tim Geithner (and a few others).

At the same time, an industry that had nothing to do with the current crisis is on the fast track to a healthy pre-packaged bankruptcy.

Moral Hazard aside, the different approaches reflect the relative importance of different sectors. Banks must be saved at all costs, but GM and Chrysler must go the bankruptcy route. The only explanation in treating the two industries so radically differently is an overt hostility to Unions on the part of many.

My views are that they ALL need to go to a prepackaged bankruptcy — banks, autos, etc.

Here’s some excerpts:

The NYT:

Citigroup approached the regulators with a plan that would allow them to convert a large amount of the government’s $45 billion of preferred shares, which is treated as debt, into common stock, this person said. The government owns a stake of roughly 8 percent, but that could grow to as much as 40 percent.

Converting the preferred shares while also issuing more common shares would bring Citigroup closer to the mix of equity that the government is likely to demand when it introduces the stress test. But that would severely dilute the value of shares held by existing Citigroup stockholders

WSJ:

Outside advisers to the U.S. Treasury have started lining up the largest bankruptcy loan ever, talking with banks and other lenders about at least $40 billion in financing for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, in case the two auto makers need it, said several people familiar with the matter.

While acknowledging the grimness of the task, administration officials involved in the auto talks said they are trying to find a way to restructure the two companies without resorting to bankruptcy proceedings. They stressed the latest efforts were “due diligence” on the part of the government advisers, and that bankruptcy financing may not be necessary.

Still, people involved in talks with senior Obama administration officials said that the administration believes that the option of Chapter 11 filings by the two auto makers needs to be seriously considered.

>

Previously:
Why Are Banks So Different From Autos? (December 9th, 2008)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/why-are-banks-so-different-from-autos/

Favoring Nationalization Are . . . (February 20th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/favoring-nationalization-are/

Sources:
Citi presses US to take 40% stake
Francesco Guerrera and Krishna Guha
FT, February 23 2009 00:40 | Last updated: February 23 2009 11:05

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/806418a0-0140-11de-8f6e-000077b07658.html

Bankruptcy Funding Solicited for Car Makers
JEFFREY MCCRACKEN and JOHN D. STOLL
WSJ, FEBRUARY 23, 2009, 1:16 A.M.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535613910745405.html

As Doubts Grow, U.S. Will Judge Banks’ Stability
EDMUND L. ANDREWS
NYT, February 22, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/23bank.html

Obama Bank Nationalization Is Focus of Speculation
Linda Shen
Bloomberg, February 23, 2009 04:05 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anGxzRYhVF_Y&

The next chapter in Citigroup’s saga is unfolding as the Oscar winners are revealed

Email this post Print this post
By David Kotok - February 23rd, 2009, 6:02AM

David R. Kotok co-founded Cumberland Advisors in 1973 and has been its Chief Investment Officer since inception. He holds a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, an M.S. in Organizational Dynamics from The School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, and a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Kotok’s articles and financial market commentary have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to CNBC programs. Mr. Kotok is also a member of the National Business Economics Issues Council (NBEIC), the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), the Philadelphia Council for Business Economics (PCBE), and the Philadelphia Financial Economists Group (PFEG).

~~~~~

The next chapter in Citigroup’s saga is unfolding as the Oscar winners are revealed.

February 22, 2009

At a time when the price of an ounce of gold is now about equal to the value of 500 shares of Citigroup, we are about to witness the next chapter in the evolution of the federal governments role in shoring up the banking system. Under discussion now is the conversion of the preferred stock owned by the government into common equity (WSJ, Feb. 22, 2009, 8:25 PM). We expect this process to continue. It may end with the federal government owning large shareholding positions in numerous banks.

Will this be voluntary as the talks with Citigroup and various government regulators appear to indicate? Or will this become a mandated method of adding to the assistance to banks by forcing banks to accept these terms? Is this a dimension of Geithner’s stress test? It is too soon to tell.

The first round of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s new bank salvage plan was met with distain by the markets. Geithner created more uncertainty because his plan lacked details. Others have now exacerbated things with references to nationalization of banks by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and by Banking Committee Chairman, Senator Christopher Dodd.

The insiders in the Obama Administration have avoided mentioning nationalization. They must stay silent. If anyone who holds a position within the administration mentions this possibility the markets will immediately respond with intense volatility as a reaction. President Obama, Secretary Geithner, and adviser Summers know that this time they must be clear and specific.

This leads us to believe that the story circulating about Citigroup is a way for the idea of nationalization to get vetted. Once markets realize that conversion means that the preferred shares become tangible common equity, the debt markets will see this as a positive force and may narrow credit spreads. Equity market prices in the shares of the banks that are the subject of these stories (like Citigroup) will not like it because of the possible dilution of the existing shares. But overall reaction in stock markets may be better than some expect.

The reason simply is that markets have been on edge due to uncertainty. Clarity in a plan and action which is measurable will calm markets. With clarity, agents in markets will be able to make their own estimates of value. Right now they have great difficulty doing so. And they feel the rules are constantly changing so they wait.

Like it or not nationalizing banks and our financial system is already at hand. It is here in substance due to the massive use of federal guarantees. It is the form which is not yet clearly resolved. That will soon change.

My colleague Bob Eisenbeis has used the metaphor from medicine to describe the process to date. Treasury Secretaries and others were like the doctors in the emergency room. The patient was having a heart attack and they were busy giving him a flu shot. That is about to change. Surgery is coming whether we like it or not.

We expect this move to common equity will come fast. With the price of a stock like Citi at $2 a share, the market is already valuing the expectation of large dilution. Two bucks represents a call option on the franchise. You get the rest of the bank for zero. Add the conversion of the preferred into common equity and the franchise value gets stronger because the likelihood of survival improves.

One final note. All these new forms of federal bailouts of banks are a direct result of the failure of Lehman Brothers. Federal authorities watched Lehman’s failure cause systemic risk to rise to unprecedented levels. They are terrified of another failure. That is why they are doing everything possible to avoid it.

Whether this is the correct policy is certainly a fair subject for debate. But that is not the issue. In the US we now have this policy whether we like it or not. The idea now is to figure out how markets will react to these details and then take measured positions subject to each investors risk tolerance. In today’s markets that means very small increments because risk tolerance has been worn thin.

David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, email: david.kotok@cumber.com

**********************
Copyright 2009, Cumberland Advisors. All rights reserved.

The preceding was provided by Cumberland Advisors, 614 Landis Ave, Vineland, NJ 08360 856-692-6690. This report has been derived from information considered reliable but it cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy or completeness.

US Remains World’s Leading Manufacturer

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 4:00AM

“The United States remains by far the world’s leading manufacturer by value of goods produced. It hit a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 – nearly double the $811 billion of 1987. For every $1 of value produced in China factories, the United States generates $2.50.”

>

Interesting Associated Press article about US manufacturing prowess. Far from being the disaster that its so often thought of, the United States remains a global superpower in manufacturing and industrial design.

How is that possible, given that so much stuff comes from China? Its mostly the easy-to-make, low margin stuff. The higher end, much more profitable stuff is made in the USA.

Indeed, the stat about the US being the world’s leading manufacturer looks not to total unit volume, but to value. If we looked at it by profitability, it would be even more lopsided.

AP:

“So what is made in the U.S.A. these days?

The United States sold more than $200 billion worth of aircraft, missiles and space-related equipment in 2007, and $80 billion worth of autos and auto parts. Deere, best known for its bright green and yellow tractors, sold $16.5 billion worth of farming equipment last year, much of it to the rest of the world.

Then there are energy products like gas turbines for power plants made by General Electric, computer chips from Intel and fighter jets from Lockheed Martin. Household names like GE, General Motors, International Business Machines, Boeing and Hewlett-Packard are among the largest manufacturers by revenue.

Several trends have emerged over the decades:

The United States makes things that other countries cannot. Today, “Made in U.S.A.” is more likely to be stamped on heavy equipment or the circuits that go inside other products than the televisions, toys, clothes and other items found on store shelves.

U.S. companies have shifted toward high-end manufacturing as the production of low-value goods has moved overseas. This has resulted in lower prices for shoppers and higher profits for companies…

Thirty years ago, U.S. producers made 80 percent of what the country consumed, according to the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, an industry trade group. Now it is about 65 percent.”

Fascinating stuff . . .

>

Source:
Is anything made in the U.S.A. anymore? You’d be surprised
Stephen Manning
Associated Press, February 20, 2009

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/20/business/wbmake.php

Look Ahead: Fed and Housing

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 3:30AM

It’s a week full of home sales and real-estate data, and Ben Bernanke heads to Capitol Hill for two days of testimony. Home Depot, Dell and others report earnings, and Microsoft has annual strategy meeting. Stacey Delo reports. (Feb. 20)

1:37

MarketBeat blogger David Gaffen tells Dow Jones Newswires’ Simon Constable to keep an eye on sales figures for new and existing homes. Are we finally close to reaching market bottom?

Housing Figures:

1:53
Dow Jones, 2/21/2009

Bank Stocks Plunge This Week

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 23rd, 2009, 1:30AM

Senator Dodd says U.S. banks may have to be nationalized. (Market Week)

Bloomberg, February 21, 2009

Good Money After Bad: U.S. to Up Citi Stake

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 22nd, 2009, 8:37PM

Here we go again:

It looks like you and me and that guy behind the tree are going to be on the hook for a few billion more dollars:

“Citigroup Inc. is in talks with federal officials that could result in the U.S. government substantially expanding its ownership of the struggling bank, according to people familiar with the situation.

While the discussions could fall apart, the government could wind up holding as much as 40% of Citigroup’s common stock. Bank executives hope the stake will be closer to 25%, these people said.

Any such move would give federal officials far greater influence over one of the world’s largest financial institutions. The proposal was made by Citigroup to its regulators. The Obama administration hasn’t indicated if it supports the plan, according to people with knowledge of the talks.

The talks reflect a growing fear that Citigroup and other big U.S. banks could be overwhelmed by losses amid the recession and housing crisis. Last week, Citigroup’s share price fell below $2 to an 18-year low. Bank executives increasingly believe that the government needs to take a larger ownership stake in the institution to stop the slide.

Under the scenario being considered, a substantial chunk of the $45 billion in preferred shares held by the government would convert into common stock, people familiar with the matter said. The government obtained those shares, equivalent to a 7.8% stake, in return for pumping capital into Citigroup.

The move wouldn’t cost taxpayers additional money, but other Citigroup shareholders would see their shares diluted.”

I don’t for a minute believe it wont cost taxpyers more money — we are that much more involved with Citi — so we would have to rescue them.

Let’s see if Rick Santelli decides to rant about this also . . .

>

UPDATE: February 23, 2009 5:56am

Note that the FT has a very different take on this:

Citi presses officials to take 40% stake

Citigroup is pressing the US government to agree on a new capital injection that would increase the authorities’ stake in the troubled bank to about 40 per cent but stop short of an outright nationalization.

>

Source:
U.S. Eyes Large Stake in Citi
DAVID ENRICH and MONICA LANGLEY
WSJ, FEBRUARY 22, 2009, 8:30 P.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535148618845005.html

Entrepreneur and Software Engineer Marc Andreessen

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 22nd, 2009, 5:15PM

A conversation with Marc Andreessen, co-founder and chairman of Ning and an investor in several startups including Digg, Plazes, and Twitter. Best known as co-author of Mosaic, and founder of Netscape. He is on the Board of Directors of Facebook and eBay

54:10

Charlie Rose, February 19, 2009

44 queries. 1.130 seconds.