Fleck: SEC Should Sue FASB

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 3:00PM

I often see eye-to-eye with Bill Fleckenstein. Hell, he is the one who urged me to write Bailout Nation; He even wrote the forward to it.

We may disagree on the perceived strength of the SEC vs GS case — but what we don’t disagree about is what the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has done to accounting standards.

As far as investors are concerned, they have eliminated them. There is essentially no oversight of companies by accountants any longer. Accounting statements are all but worthless.  Frauds like Enron, Lehman Brothers and Overstock.com are everywhere. Companies can hide risk from investors, misstate earnings without fear of reprisal, engage in any manner of deceptive gamesmanship.

There are many reasons to buy various publicly traded companies — but what they report in their balance sheets ain’t one of them.

Here’s Fleck:

The FASB and the dog that ate due diligence
The SEC also ought to consider pursuing the Financial Accounting Standards Board for helping denigrate accounting standards to the point that so much smoke and mirrors could pass for legitimacy.

Had real accounting standards been at work, they likely would have prevented the banksters from walking away with fortunes while they built financial instruments of mass destruction.

All too true . . .

>
Source:
Goldman-deal gamblers knew the score
Bill Fleckenstein
MSN Money, 4/23/2010
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/goldman-deal-gamblers-knew-the-score.aspx

Charlie Rose: Boies, Lewis, Sorkin

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 2:00PM

Good Charlie Rose discussion with David Boies, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Michale Lewis on the SEC v Goldman Case:

click for video

via PBS Charlie Rose

FT: Jeremy Grantham on Bubbles

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 12:00PM

click for video

Hat tip Dennis

Nissan Juke

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 10:00AM

A recent emailer wrote:

You seem to be very knowledgeable about cars — but what about those of us who don’t have six figures to spend on a flashy rocket sled? I am shopping for my son, who will be 18 years old later this year. I want to get him something that will be reliable and fun, but nothing that will get him in to trouble — no muscle cars like the Camaro or Challenger.

Fair enough:

The car I just recommended for my nephew, who will be 17 year old and a senior next year is this: The Nissan Juke. (My only connection to Nissan is the missus’ Daily Driver is a 370Z)

Its cheap (starts under $20k), youthful and unlike anything else on the market from mainstream autos. Its been out in Europe for some time now, seems to get decent gas mileage, and has a suprisingly sophisticated  AWD system for an inexpensive car similar to the Acura S-AWD system. ( More details from Nissan are after the jump).

I suspect Nissan thinks this can be a high volume model, competing with ther Civic/CRV or RAV4.  It looks like Nissan spent a ton of money on some very slick videos (see their site, or go to the videos here).

And as the photos show, its definitely funky:

Read the rest of this entry »

Fabrice Tourre/Goldman Emails

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 9:13AM

The Fabulous Fab turns out not to be so fabu after all:

PSI.exhibits

via Senator Carl Levin, Washington Post

Goldman Sacked with Backlash

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 8:45AM

Goldman Sachs faces mounting public anger over a government lawsuit accusing the firm of misleading investors and contributing to the near-collapse of the U.S. economy. Anthony Mason reports.

CBSNewsOnline — April 20, 2010

CEO/CFO Poll on SEC vs GS

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 25th, 2010, 8:41AM

You may not have read about a recent poll by the Argyle Executive Forum. They conducted a survey (electronically) of its C-level execs and “senior corporate leadership community.”

It did not seem to make many media outlets. For whatever reason, the MSM seems to have its lips puckered firmly up against Goldman’s assets.
I only happened across it in Robin Goldwyn Blumenthal’s Review column in this week’s Barron’s.

The poll is quite informative, and does not bode well for Goldie if they have to go the distance in front of a jury.

The exact survey question was:

As Goldman Sachs Group is currently at the center of a legal maelstrom triggered by the SEC’s fraud charge last week, we want to ask you how you currently feel about the charges. Please select one of the below:

• I feel the firm is innocent
• I feel the firm is guilty
• I am currently unsure

The electronic poll produced the following results:

• 55.2% of business leaders feel Goldman Sachs is guilty
• 20.7% of business leaders feel Goldman Sachs is innocent, and
• 24.1% of business leaders are currently unsure

If corporate execs overwhelmingly think Goldie is guilty, what does that say the man in the street will think?

One other note: The size of the polling sample is unknown. I’d prefer to see what that datapoint was. We always prefer polling data to be a substantial number — not a small sample.

>

Sources:
From Womb to Wall Street
Robin Goldwyn Blumenthal’s
Barron’s APRIL 24, 2010  
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB127206442312681923.html

In a vote, Goldman Sachs has trouble
UPI, April 21, 2010 at 4:40 PM      
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/04/21/In-a-vote-Goldman-Sachs-has-trouble/UPI-30341271882454/

Wrangling with the Wild Bulls

Email this post Print this post
By Guest Author - April 24th, 2010, 10:31PM

Andy Xie is a former Morgan Stanley analyst now living in China.

~~~

By Andy Xie 04.21.2010 00:27

If China’s banks are to avoid whiplash, unflinchingly tough action needs to be taken on raising interest rates and capital adequacy ratios

A double digit–growth rate and a howling one-third increase in property investment. Recent statistics, though far from accurate, unambiguously show an overheating Chinese economy as well as a speculative bubble. Consumption inflation is also likely to head towards double digits soon, even though official statistics still portray low inflation.

Some sort of crisis may already be inevitable. But, by delaying remedial action, trouble, when it arrives, will only be bigger.

Anecdotes point to a significant expansion of the property bubble. Property speculation picked up speed right after the National People’s Congress meeting. Both prices and volumes rose sharply in major markets like Beijing and Shanghai. Speculators lost their fear, while the fear of inflation seized savers. No one believed the government would let property prices fall. As a result, people have been withdrawing their savings and borrowing as much as possible to buy property, regardless of the price. This is all similar to the final frenzy in financial mania. If the experiences from other countries are anything to go by, this frenzy could expand the size of the bubble dramatically. The consequences may well be catastrophic – as Japan showed 20 years ago, Southeast Asia 10 years ago, and the US is demonstrating now.

The latest measures aimed at tightening property are technical in nature and target speculative demand. But, like similar measures in the past, they can be circumvented. Further, prolonged negative real interest rates – that is, rates below inflation – are the driving force of the bubble. Unless this is corrected, after a brief pause, the bubble will grow big again. Such a vicious cycle only ends when banks have insufficient liquidity – that is, households don’t increase their deposits but want to borrow as much as possible. Indeed, recent data suggests this scenario is coming.

The most effective actions for containing the bubble are: one, raising interest rates to above the expected inflation rate; and, two, raising capital requirements for banks. China should quickly raise interest rates by 2 percentage points; current rates are ridiculously low. When this is the case for too long, it leads to a property bubble, resource misallocation, and, eventually, a financial crisis.

China’s interest rates are probably five percentage points too low. Yuan appreciation expectations have provided money holders with a substitute for interest rates. Indeed, such expectations have driven up yuan demand so rapidly that the central bank has increased its foreign exchange reserves three times, to US$ 2.4 trillion, in the past five years. China’s asset prices have risen by about the same magnitude. Inflation has followed.

China’s currency appreciation may have largely occurred through inflation, despite what the statistics say. The evidence is that, first, exporters are looking to shift more production to other countries and, second, China’s price levels are very high in an international comparison. Much of the currency–appreciation expectation today may be a bubble. It remains strong because, for hot money, China is still the land of rising asset prices. The most effective way to deal with these expectations could be to cool the asset bubble at home. Hence, raising interest rates might repel some hot money.

When raising rates, China should avoid small moves. It is already very late for monetary tightening. If the first move is timid, it may show a lack of resolve and could even make the situation worse.

China must raise the core capital adequacy ratio for the banking system as soon as possible, given that banks are raising capital to support their lending expansion. Unless that happens, considering that the banks are motivated to expand as fast as they can, lending could surge massively again.

The demand for yuan appreciation, amplified by the US calls, ensures that banking liquidity is plentiful. The current loan-deposit ratio of 67 percent leaves plenty of room for lending expansion. Additional capital injections will add pressure for an increase in lending. Otherwise, returns on equity capital would decline, putting downward pressure on the compensation for senior bank managers. All things considered, the government should raise the core capital ratio to 8 percent (from the 5 percent guidelines) and give banks three years to meet the target. This target won’t be onerous.

A high core capital ratio is the only cushion for taxpayers. China’s banks are all too big to fail. When the property bubble does burst, the government will have to recapitalize the banks; the money will come from taxpayers one way or another. When the last property bubble burst in 1998, non-performing loans (NPLs) reached 40 percent of the total. When this bubble bursts, they may reach 20 percent or more. The current capital base could be far from sufficient to cushion the losses from NPLs when this property bubble bursts. The banks should increase capital as quickly as possible. This pressure would reduce their lending capacity, slowing the bubble expansion. By restricting the size of the bubble, the banks would suffer fewer losses when it does burst.

The US experience is a major lesson for everyone. Bubbles should not be left alone, because ultimately they cost taxpayers dearly. It is totally irresponsible to deal with bubbles only after they have burst, as ex-US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan did. China must take major action – anything less will result in a full-on gallop to catastrophe

Originally published at Caing.com

http://english.caing.com/2010-04-21/100137263.html

“A Monstrous System of Guaranteeing Deposits”

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 24th, 2010, 6:23PM

Time for a good chuckle: Have a read of this excerpt from TIME magazine, circa 1933, about the evils of FDIC deposit insurance:

“Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment. A bill just passed by both houses of Congress would rivet upon their institutions what they considered a monstrous system of guaranteeing bank deposits. Such a system, they felt, would not only rob them of their pride of profession but would reduce all U. S. banking to its lowest level. They saw their deposits which they had spent a lifetime to build up and protect with their good names confiscated by the Government to pay for the mistakes and dishonesty of every small town bankster . . .

Bank deposit guarantee schemes have been tried in Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington. They have invariably ended in failure and loss, if not in outright scandal and default. They have weakened the moral fibre of bankers and served chiefly as a temptation to bad banking. Honest banking has been penalized for dishonest banking.”

Thanks, Paul!

>

Source:
BANKS: Deposits Guaranteed
Time, Jun. 05, 1933
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745617-1,00.html

Victory !

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 24th, 2010, 4:00PM

If you haven’t seen the new Doctor Who, you best get yourself to where ever you can stream, download or buy it — because the first episode of the season was fantastic!

>

43 queries. 0.985 seconds.