Archives: September 2010

Gold Soars to New Record

Bloomberg News

Gold rose to a record, Treasuries rallied and stocks halted a four-day advance amid a slump in German confidence and concern China will cool its real-estate market. The yen rose to a 15-year high versus the dollar on speculation Japan is less likely to weaken its currency.

Gold futures rallied as much as 1.8 percent to $1,269.20 an ounce and the 10-year Treasury note yield lost 6 basis points to 2.69 percent at 10:06 a.m. in New York as investors pursued assets believed to be the safest. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index decreased 0.2 percent. The yen appreciated against all 16 most-traded peers and the Swiss franc touched $1 for the first time this year.

The MSCI World Index of stocks in 24 developed nations dropped for the first time in five days as investor confidence in Germany fell to a 19-month low in September, according to the ZEW Center for European Economic Research, and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao cautioned that rising property prices may stoke unrest. Better-than-estimated growth in U.S. retail sales and business inventories failed to extend the equity market’s rally after the S&P 500 climbed to a one-month high yesterday.

“It’s a sloppy, mixed-data environment,” said Stephen Wood, the New York-based chief market strategist for Russell Investments, which manages $140 billion. “We had good retail sales data. However, German confidence and indications that China may continue to cool down its economy show that the economic environment continues to be very choppy.”

Basel Compromise – Higher Capital Reqs, but 8 years to comply!

Bloomberg

Regulators looking to rein in the sort of risk-taking that caused the last financial crisis reached a compromise in Switzerland yesterday that more than doubles capital requirements for the world’s banks while giving them as long as eight years to comply.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision will require lenders to have common equity equal to at least 7 percent of assets, weighted according to their risk, including a 2.5 percent buffer to withstand future stress. Banks that fail to meet the buffer would be unable to pay dividends, though not forced to raise cash.

The definitions of what counts as capital and how risk is assessed have also been tightened. Some banks, such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., will be restricted in how much cash they can return to shareholders and pay their employees in years to come. Others, like Deutsche Bank AG, have already announced plans to raise additional capital.

“These are big changes in capital requirements,” said James Wiener, the New York-based head of finance and risk practice at Oliver Wyman, a management-consulting firm. “There’s a long period of adjustment, which takes off some pressure. But still, who wants to own a bank that can’t pay dividends for three years?”

Minimum Ratios

Banks will have less than five years to comply with the minimum ratios — 4.5 percent common equity and 6 percent Tier 1 — and until Jan. 1, 2019, to meet the buffer requirements, the Basel board of governors said in a statement yesterday. Tier 1 capital, whose definition has been narrowed by the Basel committee, includes common equity and perpetual preferred stock.

Banks are currently required to have common equity equal to 2 percent of total assets and 4 percent Tier 1 capital.

The committee also gave banks until the end of 2017 to comply with the tighter definitions of capital and said that a new short-term liquidity standard wouldn’t be implemented until the beginning of 2015. While a separate long-term liquidity rule has been shelved under pressure from the banking industry, the short-term rule was expected to go into effect earlier. The two liquidity rules would require banks to hold enough cash and easily cashable assets to meet liabilities.

“Extending these deadlines — liquidity, buffers, capital definitions — should be a relief to banks,” said Frederick Cannon, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in New York.

BofA, Citigroup

Of the 24 U.S. banks represented on the KBW Bank Index, seven including Bank of America and Citigroup would fall short of the new ratios based on calculations using the revised definitions of capital, Cannon said in a Sept. 10 report.

“The new standard is 7 percent, and that’s very high,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Washington- based Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies on behalf of U.S. banks. “It will curb lending. The stronger the banks, the weaker the economic recovery will be.”

The Association of Financial Markets in Europe, which represents banks on that continent, welcomed the extended transition periods provided to its members for compliance. The group said it still has “significant concerns,” including the possible outcome of the Basel committee’s continuing work on the largest financial institutions.

European banks are less capitalized than U.S. counterparts and may be required to raise more funds under the new Basel rules. Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest lender, said today it plans to sell at least 9.8 billion euros ($12.5 billion) of stock. Germany’s 10 biggest banks, including Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank AG, may need about 105 billion euros in fresh capital because of new regulations, the Association of German Banks estimated on Sept. 6.

Credit Suisse

Some European banks will fare better. Credit Suisse AG, whose losses from the credit market meltdown were about one- third those of its main Swiss rival UBS AG, said in a statement yesterday that it expected to comply with the new rules “without having to materially change our growth plans or our current capital and dividend policy.”

Under political pressure to rein in banks’ risk-taking, regulators have been tightening capital rules and introducing new measures such as liquidity requirements. Lenders have pushed back, lobbying their governments and supervisory bodies to soften the proposed regulations.

The rule-making process, which began in 2009, has pitted countries against each other. Some, including Germany, said higher capital requirements would hurt their banks and curb lending at a time when global economic recovery is faltering. Germany led the fight for lower ratios and a slower time frame for implementation, according to participants in the talks.

German Demands

The U.S., U.K. and Switzerland were insisting on a maximum of five years for transition, while Germany was pushing to extend it to 10 years, four people with knowledge of the talks said last week. While Germany didn’t get the deadlines extended all the way, it won some concessions for its state-owned banks, which would have a harder time to comply. Government capital injections will continue to count as common equity until the end of 2017, even if they were in a form that the new Basel rules consider as not qualifying. State banks get an extra five years of exemptions to other rules tightening the definition of capital.

“It reflects a kind of pragmatism, significantly increasing the standards, but also doing it in a way that attempts to avoid a serious adverse impact on the economy,” said Richard Spillenkothen, a former director of banking and supervision at the Federal Reserve and a former member of the Basel committee who is now a director at Deloitte & Touche LLP.

‘Unique Characteristics’

Axel Weber, president of the German central bank, who attended yesterday’s meeting in Basel, expressed satisfaction with the outcome. Germany, which had withheld its signature from the committee’s July agreement, signed on to the package yesterday.

“The gradual transition phase will allow all banks to fulfill the rising requirements for minimum capital and liquidity,” Weber said in an e-mailed statement. “The unique characteristics of German financial institutions that aren’t stockholder corporations are thus appropriately catered for.”

In an August report studying the economic impact of tighter capital rules, the Basel committee said that four years was the ideal time frame for implementing the new standards.

“While it’s understandable given the weaknesses and the failings of the banking system that one would want to be slow in introducing these increased capital requirements, delay is exposing the public to continued risk,” said Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank and now a professor of economics at Columbia University in New York. “Given the high levels of payouts in bonuses and dividends, it seems a little unconscionable to continue putting the public at risk with an argument that they cannot more rapidly increase their own capital.”

Mortgage-Servicing Rights

The Basel committee in previous meetings restricted what can be counted as bank capital, which would reduce current levels by deducting assets included in the calculation, such as mortgage-servicing rights. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second- largest U.S. bank, said last month that the Basel rules would shave its capital ratio by as much as 2 percentage points.

With yesterday’s decision, the Basel committee has completed most of its work on a package of reforms it will submit to leaders of the Group of 20 nations who are meeting in November in Seoul.

The committee has yet to agree on revised calculations of risk-weighted assets, which form the denominator of the capital ratios to be determined this weekend. The Basel committee has another meeting scheduled for Sept. 21-22 and said it may gather in October to finish its work.

To contact the reporters on this story: Yalman Onaran in New York at yonaran@bloomberg.net.

PA Issues Last Minute Bailout to Harrisburg

Published on: 09/12/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments
Financial Times

The state of Pennsylvania has stepped in to help its capital city Harrisburg avoid a default by advancing next year’s state aid so that the money can be used to make a $3.3m bond interest payment due this week.

On Sunday, Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, announced a $4.3m cash transfer and said missing the bond payment was “not an option”. “Harrisburg’s financial future is still very cloudy, and difficult decisions still need to be made to return this city to financial stability,” he said in a statement. “Allowing a missed bond payment, however, would not be a good decision.”

Harrisburg’s strains have been closely watched as other US local governments and states struggle to close gaps in their budget amid falling tax revenues in the downturn.

For many months, Harrisburg officials have been debating how to handle its debt burdens and whether the city should follow a handful of other cities that have filed for bankruptcy.

Harrisburg has already defaulted on $282m of debt in an incinerator project that the city partially guaranteed. The $3.3m payment due on September 15 is an interest payment on the city’s general obligation bond sold in 1997.

Such municipal debt is sought out by many investors in the $2,800bn US municipal bond market because the GO bonds have a reputation as being safer than many other types of bonds.

Payments take priority over other spending. A default on such a GO bond could have knock-on effects across the municipal bond market, increasing the interest payments that are demanded by investors and leading to a reassessment of default risks.

Politically, there can be incentives for cities not to pay bondholders if it means that services do not have to be cut, although many GO bonds are held by local residents who get tax breaks for buying such debt.

As well as paying bondholders, $850,000 of the money will be used to pay Scott Balice Strategies, a financial management company, to “develop a comprehensive plan for the city’s financial stability”.

Last week, Linda Thompson, Harrisburg’s mayor, proposed “painful steps” to tackle the budget deficit including the closing of a fire station and further layoffs. “There are more difficult decisions to be made in the near future,” Ms Thompson said last week.

Mr Rendell said in Sunday’s statement that bankruptcy should not be an option for Harrisburg until all other options had been exhausted. Sunday’s deal includes a $500,000 loan that Harrisburg will have to repay once its finances improve.

Meet the New Goldilocks

Back in the glory days of 2008, the mainstream press, political pundits, and various government officials talked about the idea of the Goldilocks economy. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. Of course the analogy ended when the bears chased Goldilocks out of the cottage. While the same outlets aren’t trotting out the fairy tale this time around, it is clear that the US has hit phase two of the Goldilocks economy and it is my guess that most folks will like this one even less than the first.

And again, there are three major bears that are threatening to once again drive Goldilocks deep into the forest.

Bear #1 – A Jobless Economy

Month after month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases Employment Situation reports that continue to befuddle even the most casual of observers. They have become Newspeak in the truest sense of the word. Take last Friday’s report for example.

BLS reported that 54,000 jobs had been lost in August. The media immediately jumped on the fact that private sector payrolls were up by 67,000 and immediately blamed the entirety of the negative report on the fact that it was only bad because some census workers got laid off. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Back in the spring when the census workers were being hired, it was the same press that counted those temporary jobs as if they were actually created by a recovering economy.

U6 Underutilization Aggregate

But it actually goes a lot deeper than just the 67,000 jobs gained in the private sector. Let’s analyze:

331,000 people became underemployed for economic reasons, meaning that they desired full time work, but were only able to find part time work. 331,000 full-time jobs lost. That takes out total up to 385,000. Left completely uncounted are those folks who lost one full time jobs and managed to find another, but at a much lower wage.

BLS’ CESBD Birth/Death adjustment assumed that 115,000 full-time jobs were created by new businesses in August. This ‘adjustment’ has been a source of great consternation by labor market analysts and real economists for some time now. In what turned out to be a vain attempt at getting a look at the methodology used to derive this number, I contacted BLS and had email communications with no less than a half dozen staff economists in its Continuing Employment Statistics group. Not a single one of them could or would give me any information on how this metric was arrived at other than to point me to the website. At this point, we are left to assume that the Birth/Death adjustment is probably more arbitrary than anything based in reality. So for argument’s sake, let’s back out half of those fictitious jobs. Our total is now at 442,500 full-time jobs lost.

CESDB Adjustments for 2010

Finally, in order to keep pace with demographics, the economy needs to create 150,000 full-time jobs each month just to break even. Creating that many will not result in a reduction in unemployment but is the working equivalent of treading water.

Taking all this into account, August saw a deficit of 592,500 full-time jobs. And this was carried as a ‘good’ report? Former Labor Secy. Robert Reich actually came out and declared the report in its totality to be ‘awful’.

Keep in mind that the mediocre (at best) and lately awful jobs reports are after nearly a trillion dollars in direct stimulus and over another trillion in palliatives by the Fed in the form of purchasing mortgage-backed securities to stimulate the housing/construction sector. This reality alone should serve to underscore how dire the situation is. Unfortunately, this will likely be the status quo moving forward. Meet the new Goldilocks.

Bear #2 – An Unending Bear Market

It has been a cruel twist that the bear market which has been firmly in place since 2007 came precisely as the baby boomers began having serious thoughts about retirement. There have been countless stories of folks who retired in late 2007 or early 2008, either by choice or because they lost jobs and decided to retire, then had their portfolios halved over the next 18 months.

Sure the markets have recovered somewhat, but so many individual investors bailed out at Dow 8000 to 6500 and never got back in for the upswing. This market certainly has many folks perplexed. This is one of the reasons we have focused nearly exclusively on income producing investments, opting to lock in returns in the present rather than gambling on an uncertain future.

What many still have not realized is that the investing paradigm changed in a big way back in the year 2000. Stocks had seen an 18 year Supercycle of solid gains. One could quite literally pin the Sunday business section up on a wall, throw darts blindfolded and have a better than average chance of picking a winning portfolio. Precious metals languished for nearly two decades. That all changed in 2000 and as we entered a new century, we entered a new paradigm. Gold has surged fourfold and change and stocks have gone absolutely nowhere.

10-Year Gold Chart

These Supercycles are generally 16, 18, or 20 years, so at a minimum, the current paradigm has another 6 years to go. Given all the distress in the economy from both a macro and fiscal perspective, it is entirely possible that we’re only halfway through this cycle. That means another 6-10 years of the stock market bear and another 6-10 years of strength in precious metals. At least in this case, there is a silver lining – pun intended.

Bear #3 – Leverage in All the Wrong Places

Perhaps the most ferocious of all the bears set to battle this new, unimproved Goldilocks is leverage or lack thereof. We have heard plenty about the leverage in the banking system and how it has been used to enhance bank and brokerage profits over the past few years. We’ve also talked plenty about how leverage has helped destroy the consumer, which is absolutely true. What is not being talked about, however, is the lack of leverage that we have as a nation in terms of righting the ship.

There have been many calls for the US to reassert itself as the premier manufacturing nation in the world. This would serve the dual purpose of diminishing our reliance on foreign goods as well as helping the unemployment situation by bringing jobs home. While I am a huge advocate of doing exactly this, there are several major problems that need to be dealt with along the way should we as a nation decide to pursue this path.

2010 Trade Deficit

First and foremost is the fact that many American goods are not price competitive with their foreign counterparts simply because of the cost of labor. Placing tariffs on imported goods is an obvious solution proposed by many, but keep in mind the role that just the Chinese have played in keeping our economy afloat over the past decade in particular through vendor financing – the purchase of US debt.

Secondly, shifting manufacturing back to the US would require the rebuilding of the manufacturing infrastructure including the railroads and likely the power distribution grids in many areas as well. This is a huge capital investment and isn’t even on the radar of most policymakers. The mindset isn’t there at this time. For the most part we are content to convert old railways into biking paths instead of trying to figure out how to revive them.

A third area where the US lacks the leverage to reassert herself is in the area of energy. With peak oil on the immediate horizon, we are doing precious little other than burning a lot of corn to prepare for yet another paradigm shift. As long as we’re dependent on foreigners for one of the most important staples of economic growth, we will not be able to affect meaningful changes.

There are other areas as well, but I think the point has been made. A stagnant labor market, lack of individual wealth growth, and a lack of economic and tactical leverage to change key areas are conspiring to create this new Goldilocks economy which will plod along as long as trillions of new dollars are pumped in on a regular basis. Can anyone say unsustainable?

Next week we’ll finish up our analysis of proposed new gasoline taxes from a partial equilibrium perspective.

Bernanke ‘Not Straightforward’ on Lehman

Published on: 09/02/2010
Comments: No Comments

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said he regretted not saying in congressional testimony shortly after the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008 that the central bank had no authority to save the firm.

The testimony at the time “has supported this myth that we did have a way of saving Lehman,” Bernanke said in response to questions during a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing in Washington today. “I regret not being more straightforward there because clearly it has supported the mistaken impression that in fact we could have done something.”

Bernanke made the remarks to explain the disparity between his September 2008 testimony that the Fed and Treasury “declined to commit public funds to support the institution” and later statements that the government had no option to save Lehman because of inadequate collateral. The Fed decided at the time against saying Lehman was unsalvageable because it may have risked further panic in financial markets, Bernanke said today.

“It was a judgment at that moment, with the system in tremendous stress and with other financial institutions under threat of a run or panic, that making that statement might have even reduced confidence further and led to further pressure,” Bernanke said today.

In September 2008, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that the Fed and Treasury “declined to commit public funds to support the institution” and that investors and counterparties had enough time to prepare for the firm’s failure.

‘Catastrophic’ Failure

The bankruptcy intensified the worst financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression. Bernanke said he believed that a Lehman failure would have been “catastrophic” and that the government, which was trying to arrange a private merger, should do all it could to avert that outcome.

“This is my bread and butter,” said Bernanke, a former Princeton University economist who studied the Great Depression before joining the Fed as a governor in 2002.

Members of the commission, including Peter Wallison, co- director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, pressed Bernanke on why the central bank didn’t exercise emergency powers to prevent Lehman’s failure as it did with Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group in 2008.

The Fed chief said he was prepared to ask the Board of Governors to approve aid to Lehman, then backed off when he was informed that the central bank wouldn’t get sufficient collateral to back any loan. Lehman probably would have failed even with Fed assistance, Bernanke said.

“It was the judgment made by the leadership of the New York Fed and the people who were charged with reviewing the books of Lehman that they were far short of what was needed to get cash to meet the run,” Bernanke said. “That was the judgment that was given to me.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg.net.

« page 2 of 2

Welcome , today is Friday, 05/18/2012