Libor Scandal Expands

What started with Barclays and an investigation into fixing of the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) has now expanded to encompass 20 more large banks. The Bank of England is the latest financial institution to get sucked into the scandal and analysts are split on whether this is good or bad for the global economy. On the upside, it’s good that banks are getting caught out for manipulating rates that impacted $800 trillion in global trades, but the downside may be that disruption in the system could cause runaway inflation or worse problems. Even so, experts agree a hobbled free market is better than a manipulated one. For more on this continue reading the following article from Money Morning. 

Not only are at least 20 more big banks under investigation as part of a massive fraud to manipulate interbank lending rates that affect some $800 trillion in loans and derivatives, but the Bank of England is about to take center stage in the scandal.

And that's bad news for central banks around the world.

Well, actually, it could be good news, as in really good news, if it's the beginning of the end of what central banks do to manipulate free markets to the benefit of their only real constituents, the world's big banks.

First the good news.

It's already come out that traders at Barclays with huge derivatives positions leaned on co-workers who sit on "panels" that submit internal bank borrowing cost data to Thompson Reuters. And Reuters averages the middle lot of submissions to determine Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) "fixings" (not my word, but actually the established nomenclature for what it apparently is that they do... as in "fix" rates). And it's all under the auspices of the British Banking Association.

What's good is that we now know for a fact that the traders (crooks?) were aided and abetted by their co-workers, the submitters (crooks?), who were overseen by managers and top executives who design most of these schemes (crooks?), and were all blessed by the British Banking Association, an illustrious association of 200 some-odd banks, whose many members (crooks?) are panel members submitting crooked (no question mark necessary) data.

Still don't get why that's good news?

Because it's proof there are crooks out there.

And this time it's easy to see where the "fix" actually occurs.

It's also good news because, according to one multinational banking executive, just quoted in The Economist, it's "the banking industry's tobacco moment."

He was referring to the potential mountain(s) of litigation being drawn up already to claim that gross manipulation of interest rates caused billions, maybe trillions, of dollars of harm to borrowers and financial players of all stripes.

Remember, back in 1998, Big Tobacco had to settle class-action suits related to death and injury from cigarettes and other tobacco use. (These plaintiffs argued that tobacco companies knew of the health risk of smoking and failed to warn consumers.) These lawsuits cost them over $200 billion.

The bad news is the Bank of England, one of the world's stalwart and oldest central banks, is about to face its own potential Lehman moment (at least we can hope). That's on account of the fact that Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England (and its supposed next top dog), is going to have to come clean in front of Parliament very shortly.

Mr. Tucker is apparently on record (according to Bob Diamond's phone call notes) suggesting that the Bank of England wanted Barclay's to manipulate it's Libor submissions downward so as to not panic counterparties and the country who might view tight interbank lending conditions as a sign of stress across the entire banking system.

So, here's why the bad news for the central bank (encouraging, no, make that, demanding fraud) is really good news for free markets.

Central banks have done nothing to countermand the trend (nothing but encourage) leading to big banks getting bigger; so big, in fact, that now all of the big banks around the world are all too big to fail.

The bigger the world's banks are (bankers want size, because more size equals more power to price, to manipulate markets, and to pay bigger bonuses), the more important central banks become, both to the big banks, nations, and the global economy.

Central banks are the saviors of big banks that get in trouble, especially when systems and economies are leveraged for profits that backfire, and they all have to be bailed out.

Central banks are supposed to be above what's going on below their ivory towers, but, in fact, they are the puppets being manipulated by the big banks. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Why are central banks pouring money into banks, really? Why aren't governments printing money to pour into ailing economies but instead aiding and abetting central banks?

It's because central banks are independent supra-national bodies who have been ceded monetary power by governments almost everywhere to benefit banks and bankers the world over, who are their only constituents, and for all intents and purposes, effectively "own" legislators and governments.

They're pouring money into banks to keep them solvent. That's what central banks are there for. The banks aren't lending the money (massive reserves are sitting on balance sheets to shore up appearances) because they need it to meet reserve requirements and offset the illiquidity evident in the interbank lending market... the same interbank (Libor) market that the Bank of England wanted to make look more liquid than it was viscous back in 2008.

But it gets worse.

What will happen when the "multiplier effect" takes effect? I'm talking about the potential for massive inflation when all those huge quantities of reserves (stimulus) get lent out instead of shelved on balance sheets.

How about massive inflation?

Heaven help us if all these macro crises are fixed quickly. The flood of idle cash and credits globally will make past inflationary bursts look like a 40-yard dash, compared to miles and miles of potential problems ahead of us.

We need free markets, not manipulated markets. We need to break up all the world's big banks so they can fail when they overleverage themselves and entire systems, nations, economies, and the global economy aren't all brought to their knees.

If we break up all the too-big-to-fail banks, we won't need central banks. We can go back to what are supposed to be free markets dictating interest rates and creating honest, open economies and opportunities everywhere.

Who's with me?

Article written by Shah Gilani

Shah Gilani is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the credit crisis. He not only called for the implosion of the U.S. financial markets, he also predicted the historic rebound that began in March 2009. Shah is the editor of Capital Wave Forecast and Spin Trader. He also writes Money Map Press’s most talked-about publication, the Wall Street Insights & Indictments.

Loan Modification Not A Fix-All To Credit Crisis

With credit markets still tight, should the government be doing more to loosen lending? One proposed solution that the government is actively pursuing is loan modification for troubled homeowners. But according to the following post from Blown Mortgage, loan modifications will not get to the heart of the US credit problems.

Last year we say yet another bubble pop, the credit industry. That bubble did not pop alone. A whole lot of burst bubble followed including the mortgage industry, construction, stock market and the banking industry as a whole. Countries do start to get nervous when the banking and credit industry that feeds the whole economy starts to shake. Nerves can help us to react and find solutions but it can also make us overreact and come up with inadequate solutions.

How should we rate loan modifications as a solution for the credit crisis?
The answer to that question depends on who you listen to or which economic model you choose to follow.

If you view the economy as a natural process of offer and demand that is best left alone you will probably think that the government’s efforts to bailout home owners is a travesty of governments role in society. I can easily relate to this view. The credit crisis can easily be viewed as an example of consumer’s greed that can be solved by allowing foreclosures and bankruptcies to do their job of balancing the irregularities unwise “investors and borrowers” created.

Deciding if loan modifications as a management tool of the economy is morally or economically acceptable is only part of the issue. Many would say that loan modifications might help if we were dealing with a mortgage crisis but are not the solution to the credit crisis. It is easy to see that something more deeply ingrained than a bad interest rate is behind the credit crisis we are currently living.

Unfortunately the only thing a loan modification can do is modify a mortgage or home loan it can’t help with numerous credit card debts, car loans and other debt issues.

Many would argue is that the current crisis is the market’s way of teaching a lesson of modifying behaviors, of showing that the current spending and borrowing cultures are not sustainable. An interesting fact that backs this view is that many people who are struggling to pay their mortgage shouldn’t be if one were to look at their incomes. This was a problem the HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program), the Government’s mortgage aid program had to deal with. In an effort to reduce bailouts and loan modification breaks to those who really need it, only home owners that pay more than 31% of their wage towards their mortgage qualified for a sponsored loan modification. HAMP managers have since realized that this requirement limits this program to many who really need a loan modification in order to not foreclose their mortgages. This is because their mortgage is only one of the debts they have to deal with.

For people to reap lasting benefits from a government program we will have to dig deeper into the origins of the current credit crisis and that is not secluded to the type of mortgage home owners have.

This post has been republished from Blown Mortgage, a mortgage news and analysis site.

Consumer Confidence Shows Drastic Improvement

In past recessions consumers may have already started to rush back to the malls, but this time might be different. Instead of going back to the shopping centers, consumers may instead be sending their money to credit card companies to pay back their high levels of debt. So what should we make of consumer confidence increasing the most in six years? Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made explains why a sudden improvement in consumer confidence may not be as significant as it first appears.

Reuters reports on the sharpest increase in U.S. consumer confidence in more than six years. But, don't get overly excited (like the stock market currently is), the American shopper is still quite depressed by historical measure.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said on Tuesday its index of consumer attitudes jumped to 54.9 in May from a revised 40.8 in April, the biggest one-month jump since April 2003. Economists had been looking for a much smaller rise to 42.0.

Fewer Americans said jobs were "hard to get," the survey found, with that measure slipping to 44.7 percent from 46.6 percent. Those saying jobs were plentiful climbed to a still meager 5.7 percent, but that was still higher than April's 4.9 percent.

"Consumers are considerably less pessimistic than they were earlier this year," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center.

Once again, less bad is the new good, the "considerably less pessimistic" assessment being cause for some to get out the bubbly and celebrate, at least for a little while.

More details...

The survey offered mixed messages regarding Americans' propensity to spend money. The proportion of those who said they planned on buying a car over the next six months rose to 5.5 percent, its highest in at least a year.

But fewer intended to buy homes -- only 2.3 percent, a tough break for one of the hardest hit sectors in the country's economic crisis. A separate report on Tuesday revealed U.S. home prices dropped 18.7 percent in March compared to a year earlier.

Here's a graphic from the Wall Street Journal showing how the expectations index has surged past the present conditions index in a manner similar to the 2003 bottom. Since confidence had sunk to such historic lows in recent months, like many other economic indicators, comparing recent developments to patterns seen in previous recessions may not provide all that much relevant insight.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Phoenix Real Estate Market Showing Signs Of Life

The Phoenix real estate market was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped, and it looks like it might be one of the first to rebound. Buyers are beginning to show heightened interested in the market, with one of the most attractive features being that buying is basically as cheap as renting. Typically when buying is cheaper than renting, people will buy — if they are able. However, with a tightened lending market, millions out of work and many with tarnished credit, the buyer pool is seemingly shrinking. Despite that, the Phoenix market appears to be on the right track, though, Tim Iacono cautions that this could be a small boom created by artificially low interest rates. Foreclosures are continuing to flood the market, and once interest rates go back up the new quasi-bubble could pop.

Evidence is mounting that when home prices tumble by more than 50 percent and the Fed keeps mortgage rates at freakishly low levels, people will buy houses. This report from the LA Times talks of a resurgence in home buying where prices have fallen the furthest.

After four years of renting because they were priced out of the real estate market, Jamia Jenkins and Scott Renshaw concluded the time had arrived for them to buy.

They saw that home prices had dropped so fast here -- faster than in any other big city in the nation -- that mortgage payments would be less than the $900 they paid in rent. The city is littered with foreclosed houses, so the couple figured they could easily snatch up something in the low $100,000s.

Three months later, they're still looking. They have submitted 13 offers and been overbid each time. "It's just pathetic," said Jenkins, 53. "Investors are going out there and outbidding everyone."

While many now cheer the arrival of a housing market bottom this year - more likely in real estate sales than in prices paid - you have to wonder what's going to happen in another year or two when long-term interest rates are much higher.

For example, at today's artificially low mortgage rates, you can get a 30-year loan of $170,000 for about $900, similar to what the couple above is planning. But at the far more typical rates of seven or eight percent, that payment moves up by one-third to about $1,200.

Stated another way, that same $900 payment only buys $130,000 worth of housing - not the $170,000 as indicated above - absent the freakishly low interest rates, something that is a near certainty in the years ahead.

Naturally, that doesn't stop people from buying, as the 2006 fever seems to have returned...

Phoenix's housing bust has turned into a quasi-boom, a sign that its market may have hit bottom and a sneak preview of what a national housing recovery could look like.

More homes are selling than at any time since 2006. Prices are slowly stabilizing. Buyers are once again finding themselves in frantic bidding wars -- only this time over foreclosed houses selling at deep discounts rather than ranch homes listing for vast sums.

"The free market is at work," said Shannon Hubbard, a real estate agent and blogger here. "Prices got driven down so much that people said, 'I'm going to come out and play.' "
Home prices continue to plummet or tread water in much of the nation, but there have been tentative signs of life. Pending home sales rose 3.2% nationally in April, the second month of increases after a record low in January.

John Burns Real Estate Consulting in February identified Phoenix as "the most unique market in the nation," where affordability was better than at any time since 1981 and buying a house was once again cheaper than renting.

It should be an interesting summer as waves of new foreclosures battle waves of new buying interest from a bargain hunting public that is still fearful of more job losses.

This post can also be found on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Is The Obama Administration Covering Up What Really Happened In Treasury Meeting?

One watchdog group is accusing President Obama's administration of covering up what really went down during the major Treasury meeting that ended with 9 major banks selling equity stakes in their companies to the government for $250 billion. The Treasury originally stated that it had no documentation from the meeting, however, some documents were later obtained. The watchdog group insists some documents — potentially implicating current Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner — are being withheld. Who knows what is true and not in all this, but it will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out. For more details about the meeting, along with what the watchdog group thinks happened, read the following article from Money Morning.

Despite promises of open government, the Obama administration tried to “cover up the very existence of smoking-gun documents” prepared for a meeting in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson allegedly coerced major banks to allow the government to take equity stakes, according to conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch said the Treasury initially said it had no records about the meeting. It didn’t release a transcript of discussions between government officials and bankers.

However, documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that Paulson and other Treasury officials gave nine major banks no options other than allowing the government to take $250 billion in equity.

Judicial Watch said on its Web site that after it made inquiries, the Treasury insisted on Feb. 4 it had no documents about the historic meeting.

Furthermore, “the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

The group says suggested edits of the “talking points” for the meeting by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve are being withheld by the Obama administration.

Saying the nine U.S. banks were “central to any solution” of the credit crisis, Paulson told their leaders in the meeting in Washington on October 13, 2008, to take the government aid voluntarily or be forced to by regulators.

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed,” the document said, citing Paulson talking points. “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

Within four hours of the start of the meeting the CEOs wrote by hand the names of their institution and multibillion dollar amounts of “preferred shares” to be issued to the government, the documents show.

“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector,” Fitton said in a statement.

The banks were represented by Vikram Pandit of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), John Thain of Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of BofA, Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), John Mack of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Robert Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon Corp (NYSE: BK), and Ronald Logue of State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT).

A spokesman for the Treasury, Andrew Williams, didn’t return calls seeking comment from Bloomberg News.

The Treasury has invested $199.1 billion in the bank-preferred share program, with $1.2 billion since returned by 12 institutions, according to government data, Bloomberg reported.

Despite his heavy-handed nature, Paulson succeeded at stabilizing the financial services industry, J.P. O’Sullivan, an SNL Financial bank analyst in Charlottesville, Va., told Bloomberg.

“It was a calming mechanism,” O’Sullivan said.

This isn’t the first time Paulson has been accused of strong-arming bankers to bend to his will.

As previously reported in Money Morning, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis said in testimony before New York’s attorney general that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke pressured him not only to move ahead with a merger with Merrill Lynch despite reservations, but also to stay quiet about the mounting losses at the crumbling investment bank.

Lewis went on to testify that he felt Paulson threatened him with losing his job if he didn’t go along with completing the Merrill Lynch deal.

“I can’t recall if he said, ‘We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]‘ or if he said ‘we would do it if you intended to.’ I don’t remember which one it was,” Mr. Lewis said.

This article can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

New York Post Writer Goes Off On Greenspan And NAR

As we talked about a couple of days ago, Greenspan's speech for NAR was obviously biased, and no weight whatsoever should be given to what came out of Greenspan's mouth. That being said, it is disturbing to see the depths that NAR has fallen to — as well as Greenspan. This display was so ugly that a writer from the New York Post had to publicly condem it. Tim Iacono looks at this writer's article — and adds some input of his own — in the blog post below.

John Crudele of the New York Post goes off on both the National Association of Realtors and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan in this commentary from yesterday.

WHO the hell would be stupid enough to pay to hear Alan Greenspan's opinion of anything!

Notice, that isn't a question because I already know the answer. Rather, it's a statement with one of those exclamation points to show that my voice is being raised in a mix of bewilderment and anger.

The National Association of Realtors, which is probably suffering from combat fatigue, asked the former Federal Reserve chairman and the chief suspect in the destruction of the US economy, to address its Washington conference Tuesday and tell real estate people what they want to hear -- that things are getting better.

So Greenspan did just that.

Did anyone see the video clip of this speech that CNBC had up yesterday? I watched about the first minute or so and began feeling nauseous.

Apparently, so did Mr. Crudele...

"We are finally beginning to see the seeds of a bottoming" in the housing industry, Greenspan told the gathering. Adding, according to Bloomberg News, that the US is "at the edge of a major liquidation" in the stock of unsold houses.

Applause, applause. Here's your check, Alan.

I figured it was worth knowing how much Greenspan gets these days for defending his own indefensible actions at the Fed while also trying to pull the wool over the eyes of would-be homeowners.

So I asked someone named Lucien Salvant, managing director of the NAR's public affairs department.

His answer in an e-mail: "None of your business. How much is the NY Post paying you to ask that question?" Whoa! Calm down, Lucien.

It gets a little ugly from there, the NAR rightly accused of "shoveling crap to the press" which gets passed along to unsuspecting potential home buyers all for the greater good of the real estate profession.

And, of course, there's another litany of errant predictions from the Maestro.

This is just sad in so many ways - like two zombies embracing each other.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

NAR Calling For Expansion Of First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is pushing lawmakers — yet again — to expand the first-time homebuyer tax credit. NAR hopes that lawmakers will make the tax credit available to everyone, rather than just first-time homebuyers — among other things. For more on this, read the following article from HousingWire.

NAR today called for expansion of the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit to include all home buyers at all income levels.

The push for a broadened tax credit comes after US Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary Shaun Donovan announced home buyers pursuing Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages may soon use the tax credit as a down payment at the closing table.

An expanded tax credit, combined with HUD’s initiative to make the credit available at the closing table for down payment purposes — called ‘monetization’ of the tax credit in the industry — would make federal assistance available to anyone pursuing a government-insured mortgage.

NAR, from its legislative summit this week, also urged Congress to make the ‘08 loan limit increase formula and loan limit caps permanent, and to “fortify” mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.7867 +2.17%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.8166 +2.08%) to ensure the continued availability of capital for mortgage lenders.

“Housing is the engine of economic growth, and real estate is the road to economic recovery,” says Charles McMillan, NAR president and Dallas-based broker, in a statement today. “With many of the country’s current problems resting on a wobbly foundation of declining home prices, rampant foreclosures and increasing job loss, our members will be asking Congress to pass further legislation that moves the housing market forward.”

This article can also be viewed on housingwire.com.

Could Legalizing Marijuana Help Solve California's Budget Problems?

The budget problems in California are well known across the nation, but one desperate idea to help balance the budget is sure to meet opposition from the rest of the country. California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has apparently requested a full debate on the legalization of marijuana. The benefit — of course — to California if marijuana is legalized is that they can tax sales of the substance. According to a recent public opinion poll of California voters, a majority favor legalization of marijuana. Perhaps citizens feel that compared to the other budget cuts — and new taxes — on the table to shrink the deficit, legalizing marijuana might not be so bad. For more on the situation in California, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

It appears as though we'll be getting out of the Golden State in the nick of time as the fallout from the likely rejection by voters of most May 19th ballot initiatives is set to make things a whole lot worse for California's budget.

The Sacramento Bee reports on the relentless deterioration in the state's finances since the last budget bill was passed a few months back, one that really just forestalled the inevitable.

California's projected budget deficit has grown as large as $21.3 billion through next June because of a sharp economic decline, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disclosed Monday in a letter to legislative leaders.

The latest projection means lawmakers will have to negotiate deep spending cuts in education, corrections and welfare as well as consider borrowing and new fees or taxes.

The announcement comes less than three months after the Legislature and the governor closed $34 billion of a then $40 billion state budget deficit with tax hikes and spending cuts and asked voters to eliminate the rest in next week's special election.

These "new" estimates will probably turn out to be just as overly optimistic as every previous forecast and once again, the state of California is blazing a trail for the rest of the country, this time on the road to insolvency.

There is more than a little irony in the Gubernator being voted into office some six years ago when his predecessor had similar problems that, in retrospect, look like a walk in the park by comparison, unless of course another housing bubble is in the offing.

New plans are being prepared to close the new budget gaps.

The governor did not disclose his solutions Monday. But he warned groups last week he will consider borrowing $2 billion from cities and counties, releasing low-level offenders in state prisons and reducing school funding by $3.6 billion. The state also could eliminate its planned $2 billion reserve.

"It's well beyond triage," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "We're talking about painful and difficult decisions. You can't just finesse your way through $15 billion or $21 billion."

It's odd how $15 billion or $20 billion really doesn't sound like a lot of money anymore...

Here's one way the state might be able to generate new revenue. After having been talked about for some time now, momentum is building to somehow find a way to tax marijuana (presumably, after legalizing it) as reported by the U.K. Guardian.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has never apologized for smoking pot – and loving it — at the height of his bodybuilding career in the 1970s. Now, as a struggling Republican governor of California reaching a crossroads in his political career, he might yet become America's most visible advocate for legalizing marijuana.

The actor-turned-politician gladdened the heart of every joint-roller and dope fiend across the Golden State earlier this week when he said it was time for a full debate on legalization.

Schwarzenegger was careful not to say too much – he stopped short of saying he was in favor of legalizing cannabis now – but his words broke a long-standing taboo among both Republicans and Democrats who have previously felt obliged to say marijuana must remain illegal, and marijuana users and pushers be subject to criminal prosecution.

The governor spoke in response to a new public opinion poll showing that 56% of registered voters in California favor legalizing and taxing marijuana – in part to help the state out of the worst budget crisis in its history.

If they ever do such a thing, this California trend is likely to meet with some resistance in many other parts of the country.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

European Banks Offer Another Potential Problem

Here in the U.S. we just finished the widely publicized "stress tests," which showed us a great deal of capital shortfalls with the major banks. This was more or less to be expected, but what is getting less press here at home are the potential problems over in Europe. Many people had mistakenly thought Europe was buffered from the financial problems being experienced in the U.S., but the more we look into it the more we see that is not the case. Many European banks were exposed to the same products and other issues that brought down the U.S. financial system, and the struggles these European banks are facing could bring down the global financial system even further. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

Now that the results of the U.S. bank stress tests are finally in the books, the extent of the capital shortfalls are known and – in many cases – are actually being addressed.

But there’s now another problem looming – one that could ultimately weigh down the global financial system.

The problem: Europe’s banks.

As economies slow in other parts of the world, rising joblessness and plunging housing prices and escalating loan losses are putting banks under pressure. That’s especially true in Europe, where consumers and companies are continuing to run into trouble.

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (NYSE ADR: RBS), now 70% state-owned, fell to a loss in the first quarter and wrote down $3.17 billion in risky assets after its bad debts quadrupled to $4.37 billion.

Bank executives "[expect] a slowdown in financial-market activity compared with the very buoyant conditions seen in Q1," Chief Executive Officer Stephen Hester told Reuters.

In Germany, Commerzbank AG (OTC ADR: CRZBY) had to take a $1.61 billion charge from its investment bank and a $72.38 million charge from commercial real estate initiatives, resulting in a $1.2 billion loss for the quarter.

In late December, the Institute of International Finance released its global economic outlook for 2009, and estimated that banks around the world had collectively lost nearly $1 trillion – $678 billion from U.S. banks and $300 billion from their European counterparts.

That was in December. We know it got worse – a lot worse – for U.S. banks after that point. Thanks to a mix that included lots of government bailout and an injection of new capital from investors, U.S. banks have experienced an improvement in their outlook.

Indeed, U.S. Federal Researve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke stated that the banks tested are all solvent and the results should provide "considerable comfort about the health of the banking system.”

But in the five months since that Institute of International Finance report was issued, it’s likely that European banks have experienced a major decline in their fortunes.

Last week’s release of the bank stress tests results removed significant uncertainty about the U.S. banks, since it created a blueprint of what the troubled institutions needed to do to stabilize their finances. Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) have announced plans to raise an aggregate $15 billion in capital. Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) plans to sell assets and issue more common stock after being told by the federal government that it must raise $33.9 billion to adequately guard against “more adverse” economic conditions.

Bank of America was one of 10 banks told by the government to raise more capital following the so-called stress test. The government concluded that BofA faces a potential $136.6 billion in losses from troubled loans and investments in 2009 and 2010. The bank’s $34 billion capital shortfall was more than twice that of Wells Fargo, which had the second greatest capital need.
Are we destined to see this all play out now in Europe?

Market Matters

Shifting back to autos, General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) lost $6 billion in the first quarter and is shopping Saturn to Renault SA of France as it moves closer to its restructuring deadline (and potential bankruptcy). China’s Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd. (PINK: GELYF) has interest in GM’s Saab unit, and Fiat SpA (OTC ADR: FIATY) may look to complement its Chrysler LLC line with the German Opel (also late of GM). Meanwhile, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) claims to be on track with its restructuring plan and still believes it can manage just fine without any government assistance. On the earnings’ front, The Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS) and Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE: KFT) bested estimates, while Cisco offered some mixed results as its better than expected numbers actually prompted some profit-taking among techs.

A poorly received 30-year Treasury auction sent bond prices tumbling as fixed income investors focused on the massive programs the government will need to finance over the next few years. Oil prices surged above $58 a barrel for the first time in six months as traders seemingly failed to consider rising inventory levels and instead bought on signs (feeble as they are) of an economic recovery that would lead to enhanced energy demand.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index pushed beyond the crucial 900 level and ended the week in positive territory for the year. Techs struggled late as investors realized any economic rebound would not translate into capital expenditures overnight. Still, the Nasdaq Composite Index has outperformed the other indexes on a year-to-date basis. With stress tests out of the way, where will the next leaks come from?

Market/ Index	Year Close (2008)	Qtr Close (03/31/09)	Previous Week (05/01/09)	Current Week (05/08/09)	YTD Change
Dow Jones Industrial	8,776.39	7,608.92	8,212.41	8,574.65	-2.30%
NASDAQ	1,577.03	1,528.59	1,719.20	1,739.00	+10.27%
S&P 500	903.25	797.87	877.52	929.23	+2.88%
Russell 2000	499.45	422.75	486.98	511.82	+2.48%
Fed Funds	0.25%	0.25%	0.25%	0.25%	0 bps
10 yr Treasury (Yield)	2.24%	2.68%	3.17%	3.29%	+105 bps

Economically Speaking

U.S. retailers released same-store sales data for April and the results were actually quite promising. As usual, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) led the charge with a 5% increase in activity, while Children’s Place Retail Stores Inc. (Nasdaq: PLCE), Stage Stores Inc. (NYSE: SSI), Gap Inc. (NYSE: GPS), and The TJX Cos. Inc. (NYSE: TJX) were among those stores that posted better-than-expected results and beat analysts’ expectations. A late-Easter holiday (April instead of March) helped many retailers as consumers waited until the last minute (as has become the norm) for their related holiday shopping.

On the global front, the European Central Bank dropped its key lending rate by 25 bps to 1%, and initiated other monetary moves to stabilize its (16-country) economy. Likewise, the Bank of England announced a plan to buy up government and corporate bonds, thus, increasing its money supply.

Speaking of the labor market, the U.S. unemployment rate climbed in April to 8.9%; however, only 539,000 jobs were lost from the economy. The contraction represented the smallest in six months and was below most analysts’ expectations. Still, since December 2007, about 5.7 million domestic jobs have disappeared and businesses continue to be slow to hire until they see additional signs of greater stability in the economy.

Construction spending climbed in March after five consecutive monthly declines, though the gains were attributed to non-residential activity and the housing sector remains sluggish at best. In more promising news, the National Association of Realtors reported a 3.2% increase in pending homes sales, the second straight monthly gain. Because the release is considered a predictive indicator, analysts took it as a favorable sign that sales activity may pick up in the months ahead.

This article can also be found on moneymorning.com.

Job Loss Report Beats Expectations Thanks To Government Jobs

For the first time in a long time, job loss numbers came in better than expected. A large part of this is thanks to a huge run up in government jobs as the country prepares for the upcoming census. That being said we still saw over 500,000 jobs lost in April, and the unemployment rate went up to 8.9 percent for the nation. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

The Labor Department reported that fewer jobs were lost in April than in any month since last October, but that the unemployment rate continues to rise sharply, an indication that laid off workers are finding it increasingly difficult to find new employment.
Nonfarm payrolls fell 539,000 in April after losses of 681,000 in February and 699,000 in March. Total revisions for the two prior months were -66,000 as the February and March data were revised downward from 651,000 and 663,000, respectively.

Over the last six months, a total of 3.9 million jobs have been lost and, since the recession began in December of 2007, the U.S. economy has shed 5.7 million jobs.

The jobless rate jumped from 8.5 percent in March to 8.9 percent in April, reaching its highest level since the September 1983 mark of 9.2 percent and the total number of unemployed now stands at 13.7 million, up from 13.2 million in March. The post-WWII high for unemployment came in December of 1982 at 10.8 percent.

If laid off workers who have stopped looking for a job are included in the unemployment figure along with those currently employed but settling for part-time work, the jobless rate would have been 15.8 percent, a 15-year high.

While job losses may have peaked with January's decline of 741,000 (though, next year's benchmark revisions to the payrolls data could radically change this), the jobless rate is likely to continue higher until the economy begins to improve and companies are more willing to hire.

One part of the economy that was hiring last month was the government where total payrolls rose by 72,000. This was driven by a the addition of some 140,000 temporary workers that will begin work on the 2010 census. A total of 1.4 million workers will be hired over the next year to conduct the population count that happens every ten years.

Elsewhere, job losses continued, but at a slightly slower pace than in previous months, manufacturing leading the way down with a decline of 149,000 and the trade, transportation, and utilities category not far behind at minus 126,000.
The birth-death model added a total of 226,000 jobs in April, a new high for the year.

Since this data is used to adjust the raw totals prior to seasonal adjustments, you can't just subtract it from the headline seasonally adjusted data to determine its impact, but it is important to note that the entire 65,000 increase in professional and business services payrolls (which was then seasonally adjusted to -122,000) was contributed by the birth death model - it's hard to imagine that there were so many new businesses formed in April.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Obama Pushes For $17 Billion In Budget Cuts...That's It?

In what seems like joke, President Obama has sent lawmakers a proposal that aims to cut over a hundred programs, and save us $17 billion. When you look at the fact our deficit this year will be a projected $1.85 trillion, you can start to see that $17 billion in cuts is next to nothing. It's almost as if Obama is simply trying to appear like he is making an effort to trim spending. The worst part is that it appears Obama will be fought tooth and nail to get these cuts through. If he can't manage to get $17 billion cut off the budget, what hope does this country really have forbalanced budget? For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

President Barack Obama sent lawmakers a budget package today (Thursday) that proposes to shrink or eliminate 121 federal programs and save almost $17 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But the budget plan contains cuts that will face vigorous opposition in Congress and fierce resistance from special interest groups.

The package of proposed reductions fills in the fine print of a $3.55 trillion budget outline approved by lawmakers in April that contains Obama’s top agenda items, including a health care overhaul, a push for renewable, clean-energy sources and changes in education funding.

The President wants to cut or end a number of programs that he feels are wasteful or ineffective to take the first toward getting spending under control. But the administration’s attempt at bringing fiscal discipline to Washington has already been met with skepticism by analysts.

“Every government program - no matter how wasteful - will be defended by its recipients and congressional champions,” Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based research group told Bloomberg News. “Unless Obama puts the weight of the White House behind his spending cuts, Congress will ignore them.”

The cuts are miniscule compared to the overall budget package and deficits that will be ushered in the next few years. The $787 billion stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress combined with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bank bailout will come on top of the $1 trillion deficit the administration inherited when he took office in January.

Total savings from the cuts, even if they were accepted by Congress in their entirety, would represent a paltry 0.4% of the overall budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $1.85 trillion this year, about four times the previous record, and $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010.

“Even if you got all of those things, it would be saving pennies, not dollars. And you’re not going to begin to get all of them,” Isabel Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who waged her own battles with Congress as a senior official in the Clinton White House budget office, told the Washington Post. “This is a good government exercise without much prospect of putting a significant dent in spending.”

Only about 80 of the proposed cuts are new - the others had been previously revealed. And most of the cuts will be from the “discretionary” budget, avoiding the so-called untouchable “third-rail” entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs account for more than 40% of government spending, meaning the more difficult work on deficit reductions has been left for another day.
“More serious efforts at deficit reduction are going to require entitlement and tax reform - that’s where most of the money is.” Marc Goldwein, policy director of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, a Washington-based research group, told Bloomberg. “To really get the deficit under control, we’re going to have to start thinking bigger,” he said.

But some in Congress defended the administration’s approach, saying the list of program reductions is just the start of a more comprehensive effort to cut spending and pull the reins on the skyrocketing deficit.

“It depends on what it means over the scope of five and 10 years.” Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) told Bloomberg. It’s a “deep, cavernous hole where we have been left, we’re looking a long way up but it’s a steady climb” using the budget plan agreed to by Obama and Congress, he said.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

Economy Rebounding: Truth Or Lies?

We certainly are hearing a lot of positive economic press lately, but is this really the truth, or is the government and media simply putting a positive spin on it? Tim Iacono looks at a recent article that talks about several of the recent positive announcements, and then shows us the opposite end of the spectrum with a satiric piece in his blog post below.

We will find out soon enough - say, by the end of summer - whether headline writers in the mainstream financial media or those working at The Onion are correct in their assessment of the state of the U.S. economy. Here's an example of the former that appeared on the front page of Yahoo! yesterday for a few hours.
That SOLD sign is a compelling image for anyone thinking about the future. prices have been and continue to be at the center of our problems and their is near universal agreement that the economy won't improve until the housing market improves.

Just how does the story behind this compelling image figure that's happening?

Prepare to be underwhelmed.

8 Signs of Hope for the Economy
Are we on the brink of a rebound, or is it a false spring? Fortune looks at the evidence for an imminent recovery.

Is the economy looking up, or at least bottoming out? Lately there has been much talk about "glimmers of hope," in President Obama's words, and "green shoots," a phrase du jour used by the likes of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Meanwhile, many economists have warned about a false spring, pointing to numbers that are still getting worse, like the unemployment rate. Fortune takes a closer look at the upbeat news to assess whether how strong a case they make for an imminent recovery.

1. Housing Starts
The government reported that the overall number of housing starts fell in March, but those for single-family homes during the month came in unchanged from the February figure of 358,000.

IHS Global Insight noted that this suggests single-family home construction may be stabilizing and is "testing the bottom."

2. The Stock Market
The S&P 500 was up 9.4% in April, its biggest monthly rally since March 2000. The Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index ended the month at 8,962.96, up 849.85, or 10.48%. This is the best monthly return since December 1991, when the index was up 10.72%.

"The initiatives of the federal government and some of the improvements in the credit markets are making investors more confident," said Thomas Cowhey, chief investment strategist at Hirtle Callaghan.

3. Consumer Confidence
Preliminary figures for the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index showed a jump of more than 12 points during April, to 39.2. The reading, which measures consumer views on the economy, beat analyst expectations and was the highest so far in 2009.

Lynn Franco, director of the organization's research center, attributed the rise in confidence to "significant improvement in the short-term outlook."

4. Single-Family Home Prices
The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices showed that while 20-city and 10-city Composite Home Price figures declined through February 2009 (down 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively, from a year ago), for the first time in 16 months the annual decline did not set a new record.

While it signals that the market may be showing some stabilization, or at least what Chairman of the Index Committee David Blitzer called "deceleration in the rate of decline," Blitzer warned that we "need a few more months of data before we can determine if home prices are finally turning around."

Meanwhile, the Pending Home Sales Index rose for the second straight month in March and was up more than 1% over the year-ago figure. The index from the National Association of Realtors (NAR) increased 3.2% during the month, to 84.6%.

"This increase could be the leading edge of first-time buyers responding to very favorable affordability conditions and an $8,000 tax credit," wrote Lawrence Yun, the NAR chief economist.

They go on to talk about earnings, jobless claims, new orders, and credit markets arriving at no real conclusion other than the one stated in the title.

It really is hard to be swayed by stabilization in housing starts at current levels as new home construction is at such freakishly low levels, some 25 percent below the all-time population-adjusted low of 1980.

As for the stock market predicting the recovery, an important related statistic might be something like, during the Great Depression, the stock market predicted 5 of the first zero recoveries (i.e., huge bear market rallies failed to produce an "economic" recovery).

Consumer confidence rebounding from all-time lows going back more than 40 years is a good thing, but by no means sufficient for a sustainable rebound, and annual home price declines that did not set a new record for the first time in 16 months is only an indication that the rate of change in home prices is improving - from an annual rate of -34 percent to -26 percent.

Quoting the Chief Economist at the National Association of Realtors harkens back to 2005.

Haven't we learned anything in the past four years.

No, the nation's leading satirical newspaper probably has it right in their take on things.

Nation Ready To Be Lied To About Economy Again
WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.

Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.
In addition, citizens are requesting that the phrase, "It will only get worse before it gets better," be permanently replaced with, "Things are going great. Enjoy yourselves."

"I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up."

"From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear," Pletcher added. "Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we're No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face."

Nathan Pletcher probably speaks for millions of Americans.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Bank Demolishes Foreclosed Homes In Victorville

You know things are bad when it makes more sense for banks to demolish foreclosed homes than to keep them. In the case of the Texas bank who destroyed 16 homes in Victorville California, the homes were not yet finished, but the loss the bank is taking on these has to be outrageous regardless. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

The story about a Texas bank deciding to demolishing foreclosed homes in California was everywhere yesterday, but it shouldn't be that surprising - they needed a lot of work.

When they start bulldozing finished houses into the ground because they just can't sell them, then that will be real news.

Some details are provided in this report at the Wall Street Journal:

A Texas bank is about done demolishing 16 new and partially built houses acquired in Southern California through foreclosure, figuring it was better to knock them down than to try selling them in the depressed housing market.

Guaranty Bank of Austin is wrecking the structures to provide a "safe environment" for neighbors of the abandoned housing tract in Victorville, a high-desert city about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles, a bank spokesman said.

Victorville city officials said the bank told them the cost of finishing the development would exceed what they could sell the homes for.

The bank also faced escalating city fines as vandals and squatters took over the sprawling housing project, leaving behind graffiti and drug paraphernalia, city officials said.

"It's unfortunate," said George Duran, the city's code-enforcement manager. "We would have hoped for these houses to be finished. But it's up to the owner to see what is best for them."

We've driven through that area many times on the way from Southern California to Las Vegas, a few times when the bubble was at its peak, and almost every time we wondered why anyone would ever pay $300,000 or more to live in Victorville.

There's also a related story in the LA Times.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Job Loss Numbers May Come In Better Than Expected

Continuing the trend of remotely positive news, it looks like April's job loss numbers could potentially come in a little better than expected. That being said we are still looking at a half a million more people out of work — that number just isn't as bad as prior months. For more on this, read the following post from Kathy Lien.

Speculation that Bank of America may need $34 billion of capital has triggered fresh concern about the results of the stress tests on banks, which are due for release on Thursday. However despite these fears, there is growing evidence that job losses may have tempered with non-farm payrolls likely to see the smallest decline in 6 months. The 4 week moving average of jobless claims have moderated and yesterday, there was an impressive rebound in the employment component of service sector ISM.

This morning, Challenger Gray & Christmas reported the smallest increase in layoffs since September. According to payroll agency ADP, private sector payrolls declined by -491k last month, the smallest increase since October. Although the ADP report has been a poor predictor of non-farm payrolls, it has been relatively reliable directionally and therefore confirms our suspicion that payrolls declined by less than 600k last month.

source: Bloomberg

Yet we still expect the U.S. economy to have lost at least 1/2 million jobs in April and for the unemployment rate to hit a 25 year high. This is indicative of weakness from nearly all perspectives, but it is a start because companies need to slow firing before they can even consider hiring. This is a step in the right direction towards a labor market recovery and why I believe the dollar will trade lower against the higher yielding currencies today.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Expectations Of A Dollar Collapse

So far — despite the huge run up in U.S. debt — the U.S. dollar has held strong during the financial crisis, however, Andy Xie expects a major collapse to come. He feels that pressures from China, and an overall loss of faith in the U.S. financial policy, will destroy the greenback. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Andy Xie expects the dollar to collapse:

If China loses faith the dollar will collapse, by Andy Xie, Commentary, Financial Times: Emerging economies such as China and Russia are calling for alternatives to the dollar as a reserve currency. The trigger is the Federal Reserve’s liberal policy of expanding the money supply to prop up America’s banking system and its over-indebted households. ...[T]he Fed may be forced into printing dollars massively, which would eventually trigger high inflation or even hyper-inflation and cause great damage to countries that hold dollar assets in their foreign exchange reserves.

The chatter over alternatives to the dollar mainly reflects the unhappiness with US monetary policy among the emerging economies that have amassed nearly $10,000bn in foreign exchange reserves, mostly in dollar assets. ...[T]he US situation is unique: it borrows in its own currency, and the dollar is the world’s dominant reserve currency. The US can disregard its creditors’ concerns for the time being without worrying about a dollar collapse. ...

The faith of the Chinese in America’s power and responsibility, and the petrodollar holdings of the gulf countries that depend on US military protection, are the twin props for the dollar’s global status. Ethnic Chinese ... may account for half of the foreign holdings of dollar assets. ...

The US could repair its balance sheet through asset sales and fiscal transfers instead of just printing money. ... The country’s vast and unexplored natural resource holdings could be auctioned off. Americans may view these ideas as unthinkable. It is hard to imagine that a superpower needs to sell the family silver to stay solvent. Hence, printing money seems a less painful way out. ...

Other currencies are not safe havens either. ... Central banks are punishing savers to redeem the sins of debtors and speculators. Unfortunately, ethnic Chinese are the biggest savers.

Diluting Chinese savings to bail out America’s failing banks and bankrupt households, though highly beneficial to the US national interest in the short term, will destroy the dollar’s global status. Ethnic Chinese demand for the dollar has been waning already. ...

America’s policy is pushing China towards developing an alternative financial system. ... Its recent decision to turn Shanghai into a financial centre by 2020 reflects China’s anxiety over relying on the dollar system. The year 2020 seems remote... However, if global stagflation takes hold, as I expect it to, it will force China to accelerate its reforms to float its currency and create a single, independent and market-based financial system. When that happens, the dollar will collapse.

Barry Eichengreen explains why using SDRs as a reserve currency, as has been suggested by the governor of the People's Bank of China, is not as easy as it might seem:

Commercialize the SDR now, by Barry Eichengreen, Commentary, Project Syndicate: Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, made a splash prior to the recent G-20 summit by arguing that the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights should replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. ...

Sympathizers acknowledged the contradictions... Central banks understandably seek more reserves as their economies grow. But if those reserves mainly take the form of dollars, then their rising demand allows the United States to finance its external deficit at an artificially low cost. In turn, this allows unsustainable imbalances to build up, leading to an inevitable crash. ...

But skeptics question whether the SDR could ever replace the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency, for the simple reason that the SDR is not a currency. It is a composite accounting unit in which the IMF issues credits to its members. Those credits ... cannot be used in the other transactions in which central banks and governments engage. ... This means that the SDR is not an attractive unit for official reserves.

This would not be easy to change. Despite the trials and tribulations of the American economy, dollar securities remain the dominant form of reserves because of the unparalleled depth and liquidity of US markets. Central banks can buy and sell dollar securities without moving those markets. There is also the convenience factor: dollars are widely used in a variety of other transactions. As a result, not even the euro has seriously challenged the dollar as the dominant reserve currency. ...

If China is serious about elevating the SDR to reserve-currency status, it should take steps to create a liquid market in SDR claims. It could issue its own SDR-denominated bonds. ... Of course, an earlier attempt was made to create a commercial market in SDR-denominated claims ... in the 1970’s... But these efforts ultimately went nowhere. The dollar being more liquid, its first-mover advantage proved impossible to surmount.

Overcoming that advantage now would require someone to act as market-maker ... and subsidise the market in its start-up phase. The obvious someone is the IMF. The Fund could stand ready to buy and sell SDR claims to all comers, ... at narrow bid/ask spreads competitive with those for dollars. ...

Transforming the SDR into a true international currency would require surmounting other obstacles. The IMF would have to be able to issue additional SDRs in periods of shortage... The IMF’s management would also have to be empowered to decide on SDR issuance, just as the Fed can decide to offer currency swaps. For the SDR to become a true international currency, in other words, the IMF would have to become more like a global central bank and international lender of last resort.

For worries about inflation, see Inflation Nation by Alan Meltzer (and also see Krugman's response, A History Lesson for Alan Meltzer).

[Note: A lot of people have noted the apparent contradiction in the concern from Krugman over deflation, and from Meltzer over inflation, e.g. Mankiw for one, but here's an example of this from Mankiw's colleague, Martin Feldstein, within the same article. It's simply a short-run, long-run distinction.]

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

How Is The Economic Medicine Working?

The government has been injecting trillions of dollars into the economy, but how has it been working so far? James Picerno looks at recent events and attempts to answer that question in his blog post below. In addition Picerno takes a look at what lies ahead for the U.S. economy, and offers some words of wisdom for investors.

In late-March, we asked: Is the medicine working? By medicine we meant the massive injection of liquidity into the economy as a cure for fending off deflation and laying the groundwork for recovery. At the time, we were mildly encouraged, in part due to the rising inflation forecast as derived from the spread between the nominal and inflation-indexed 10-year Treasuries.

More than a month later, there's still reason for optimism, perhaps more so, thanks to the so-called green shoots that suggest better days ahead. Yet the rate spread, which is to say the market's inflation outlook, hasn't changed much since late-March. The current forecast is for inflation of 1.4% for the next 10 years, just barely up from around 1.3% from the end of the first quarter. In both cases, that's a healthy change from expecting flat pricing, as was the case at the end of 2008. Low inflation as far as the eye can see would be nice, but is that a reasonable expectation?

In the months ahead there will be a thin line between a healthy rise in inflation expectations and the potential for burdensome pricing pressures later on. Deflation is a hazard to be avoided for a number of reasons. Although we can't quite shut the book on the danger, the odds look increasingly in favor of mild inflation for the foreseeable future, as the chart above suggests. Behind this reasoning is the growing sentiment that the recession is at or near a bottom. Is it time for the Fed to begin tightening? Or are the green shoots still too tentative?

"We're seeing more indications of perhaps a bottoming in the economy," Bill O'Neill of LOGIC Advisors tells Dow Jones. "So there is an increasing—and it will continue to increase—concern surrounding inflation potential."

Gold, the perennial inflation hedge, seems to be considering the possibility, although this market hasn't quite made up its mind. The price of the metal has been hovering around $900 for much of this year, just below its all-time high of $1,033, set back in March 2008. The 10-year Treasury yield, meanwhile, has been climbing, recently bumping up against 3.2% on renewed worries that inflation may now be the bigger risk. Even so, a 10-year yield of 3.2% is still quite low.

None of the inflation anxiety is worrying the stock market, which has now reversed the selloff in the first quarter. Indeed, the S&P 500 is now marginally up on the year, as of last night's close, on expectations that by the end of this year the economy will be sitting up and prepared to get out of bed.

The big question is whether all the renewed hope that the worst is over is really just the byproduct of a bear market bounce in markets and inflation expectations? Given the extreme waves of selling last year and into March, a rebound was all but assured if the world economy didn't collapse. As we now know, it didn't. There are still lots of problems, but we'll all be here next year and so it was time to reprice assets upwards to reflect a humbled but otherwise enduring economic climate.

Investors have cheered the signs that the U.S. economy no longer seems to be contracting at an accelerating pace. Given the fears of what could have happened, that's certainly a reasonable response. Deciding that you're not going to fall into the abyss is always encouraging. But that's still a long way from arguing that growth is imminent, or that the economy won't tread water for a year or two.

The first phase of the post-apocalyptic visions that prevailed six months ago may be over. If so, now we're faced with the more difficult chore of deciding how to repair and rebuild the economy to foster growth while containing inflation. The hardest days are yet to come. Unless you're expecting a seamless transition, keeping some cash at the ready still makes sense, albeit less so than in past months. Volatility isn't banished, it's only hibernating, which suggests another round of value-oriented pricing opportunities in the major asset classes.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Fed Delays Release Of Bank Stress Test Results

The Federal Reserve has decided to delay the release of results from its recent stress test on banks. It appears that the Fed is trying to limit damage to the banks who will appear weak based on the results, and allow them more time to figure out how they will raise the necessary funds. It will no doubt be interesting to see how investors react to the information provided by the stress test. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

The results of the bank stress tests are in, but instead of releasing them today (Monday), the U.S. Federal Reserve is holding them close to its chest until after the markets close Thursday.

The amount of information awaiting disclosure seems to have grown, as have the reasons to postpone the potentially damaging data.

Not only will the government unveil which banks require more capital, it will also disclose potential loss estimates for certain loan categories and the banks’ ability to “absorb those losses” assuming economic conditions worsen through 2010, a government official told The Wall Street Journal.

Negative results could deal a huge blow to both the banks and government, as a sub-par grade may be viewed as an indictment not only of the failed management of the banks, but the government’s decision to loan them billions of taxpayer money. The banks also are concerned that anything but a tactful release of the results will cause internal and investor panic.

Government and banking industry officials told Bloomberg that both sides needed the extra time to debate preliminary results, as well as plans regarding how banks can recover capital.

On April 24, the government showed the tests’ preliminary results to the 19 U.S. firms it reviewed – from behemoth banks like Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) to the smaller GMAC LLC (NYSE: GMA) and MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET). The banks involved in the stress tests hold more than half the loans in the U.S. banking system and two-thirds of the assets.

“Everybody understands they’ve got a tiger by the tail here,” Mark Tenhundfeld, a senior vice president at the American Bankers’ Association in Washington, told Bloomberg. “If they don’t let him go gently, there will be a lot of mauling going on.”

Already, reports have leaked that two specific banks need more capital, and reaction hasn’t been pleasant.

After showing Bank of America and Citigroup test results, the government told the banks to raise more capital despite receiving a combined total of $95 billion in bailout loans.

At least three more banks need more capital, either from converting common shares to equity and/or receiving more government cash, sources told Bloomberg.

Sensing blowback from Congress, as well as the public, Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that banks requiring more capital will have to attempt to raise it on their own before receiving another lifeline loan from the government.

Confusion On Evaluation’s Methodology

Debate over the results isn’t the only reason for the postponement. Disputes and confusion over the Fed’s methodology has also erupted.

According to a Fed’s test criterion, common shareholder equity should be the “dominant” portion of Tier 1 capital. Officials favor tangible common equity of about 4% of a bank’s assets and Tier 1 capital worth hovering around 6%.

But The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some bank executives got mixed signals during a meeting with regulators.

The regulators are asking “a million questions” and it’s “very unclear what they’re aiming at,” a senior executive told The Journal. “We can’t discern a pattern.”

Citigroup officials argued that regulators haven’t given the bank enough credit for its efforts to offload large asset chunks, such as Smith Barney and its Japanese brokerage arm Nikko Cordial Securities.

On Friday, Citigroup agreed to sell Nikko Cordial Securities, its Japanese brokerage arm to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (OTC: SMFJY) for about $5.5 billion. The deal, which is to be completed by Oct. 1, also includes a transfer of about $2 billion in excess cash from Nikko Cordial to Citigroup.

The deal will boost the bank’s Tier-1 capital ratio by approximately 27 basis points.

Individual Result Releases

One insider told Reuters that the government is leaning toward releasing individual results for each bank involved in the stress test – a move away from issuing a summary of results.

The source said the plan “is not very far along,” and that regulators also aim to disclose a lot of confidential supervisory information about the banks.

One analyst says that test results could be so specific to a bank’s portfolio that it’s not wise to use them as a litmus test for the overall health of the banking sector.

“Once you try to take that information and extrapolate it, it gets very complicated and it’s dangerous," Kevin Petrasic, who served at the Office of Thrift Supervision from 1989 to 2008 and is now an attorney at law firm Paul Hastings in Washington, told Reuters.

Whatever the results – or how they are disclosed – Money Morning’s Shah Gilani, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager, said the evaluation process has several flaws.

“What’s missing, unfortunately, is an assumption of how much additional capital would be necessary to facilitate credit expansion – which, in turn, would serve to fuel economic growth. That, after all, should be the ultimate stress-test objective,” he wrote.

And the end result is more stress added to an already stressed banking sector, as too much information and/or misinformation only makes a sound assessment more difficult.

Money Morning’s Stress Test

The government’s pushback of stress test results only made the public more hungry for the their release. But you don’t have to wait until Thursday to know which of the 13 biggest U.S. banks are diamonds or duds.

Last week in “Money Morning’s Bank Stress Test,” Martin Hutchinson highlighted the four secrets that will let you separate the winners from the losers in the U.S. banking system

• Banks that made profits in the very difficult fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009 are probably in good shape, especially if their loan-loss provisions exceeded their charge-offs (the amount actually lost.)
• Banks that lost money in the fourth quarter and first quarter may or may not be in terminal trouble; it depends on the amount of those losses and whether the red ink is expected to continue to flow going forward.
• With the run-up in bank stocks in recent weeks, there’s been an accompanying rise in the ratio of share price to book value (stock price per share/book value per share). If that ratio is still below 30% - even after the recent price increases - the market lacks confidence in the bank’s ability to solve its own problems. Unfortunately, the market currently appears to be overly optimistic about some of the banks that still have considerable ongoing problems.
• Management’s dividend policy is less of an indicator than it was just a few short months ago; several banks have sharply cut their dividends in order to repay the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) capital they got in late 2008. Reasonably, profitable banks don’t want the government meddling in their business or compensation structures

Hutchinson also gave an individual analysis of each bank, highlighting their strengths and pulling a curtain on their weaknesses.

This article can also be found on moneymorning.com.