A STEAMIN' SCREAMIN' SMOKIN' HUNKA BURNING JUNK.... otherwise known as THE FINANCIAL MARKETS....aka YOUR PENSION AND LIFE SAVINGS
Nothing is safer or more effective than cash in a poor market.
Reverend Shark
My mind starts relaxin' when I start seein' pictures o' Jackson.
Little Richard
Charts and Table Zup
[ view entry ] ( 1007 views ) [ 0 trackbacks ] permalink Reverend Shark
My mind starts relaxin' when I start seein' pictures o' Jackson.
Little Richard
Charts and Table Zup
More to come later this weekend.
In the meantime....From Barry Ritholtz' blog @ http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/
To wit, a fraudulent series of losses led to a major European bank unwinding a huge trade: Societe Generale Reports EU4.9 Billion Trading Loss....
SG's $7.1 Billion dollar unwinding led to panicked futures selling on Monday and Tuesday. (The market reacted to SG's sales by moving away from them; The more you have for sale and HAVE to dump NOW, the lower the offers. You never know what the loss is until you actually unwind it.Joe Facer)
Société Générale rushed to unwind those trades during Monday’s market plunge, and trading in those futures contracts soared to record levels. The bank’s abrupt reversal contributed to a decline that snowballed into an avalanche of sell orders around the world, some traders said. The ensuing turmoil helped prompt the Federal Reserve to orchestrate the surprise cut in interest rates announced Tuesday...
I have little doubt that Société Générale’s unwinding of those positions absolutely pressured indexes worldwide, And wouldn’t it be embarrassing if the Fed had to make one of the biggest emergency rate cuts ever because of some rogue trader?
From John Mauldin's E Newsletter; JohnMauldin@InvestorsInsight.com.
Granted, fears of a recession in the United States and continuing worries about the spread of the subprime mortgage collapse were also responsible for the market downdraft in the last 10 days. But Mr. Ritholtz argued the rapid move by Société Générale to close out tens of billions in futures positions might have been a major factor in pushing an already nervous market into an outright panic
First, for years one of my central premises has been that we have to remember that when a normal human being is elected to the board of the Fed, he is taken into a secret room where his DNA is altered. Certain characteristics are imprinted. Now, he does not like inflation and hates deflation even more. He sees his role as making sure the financial market functions smoothly. He does not care about stock prices when thinking about rate cuts.
Then what was the reason for the cut if not stock prices? Why an inter-meeting cut much larger than the market was expecting next week, just seven days later? What was so urgent that we needed a shock and awe rate cut a week early?....
I believe the monoline insurance companies like Ambac and MBIA are in worse shape than most realize, the counter-party risk in the $45 trillion Credit Default Swap market is much worse than we realize, and the exposure by various banks to their problems is much larger than currently understood. The Fed understands this, and realizes that they have been behind the curve but need to catch up. Let's go back and look at this quote from my letter just last week:
"If you are a bank or regulated entity, and you have mortgage-backed securities that have been written by a AAA monoline company, you can carry that debt on your books as AAA. But as the companies get downgraded, you have to write down the potential loss. Quoting from a recent note from Michael Lewitt:
" 'MBIA's total exposure to bonds backed by mortgages and CDOs was disclosed to be $30.6 billion, including $8.14 billion of holdings of CDO-squareds (CDOs that own other CDOs, or mortgages piled on top of mortgages, or, to quote Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park again, 'a big pile of s&*^'). MBIA was being priced as a weak CCC-rated credit when it issued its bonds last week; it is now being priced for a bankruptcy. MBIA's stock, which traded just under $68 per share last October, dropped another $3.50 this morning to under $10.00 per share.
" 'The bond insurers' business model is irreparably broken. In HCM's view, it will be all but impossible for these companies to raise capital at economic levels for the foreseeable future and certainly in enough time to work out of their current difficulties. The performance of MBIA's 14 percent bond issue will prove to have been the death knell for this business. The market needs to come to the realization that the so-called insurance that these companies were offering is not going to be there if it is needed. The fact that these companies were rated AAA in the first place will remain one of the great puzzles of modern finance for years to come.'
"You can bet that the $8 billion in CDO-squareds is gone. It is a matter of time. MBIA's market cap is about $1 billion [it is now at $1.74]. Current shareholders will be lucky if they only get diluted 75%."
Think this through. MBIA is still rated AAA. Ratings downgrades are just a matter of time. Banks that raised $72 billion to shore up capital depleted by subprime-related losses may require another $143 billion should credit rating firms downgrade bond insurers, according to analysts at Barclays Capital.
Banks will need at least $22 billion if bonds covered by insurers, led by MBIA Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corp., are cut one level from AAA, and six times more than that for downgrades by four steps to A, as Paul Fenner-Leitao wrote in a Barclays report published today. Barclays' estimates are based on banks holding as much as 75% of the $820 billion of structured securities guaranteed by bond insurers. (Source: Bloomberg)...
But what if the above-mentioned monolines are downgraded to junk, as was ACA when it could not raise capital? As the downgrades on various mortgage assets and the CDOs continue to increase, the ability of the monolines to deal with the problems is going to come under increasing question. The losses at major banks could be much worse than $122 billion if they are downgraded to the same junk level that ACA was.
Again from Barry Ritholtz' BLOG
Quote of the Day: Ackman on MBIA
Friday, January 25, 2008 | 01:30 PM
in Corporate Management | Credit | Derivatives
Bill Ackman asks if Fitch Ratings should really have a Triple AAA rating on MBIA:
Does a company deserve your highest Triple A rating whose stock price has declined 90%, has cut its dividend, is scrambling to raise capital, completed a partial financing at 14% interest (now trading at a 20% yield one week later), has incurred losses massively in excess of its promised zero-loss expectations wiping out more than half of book value, with Berkshire Hathaway as a new competitor, having lost access to its only liquidity facility, and having concealed material information from the marketplace? Can this possibly make sense?
Ouch!
And that is just the credit default swaps (CDSs) from the monolines. What about the trillions that are guaranteed by banks and hedge funds? There are a total of $45 trillion CDSs outstanding.
No one is really sure who owes what and to whom, and what is the risk that there may be no one to pay that CDS when it comes due? The entire mess is going to have to be unwound in the coming quarters. It may take a year or more.
I think the concern that there is the potential for a much worse credit crisis than we are currently experiencing is what is driving the Fed...
Here is how I think the next few quarters are going to play out. Each new downgrade triggers more losses at financial institutions. You don't write down a bond insured by MBIA as AAA until there is actually a write-down. And then you do, and announce it at the end of the quarter. Along with the rest of the losses caused by new downgrades. We are going to see massive write-offs every quarter by the same financial institutions that have already written off $100 billion. We are only in the beginning innings.
There are very serious suggestions that several extremely large banks (and not just in the US), of the "too big to be allowed to fail" size, technically have negative equity. With each announcement of a new massive write-off, we will see yet another large capital investment announced as well.
And every time it happens, the market is going to be disappointed. And continuing disappointment is what keeps a bear market intact. Couple that with earnings disappointments from companies with exposure to consumer spending, and you have a recipe for a bear market that could linger for awhile.
Time will add clarity. I don't think I'll like the picture, regardless.... but clarity helps with dealing with it.
"The market is not a sofa, it is not a place to get comfortable."
Jim Cramer
Hard lessons; Too real. If you can't handle raw emotion and raw words, don't click the link below.
http://highprobability.blogspot.com/200 ... -life.html
Hard lessons already learned and put into action; I had carried a synthetic 100% short S&P 500 and QQQ for more than a week in my trading account as a hedge for my longs. I closed it out on Friday just in case the Fed eased over the weekend and the market opened up 300 on me Tuesday. I was on the opposite side of the table from this guy and I missed making a pile of money in 5 minutes. Still, it was a lot easier dealing with a missed opportunity than it would have been dealing with a huge loss. You control your risk and backstop everything.
THE WORLD IS WHAT IT IS, NOT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE.
Things change....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... uested=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magaz ... wanted=all
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurs ... YRoUoOjnxK
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... cJlQ0&
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... s.mmorford
I know what I want to do with my 401a. Stay tooned...
SG's $7.1 Billion dollar unwinding led to panicked futures selling on Monday and Tuesday. (The market reacted to SG's sales by moving away from them; The more you have for sale and HAVE to dump NOW, the lower the offers. You never know what the loss is until you actually unwind it.Joe Facer)
Société Générale rushed to unwind those trades during Monday’s market plunge, and trading in those futures contracts soared to record levels. The bank’s abrupt reversal contributed to a decline that snowballed into an avalanche of sell orders around the world, some traders said. The ensuing turmoil helped prompt the Federal Reserve to orchestrate the surprise cut in interest rates announced Tuesday...
I have little doubt that Société Générale’s unwinding of those positions absolutely pressured indexes worldwide, And wouldn’t it be embarrassing if the Fed had to make one of the biggest emergency rate cuts ever because of some rogue trader?
First, for years one of my central premises has been that we have to remember that when a normal human being is elected to the board of the Fed, he is taken into a secret room where his DNA is altered. Certain characteristics are imprinted. Now, he does not like inflation and hates deflation even more. He sees his role as making sure the financial market functions smoothly. He does not care about stock prices when thinking about rate cuts.
Then what was the reason for the cut if not stock prices? Why an inter-meeting cut much larger than the market was expecting next week, just seven days later? What was so urgent that we needed a shock and awe rate cut a week early?....
I believe the monoline insurance companies like Ambac and MBIA are in worse shape than most realize, the counter-party risk in the $45 trillion Credit Default Swap market is much worse than we realize, and the exposure by various banks to their problems is much larger than currently understood. The Fed understands this, and realizes that they have been behind the curve but need to catch up. Let's go back and look at this quote from my letter just last week:
"If you are a bank or regulated entity, and you have mortgage-backed securities that have been written by a AAA monoline company, you can carry that debt on your books as AAA. But as the companies get downgraded, you have to write down the potential loss. Quoting from a recent note from Michael Lewitt:
" 'MBIA's total exposure to bonds backed by mortgages and CDOs was disclosed to be $30.6 billion, including $8.14 billion of holdings of CDO-squareds (CDOs that own other CDOs, or mortgages piled on top of mortgages, or, to quote Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park again, 'a big pile of s&*^'). MBIA was being priced as a weak CCC-rated credit when it issued its bonds last week; it is now being priced for a bankruptcy. MBIA's stock, which traded just under $68 per share last October, dropped another $3.50 this morning to under $10.00 per share.
" 'The bond insurers' business model is irreparably broken. In HCM's view, it will be all but impossible for these companies to raise capital at economic levels for the foreseeable future and certainly in enough time to work out of their current difficulties. The performance of MBIA's 14 percent bond issue will prove to have been the death knell for this business. The market needs to come to the realization that the so-called insurance that these companies were offering is not going to be there if it is needed. The fact that these companies were rated AAA in the first place will remain one of the great puzzles of modern finance for years to come.'
"You can bet that the $8 billion in CDO-squareds is gone. It is a matter of time. MBIA's market cap is about $1 billion [it is now at $1.74]. Current shareholders will be lucky if they only get diluted 75%."
Think this through. MBIA is still rated AAA. Ratings downgrades are just a matter of time. Banks that raised $72 billion to shore up capital depleted by subprime-related losses may require another $143 billion should credit rating firms downgrade bond insurers, according to analysts at Barclays Capital.
Banks will need at least $22 billion if bonds covered by insurers, led by MBIA Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corp., are cut one level from AAA, and six times more than that for downgrades by four steps to A, as Paul Fenner-Leitao wrote in a Barclays report published today. Barclays' estimates are based on banks holding as much as 75% of the $820 billion of structured securities guaranteed by bond insurers. (Source: Bloomberg)...
But what if the above-mentioned monolines are downgraded to junk, as was ACA when it could not raise capital? As the downgrades on various mortgage assets and the CDOs continue to increase, the ability of the monolines to deal with the problems is going to come under increasing question. The losses at major banks could be much worse than $122 billion if they are downgraded to the same junk level that ACA was.
Again from Barry Ritholtz' BLOG
Quote of the Day: Ackman on MBIA
Friday, January 25, 2008 | 01:30 PM
in Corporate Management | Credit | Derivatives
Bill Ackman asks if Fitch Ratings should really have a Triple AAA rating on MBIA:
Does a company deserve your highest Triple A rating whose stock price has declined 90%, has cut its dividend, is scrambling to raise capital, completed a partial financing at 14% interest (now trading at a 20% yield one week later), has incurred losses massively in excess of its promised zero-loss expectations wiping out more than half of book value, with Berkshire Hathaway as a new competitor, having lost access to its only liquidity facility, and having concealed material information from the marketplace? Can this possibly make sense?
Ouch!
And that is just the credit default swaps (CDSs) from the monolines. What about the trillions that are guaranteed by banks and hedge funds? There are a total of $45 trillion CDSs outstanding.
No one is really sure who owes what and to whom, and what is the risk that there may be no one to pay that CDS when it comes due? The entire mess is going to have to be unwound in the coming quarters. It may take a year or more.
I think the concern that there is the potential for a much worse credit crisis than we are currently experiencing is what is driving the Fed...
Here is how I think the next few quarters are going to play out. Each new downgrade triggers more losses at financial institutions. You don't write down a bond insured by MBIA as AAA until there is actually a write-down. And then you do, and announce it at the end of the quarter. Along with the rest of the losses caused by new downgrades. We are going to see massive write-offs every quarter by the same financial institutions that have already written off $100 billion. We are only in the beginning innings.
There are very serious suggestions that several extremely large banks (and not just in the US), of the "too big to be allowed to fail" size, technically have negative equity. With each announcement of a new massive write-off, we will see yet another large capital investment announced as well.
And every time it happens, the market is going to be disappointed. And continuing disappointment is what keeps a bear market intact. Couple that with earnings disappointments from companies with exposure to consumer spending, and you have a recipe for a bear market that could linger for awhile.
( 3 / 1064 )
Calendar
