RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Going “All In”

The government yesterday released the specifics of the Bank Stress Test to be undertaken by the 19 major banking institutions in our country. Those details in conjunction with the testimony provided this week by Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed chair Bernanke provide a very clear signal as to the government’s approach to our economic problems. In my estimation they are clearly indicating they are going “all in!”

Before we get to the market reactions, allow me to share insights from a highly regarded bank analyst and then comment myself.

Most analysts and economists view the government’s worst case scenarios under the bank test as not much more severe than what many already expect. I’m an optimist by nature but live by the mantra of “hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” The market will discount the government’s worst case.

In today’s New York Times, Chris Whalen, highly regarded bank analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics, offers that Citigroup and other major banks will almost certainly become insolvent in the midst of absorbing expected losses from this recession.

He adds, “the stress test is about politics. The O.C.C (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and the Fed already know the answer. The answer is that we’re going to have to come to a decision: are we going to put in more equity or are we going to resolve the banks through bankruptcy?”

While Geithner and Bernanke have not categorically stated exactly what they will do, they have stated what they will not do and that is the immediate takeover of a bank, the transferral of toxic assets, and the unwind or sale of remaining assets/divisions. The stress test outlines that if a bank is not deemed to have sufficient capital, then that institution must raise sufficient private capital within 6 months prior to further government intervention. What does this mean? The government just bought 8 months (2 months to undergo the test, 6 months to raise private capital) prior to doing anything. The market now expects that common shareholders in the major banks will not soon be diluted or wiped out and thus these banks’ stocks have bounced 10-15% in the last two trading days. (A 15% bounce on a $2 stock is hard to swallow after that stock has traded down 95%!!).

Fast forward 8 months and I would expect certain of these banks will be back at the government trough. In fact, it is expected to be announced today that the government will convert its preferred stock position in Citigroup to common stock and will thus have approximately a 40% ownership stake in the company. The banks will have the option of indicating their intention of taking government capital even after the test is completed and pricing that capital at a 10% discount to the closing equity price on February 9th. What does that mean? The taxpayer is committed to buying equity at prices higher than current market!!

My gut tells me this scenario plays out with a number of other institutions as well. In fact, it already has with AIG (80% stake and likely growing), Freddie, and Fannie. I expect a similar scenario with the auto companies.

What are the government’s commitments to date? Approaching $12 trillion, although to be fair we do not have that amount of total equity risk at stake as certain programs are short term in nature and provide backstops. Even though we may not have $12 trillion at risk, we still need to raise those funds. Where do we get that kind of money?

1. Taxes: We are seeing this right now and if anybody thinks for a second that the top 2% of taxpayers are going to finance the entire tab, think again. I would expect tax rates to move higher for more and more of our populace as we go forward.

2. Reduced Spending: We’ll see, but despite the rhetoric my confidence level, along with the markets’, is low that a Democratic led Congress will display the necessary discipline here.

3. Issue More Debt: It’s already coming. Who will purchase this debt? Great question. Regardless of who purchases it, rates are headed higher. We’re seeing it happen right now.

Given all of this information, I project that the equity market may move sideways for a while simply because the government has the checkbook open, but I am now even more concerned that interest rates for government debt will move higher. Given the tremendous amount of government financing, this will only increase the “crowding out” effect (government borrowing soaks up capital that may otherwise have gone to the private sector) and make private borrowing more expensive. We have seen this in the last ten days. In fact, this week government rates are up 20 basis points (1 basis point is .01%) with the equity markets unchanged albeit in a volatile fashion.

I wish I were more sanguine, but this is how I see it.

Also, virtually every economic historian views increased taxes and increased protectionism as the factors that deepened our economic malaise in the 1930s.

LD

  • Illinois Voter

    http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=70840211222&h=HF1bv&u=WPUAy

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich speaking against the Stimulus Bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. Rep. Kucinich also along with Rep. Ron Paul, links our economic crisis to the illegal control of the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not really a federal agency at all, but an international private banking scheme created in 1913).

  • sfhillary

    Larry, yours is one of the voices at NQ that I most respect. So I ask you this: if this bailout is (I should say, these bailouts are) misguided, what, then, do you see as the proper course of action? Just let the entire international banking and insurance system collapse? Can that possibly be the optimal solution — accept a few years of utter catastrophe in order to start over on an even keel? Or is there some third way that I’ve yet to hear of?

    I’d really like to hear your thoughts here.

  • Doc99

    59% of Americans feel Government is the Problem.

  • Seattle Moss

    SF
    The economy of scale has been out of sinc for many years. 90% of first time buyers can’t buy homes in your state.
    Government for the past 60 years has tried to make housing affordable. Now the government is throwing trillions in an effort to keep housing unaffordable. In other words keeping the Housing Ponzi system in place despite that it is still a house of cards.
    The market needs to correct itself in housing and whether we let it correct naturally or with trillions spent the market will correct nonetheless.
    http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

  • r2d2

    More spending from the Democratic Congress, more taxes and higher rates interest rates spell a stagnating economy with high unemployment for years to come.

  • Patience

    LD, I read about all this earlier today and I’m with you — there’s no way only the top 2% will see tax increases, considering the profligate spending proposed.

    The POTUS said those families earning under $250,000 will contribute via taxation “not one dime”. He’s a lawyer and they can be manipulative linguists. I suspect that the truth is that those under $250,000 will be taxed “many many thousands of dimes”, not just one dime.

  • r2d2

    There are more choices than bailout or bankruptcy.

  • Babs

    Can’t wait until all the rah-rah college kids who supported Obama get out in the real world, can’t find a job because of sky-rocketing unemployment, and if they do get a job, find inflation and higher taxes result in a much more spartan lifestyle than the one mommy and daddy gave them. Same goes for the poor latte liberals who will find their favorite Starbucks closed, and their big paychecks being eaten away by more and more local, state and federal taxes. I could almost excuse their misplaced passion in the primaries and the GE, as President Bush really did a job for the case of supporting Democrats, but now I find that passion lethal to the America my kids and grandkids will inherit, and I am frightened, so frightened, for all of us.

  • EWard

    Seattle Moss

    With all due respect, housing in CA is becoming more affordable. According to CNBC, CA had an increase of sold homes because buyers were scooping up foreclosures. Any seller has to price their home low enough to adjust to this housing market. My nephew and his family were able to buy a foreclosed home in Sacramento for $225,000. The administrative assistant at my office bought her first home for $150,000.

    I know of individuals that have placed downpayments of several hundred thousand dollars and are losing their homes. Why? Because they owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. For these individuals, I hope the stimulus plan can assist them in keeping their homes.

    However, the economic programs will not help the people with low paying jobs, no down payment, and a bad credit history.

  • socalannie

    I agree with you Mossy.

  • socalannie

    I know. Everyone I know is dealing with pay cuts, or losses with other income. I honestly can’t think of anyone who isn’t hurting financially one way or another. Very scary.

  • socalannie

    Was this speech from last Fall? I’ve always liked Dennis. Would much rather have had him for prez.

  • TeakwoodKite

    Approaching $12 trillion…* point 10%…times

    ahhh ummm ahhhh, 1.2 trillion…. and what was the size of my budget?

    By the way, as BO was up there at the SOTU, saying that he will not do supplementals, the very next day it was report the Penta-gone will have these rolling up to the hill for the next 10 years.

    $3.5 trillion, the paper said BO! (Doesn’t this guy read his own PDB’s?)
    ——————–
    LD, was it just a fluke that I was flippin’channels and “China Town” is on?
    ————————————–

    Woman: What makes saloonkeepers so snobbish?
    Banker: Perhaps if you told him I ran the second largest banking house in Amsterdam.
    Carl: Second largest? That wouldn’t impress Rick. The leading banker in Amsterdam is now the pastry chef in our kitchen.
    Banker: We have something to look forward to.

    .Casablanca

  • lark

    I gave a solution not so long ago when the problem started. The government role is to simply organize the liquidation of the so called ‘bad assets’ or ‘bad debt’ in an orderly and determined fashion. No other. I will not repeat other notions again. Just to repeat that I just support that all the toxic assets do not have to go to auction all at once, thus causing a panic and also heighten the losses. The government just prepares a plan that takes the toxic assets out for auction in a determinate and mindful way. Period. Case close. Just policing the sale of toxic assets. After that we will recover.

  • lark

    Pathological lying. The problem is that a disease like that cannot be treated while he is president. As president it needs to take its course and take the country towards chaos.

    A president with a pathological lying syndrome. Who would have thunk?

  • mountainaires

    Thanks LD. Well said, and sorry for the ugly pun, but “right on the money.”

    Now, are you ready for this? I don’t know that much about Sheila Bair, but she seems to have the confidence and respect of many, so this article caught my eye, since my reading reveals that bank failures are imminent, and FDIC coverage for it isn’t what it should be.

    So Bair’s statement in this article stunned me! I’m surprised she would have said this: [emphasis mine]

    FDIC paints bleak banking picture

    Banks post loss of $26.2 billion in fourth quarter
    By Greg Morcroft, MarketWatch
    Last update: 4:19 p.m. EST Feb. 26, 2009

    NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Banks insured by the FDIC posted a collective loss of $26.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, the agency said Thursday, as the percentage of charged off loans tied a quarterly record of 1.91%.

    [...]

    Bair said the fund’s reserve ratio, a measure of the funds it has compared to the costs it might face to cover bank failures, fell to its lowest level since 1993 during the fourth quarter.

    “The December figure is the lowest reserve ratio for a combined bank and thrift insurance fund since June 30, 1993, when the reserve ratio was 0.28%,” the agency said in a press release.

    That could pose problems for the FDIC should it be called on to cover the failure of any very large institution, Bair said.

    She said there are limits to what the FDIC can do, and that it may not have the resources to take over a major financial institution.

    Twelve insured firms failed during the fourth quarter, and they cost the FDIC $4.5 billion.

    Full grim article here:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/FDIC-paints-bleak-banking-picture/story.aspx?guid=%7bAD2B796C-DC21-45AA-97D0-524CEF8FF55A%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection

  • LD

    I am shocked by that statement.

blog comments powered by Disqus