Financial
Talk Radio Content Enhancement Bill of 2013
by Sinclair Noe
DOW
+ 46 = 13,285
SPX +0.01 = 1494
NAS – 23 = 3130
10 YR YLD +.01 = 1.84%
OIL + .84 = 96.07
GOLD – 17.10 = 1668.70
SILV - .59 = 31.74
SPX +0.01 = 1494
NAS – 23 = 3130
10 YR YLD +.01 = 1.84%
OIL + .84 = 96.07
GOLD – 17.10 = 1668.70
SILV - .59 = 31.74
Archived audio at www.moneyradio.com (financial review)
First,
let's deal with Apple and then we'll move on. Interesting side note,
on
this day in 1984, then-Apple Chairman Steve Jobs introduced the
Macintosh, one of the first and most successful personal computers to
use a mouse and a graphical user interface Late
yesterday, the
company announced mediocre earnings. That’s when everyone started
freaking out. Analysts dissected every second of the conference call,
trying to predict the specs of the next iPhone or what the company
might do with its mountain of cash. CNBC’s coverage was especially
hilarious. The talking heads asked their expert guests over and over
again to tell the people when they should buy this stock; which is
like telling people when to catch a falling knife.
The price action has been horrible. The chart’s broken. There’s really no reason to try and catch shares as they continue to flame out. Apple’s fall from grace isn’t the big story here. Just six months ago, Apple stock was trading near $700. The stock made up a whopping 20% of the NASDAQ-100. So every single tick moved the market. If Apple had a bad day, there was a good chance it would drag the rest of the Nasdaq down with it.
What’s important now is how the market will fare with shares of a rather large and formerly-leading stock steadily trending lower. The Nasdaq took a hit today. No surprise. Still, it looks like the Nasdaq has created some separation from Apple. Over the past six months, the Nasdaq is up nearly 7%, while Apple stock has dropped double digits. Rotation has already started. Many speculators have moved out of Apple and on to other opportunities. After all, there are plenty of interesting momentum stocks out there that could become the next rising star.
Apple’s drop won’t be the demise of this market. The company will be fine; they are still making money; it's not like they're broke. They have a ton of cash, and eventually they'll become a boring, dividend paying tech company.
The price action has been horrible. The chart’s broken. There’s really no reason to try and catch shares as they continue to flame out. Apple’s fall from grace isn’t the big story here. Just six months ago, Apple stock was trading near $700. The stock made up a whopping 20% of the NASDAQ-100. So every single tick moved the market. If Apple had a bad day, there was a good chance it would drag the rest of the Nasdaq down with it.
What’s important now is how the market will fare with shares of a rather large and formerly-leading stock steadily trending lower. The Nasdaq took a hit today. No surprise. Still, it looks like the Nasdaq has created some separation from Apple. Over the past six months, the Nasdaq is up nearly 7%, while Apple stock has dropped double digits. Rotation has already started. Many speculators have moved out of Apple and on to other opportunities. After all, there are plenty of interesting momentum stocks out there that could become the next rising star.
Apple’s drop won’t be the demise of this market. The company will be fine; they are still making money; it's not like they're broke. They have a ton of cash, and eventually they'll become a boring, dividend paying tech company.
It's
not like Apple is Morgan Stanley for goodness sake. Five years ago,
Morgan Stanley put together and sold $500 million of collateralized
debt obligation to a Chinese bank and a Taiwanese bank. They loaded
the CDO with bad debt and then they bet against it. This is all
coming to light because the banks are suing Morgan Stanley, treading
where the SEC and the Department of Justice fear to tread. And we are
seeing some documents revealed through the discovery process; and it
basically shows Morgan Stanley to be disgusting slime. The paper
trail includes some emails describing the CDO as Nuclear Holocaust,
S-Bag, Hitman, and other colorful names.
And
the internal documents outline Morgan Stanley's business model:
“Ability to short up to $325 million of credits into the CDO.” In
other words, Morgan Stanley could — and did — sell assets to the
Stack CDO intending to profit if the securities backed by those
assets declined. The bank put on a $170 million bet against Stack,
even as it was selling it. In the end, of the $500 million of assets
backing the deal, $415 million ended up worthless.
Why
might Morgan Stanley have bet against the deal? They were getting
information from fellow employees conducting and receiving private
assessments of the quality of the mortgages that the bank would
purchase to back securities. These reports weren’t available to the
public.
In
the fall of 2005, bank employees shared nonpublic assessments of how
the subprime market was full of toxic assets, ready to implode. In
February 2006, the bank began creating at least one bundle of CDOs
worth $500 million, in part so that it could bet against it. In April
2006, the bank created its own internal hedge fund to short the
subprime market; employees of that internal hedge fund had access to
private due diligence reports. Finally, by early 2007, the bank
appeared to realize that the subprime market was faring even worse
than it expected. So Morgan Stanley bankers looked to peddle as a
safe and sound investment what its own employees were internally
deriding, with very colorful names.
How
does someone sell something they know is a toxic asset? “Hey, just
calling to let you know we got a nice little CDO here at the shop, we
call it Nuclear Holocaust, but don't let the name fool you. This
baby's a beauty.”
Mary
Jo White has been selected as the next SEC chairwoman to replace the
outgoing Mary Schapiro. As a former United States attorney in
Manhattan, Ms. White has a strong law enforcement background. White
also spent more than 10 years as a leading white-collar defense
lawyer. That means she has also been privy to how firms and
individuals respond to government investigations.
Also,
Lanny Breuer is leaving his post as the head of the criminal division
of the Department of Justice. A couple of nights ago, PBS ran a
Frontline show call the Untouchables, dealing with the financial
crisis, and specifically the lack of prosecutions; the show included
an interview with Breuer. Breuer has been criticized for his lack of
interest in prosecuting banks and more important, bank executives for
their conduct during the crisis, and the basic justification was that
such cases are difficult to make. Kind of like having a Pope who
doesn't believe in religion.
While
it may be difficult to prosecute for some crimes like fraud, history
teaches us that there are many ways to skin a cat. Remember the
Prohibition-Era gangster Al Capone was not convicted of bootlegging,
he was convicted of tax evasion.
Top
bank executives could be prosecuted for making false certifications
under Sarbanes Oxley, which requires at a minimum that the bank
certify the adequacy of internal controls, which for a large trading
firm, includes risk management. Another approach might be collusion
and lack of arm’s length pricing in the CDO market, which would
lend themselves to antitrust charges. Price fixing is criminal under
the Sherman Act.
This
is a Department of Justice that has been willing to pursue creative
and sometimes strained legal theories to go after John Edwards, and
used a weak case to destroy Aaron Swartz, but becomes remarkably
unimaginative as far as big bank misdeeds are concerned.
The
false premise in the “protect the banks at all cost” has always
been that it would cause too much collateral damage, but this left
the American people to bear the cost of Wall Street’s scams. Even
any half cocked comparison of the relate “cost” being shoveled
onto the American public compared to an FDIC resolution of even one
of the Too Big To Fail banks shows this excuse not to prosecute is
non-sense.
It
will be interesting to see where Mr. Breuer lands in the private
sector. His legacy at the Department of Justice is that crime does
pay, extremely well.
On
that subject, sort of, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of
the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, speaking at the World
Economic Forum in Davos warned that corrosive inequality is hurting
the world's economic recovery. In a combative speech to an audience
of some of the world's wealthiest financiers, Lagarde said that
bankers' pay should be cut to close the gap between the rich and
poor: "Excessive inequality is corrosive to growth; it is
corrosive to society. I believe that the economics profession and the
policy community have downplayed inequality for too long.”
Ms
Lagarde also warned that necessary reforms of the multinational
banking sector were being watered down by industry lobbying. She
said: "We can already see too many signs of waning commitment –
dilution of reforms, delays in implementation, inconsistency of
approaches. And we can see the risks – a further weakening in
capital and liquidity standards; and not enough progress on key areas
like cross-border resolution, shadow banking, and derivatives.”
Lagarde told delegates that bankers' pay is too high: "Ultimately,
this is all about accountability: we need a financial sector that is
accountable to the real economy– one that adds value, not destroys
it."
Lagarde
was speaking after Jamie Dimon, chief executive of US bank JP Morgan,
launched an attack on banking regulators, who he accused of botching
attempts to protect taxpayers from future bailout costs. Dimon may
have been a bit unhinged when he claimed banks were “ports in the
storm” during the crisis. Side note here: The AFL-CIO's Reserve
Fund, a union fund that owns JPMorgan shares, wants the bank's board
to form a committee that would explore breaking up the bank. In
response, JPMorgan is seeking permission from the SEC to prevent the
measure form coming up for a vote at the next shareholders meeting in
the Spring.
Today,
British Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking in Davos, called for a
global effort to clamp down on tax avoidance by businesses and more
urgent efforts to stimulate global trade. The UK has had a running
battle with several multi-national corporations not paying taxes,
including Google and Starbucks. Cameron took a swipe at the coffee
seller: "Any businesses who think that they can carry on dodging
that fair share, or that they can keep on selling to the UK and
setting up ever-more complex tax arrangements abroad to squeeze their
tax bill right down -- well, they need to wake up and smell the
coffee, because the public who buy from them have had enough.” Last
month, Starbucks caved to public pressure and agreed to pay more UK
taxes.
And
back in Washington, the House has officially passed a bill to
temporarily suspend the debt ceiling until May, kicking the can down
the road to financial Armageddon. We still get another fight in
March, when spending cuts kick in automatically and the government
budget actually expires, and we have the possibility of a government
shutdown. The bill is officially titled the “Financial Talk Radio
Content Enhancement Bill of 2013”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.