Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - It’s Just a Matter of Time

It’s Just a Matter of Time
by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 80 = 16,919
SPX + 9 = 1981
NAS + 19 = 4527
10 YR YLD+ .02 = 2.40%
OIL (sept) = 94.48
GOLD – 2.00 = 1296.20
SILV - .18 = 19.50

The consumer price index rose a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in July. Food prices rose 0.4%, but energy costs declined 0.3%; the first drop in energy prices since March. Consumer prices have risen an unadjusted 2% over the past 12 months, down slightly from June. Prices surged in the early spring but have since tapered off. Excluding volatile food and energy prices, the core rate has risen 1.9% in the same span, unchanged from the prior month. Almost all of the increase in consumer prices can be traced back to housing costs, or shelter prices; over the past year, shelter prices are up 2.9%.

Hourly wages have risen about 10% overall since June 2009, to $24.45 an hour. But over the same span they’ve slipped 0.3% in “real” or inflation-adjusted terms. Since the Great Recession ended five years ago, the amount of money Americans earn each hour after adjusting for  inflation has actually fallen. And that largely explains why the economy is growing so slowly.

The Federal Reserve should be in no hurry to raise interest rates because there is no serious threat from inflation, at least not now.

According to the US Travel Association and GfK, a market research firm, you might not take a vacation this year. About 40% don't plan on using all of our paid time off. The share of American workers taking vacation is at historic lows. In the 1970s, about 80 percent of workers took a weeklong vacation every year. Now, that share has dropped to a little bit more than half. The declining popularity of vacation has wide-ranging effects not just on workers, but also on their employers and indeed the overall economy. Studies have found that taking fewer vacations is correlated with increased risk of heart disease; other research has shown that workers who take vacations, or even a small break during the workday, are more productive when they return. This vacation aversion is a North American phenomenon; the US is the only “advanced” economy that doesn’t require companies to give paid vacation days.

Housing starts rose to an eight-month high in July. Groundbreaking for new housing jumped 15.7% last month to a seasonally adjusted 1.09-million unit annual pace; this follows 2 straight months of declines. Groundbreaking for single-family homes, the largest part of the market, increased 8.3% in July to a seven-month high. Starts for the multi-family homes segment, such as apartments, jumped 33%.

Home Depot reported quarterly profit today. Profit rose 14% to $2.05 billion. Sales rose 5.7% to $23.8 billion. The number of transactions rose 4.2%. Home Depot said it expects same store sales to grow faster in the second half of the year, as more people take on remodeling projects. However, Home Depot maintained its full-year sales growth forecast of about 4.8%. Lowe's, the world's second-largest home improvement company, is scheduled to report results tomorrow.

Back in 2006 bust, when the housing market went bust, Phoenix was one of the first cities to get hammered with lower prices; in 2011, Phoenix was one of the first cities to snap back; prices, off by nearly 60% from peak, then rebounded sharply; home prices are up nearly 46% from the 2011 low. The number of homes in some stage of foreclosure has fallen to about 4,300 homes today from more than 50,000 four years ago.

Now, prices and sales are cooling off. Inventories of homes listed for sale have climbed to their highest level in three years while the number of houses sold in June fell 12% from a year earlier. Investors accounted for nearly 15% of homes bought in June, down from about one-quarter last year and one-third of sales in June 2012. The market is moving away from from bargain-hunting investors, who typically pay cash for distressed properties, to traditional buyers with mortgages. The Phoenix market is slowly moving back to normal, but there is still a long way to go.

Employment in Phoenix, after expanding at an average annual pace of 2.6% and 2.8% in each of the last two years, is up just 1.5% so far this year. When people don’t have a job or are not secure in their jobs, they don’t buy houses. The sluggish local economy is compounded by consumers still too battered from the bust to think about getting a loan. Some don't have sufficient equity to turn a house sale into an adequate down payment on their next purchase. Others suffered credit blemishes or income hits that make banks reluctant to lend.

Reuters reports Phoenix based PetSmart is exploring a potential sale of the company. Jana Partners, which has reported a 9.8% stake in PetSmart, has been calling on the company to pursue a sale after what it calls years of financial underperformance. There is no guarantee the review will lead to a deal and PetSmart could still determine that it would be better off on its own.

Today marks the ten year anniversary of Google. The company went public August 19, 2004 at a price of $85 a share; and it’s gone up 1,304% since then. A few stocks have done better over that time, but only a few, and of those, only Apple was in the S&P 500 10 years ago when Google went public. Today, Google’s revenue tops $65 billion, more than all but 40 US companies. Net profit margins exceed 20%, higher than all but three. Ten years ago, Google had a forward PE of 52; today, the forward PE is 20. So as share prices have constantly moved higher, valuation has constantly moved lower; which is a neat trick.

Over the past 10 years, or you could say over the past 25 years, a great deal of wealth has flowed to the tech giants of Silicon Valley; which means that the wealth has flowed away from Wall Street. And the techies have finally figured out they don’t need Wall Street bankers to make a deal. According to data from Dealogic, approximately 70% of the tech deals completed in early August have been sealed without a Wall Street bank consultant helping the buyer identify the transaction. And over the past two years, the trend has been growing, with more than half the tech deals in 2012 occurring without a banker working on behalf of the buyer. This M&A consulting shift highlights a subtle but growing divide between fee-eager bankers and the tech giants of today.

Maybe the problem is that the banks just have a hard time remembering who their clients are. Case in point: you may remember the story of Standard Chartered, the British bank, which back in 2012 paid about $667 million to settle charges that it had engaged in money laundering by making transfers for clients in Iran and other countries that were covered by American sanctions. They had to add compliance monitors. A few months later the bank’s chairman denied any wrongdoing, which was a direct violation of the settlement; and he was forced to quickly recant. Today, it seems that all of those new legal staffers and crime-fighting committees also didn’t get the memo about what they are meant to be doing. New York’s financial regulator slapped another $300 million fine on Standard Chartered for “failures to remediate anti-money laundering compliance problems as required” in its previous settlement.

Part of the bank’s 2012 agreement included hosting an independent monitor permanently installed by regulators on-site to vet anti-money laundering procedures. This monitor was back-testing the bank’s processes and found them lacking, particularly when it came to flagging suspicious dollar transfers from its Hong Kong and United Arab Emirates affiliates.

In a statement, Standard Chartered said that it “has already begun extensive remediation efforts and is committed to completing these with utmost urgency.” And this time they really, really mean it; not like last time. So, this raises the question of how many times a bank can break the law, and get away with a slap on the wrist. What does a bank have to do before they forfeit their charter?

The New York State regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, said: “If a bank fails to live up to its commitments, there should be consequences. That is particularly true in an area as serious as anti-money-laundering compliance, which is vital to helping prevent terrorism and vile human rights abuses.”

So, the penalty is nearly $1 billion in fines over the past couple of years, but actually works out to about 12% of bank profits over the same time.

You might also remember last month when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the $7 billion settlement with Citigroup for its role in packaging troubled mortgages into securities and selling them as investments in the years before the crisis, even though a bunch of Citigroup bankers knew better and did it anyway. And last November, there was a settlement with JPMorgan. And there is a chance that later this week we will see a settlement announced with Bank of America.

It all falls in line with the “too big to fail” idea known as the Holder Doctrine, which stems from a 1999 memo, when then Deputy AG Holder included the thought that big financial settlements may be preferable to criminal convictions because a criminal conviction often carries severe unintended consequences, like loss of jobs and the inability to continue as a going concern. Holder was thinking of the collapse of Arthur Anderson after the collapse of Enron. So, now Holder holds to the idea of settlement over prosecutions.  Instead of the truth, we get from the Justice Department a heavily negotiated and sanitized “statement of facts” about what supposedly went wrong.

The problem is, of course, that these settlements allow for the Wall Street bankers to get away with their bad behavior without being held the slightest bit accountable. And with no real deterrent, as Standard Chartered has just confirmed, it’s just a matter of time until they do it all over again. 

Monday, July 14, 2014 - Clearing Up Outstanding Issues

Clearing Up Outstanding Issues

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 111 = 17,055
SPX + 9 = 1977
NAS + 24 = 4440
10 YR YLD + .03 = 2.55%
OIL + .22 = 101.05
GOLD – 32 = 1307.80
SILV - .54 = 21.00

The Dow Industrial Average hit an intraday high of 17,088, but couldn’t close above the old closing high of 17,074 from July 2.

I woke up this morning and checked the Euro markets; the headline read: Global Stocks mostly higher as Portuguese debt concerns ease. Banco Espirito Santo’s parent company sold part of its stake in the bank to pay off short-term debt, so everything is cool. Portuguese bond prices popped. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

Just to refresh your memory, Banco Espirito Santo is 25% owned by Espirito Financial Group, which is in turn 49% owned by Espirito Santos Irmaoes, which in turn is wholly owned by Rioforte investments, which in turn is wholly owned by Espirito Santo international. What’s the point of owning a bank if you can’t make loans to yourself; and that’s what happened, until last week, when Espirito Santo International, the parent company failed to make a payment on short-term debt. The collective companies under the Espirito Santo umbrella have borrowed several billion from the bank, and then the bank made about 8 billion euros in loans to Angola, and that has a non-performance rate approaching 90%. And I know you’re wondering why you should be concerned about loans to Angola, and it’s because everything in finance is leveraged. No loan lives in isolation.

Panic ensued. The fear was that creditors and/or depositors might be on the hook in the event of a shortfall; no one could be certain because of a lack of transparency. But the bank says they have a cushion; the parent company sold a few assets to come current on the loan. Hopefully, I’ve cleared up the transparency issue. Regulators say there’s nothing to worry about and they should know because they didn’t see this coming in the first place, and so there’s nothing to worry about; the situation in Portugal is contained, and global stocks moved higher.

Here in the US, we know a thing or two about banks behaving badly. Today, as expected, Citgroup agreed to pay $7 billion to settle civil claims the bank misled investors about toxic mortgage backed securities leading up to the 2008 crash. Citigroup admitted it was aware that "significant percentages" of sample loans did not comply with underwriting guidelines but the bank pooled them into securities anyway. In one 2007 deal, a Citigroup trader told colleagues in an email he had reviewed a due diligence report on the poorest quality loans, and that they "should start praying." Many of the loans listed unreasonable borrower incomes or home values below the original appraisals, the trader wrote, saying he "would not be surprised if half of these loans went down." Citigroup still securitized loans from the pool. Quite simply, they knew the mortgage backed securities were full of bad loans, they lied about it to make the sale.

Under the agreement, Citi will pay $4.5 billion in cash and provide $2.5 billion in aid to low-income tenants and struggling homeowners; details of terms of the help and how many will benefit are not yet known, but there’s no indication people they will go back to help make people whole. Some homeowners with Citi mortgages could see the amount of their loans reduced, or could have their interest rates reduced. There will also be down payment and closing cost assistance to future homebuyers. But none of that starts until 2018. I don’t know why.

Last year Citi settled with the FHFA for $250 million. The regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had sued the bank over soured mortgage securities sold to the taxpayer-owned entities. The cash portion consists of a record $4 billion civil payment to the Justice Department, double JPMorgan’s penalty in November, and $500 million to resolve claims from five state attorneys general and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

And there is a little gift for Citi; the state AG and FDIC payments would be deductible, along with any costs Citigroup actually incurs in relation to consumer relief, which could be less than the $2.5 billion amount of relief in the settlement.

As part of the settlement, Citigroup “will take a charge of approximately $3.8 billion pre-tax in the second quarter of 2014." Second-quarter earnings results were also posted this morning, and if you exclude the multi-billion dollar settlement, Citi beat expectations. The settlement wipes out the quarter’s earnings, but if you look the other way, it was a kick ass quarter for earnings. Citigroup exceeded Wall Street expectations in the second quarter with adjusted earnings of $1.24 a share. On that basis, analysts had been expecting Citigroup would earn $1.05 a share. Citi posted a 15% drop in trading revenue. Investment banking revenue rose 16% from a year ago. Mortgage originations were down.

This is a civil settlement, not a criminal settlement. Attorney General Eric Holder at a press conference said: “Citi settlement doesn’t absolve bank, employees from criminal charges.” Of course nobody expects the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges. Citi is also under investigation for possible fraud and money laundering in its Mexican unit. And if you look at all the wrongdoing, you might come to the conclusion that this is just a corrupt organization.

If you’re wondering where the next subprime meltdown will occur, well you can pick from a wide selection of possibilities. Markets seem to be considering only a very narrow spectrum of potential outcomes. They have become convinced that monetary conditions will remain easy for a very long time, and may be taking more assurance than central banks wish to give. Debt ratios in the developed economies have risen by 20 percentage points to 275% of GDP, since the Lehman crisis. Credit spreads have fallen to wafer-thin levels. Companies are borrowing heavily to buy back their own shares, and 40% of syndicated loans are to sub-investment grade borrowers, a higher ratio than in 2007, with fewer protections from loss.

The Bank of International Settlements, the central bank for the central bankers of the world, warned it is annual report two weeks ago that equity markets had become "euphoric". Volatility has dropped to an historic low. European equities have risen 15% in a year despite near zero growth and a 3% fall in expected earnings. The cyclically-adjusted price earnings ratio of the S&P 500 index in the US reached 25 in May, six points above its half-century average. Overall, it is hard to avoid the sense of a puzzling disconnect between the markets’ buoyancy and underlying economic developments globally.

Some of you might pick the student loan market, with over $1 trillion in outstanding loans and growing. The deeply indebted college graduate has become a stock character in the national conversation: the art history major with $50,000 in debt, the underemployed barista with $75,000, the struggling poet with $100,000. That’s not really typical of student loan debt. Only 7 percent of young-adult households with education debt have $50,000 or more of it. By contrast, 58 percent of such households have less than $10,000 in debt, and an additional 18 percent have between $10,000 and $20,000.

That’s not to say student loan debt is not a concern, it is, and it is growing. In 2010, 36 percent of households with people between the ages of 20 and 40 had education debt, up from 14 percent in 1989. The median amount of debt, among those with debt, more than doubled, to $8,500 from $3,517, after adjusting for inflation. Student loan debt is a problem, but it isn’t a new problem, it’s just a trillion dollar problem now, but it hasn’t imploded in the past 2 decades and there doesn’t seem to be an immediate catalyst.

How about a bubble in energy? Ambrose Evans- Pritchard writes: Data from Bank of America show that oil and gas investment in the US has soared to $200 billion a year. It has reached 20% of total US private fixed investment, the same share as home building. This has never happened before in US history, even during the Second World War when oil production was a strategic imperative.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says global investment in fossil fuel supply doubled in real terms to $900 billion from 2000 to 2008 as the boom gathered pace. It has since stabilized at a very high plateau, near $950 billion last year. Output from conventional fields peaked in 2005. Not a single large project has come on stream at a break-even cost below $80 a barrel for almost three years….

There are, of course, other candidates for the bubble prize of the current economic cycle, now into its 22nd quarter and facing the headwinds of US monetary tightening. China’s housing boom has echoes of the Tokyo blow-off in 1989, and is four times more stretched than US subprime in 2006, based on price-to-income…Emerging markets have racked up $2 trillion in foreign currency debt since 2008. They are a much larger animal than they were during the East Asia crisis of the late 1990s, so any crisis would do more damage.

Yet the sheer scale of “stranded assets” and potential write-offs in the fossil industry raises eyebrows. IHS Global Insight said the average return on oil and gas exploration in North America has fallen to 8.6%, lower than in 2001 when oil was trading at $27 a barrel. What happens if oil falls back towards $80 as Libya ends force majeure at its oil hubs and Iran rejoins the world economy?

And that’s before we get to another threat to fossil fuel investments that Evans-Pritchard mentions: that governments might get serious about climate change and impose meaningful restrictions, like hefty carbon taxes. Right now, that seems like a tail risk, but the crisis just past was a tail event as well. And much higher energy prices resulting from restriction on fossil fuel production would slow down economic activity markedly, which again could blow back to leveraged investors in unexpected ways.

Monday, May 19, 2014 - Still Too Big to Jail

Still Too Big to Jail
by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 20 = 16511
SPX + 7 = 1885
NAS + 35 = 4125
10 YR YLD + .02 = 2.54%
OIL + .58 = 102.16
GOLD - .10 = 1293.60
SILV - .01 = 19.44

Merger Mania Monday. Late yesterday, AT&T announced an offer to buy DirecTV for $48 billion, or $95 per share. The combined AT&T-DirecTV would serve 26 million customers; that would make it the second-largest pay TV operator behind a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable, which would serve 30 million under a $45 billion merger proposed in February. The Comcast deal still faces regulatory hurdles.

AT&T and DirecTV promised consumer benefits like more economical bundles that tie mobile phone, pay TV and Internet service together on a single bill. The deal could face regulatory scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice. Unlike the cable company tie-up, the AT&T-DirecTV merger would effectively cut the number of video providers from four to three for about 25% of US households. That's a situation that could result in higher prices for consumers and usually gives regulators cause for concern.

The value that DirecTV offers that no other national TV provider offers is a special deal for football fans; for $240 to $330 you can buy a special package that gets you all the NFL football games, including your hometown favorite no matter where you live. That’s why DirecTV paid an estimated $4 billion to the NFL for the latest Sunday Ticket contract; that deal expires at the end of the upcoming NFL season. If the Sunday Ticket arrangement were not to be extended, AT&T would reportedly have a legal out, according to terms of the takeover.

Part of the value of DirecTV is what it isn’t. DirecTV does not offer fixed-line or mobile Internet service, and its rights to airwave frequencies for satellite TV are not the kind that AT&T can use to improve its mobile phone network. If AT&T can convert DirecTV’s customers into high-speed Internet subscribers, they could have 25% of all pay TV subscribers and then two companies would control 55% to 60% of all Internet subscriptions in the US.

The board of AstraZeneca has rejected the improved, and apparently final $119 billion takeover offer from US drugmaker Pfizer. Pfizer, which is the world's second-biggest drugmaker by revenue, has been courting No. 8 AstraZeneca since January. Yesterday, Pfizer raised the offer 15% to $119 billion; that would be the richest acquisition ever among drugmakers and the third-biggest in any industry. AstraZeneca didn't take long to reject the new offer, its board arguing Pfizer is making "an opportunistic attempt to acquire a transformed AstraZeneca, without reflecting the value of its exciting pipeline" of experimental drugs.

Pfizer's offer comes amid a surge of other deals among drugmakers. Those deals include Switzerland's Novartis agreeing to buy GlaxoSmithKline's cancer-drug business for up to $16 billion, to sell most of its vaccines business to GSK for $7.1 billion, plus royalties, and to sell its animal health division to Eli Lilly for about $5.4 billion. Canada's Valeant Pharmaceuticals has also made an unsolicited offer of nearly $46 billion for Botox maker Allergan, which has turned it down, so far.

Law enforcement agents have arrested more than 90 hackers accused of infecting more than half-a-million computers worldwide with malicious snooping software. The suspects were charged with developing, selling and marketing a remote access tool, or “RAT,” that allowed users to infiltrate computers, view files and steal personal data from unwitting victims. Talk about creepy; the malware could even take over your webcam and take pictures and videos of you. The original creator of the software, who founded an organization called “Blackshades,” was arrested in June 2012, but investigators said an international ring of hackers continued to sell and disseminate the software after his arrest, reaching thousands of people in more than 100 countries; 19 countries participated in the arrests, and more than 300 searches had been conducted in what law enforcers described as one of the largest cybersecurity operations in history.

The United States charged five Chinese government officials with allegedly orchestrating cyber-attacks against six major American companies. It marks the first time the US has formally charged foreign government officials for explicitly acting at the behest of a foreign government in cyber-crimes. The companies targeted by hackers were Alcoa, Westinghouse, Allegheny Technologies, US Steel, United Steelworkers Union, and Solar World.

Attorney General Eric Holder said: “In some cases, they stole trade secrets that would have been particularly beneficial to Chinese companies at the time they were stolen. In others, they stole sensitive, internal communications that would provide a competitor, or adversary in litigation, with insight into the strategy and vulnerabilities of the American entity. In sum, the alleged hacking appears to have been conducted for no reason other than to advantage state-owned companies and other interests in China, at the expense of businesses here in the United States.”

The Justice Department has criminally charged Credit Suisse AG and two of its units with conspiring to willfully help Americans evade taxes. A Virginia federal court filing accuses Credit Suisse of conspiring to in part "advise the preparation and presentation of false income tax returns and other documents to the Internal Revenue Service.'' The four-page criminal information charges the bank with "assisting clients in using sham entities'' as the purported owners of secret offshore accounts and "soliciting IRS forms that falsely stated under penalties of perjury that the sham entities … owned the assets in the accounts.''

The criminal case follows a Senate subcommittee investigation that found the bank provided accounts in Switzerland for more than 22,000 US clients totaling $10 billion to $12 billion. The report said Credit Suisse sent Swiss bankers to recruit American clients at golf tournaments and other events, encouraged US customers to travel to Switzerland and actively helped them hide their assets.

Credit Suisse has apparently agreed as part of a settlement to plead to one count of conspiring to aid tax evasion. It would mark the first time in more than 20 years that a major bank has plead guilty to criminal wrongdoing. But make no mistake, this was a negotiated guilty plea that does not bear the consequences of criminal guilt. Credit Suisse will pay about $2.6 billion in penalties and hire an independent monitor for up to two years, which sounds exactly like a civil penalty. Recognizing that criminal charges could prompt regulators to revoke a bank’s license to operate, the corporate equivalent of the death penalty, prosecutors met with regulators to discuss punishing Credit Suisse without putting it out of business and imperiling the economy. The biggest challenge facing Credit Suisse could be that some of its own clients, such as pension funds, have internal requirements that prohibit them from doing business with an entity that has pleaded guilty to a crime.

Otherwise, this amounts to another slap on the wrist. The CEO and Chairman keep their positions. Credit Suisse will admit to a statement of facts that shows the U.S. tax evasion was widely fostered by the bank, the people said. The firm won’t have to disclose the names of US account holders under terms of the agreement.

The Credit Suisse plea won’t be the last. BNP Paribas is expected to plead guilty in coming weeks to doing business with countries like Sudan and Iran that the United States has blacklisted; BNP is also expected to pay more than $5 billion in fines. And eventually, we could see criminal charges brought against American banks such as JPMorgan and Citigroup, which are the subjects of criminal investigations, but those inquiries are at an earlier stage and it is unclear whether they would result in criminal charges. The Justice Department's highest-profile settlement over sales of risky mortgage securities in the run-up to the financial crisis — the $13 billion deal among the department, state regulators and JPMorgan Chase — was a civil case, and no bank executives were charged. Federal prosecutors in California have been conducting a related criminal investigation.

So for now we have a new strategy for controlling the illegality of the big banks: charge them with criminal activity and punish them with civil penalties. So what we have, in the end, seems to be a version of the anemic civil settlements and deferred-prosecution agreements that banks always get when they commit crimes. As usual, it is little more than the cost of doing business. Eric Holder can say that no bank is too big to jail, but then he folds like a tortilla when it comes to pursuing criminal charges that actually carry criminal penalties. For now, the government's message to banks remains the same: Go ahead and break the law. If worse comes to worst, your low-level bankers will take the fall, and your shareholders will pick up the tab.

Monday, May 05, 2014 - Riggers’ Propaganda

Riggers’ Propaganda

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 17 = 16,530
SPX + 3 = 1884
NAS + 14 = 4138
10 YR YLD + .02 = 2.61%
OIL - .38 = 99.38
GOLD + 9.10 = 1310.70
SILV + .13 = 19.69

Last week we told you about prosecutors and regulators preparing to criminally prosecute Credit Suisse and maybe BNP Paribas, and the slap on the wrist enforcement efforts of the past decade, and especially under the mis-guidance of Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Too Big to Jail” policy. The Swiss finance minister met Holder on Friday to discuss a US probe into Swiss banks that allegedly helped Americans evade US taxes, which includes Credit Suisse. Today, Holder posted a video on the Justice Department website saying that the DOJ is pursuing criminal investigations of financial institutions that could result in action in the coming weeks and months, and adding that no company was “too big to jail.”

A criminal conviction of an entity regulated in the United States could lead authorities to potentially revoke a charter, essentially a death sentence for a bank. In his video, Holder said prosecutors are working closely with regulators to address the issues before taking action, "Rather than wall off banks from prosecution, the potential for such severe consequences simply means that federal prosecutors conducting these investigations must go the extra mile to coordinate closely with the regulators that oversee these institutions' day-to-day operations."

It’s starting to sound like Holder is going after criminal charges without the consequences of criminal charges; maybe he can collect a slightly bigger fine, but still leave the bank charter in place. Otherwise, this is a big pile of baloney. And the proof will be in the putting. Until we see a banker jailed and a charter revoked, AG Holder is just spouting propaganda.

The propaganda mill is spinning fast in Washington DC these days. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White flatly rejected claims that retail investors are being fleeced by high-frequency traders who can use their speed to jump ahead with buy and sell orders that fetch better prices.

White told a US House of Representatives panel last week, "The markets are not rigged." White reiterated that her agency's investigators are actively pursuing probes into high-speed traders and dark pools, or anonymous trading venues, but she also sought to dispel the notion that using high-speed technologies to trade ahead of others using stock quotes disseminated on public data feeds could meet the legal definition of "unlawful insider trading." She acknowledged at one point that the market is not "perfect" and told lawmakers that the agency's "data-driven" review of market structure issues surrounding areas such as order types, dark pool trading and data feeds was still ongoing. Even though the SEC has not concluded or barely even launched the investigation, White already knows the facts, saying: "I want to be very clear that the market metrics suggest that the retail investor is very well-served by the current market structure."

The rather unusual reason why SEC Chair White and Congress are suddenly concerned about rigged markets is because of Michael Lewis' latest book Flash Boys and HFT (high-frequency trading) and whether the markets are manipulated. What they're not talking about is how the markets have been set up for institutionalized rigging. And they are rigged; have been for a long time.

It goes back to the time when the NYSE was the only game in town, and prices were quoted in fractions: a half, a quarter, an eighth. Buyers and sellers of listed shares used brokers to send orders to the NYSE Floor for execution. On the Floor, "specialists" are in charge of every stock. Their job was, and still is, to match up buyers and sellers and "keep a fair and orderly market" as they facilitate "price discovery."

The specialist used to see all orders for the stocks they were in charge of because all orders had to come to them. Besides matching up buyers and sellers, specialists can also trade for their own account. That means they can try and make money trading the stocks where they are specialists. Here's how the specialist makes real money, besides getting paid a small fee for matching up orders.

The key to being the specialist is seeing all the order flow. Because specialists have knowledge of who is buying, who wants to buy and how much and at what prices, and the same is true for knowing the sell side, the specialist essentially gets to trade on inside information. The specialist could raise the bid if he wanted to buy stock because he knew there were more buy orders coming into his book, and if he was right and the stock moved higher, he could sell his position for a nice profit.

And that is pretty much how the system works today. Eventually, investors grew weary of having the specialists slice off profits on insider information. Even though we got rid of the fractional system, we still have the insiders slicing off small profits on each trade. Now the Nasdaq doesn’t have a specialist system because there is no central trading floor where dealers meet and call out prices, but in the automated, cyberspace world, each dealer is his own specialist.

Eventually, electronic communications networks (ECNs) sprang up. ECNs were and still are networks where dealers who weren't part of Nasdaq could place their quotes and buy and sell with each other. From there it wasn't long before Nasdaq dealers wanted to get onto all the ECNs and demands were made to trade NYSE and AMEX stocks on the computer networks. That's how technology changed the old specialist system into a mass of different trading venues that now includes entirely new exchanges like BATS, and dark pools where banks and crossing services trade for clients demanding anonymity.

The problem now is that there is no longer any one central place where all orders go to be executed. Orders are spread around based on cost, and services, and, most importantly, "payment for order flow." So, now the online brokerage firms like Schwabb, and Etrade, and whoever, don’t have their own traders to execute trades and they don’t have their own trading desks, so they have to route those orders to an exchange or a couple of exchanges to match up buyers and sellers. In order for exchanges and networks that offer execution of orders to be successful, they have to have orders coming in so they can match up buyers and sellers. Otherwise, if there aren't enough orders to allow matching of buyers and sellers at prices where customers want to transact, that exchange would have no "liquidity" and it would lose business.

So how do all these competing exchanges get orders? They pay for them. They pay Schwab, and Ameritrade and Scottrade for their "order flow." That's right; your order at your discount brokerage is sold to someone so it can be traded on their exchange. Who gets paid for your order? Not you. Your brokerage gets paid.

So, after the switch to decimalization in 2001, we had the rise of the market makers. Market makers are the same as specialists, except they are mini-specialists in the stocks they trade electronically for their broker-dealer or bank trading desk who trade on Nasdaq or on the ECNs or anywhere where an intermediary can interpose himself into a trade, and they will impose their trade ahead of your trade. That’s why they buy order flow, so they can create an internal “book” so they can have their own inside information on the order flow, so they can trade against it, or sell it to other traders.

HFT operators are looking at all the order flow going into all the different exchanges and trading venues they can peer into. They look into the total flow of orders, which no single exchange can see, and with their empirically modeled time sequencing of orders, spreads, and depth that they run through reinforcement learning algorithms, they come up with a trade that steps in to buy or sell shares before someone who intended to transact there gets a chance to.

Speed is critical to high-frequency trading. Exchanges rent HFT shops space next to their servers (co-location) so they get their data faster than everyone else. That's legal. They couldn't do it if there weren't so many exchanges and trading venues competing for orders. You can thank the SEC for making that a reality without sensible limits. They couldn't do it if there was no such thing as payment for order flow; yes, they get paid for their order flow too. You can thank the SEC for allowing that neat little scheme.  HFT shops can buy and sell at the same price (that's a zero profit or loss), but because they provided some venue "liquidity" by sending their super-fast order there to be executed, they get paid. That's not arbitrage in the traditional sense; that's just playing the game. They couldn't do it if they didn't have all the information at the speed they get it at from the exchanges the SEC regulates.

And so you pay whenever you make a trade; you lose about a penny per share, sometimes more, and you’re expected to accept this little slice in the name of liquidity, but it isn’t really liquidity, it’s really just volume. High-frequency trading has nothing to do with what liquidity is, what liquidity means to the market. Volume is not liquidity.

Everything is usually fine when markets are moving up or are relatively stable. We won't really notice HFT. But, in a wicked downdraft, when HFT players turn off their computers, we will see that there are no bids on any specialists' books or parked with market makers. There will be no stopping stocks from falling for that reason. We saw it in the May 2010 flash crash. That's what HFT has done to the market. It has made it a dark pool, and a dark pool is not required to yell out a price like the old-school specialists; instead prices come in at a more leisurely pace, when it suits the ECNs, after they scalped their share. What this means is that we don’t really know what the price is, and you can’t have a market without prices, which means one day we could have a catastrophic market failure; despite the propaganda otherwise. 

Thursday, May 01, 2014 - If the Cops Never Arrest the Killer, Nobody Really Died

If the Cops Never Arrest the Killer, Nobody Really Died

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 21 = 16,558
SPX – 0.27 = 1883
NAS + 12 = 4127
10 YR YLD - .04 = 2.60%
OIL - .39 = 99.35
GOLD – 6.40 = 1285.90
SILV - .13 = 19.12

No record high for the Dow today. The Industrial Average was up and down, up and down throughout the day, but couldn’t hold positive territory. Today’s economic reports showed consumer spending increased, as did manufacturing activity, and unemployment claims.

Consumer spending increased 0.9 percent in March after rising by 0.5 percent in February, the largest gain in more than 4-1/2 years. The top 6 automakers backed up the spending report by reporting year over year gains in sales. The spending report supports the notion that cold weather just paused consumer activity and there is pent up demand that will lead to more economic activity in the second quarter. Income increased 0.5 percent in March, the biggest gain since last summer, but with spending outpacing income growth, the saving rate, which is the percentage of disposable income households are socking away, hit a 14-month low.

The Institute for Supply Management said its manufacturing index of national factory activity rose to 54.9 last month, up from 53.7 in March. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the nation's factories. Manufacturing activity has now accelerated for 3 consecutive months and last month's gains were driven by a pickup in employment, export orders and inventories; although new orders were unchanged.

The Labor Department reports initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 344,000. Tomorrow morning we’ll get the monthly nonfarm payrolls report; look for 210,000 net new jobs in April and the unemployment rate to dip to 6.6%. That wouldn’t be enough to lift the labor market out of the doldrums but it would be another small step in the right direction.

A couple of news articles caught my attention, one from the Murdoch Street Journal and the other from the NY Times. You are forgiven if you missed them; they deal with banksters, and fraud, and regulators who look the other way, hoping for a post-government job with a golden parachute, and prosecutors without spines.

The Journal story deals with the Swiss units of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and how they’ve agreed to hand over potentially incriminating details about how they helped Americans evade taxes; in return the banks won’t face prosecution.  Goldman's Swiss private bank had about $12 billion in assets under supervision as of the end of last year. Morgan Stanley's Swiss private bank had $50.7 billion in assets under management as of last year. The other big US banks likely did the same things, but they haven’t worked out a deal just yet.

Goldman and Morgan Stanley figured out the playbook, and it appears to go something like this: Senior officers of the banks aid and abet tax fraud by wealthy American clients, fail to make legally required criminal referrals, fail to comply with subpoenas, and then demand immunity from prosecution. Department of Justice prosecutors pee their pants and cave in to a slap on the wrist deal. No senior banker or bank was prosecuted. No banker was sued civilly by the government. No banker had to pay back his bonus that he “earned” through fraud. And the tax cheats that they aided and abetted have plenty of time to cover their tracks and might get away scot free, because the banksters aren’t required to turn over the client lists.

Then I read a New York Times story that claims federal prosecutors are getting close to criminal charges against at least a couple of major banks: Credit Suisse, for offering tax shelters to Americans, and BNP Paribas for doing business with countries like Sudan and Iran that the US has placed under sanctions. Prosecutors in New York and Washington have apparently held talks with BNP about a guilty plea from the bank’s parent company. Ben Lawsky, New York’s top regulator reportedly plans to impose steep penalties against BNP and its employees but would not revoke the bank’s license. Prosecutors have secured similar assurances from the New York Fed.

The discussions between regulators and prosecutors and lawyers was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and they demonstrate that defense lawyers were pushing prosecutors not to act without assurances that regulators will keep a bank in business. The question of culpability seems fairly straightforward; BNP conducted its own internal investigation that identified significant volume of transactions that could be considered impermissible under sanctions in place between 2002 and 2009, including improperly routing money through its New York branches.

There doesn’t seem to be a big concern at BNP about the possibility of criminal convictions that might result in loss of the bank’s charter, much less worry over executives facing jail time. It’s as if the criminal acts were performed by ghosts or phantasms.  BNP has set aside $1.1 billion in legal reserves; they expect a fine; it’s the cost of doing business.

Of course this is nothing new; two years ago, HSBC escaped criminal charges for violating economic sanctions and what appeared to be clear cut money laundering. JPMorgan recently paid a $2 billion dollar fine for its role in assisting Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, without having to admit guilt. Of course no one goes to jail. Almost no one. In January, Kareem Serageldin, a mid-to-upper level executive for Credit Suisse (not a CEO or CFO) was sentenced to 30 months in prison for concealing hundreds of millions in losses in the bank’s mortgage backed securities portfolio. Why this guy ended up going to prison and not somebody from Lehman, Bear Stearns, AIG, Countrywide, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, HSBC – go figure; there is no rhyme or reason beyond the notion that regulators and prosecutors are simpering little cowards.

It didn’t used to be this way. After the crash of 1929, the Pecora Hearings seized upon public outrage, and the head of the New York Stock Exchange landed in prison. When FDR took office he immediately announced a banking holiday and the bankers snapped to attention. After the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, 1,100 people were prosecuted, including top executives at many of the largest failed banks and S&Ls. In the late 90s and the turn of the century, when the tech bubble burst and revealed widespread corporate accounting scandals, top executives from WorldCom, Enron, Qwest and Tyco, among others, went to prison. And the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen was criminally convicted for its complicity in the fraudulent steaming scam that was Enron; Andersen went out of business in 2002; delivering pink slips to many good and decent accountants along with the pond scum. Since then prosecutors have walked lightly for fear of collateral damage.

Since then, the bankers realized they could act with impunity, and they have. There has been no crackdown following the meltdown of 2008. From 2004 to 2012, the Justice Department reached 242 deferred and nonprosecution agreements with corporations, compared with 26 in the previous 12 years. The idea behind a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, is that the banksters stop doing the illegal stuff and if they do any other illegal stuff, the deal is off the table, and prosecutors can come down with full weight for past and current wrongdoing. Instead, there is no follow-up. It’s like a criminal is released on parole, violates parole, violates parole again, and again, and again; and the courts turn a blind eye.

So, now, with the BNP and Credit Suisse cases, the prosecutors goal seems to be criminal prosecution without making the banks actually suffer the consequences of criminal charges. Prosecutors consider them test cases; BNP and Credit Suisse aren’t the biggest banks; prosecutors aren’t sure what would happen with criminal charges; they don’t really know what to expect if they actually get a criminal guilty plea. If they start small, it might mean the end of the BNP tennis tournament or it might mean 200-thousand pink slips for bank employees, or it might be the spark that ignites a financial panic. They overlook the slow, insidious, systemic rot of the foundations of all global financial transactions – trust. In the long run, that seems far more dangerous.

Attorney General Eric Holder has testified before the Senate “that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute, if we do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

The bank lawyers play on this fear; they claim bank clients -- including trustees, fiduciaries and pension funds -- could be forced to cut ties with a financial institution labeled a criminal enterprise.  Counterparties also might think twice before entering into billion-dollar transactions with such firms. Damaging a bank’s business could lead to broader fallout across the financial industry, just as Lehman’s collapse in 2008 prompted investors to withdraw from other firms on concern its exit would set off a wave of losses. Even the threat of criminal action must be handled in such a way as to not spook customers.  

It seems to be a spurious argument; akin to a doctor telling you that surgery to remove a cancerous tumor is dangerous and painful, so there is nothing to do but let the cancer overwhelm the host, curl up and wait to die. And then there is the more absurd part of the defense; the idea that pension funds would be forced to cut ties with criminal banksters; as if it is perfectly fine to have pension funds and trustees doing business with bankers involved in criminal activity, just so long as there are no official criminal charges. A complete denial of wrongdoing based upon a lack of enforcement. If the cops never arrest the killer, nobody really died. Yea, that’s it, pay no attention to the bloody corpse, pay no attention to the wreckage and devastation of the global financial meltdown; whistle past the graveyard.

You know the meltdown involved criminal wrongdoing; the regulators know it; the prosecutors know it. What they don’t seem to know is the collateral damage from non-enforcement and non-prosecution. Every action has a consequence, and non-action is a form of action.

Friday, March 14, 2014 - The Circle of Life

The Circle of Life

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 43 = 16,065
SPX – 5 = 1841
NAS – 15 = 4245
10 YR YLD - .01 = 2.64%
OIL + .81 = 99.01
GOLD + 10.90 = 1383.00
SILV + .29 = 21.56

In economic news, the early-March consumer sentiment index fell to 79.9. That’s down from a final February reading of 81.6 but the latest number is within the range of numbers posted since November.

A separate report from the Labor Department shows the producer price index dropped o.1% last month. The PPI measures inflation at the wholesale level. Final demand for goods rose 0.4% in February. Final demand for services dropped 0.3%. Producer prices excluding volatile food and energy costs fell 0.2%. In the 12 months through February, producer prices increased 0.9%, the smallest one-year gain since May 2013. Inflation is not a concern. The economy is still too sluggish to generate inflation.

There are two big news stories of the day: Flight 370 and Ukraine. We don’t know anything about either. A total absence of actual information about the missing Malaysian flight is not in any way hindering 24 hour news coverage of the story. Facts have given way to fantastic fantasizing about everything from terrorism to hidden island airstrips to alien abductions. The news networks have been gathering tons of erroneous and conflicting reports which they immediately pass to their viewers. They must think we’re all morons.

Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov wrapped up meetings in London by announcing they have no common vision on the crisis in Ukraine. Russia will go forward with a referendum vote on Crimean sovereignty on Sunday. Monday will be a strange day as we watch the markets try to weave a narrative.

The Swiss bank UBS said it will conduct an internal review of its precious metals business amid expanding regulatory investigations into potential manipulation of interest rates and the price of commodities and currencies. European regulators began looking at other benchmark rates, including for gold and silver, as part of an outgrowth of its investigation of rigging of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and other global interest rate benchmarks. The process of setting the benchmark price for gold in London dates to 1919. It is set twice a day by five firms that serve as market makers; those market makers are: Barclays, Societe Generale, Deusche Bank, Scotiabank, and HSBC.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority said that after an investigation of nine banks that were part of the local consortium making daily submissions to determine the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, which is used as a benchmark to price corporate loans, household mortgages and other types of debt; only UBS was found to have tried to manipulate the rate, but the regulators conclude that they were not good at rigging the rate, so no fines have been levied.

Today the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp sued 16 of the world's largest banks, accusing them of cheating dozens of other now defunct banks by manipulating the Libor interest rate. The big global banks broke certain swaps contracts they had entered into with the now-closed banks by separately colluding to rig the Libor rate to which the contracts were tied. Some of the big banks have already paid fines to resolve the charges; but the big banks are also being sued by investors and other who claim they lost money due to the manipulation.

A federal judge last March dismissed many of those claims that were based on antitrust law, but has yet to rule on cases that rely on the "breach of contract" theory used by the FDIC.

The Inspector General for the Department of Justice has released a report that basically says the crackdown on mortgage fraud is a joke. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “mortgage fraud crimes have reached crisis proportions, but we are fighting back.” The only problem is it didn’t happen. More money was given to the FBI, but the inspector general’s report shows that the FBI considered mortgage fraud to be its lowest-ranked national criminal priority.

Holder announced in 2012 that prosecutors had charged more than 530 people over the previous year in mortgage fraud related cases, but the new report says the actual number of cases was 107. Yep, the regulators are now cooking the books.

Yesterday we reported that Wall Street bonuses grew 15% last year to more than $26.7 billion, or an average of $164,000 per employee, according to the New York Comptroller; it marked the third highest bonus payout on record. The average salary including bonuses in 2012 was $360,700, or more than five times greater than the rest of the private sector. The average Wall Street bonus is now 7 times larger than it was 30 years ago. Meanwhile the median household income has been stagnant for the past 30 years.

People who park their savings in these big banks accept a lower interest rate on deposits or loans than they require from America’s smaller banks. That’s because smaller banks are riskier places to park money. Smaller banks won’t be bailed out if they get into trouble; big banks are too big to fail. That implied government protection is like a hidden subsidy for the big banks, and it affords them a competitive advantage, and allows them to rake in more profits than smaller rivals.

How large is this hidden subsidy? Two IMF researchers have calculated it’s about eight tenths of a percentage point; and based on the total amount of money parked at the 10 biggest Wall Street banks that works out to a subsidy of about $83 billion a year. The top 5 banks account for $64 billion of the $83 billion subsidy; and that pretty much equals the top 5 banks average annual profits. Bottom line, no subsidy, no bonus pool.

Meanwhile, I almost missed this story from Tuesday. In Vermont, 15 towns have voted to support the creation of a public bank in Vermont, calling for the state legislature to establish such a bank and urging passage of legislation designed to begin its implementation. The specific proposal under consideration, Senate Bill 204, would turn an existing agency, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, into a public bank that would accept deposits and issue loans for in-state projects.

Currently, the only state in the US to maintain a public state bank is North Dakota. However, since the financial downturn of 2008, other states have looked into replicating the North Dakota model as a way to buck Wall Street while taking more control of state and local finances.

Here’s how the public bank in North Dakota works: All state revenues must be deposited with the state public bank by law.  The bank pays no bonuses, fees or commissions; does no advertising; and maintains no branches beyond the main office in Bismarck. The bank offers cheap credit lines to state and local government agencies. There are low-interest loans for designated project finance. The Bank of North Dakota underwrites municipal bonds, funds disaster relief and supports student loans. It partners with local commercial banks to increase lending across the state and pays competitive interest rates on state deposits. For the past ten years, it has been paying a dividend to the state.

An economic study on a public bank in Vermont suggests the plan would create 2,500 new jobs and increase the gross state product by more than $340 million, with no new appropriations or bonding to establish the bank.

And we wrap up with this; today is Pi Day. March 14, or expressed another way 3-14, which happen to be the first 3 digits of pi, that Greek letter that has come to be defined as the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter; in other words the ratio of the linear distance around the edge of a circular object to its measure of a straight line going through the center of a circle connecting two points on the circumference. So, if you want to know the circumference of a circle you could just multiply the diameter times 3.14 (pi). This also happens to be the birthday of Albert Einstein, which just makes both all the more intriguing.  A year from today, the date will be 3-14-15, which happens to be the first 5 digits of pi; it’s a once in a lifetime event.

Pi is, of course, an irrational number, which means it cannot be expressed as a ratio. It’s a decimal that’s neither finite (like 2.0 or 2.2) nor repeating (like 3.3333) nor periodic (like 9.1818). It just keeps going past 3.14159 for as long as you’d like to take it. Some people have done the calculation out to more than 2 trillion decimal places, with the help of computers. And so we consider pi to be infinite.

Another way to consider this is that there is no perfect circle. Or we might say that since pi is an infinite, non-repeating decimal every possible number combination exists somewhere in pi’s infinite sequence of numbers, and if you were to convert it to ASCII text, somewhere in that infinite string of digits is the name of every person you will ever love, or even meet, plus the date, time and manner of your death, and every question and every possible answer, and all the mysteries of the universe are contained in this infinite sequence of digits, and the only way we can wrap our minds around it is to think of it as a circle.

Celebrate safely.

Monday, February 10, 2014 - Set the Tone

Set the Tone

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 7 = 15,801
SPX + 2 = 1799
NAS + 22 = 4148
10 YR YLD + .03 = 2.69%
OIL + .12 = 100.00
GOLD + 7.90 = 1276.00
SILV + .07 = 20.18

A little bit of follow up to last Friday’s jobs report, which you recall came in at 113,000 jobs added in January and the unemployment rate dropping to 6.6%. There was a huge discrepancy between the household survey and the business establishment survey; the household survey showed 616,000 new jobs. The household survey can be a bit volatile and is considered less reliable. There is also a discrepancy between the establishment survey and a couple of earlier reports from ISM and ADP. The Institute for Supply Management services index came in at 56.4% in January, indicating a strong month for service jobs. The ADP, or Automatic Data Processing, employment report indicated 160,000 private sector service jobs were created in January, or about 100,000 more jobs than the government reported. It will be very interesting to watch revisions to the jobs report next month.

The major stock indices just loved the lousy jobs report, and this is a head scratcher for many people. Why would bad news on jobs be good news for stocks? Well, a weak job market gives employers the upper hand because most workers will accept lower wages, which translates into higher profits for corporate America. I know that is short sighted because the workers are also customers, but in the short term world of Wall Street, it makes sense.

The other reason is the Fed; and the Fed will likely continue its Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) as long as the labor market is lethargic. Continued low interest rates encourage corporations to borrow money to buy back their own shares, pushing up values and prices. Buy backs are the last refuge of innovation challenged companies unwilling to invest in research and development in favor of short-term stock performance.

The low interest rate environment also leads to a fairly straightforward comparison between stocks and bonds, with the nagging idea that low rates don’t pay anything now, and when rates go up, prices will go down. And finally, in a bad job market the Fed will be slower to back away from quantitative easing, and Wall Street just loves to see the free flow of easy money.

And so, we’ll all be watching the new Fed Chair, Janet Yellen this week as she goes before Congress for her first Humphrey Hawkins testimony tomorrow before the House and Wednesday before the Senate, and we’ll try to determine if the need for extraordinary measures has abated or not. Likely, we’ll hear something along the lines of, steady as she goes. Don’t expect any big changes, but as a new Fed Chair, she may set the tone a bit.

Before Yellen’s testimony tomorrow, House Republicans will hold a meeting tonight to address raising the debt ceiling. House Republican leaders will try to use the meeting to sell their members on voting for a bill that raises the debt limit but also reverses changes to military retirement benefits. Reversing these changes would add to the deficit, so Republicans would have to find ways to pay for it. One way Republicans are considering paying for the change is to extend the sequester for mandatory spending for one more year. Senate and House Democrats have been firm in demanding a clean debt limit bill — one without additional policy concessions.

There isn’t much time. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said extraordinary borrowing measures aren’t likely to last past Feb. 27. And the House adjourns Wednesday so Democrats can go to their annual issues retreat. Lawmakers don’t return for a full workday until Feb. 26.

Earnings season has moved into its latter stages, with 54 S&P 500 companies expected to report results this week. Of 343 companies in the S&P index that have reported earnings through Friday, 67.9% beat Wall Street expectations against 67% over the last four quarters, and ahead of the 63% rate since 1994.

Of course, when you hear anything about earnings, you must take it with a grain of salt, or maybe you should just buy a great big salt lick. Public companies are notorious for lowering earnings guidance so they can claim to beat the easier targets. Toss in little tricks like stock buy backs and the earnings season looks less and less like a buying signal and more and more like a management ruse to increase already lofty pay levels.

The dark side of earnings season can be found in the revenue growth numbers. For 2013 it looks like the healthcare sector led the way for revenue growth, up 7.6%; consumer discretionary grew revenue by 3.8%; consumer staples grew revenue by 1.9%.  Industrials up 2.3% and utilities up 4.2%. Technology, the high-growth sector where American ingenuity is still leading the world, revenues rose just 5.4%. And telecom services eked out a barely visible 2.2% revenue gain. Not exactly breath-taking growth figures. Then there were the third and fourth largest sectors: revenues in the energy sector dropped 3.4%; and in the financial sector, they plunged 11.4%.

So, while inflation was 1.5%, the S&P 500 companies that have reported so far, all put together, triumphed with year-over-year revenue growth of 1%. Revenue growth was negative when considering inflation. And don’t forget that last year the S&P 500 was up nearly 30%; it was a great year, as long as you don’t look at top line growth, or lack thereof. Ingenious accounting is one element, financial engineering another. Corporations can borrow nearly unlimited amounts of money in the short-term markets and through bond sales, at little cost, thanks to the Fed’s policies, and load up their balance sheets with borrowed cash, that they then plow into share buybacks.

The doctored EPS growth, and particularly the analysts’ estimates for doctored EPS growth for distant future quarters is bandied about as illusory justification for the gravity-defying ascent of stocks. Eventually the double digit estimates for future quarters is ratcheted down right before earnings are reported, and then the companies can beat the diminished expectations.

Business success, as defined by growth in revenues and net profits and not by financial engineering and fabricated EPS, is crucial to the economy. But for a quarter of a century, corporate profits have been rising at a faster rate than GDP and are now “dangerously elevated by all reasonable measures.

Remember that $13 billion settlement JPMorgan Chase worked out with the Justice Department last November? At the time, we raised some questions about how the deal was worked out between JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Attorney General Eric Holder. The $13 billion was a record fine for a bank, but just a fairly small fine compared to JPMorgan’s profits, and even though the settlement does not release JPMorgan from potential criminal liability over the mortgages it packaged into bonds, Jamie Dimon seemed eager to act like the matter was a thing of the past; the board of directors at JPMorgan even voted him a big fat bonus, apparently for navigating the legal challenges.

Well, now the non-profit group Better Markets has filed a lawsuit against the Justice to block what it called an "unlawful" $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase over bad mortgage loans sold to investors before the financial crisis. They say they are appalled that the settlement gave the bank "blanket civil immunity" for its conduct without sufficient independent judicial review. In effect, the DOJ acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencer, and collector, without any check on its authority or actions. And because the DOJ has declared its intention to use the Agreement as a “template” in future similar cases, it is imperative that the DOJ’s unlawful and secretive approach in the settlement process be subjected to judicial review.  

In its complaint, Better Markets alleges the settlement with the bank lacks critical facts that can help justify the deal, such as failing to name any individuals responsible for the wrongdoing, how much damage investors suffered or even "which specific laws were violated."

Of course, this is not the only bad behavior by JPMorgan Chase. A confidential email has emerged that shows a top Chinese regulator directly asked Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, for a “favor” to hire a young job applicant. The applicant, a family friend of the regulator, now works at JPMorgan. The email was one of several documents that JPMorgan recently turned over to federal authorities as part of an investigation into hiring at the bank. Federal authorities are now investigating whether the hiring at JPMorgan and at least six other big banks, was done explicitly to win business from Chinese companies. The authorities could decide to bring charges against individuals or a bank if they find such activity to be in violation of anti-bribery laws, in connection with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In recent months five top insurance companies with headquarters in mainland China or Hong Kong have become JPMorgan clients, although there is no direct link between the hiring and the new deals. Until now, it was unclear whether any well-connected job applicants ever met JPMorgan executives in New York.

Meanwhile, the really big investigations are still underway. Remember the Libor rate rigging scandal?  Well maybe something will eventually happen there, but already the investigations have moved over to the Forex, foreign currency exchange markets. The British FCA, or Financial Conduct Authority, are heading up that investigation, as the Forex is centered in London; the FCA says 10 banks are now cooperating in the investigation into how Forex traders colluded in setting certain key exchange rates in the $5.4 trillion a day forex market. The FCA says the allegations are every bit as bad as they have been with Libor.  

Friday, January 24, 2014 - Bulls, Bears, and Bonuses

Bulls, Bears, and Bonuses

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 318 = 15,879
SPX – 38 = 1790
NAS – 90 = 4128
10 YR YLD - .04 = 2.73%
OIL - .41 = 96.91
GOLD + 4.40 = 1270.00
SILV - .11 = 20.01

The Dow has fallen every day this week, leaving it down more than 3%. That decline is the Dow's worst weekly performance since mid-May 2012. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is down 2.5% since last Friday. That's the index's worst weekly slide since early November 2012.

All of the sudden, everybody seemed concerned about political and economic problems in Turkey, Argentina, and of course, China. The Turkish lira hit a record low and the South African rand fell to five-year low against the dollar. The Argentine peso had its sharpest decline in 12 years, going back to the 2002 financial crisis in that country; and the government abandoned its long standing policy of intervening to support the peso currency. Such moves are crucial factors for big, institutional foreign investors because exchange rate losses can easily wipe out any gains in stocks and bonds of emerging countries.

Right now, the losses haven’t turned into a rout, but there is concern that the turn may push big institutional investors to cut losses and run as the effect of falling currencies becomes too painful to bear. Every emerging market crisis is first-and-foremost a currency crisis. For example, South African government debt was slightly positive in rand terms in 2013. But in dollars terms, it lost more than 18%. Fund tracker EPFR estimates emerging equity and bond funds have seen outflows of almost $5 billion so far this year, on top of $58 billion of losses seen in 2013. EM equity funds have had 13 consecutive weeks of outflows, the longest run in 11 years.

What we haven't seen in emerging markets is major currency devaluation, a run on government debt or ratings downgrades. Any combination of those would suggest a major move where developing countries could experience sudden stops in their access to global capital, or some event that throws economies into a balance of payments or financial crisis. What we have seen and might continue to see is emerging market currencies falling, possibly big drops, as the yield on the 10 year Treasury note moves higher; which is expected to happen as the Fed cuts back QE3.

For several years, the world’s emerging markets seemed to be the main beneficiaries of two global trends: very rapid growth in China and the Federal Reserve’s various accommodative monetary policies, which injected huge amounts of capital into global markets. Since the Fed officially announced in December that it would ease its bond-buying stimulus, investors in emerging markets have been cautious. There are fears that rising interest rates will choke off growth in countries dependent on foreign lenders.

And for many years emerging markets have been able to sell resources to China, as China emerged as the world’s biggest producer and biggest market for everything from steel to coal to cars, the demand from China for raw materials soared year after year. Investors have committed tens of billions of dollars to emerging market projects aimed at meeting China’s voracious demand, and now Chinese demand is softening. Chinese economic growth slowed to 7.7 percent last year and the latest surveys of manufacturers in China show that with the exception of a few exporters, expectations about future sales are falling. The result in recent days have been waves of cash flowing out of emerging markets and into industrialized countries, notably the United States; but the  money has been going into the safe haven of Treasuries, rather than into the stock market.

It was just a few days ago that most people were bullish. Even the Fed’s taper at the December meeting was hailed as proof that the economy was improving. Earnings season has been less than exciting but we haven’t had massive misses, except for maybe IBM, Best Buy, Coach, Intel, Citigroup, and a few others; but nothing out of the norm. For the most part, Wall Street continues to pump up expectations, and there are still a few high flyers like Netflix, even if they are selling at 326 times earnings with almost zero in actual free cash flow. The Fed FOMC meets next week to determine their next moves on monetary policy and they are expected to continue with more tapering. Equities on Wall Street seem to have been shaken by the same fears that have hit the global equity markets; or maybe that’s just an excuse for a long overdue pullback. Your guess is as good as anybody.

In a TV interview today, Attorney General Eric Holder said no American financial institution is too large to indict and no bank executive immune from criminal prosecution. Holder cited the case of JPMorgan, which in November agreed to a civil settlement under which it would pay $13 billion to end a series of government investigations into its sales of toxic mortgage backed securities. It was an interesting case for Holder to cite because you may recall JPMorgan was not indicted and no major JPMorgan bank executives have faced criminal prosecution.

In December, Holder said the Justice Department plans to bring civil mortgage fraud cases against several financial institutions early in 2014, using the JPMorgan case as a template. Civil not criminal. Today, Holder said: "There are no institutions that are too big to indict," and "There are no individuals who are in such high level positions that they cannot be indicted, criminally investigated." Holder’s timing is delicious.

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, just got a big raise. Dimon’s pay increased to $20 million for 2013, up from $11 million the year before. The bank’s board of directors approved the increase even though a steady stream of scandals and a raft of regulatory actions have in recent months cast doubt on Dimon’s leadership at the nation’s largest bank. The big raise for 2013 came in the face of opposition from a vocal minority of board members.

Over the course of the year, the bank agreed to a series of high-cost legal settlements, including the $13 billion claim. Dimon led JPMorgan while it committed what government investigators have identified as over 15 frauds, most of them massive. These frauds represent the greatest financial crime spree the government has ever identified. In January of last year, the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency imposed sanctions on the bank for weak risk and financial controls, as well as deficient safeguards against money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, over the 2012 derivatives loss; total legal expenses topped the $20 billion mark.

The bigger the frauds committed by JPMorgan under Dimon’s watch, and the larger the settlements, the greater the value that Dimon brings by way of getting the government to settle cheap, and not tear down the bank and put people in jail. JPMorgan’s board must be really satisfied with Dimon’s ability to negotiate a deal with regulators. The directors don’t bear the cost of Dimon’s bonuses. Dimon negotiations with the government ensure that the shareholders bear all the losses of the obscenity of giving Dimon a raise to reward the crime spree that occurred while he was both the CEO and chairman of the board of JPM.

The regulatory and prosecutorial response to JPM’s crime spree has failed to hold a single senior officer or director personally accountable either civilly or criminally. The officers who control the bank are delighted to use bank funds to negotiate deals in which there are large fines, but the government does not prosecute the officers or seek to claw bank their compensation and seek damages from them. The DOJ treats JPM as “too big to fail.” This means that the DOJ will never require JPM to pay the full cost of its frauds and disgorge the full extent of its fraud proceeds if doing so could even come close to creating a concern that JPM would lack adequate capital. This gives Dimon a crushing negotiating leverage.

Holder has zero prosecutions of the elite bankers whose frauds drove the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Holder has zero civil cases, and the banking regulators have zero enforcement actions, that bankrupted an elite bank officer or director whose frauds helped drive the crisis. JPMorgan, Washington Mutual, and Bear Stearn’s boards of directors made the officers who led the frauds wealthy for over a decade through their compensation and bonus deals.

So, I’m not sure what Attorney General Holder was really talking about. There are no criminal indictments; JPMorgan has violated multiple laws with impunity; Jamie Dimon gets a big bonus.

Meawhile, the Financial Stability Board, which coordinates regulation for the Group of 20 leading economies, is reported investigating manipulation in the foreign exchange markets, or Forex, and is working on a reform of interest rate benchmarks after the Libor interbank rate-fixing scandal. Britain's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the US Department of Justice have been investigating allegations that traders at some of the world's biggest banks manipulated the largely unregulated $5 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. In the foreign exchange probe, groups of senior traders are alleged to have shared market-sensitive information relevant for London fix, which is set at 4 p.m. London time, using actual trades.

Just a reminder that so far, we haven’t fixed anything, and everything, every market is rigged.