Category: Market Action

The Fed cut rates by 25bp, to 4.25%.

Many were disappointed it wasn’t 50bp.

Stocks tanked.

But bonds benefitted from asset reallocation, even in Canada.

‘Nuff said?

A very active day in the preferred market, but with no major trends. The poor old BAM floaters finally caught a bid!

There were fifty-three other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

My quotation from the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust prospectus on December 7 was well received, with both Econbrowser and Calculated Risk kind enough to credit me in their posts. My interest was more regarding the investor in the conduits being concerned the cash flows from the pool were being reduced; these two commenters are more interested in Treasury involvement.

It seems that the legal structure for these investments is a REMIC – real estate mortgage investment conduit, which has to be brain-dead in order to qualify for advantageous tax treatment. Without some assurance from the IRS that The Plan would not disqualify the conduit, there would be no plan – however, some such assurance is expected shortly; no great surprise since Paulson runs Treasury and Treasury runs IRS.

Calculated Risk also provides commentary on the involvement of FHA & FHASecure in The Plan.

Meanwhile, reverberations about the entire sub-prime fiasco continue, with UBS, Washington Mutual and MBIA announcing major equity infusions today. Meanwhile, Bank of America is winding up an Enhanced Money Market Fund that broke the buck on SIV paper, SocGen is consolidating a SIV onto its books and good old MLEC/Super-Conduit is being ridiculed as too little, too late.

Accrued Interest thinks we’ll see more of this:

However, my view is that this won’t be the end of MBIA’s need for more capital. MBIA has about $84 billion in residential ABS and “multi-sector” CDOs, vs. about $82 billion with AMBAC. I recently estimated that AMBAC would need $2-3 billion in new capital, so I’d suspect that before this is all said and done, MBIA comes back to the market for more. Note I didn’t say that MBIA would get downgraded. I have a strong suspicion that the bond insurers have been tipped off by Moody’s and Fitch as to how the capital adequacy studies are going. I further suspect that any capital improvements you hear about in the coming days are over and above what Moody’s and Fitch will announce (supposedly next week) is needed.

David Dodge used a speech at the Empire Club to plug the Financial System Review article on the credit rating agencies. He also lends a certain amount of support to calls for repeal of the credit agencies favoured position with respect to material non-public information (in the US, this means exemption from Regulation FD; I don’t know what the legal framework is in Canada):

Let me touch briefly on the role of credit-rating agencies in all of this. There is an article in the current FSR that expands on the issues related to the possible reform of the credit-rating process. One thing that is clear is that in the future, credit-rating agencies will find it to their advantage to explain more clearly the rationale for, and limitations of, their ratings for highly structured products. There are some natural, self-correcting market forces at work that should lead the rating agencies to improve their processes. Indeed, those credit-rating agencies that do not work harder to improve their processes will likely have fewer clients willing to pay for their services. As I understand it, most agencies are working on such improvements.

But credit-rating agencies are not to blame for the lack of information about those highly structured products that were sold to highly-sophisticated investors in the so-called exempt market. In the retail market, securities regulators impose strict requirements about the information that must be provided through a prospectus or term sheet. But there are no such requirements in the exempt market. It seems to me that some very basic disclosure is needed in every market. And since securities designed for the exempt market are usually required to carry a rating from a credit-rating agency, one way to ensure that appropriate information is available could be to require issuers to publicly disclose the same information that they make available to credit-rating agencies. In this way, investors would have access to the information they need in order to make informed decisions.

I’d like to see more discussion of this issue; removal of the special privilege might mean that everybody gets to see the information; it might mean that nobody gets to see the information.

For example, it is my understanding that the guarantee of Principal Protected Notes by international banks has a two-tiered price structure: you can get the guarantee with or without using the name of the guarantor in your advertising. In the current system, the credit rating agency can (I think) look at all the information and rate the notes while taking into account the non-public nature of the guarantee. In the proposed system, not even the credit rating agency would get to see the terms of the notes and the guarantor, unless it was all public and therefore more costly.  

I spent some time today at the David Berry hearing. You know why lawyers get paid so much? It’s because they have to listen to so much mind-numbing detail, that’s why. The part I heard was an assertion by RS staff that RS does indeed have authority to make a finding of misconduct should they wish to do so. This has been challenged by Mr. Berry on a variety of grounds including – as far as I can make out – that the TSE was not timely in changing its rules to reflect the hand-off of regulatory powers to RS and that, while Mr. Berry was employed by a Member of the TSE at the time of the alleged offence, he is not so employed now.

To my great astonishment, the documents presented to the panel hearing the case have not been published on the RS website.

I’ve found a bit more information on the Coleman Stipanovich story:

Stipanovich has worked for the board since 1999. Before that he was president of an investment consulting firm in Gainesville. He has worked for Paine Webber as a consultant and investment executive. He has a master of science degree in Criminal Justice Administration from Michigan State University and a bachelor of science in criminology from Florida State University.

Democrats have questioned why Stipanovich, whose brother is lobbyist and Republican strategist J.M. “Mac” Stipanovich, was hired. “This administration is taking the friends-and-family plan to the extreme,” Democratic Party spokesman Ryan Banfill said. “A $100-billion fund — it seems to me to be a no-brainer that you would do a national search.”

And a report – how accurate I don’t know – on his salary:

After seven years of overseeing Florida’s investment portfolio, Coleman Stipanovich suddenly resigned his $182,000 job moments ago amid upheaval over a massive withdrawal of the local government investment pool.

So let me see if I have this straight … the CEO of a fund with $184-billion in assets is being paid $182,000? And was hired without a national search? Not that a national search would have found anyone well qualified, because you don’t need to be a very well established portfolio manager – not boss of investment firm, I mean portfolio manager – to make more than $182,000 anyway.

I just lost all sympathy for the Florida municipalities – regardless of how much, if any, of the blame for their mess can be laid at Mr. Stipanovich’s door, they deserve exactly what they’re getting.

Another day of good volume and good performance by the perpetuals today.

Dear Santa, I have tried very hard all year to be a good Portfolio Manager. All I want for Christmas is to keep the month-to-date relative returns for the fund. Sincerely, JH. P.S., If you have any relative returns left over, of course, I’ll take them. JH.

There were forty other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

The Internet is alive with discussion of the sub-prime bail-out announced by George Bush yesterday:

Representatives of HOPE NOW just briefed me on their plan to help homeowners who will not be able to make the higher payments on their sub-prime loan once the interest rates goes up — but who can at least afford the current, starter rate. HOPE NOW members have agreed on a set of industry-wide standards to provide relief to these borrowers in one of three ways: by refinancing an existing loan into a new private mortgage, by moving them into an FHA Secure loan, or by freezing their current interest rate for five years.

Lenders are already refinancing and modifying mortgages on a case-by-case basis. With this systematic approach, HOPE NOW will be able to help large groups of homeowners all at once.

The first question to occur to both Naked Capitalism and Jim Hamilton of Econbrowser was: how is this legal?

The natural question is then, Why did lenders volunteer to receive a lower interest rate than that to which borrowers had previously committed? And why was the announcement coming from the government rather than the creditors themselves?

Joshua Rosner – last mentioned in this blog in connection with an early – if somewhat self-serving – attack on the Credit Rating Agencies was quoted by Bloomberg:

“The modification of existing contracts, without the full and willing agreement of all parties to these contracts, risks significant erosion of 200 years of contract law,” said Joshua Rosner, managing director at Graham-Fisher & Co., an independent research firm in New York.

This got me interested in the actual contract language, so I went back to the security issue that I have been using as an – unscientifically chosen and possibly completely unrepresentative – example of a tranched RMBS CDO : Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-1. In order to find out what the contract between the securities holders and the securities issuers says, I’m going to try my hand at reading the contract. Old-fashioned of me, I know, but I’m an old-fashioned guy. The prospectus says by way of warning:

Modifications of mortgage loans agreed to by the master servicer in order to maximize ultimate proceeds of such mortgage loans may extend the period over which principal is received on your certificates, resulting in a longer weighted average life. If such modifications downwardly adjust interest rates, such modifications may lower the applicable interest rate cap, resulting in a lower yield to maturity on your certificates.

Continuing a text search for the word “modification” (finding out that “modification” was the right word to search on to find this stuff took me an hour last night, so I hope this post is greatly appreciated) we find the good part in the section “COLLECTION AND OTHER SERVICING PROCEDURES”:

EMC, as master servicer, will make reasonable efforts to ensure that all payments required under the terms and provisions of the mortgage loans are collected, and shall follow collection procedures comparable to the collection procedures of prudent mortgage servicers servicing mortgage loans for their own account, to the extent such procedures shall be consistent with the pooling and servicing agreement and any insurance policy required to be maintained pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. Consistent with the foregoing, the master servicer may in its discretion (i) waive any late payment charge or penalty interest in connection with the prepayment of a mortgage loan and (ii) extend the due dates for payments due on a mortgage note for a period not greater than 125 days. In addition, if (x) a mortgage loan is in default or default is imminent or (y) the master servicer delivers to the trustee a certification that a modification of such mortgage loan will not result in the imposition of taxes on or disqualify any trust REMIC, the master servicer may (A) amend the related mortgage note to reduce the mortgage rate applicable thereto, provided that such reduced mortgage rate shall in no event be lower than 7.5% and (B) amend any mortgage note to extend the maturity thereof, but not beyond the Distribution Date occurring in March 2035.

So – the legality of proposed loan modifications looks clear enough. The servicer has discretion, provided:

• New rate is not lower than 7.5%
• New maturity date is not later than the Distribution Date in 2035
• “procedures comparable to the collection procedures of prudent mortgage servicers servicing mortgage loans for their own account” have been followed

So there you have it. It is the Prudent Man Rule that applies to loan mods, and all that Bush and New Hope Alliance have done is changed the definition of what may be prudently done.

Prof. Nouriel Roubini, as always, writes a very insightful and entertaining commentary:

Also the actual legal challenges to these loans modifications – that a number of authors have expressed concerns about – are also way overstated: leaving aside technical legal issues litigation will be very limited only because investors in these instruments are better off under this plan than the nightmarish alternative of massive defaults and foreclosure; investors are not stupid and will find out on their own that they are better off in a world where mortgage are orderly and massively restructured.

Naked Capitalism has an entire post devoted to what Prudent Men used to do in the old days and claims that in the rough and tumble of corporate law, there might be enough ammunition to inflict damage on the New Hope Alliance. I don’t buy it – at least, not yet, and not as far as the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Trust prospectus is concerned. If you have all these people saying (i) it’s prudent, and (ii) it’s what they do when servicing mortgages they own themselves, I can’t see a judge saying that they’re not prudent according to contemporary standards.

Would I go to court on this? Not in a million years. I’d get the advice of a real lawyer, and that would be AFTER I’d spent a full week reading the entire prospectus extremely carefully myself. But I haven’t seen this explained anywhere else, so I thought I’d take a stab at it. Anyway, it was once explained to me that the first thing you learn as a law student is that a contract is holy. The first thing you learn as a practicing lawyer is that a contract is a reasonably convenient place to start. So let’s not hear any more about contracts, OK?

Accrued Interest asks a much more interesting question: what’s in it for me?:

So my view is that the deal benefits senior tranche holders, and REALLY benefits monoline insurers, who mostly care about the senior holders. If the odds of senior holders remaining whole for a longer period of time goes up, that’s certainly good for AMBAC, MBIA, etc.

Moody’s commented:

Moody’s has cited insufficient use of loan modifications, along with underlying loan defaults and home price depreciation, as a contributing factor to recent subprime RMBS downgrade actions. (See the October 11, 2007 Special Report “Rating Actions Related to 2006 Subprime First-Lien RMBS”.) We believe that judicious use of loan modifications can be beneficial to securitization trusts as a whole.

Based on our recent servicer survey results, the number of modifications to date has been relatively small. The proposed framework seems to provide a reasonable approach for identifying borrowers suitable for streamlined modifications and should expedite the number of modifications going forward. Time will tell how successful servicers are in identifying and modifying the loans most appropriate for modification. The ability of servicers to determine a borrower’s eligibility for FHA Secure or other refinancing options may vary, since a servicer’s expertise generally lies in servicing and not in underwriting. Larger servicers with both servicing and origination arms may be better equipped to manage this process.

Generally speaking, a higher level of interest rate modifications should decrease delinquencies post reset, thereby also potentially contributing to ratings stability for securities backed by subprime collateral.

Fitch has also weighed in:

Fitch Ratings believes that on balance, by mitigating the impact of ARM resets on borrower default rates, the framework can help to reduce the risk of principal loss on senior subprime RMBS. Increased refinancing opportunities via FHA and other programs are also important to stabilizing default rates. The implications for subordinated RMBS classes are unclear, as they may be exposed to a complex interaction of variables that can be difficult to analyze. Implementation of the proposed data reporting will aid analysis of the impact of streamlined modifications, and analysis of loan modifications generally.
…
If substantial number of borrowers prove to be eligible for streamlined modification and accept the five-year fixed rate, this should lead to lower default and loss rates than might be expected, if borrowers incurred a large payment increase at ARM reset. A major concern regarding the large-scale conversion to five-year fixed-rates is that excess interest within RMBS will decrease. Excess interest is an important source of credit enhancement which compensates for loss of cash flow due to mortgage losses. Uncertainty around the benefit of loan modifications is centered on the relative reduction in loss, versus reduction in excess interest that could be incurred. On balance, Fitch believes that stabilization of loss rates can outweigh excess interest reduction when analyzing the impact on senior RMBS. Greater refinancing opportunity can also help senior bond performance, as it will cause those bonds to prepay and reduce the risk of principal loss.

For subordinated RMBS, excess interest is a much greater component of credit enhancement, and in some instances only substantially lower loss rates would offset a reduction in excess interest. Fitch also notes that extensive use of rate ‘freezing’ will lead to lower collateral weighted average coupon (WAC), which in turn could lead to more extensive Available Funds Cap (AFC) interest shortfalls. AFC shortfall risk is not addressed by Fitch’s credit ratings.

and, as far as everything else goes:

“At best, it may stop some of the hemorrhaging of the housing market, but it doesn’t necessarily turn things around,” said Nicolas Retsinas, director of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “The fundamental problem with housing is oversupply.”

Existing home prices may fall as much as 15 percent by 2009 from their peak last year, even if interest rates are frozen on one fifth of 2006 subprime loans resetting next year, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, a unit of New York-based Moody’s Corp. About 2.8 million mortgage loan defaults will occur in 2008 and 2009, Zandi said in Dec. 5 testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, US ABCP yields are spiking:

Yields on commercial paper backed by assets such as credit cards and mortgages rose at the fastest pace in at least a decade as investors retreated from buying debt that may contain subprime mortgage assets.

Yields on 30-day asset-backed commercial paper rose 91 basis points to 6.06 percent this week, or 82 basis points more than the one-month London interbank offered rate, the largest gap on record, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

What makes this even more interesting is that outstandings fell another $23.1-billion this week and are now down to $801.2-billion from the July month-end level of $1,186.6-billion. However … the Super-Conduit/MLEC is up and running!

The banks also began marketing the fund to smaller institutions, aiming to raise $75 million to $100 million, including their own undisclosed contributions, said the people, who asked not to be named because details of the SuperSiv haven’t been made public. The banks, the three largest in the U.S., are set to meet with potential contributors on Dec. 10.

Well … up and stumbling, anyway. The three big sponsors are making undisclosed contributions? Perhaps this is just my lack of marketting skills showing up again, but it seems to me that if the sponsors really wanted it to fly, they’d have a big news conference announcing that they’d put $1-billion each into the things capital notes.

But capital notes aren’t looking too good nowadays:

Standard & Poor’s said it lowered credit ratings on capital notes of 13 structured investment vehicles and placed debt of 18 SIVs on negative outlook as the funds struggle to finance themselves.

Orion Finance Corp., managed by asset manager Eiger Capital Ltd., became the fourth SIV to enter “enforcement mode,” requiring the appointment of a trustee to protect senior debt holders. Premier Asset Collateralized Entity Ltd., an SIV sponsored by Societe Generale SA is close to breaching capital tests that would trigger enforcement, S&P said in a statement.

Expectations for a massive easing by the Fed are being reduced:

Futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade indicated a 24 percent chance that policy makers will lower the 4.5 percent target rate for overnight lending between banks by a half- percentage point at their meeting Dec. 11, compared with a 36 percent likelihood yesterday. The odds of a quarter-point cut were 76 percent.

… while Prof. Gilles Saint-Paul of Toulouse encourages the Fed to play tough:

To summarise, the low interest rate policy led to a wrong intertemporal price of consumption – consumption was too cheap today relative to the future – which led to excess spending and trade deficits. It also led to a mis-pricing of housing, which led to excess residential investment and excess borrowing by households. That is the price that was paid to make the 2001-2002 slowdown milder.
…
the Fed has been under pressure to cut rates. The problem is that such a policy is likely to perpetuate the current imbalances. Indirectly, it amounts to bailing out the poor loans and poor investment decisions made by many banks and households in the last five years. The bail-out comes at the expense of savers and new entrants in the housing market.
…
All this suggests that the US has to go through a recession in order to get the required correction in house prices and consumer spending. Instead of pre-emptively cutting rates, the Fed should signal that it will not do so unless there are signs of severe trouble (and there are no such signs yet since the latest news on the unemployment front are good) and decide how much of a fall in GDP growth it is willing to go through before intervening. As an analogy, one may remember the Volcker deflation. It triggered a sharp recession which was after all short-lived and bought the US the end of high inflation.

PerpetualDiscounts were up again today. *yawn* Remember the old days, when they sometimes went down? Life was more interesting then.

There were thirty-five other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

After CIBC’s earnings release this morning, Moody’s announced that it had:

affirmed the ratings of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) and rated subsidiaries and changed their rating outlooks to negative from stable. CIBC is rated B- for bank financial strength, Aa2 for long-term deposits, and P-1 for short-term obligations. This rating action follows CIBC’s earnings report for the fourth quarter of 2007 in which it disclosed details of a hedged portfolio of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO). 

The change in outlook is based on Moody’s view that this exposure highlights weaknesses in the firm’s strategic risk management. Moody’s concern centers on the concentration of counterparty risks to which it has exposed itself via a rapid and recent build-up of its CDO activities. Though Moody’s believes that any losses related to these particular exposures are manageable for CIBC, risk management weaknesses may expose the firm to further risks. Moody’s is also concerned that it has cited CIBC in the past for risk management weaknesses, and despite expected improvements, it now appears the bank has not fully addressed appropriate risk-taking at a senior, strategic level.

In other words … Moody’s is saying that CIBC got away with it this time, but they’ve been more lucky than smart.

In Super-Conduit/MLEC news, yet another bank is acting immediately:

Rabobank [RABN.UL] is taking the remaining assets of its structured investment vehicle (SIV) Tango Finance onto its balance sheet, the unlisted Dutch bank said on Thursday.

Rabobank, which manages Tango with Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile , Research), said the SIV has only 5.2 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in cash assets, down from 9.7 billion in July. Rabobank had warned on Wednesday that Tango’s size had almost halved as it has been selling off assets.

And the Northern Rock auction is running into trouble:

U.S. buyout firm J.C. Flowers’ offer to buy British bank Northern Rock (NRK.L: Quote, Profile , Research) was in doubt late on Thursday as people familiar with the matter said its interest had cooled.

J.C. Flowers remains interested in buying Northern Rock but is finding it increasingly difficult to meet the requirements of shareholders and the government, Bank of England and regulators, all of whom are involved in the auction, a person familiar with the matter said.
…
A consortium led by Virgin Group [VA.UL] has been picked as preferred bidder, but Flowers was considered its nearest challenger.

A consortium led by investment group Olivant is expected to submit a revised offer for the bank by Friday, sources have said.

And that’s all the colour for today! There wasn’t too much of interest anyway, other than the American Sub-Prime Plan, which has attracted considerable comment, not to mention buying.

But how about them PerpetualDiscounts, eh? Holy smokes … if they can keep up this performance every day for a couple of months, it’ll be a good year.

I didn’t understand it on the way down … I don’t understand it on the way up.

I feel reasonably confident when I say “on the way up”, because this looks just as much like a buying frenzy as anything else I’ve seen in the past … um … year, but who knows? Maybe everything will reverse itself tomorrow … and finding out is what makes it interesting to get up in the morning.

There were forty-eight other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

I am fascinated by the unfolding story of the Florida State Board of Administration’s Money Market fund that I discussed on December 3. Bloomberg reports that the Executive Director has quit:

Coleman Stipanovich, the head of an agency managing a troubled $14 billion Florida investment pool for local governments, quit as officials approved a plan by BlackRock Inc. to salvage the fund.
…
Stipanovich, whose brother J.M. “Mac” Stipanovich is a Tallahassee lobbyist and Republican strategist who ran former Governor Jeb Bush’s campaign for governor in 1994, was appointed executive director of the state board in 2002.

In the late 1990s, Coleman Stipanovich worked as a lobbyist for PaineWebber Inc. in Florida and was paid $7,500 per month to help the firm win municipal bond business.

Stipanovich, a Vietnam veteran, has a master of science degree in criminal justice administration from Michigan State University and a bachelors of science in criminology from Florida State University.

Pretty impressive credentials for running an investment management firm with $184-billion under management, eh? There’s a small biography on the site:

As Executive Director of the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA), Coleman Stipanovich serves as the Chief Investment Officer of the fifth largest pension fund in the United States. Total assets under management at the SBA are in excess of $150 billion, which includes the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan (Defined Benefit Trust Fund) and Investment Plan (Defined Contribution Trust Fund). Under broad authority granted by the Trustees, the Executive Director has administrative and investment authority and responsibility, within the statutory limitations and rules, to develop investment policies and tactically manage investments. The Trustees are Governor Charlie Crist, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, and Attorney General Bill McCollum.

But look at him:

 

Isn’t that just the kind of distinguished look that investment counsellors should all have? I haven’t been able to find any CV on the web that might possibly shed some light on why this man was considered suitable to run a large asset management firm – all I’ve found is a story about his 2002 appointment and a record of his reappointment. If anybody has information that might clarify the question of his qualifications, please share it.

But I suspect it’s just political patronage. Investment counsellors are all a bunch of overpaid yumps who, on average, perform averagely, right? So I suppose that since any idiot can do it and get paid extremely well while doing so, it doesn’t make any difference who you hire.

Just for comparison, let’s look at the CV of Jim Leech, CEO of Teachers.

Mr. Leech joined Teachers’ in 2001 to lead Teachers’ Private Capital and succeeded Claude Lamoureux as President and CEO in 2007.
…
Before joining Teachers’, Mr. Leech was President and CEO of Unicorp Canada Corp., one of Canada’s first public merchant banks, and Union Energy Inc., then one of North America’s largest integrated energy and pipeline companies.

Now, I don’t know Mr. Leech. I haven’t worked with him, I haven’t studied his career in detail, I haven’t even spoken to the man. But I have a lot of respect for Teachers’ and whether or not Mr. Leech is the perfect man for the job, it seems to me that this is the way public funds should be run … a guy with a solid CV runs a division for six years, THEN gets to be boss. Maybe that CV is in investment management, maybe it’s in some other industry … but it’s solid.

I last reviewed Prof. Stephen Cecchetti‘s series on subprime on November 28. Part 3 of the series, Why Central Banks should be Financial Supervisors talks about some countries’ separation of function that are elsewhere combined:

In places like Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United States and New Zealand, the central bank supervises banks. By contrast, in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan, supervision is done by an independent authority.

He notes that Bernanke is an ardent supporter of combination:

[Bernanke Speech]  Its supervisory activities also allow the Fed to obtain useful information about the financial companies that do business with the banking organizations it supervises. For example, some large banks are heavily engaged in lending and providing various services to hedge funds and other private pools of capital. In the process of ensuring that banks prudently manage these counterparty relationships, Fed staff members, collaborating with their colleagues from other agencies, learn a great deal about the business practices, investment strategies, and emerging trends in this industry.

The other side of the coin is:

[Cecchetti essay] the most compelling rationale for separation is the potential for conflict of interest. The central bank will be hesitant to impose monetary restraint out of concern for the damage it might do to the banks it supervises. The central bank will protect banks rather than the public interest. Making banks look bad makes supervisors look bad. So, allowing banks to fail would affect the central banker/supervisor’s reputation.

In this same vein, Goodhart argues for separation based on the fact that the embarrassment of poor supervisory performance could damage the reputation of the central bank.

Cecchetti quotes an amusing example of the benefits of combination:

On 20 November 1988 a computer software error prevented the Bank of New York from keeping track of its US Treasury securities trading. For 90 minutes orders poured in and the bank made payments without having the funds as normal. But when it came time to deliver the bonds and collect from the buyers, the information had been erased from the system. By the end of the day, the Bank of New York had bought and failed to deliver so many securities that it was committed to paying out $23 billion that it did not have. The Federal Reserve, knowing from its up-to-date supervisory records that the bank was solvent, made an emergency $23 billion loan taking the entire bank as collateral and averting a systemic financial crisis. Importantly, only a supervisor was in a position to know that the Bank of New York’s need to borrow was legitimate and did not arise from fraud.
…
[note] At the time, computers could store only 32,000 transactions at a time. When more transactions arrived than the computer could handle, the software’s counter restarted at zero. Since the counter number was the key to where the trading information was stored, the information was effectively erased. Had all the original transactions been processed before the counter restarted, there would have been no problem.

(I should point out that computers, per se, are not to blame for the error – assuming that the malfunction happened as described, this was an example of poor programme management, design and testing as indicated in the main text, rather than a hardware error as implied in the note) … and then an example of the evils of separation …

Shortly after Bank of England Governor Mervyn King sent a letter to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons,⁶ the U.K. Financial Services Authority made it known both that Northern Rock was on the verge of collapse, and that supervisors had known this for some time. Contrary to wide-spread perception of the position taken just a few days earlier in the Governor’s letter, the Bank of England was forced to make a substantial emergency loan, substantially tarnishing their public image.
…
I will say is that things surely would have gone more smoothly had the Bank of England had supervisory authority so that the officials with intimate knowledge of Northern Rock’s balance sheet would have been sitting at the table on a regular basis with the management of the central bank.

Cecchetti is very persuasive! The arguments make a lot of sense to me – but I’ll keep my eyes open for something from the other side. His fourth and final essay in the series, Does Well-Designed Monetary Policy Encourage Risk Taking, is not nearly as interesting – as far as I’m concerned he could have written finis after the first sentence:

Yes, but isn’t that what it’s supposed to do?

… but he had to fill it out a little. I have often argued in this blog that by way of policy objectives, what we want is a rock-solid, highly regulated banking sector, well insulated from the outer (much more fun) layer of innovation and speculation. He concludes:

Some observers worry that recent central bankers’ responses to the subprime crisis of 2007 will encourage asset managers to take on more risk than is in society’s interest. I believe that this is wrong. Punishment is being meted out to many of those whose risky behaviour led to the problems, while central banks’ actions have, so far, reduced the collateral damage that this crisis could have inflicted on the economy.

As far as the series is concerned, he has made the following four concrete proposals:

• Trust, but verify. Investors should insist that asset managers and underwriters start by disclosing both the detailed characteristics of what they are selling together with their costs and fees. This will allow us to know what we buy and understand our bankers’ incentives.
• Standardisation and trading. Governments could help clarify the relative riskiness of assets by fostering the standardization of securities and encouraging trading on organized exchanges.
• Deposit insurance. A well-designed, rules-based deposit insurance scheme is essential to protecting the banking system from future financial crises. Lender of last resort actions are no substitute for deposit insurance.
• Central banks should be financial regulators. Central banks should have a direct role in financial supervision. In times of financial crisis – as in times of war – good policy-making requires a single ‘general’ directing the operations.

Item 1 is not really a policy issue – it’s a matter for investors, their investees and their advisors. Just make sure people are, in fact, feeling some pain from bad decisions and not bailed out – that’s enough policy.

Item 2 – I argued against this on November 19. However, it may be that in ensuring the stability of the banking system, margin & capital requirements could well be raised to the point at which exchange-trading (and clearing houses with daily mark-to-markets) become competitive. However, an exchange cannot function in a thin market – which Mr. Cecchetti, I am sure, will say is addressed by his urging for increased standardization. By way of policy … make sure the banks are stable, ensure capital requirements are conservative, and let exchange trading and standardization look after themselves.

Item 3 – full agreement from me!

Item 4 – very persuasive arguments have been put forward, but I’ll reserve judgement until I hear more from the other side. I am confident that each example of the benefits of unification can be matched with an example of harm.

PerpetualDiscounts continued to rock-and-roll today, while floaters just rolled over and played dead. Sadly, there are only two issues in this sub-index, both BAM, so it’s very hard to determine just how much is due to credit concerns, how much is Floater concerns and how much is just random vagaries of the market. There was reasonably good volume, a reasonable number of trades, and a reasonable time between the decline of prices and the market close, so I’d have to say this move is as real as anything else.

But really, how about them PerpetualDiscounts? I KNOW it’s only three days into the month and a lot can happen, but let me enjoy it while I can, won’t you? It’s been a long year.

There were forty-five other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

Wow! How about them PerpetualDiscounts, eh?

It figures. The Bank of Canada cuts rates and retail figures that means all rates, ignoring the fact that long Canadas were down on the day … lower rates means higher inflation risks, says the Market. Also ignoring the idea that corporate spreads tend to widen during tough times, since there is higher default risk.

Or maybe pref investors are saying that they know all that, it’s just that the whole thing since March has been overdone. Who knows? Ask a priest. I’m just glad to see the fifth straight trading day of PerpetualDiscount gains and that sub-index off its lows. But who knows what tomorrow will bring?

There were thirty-five other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

Sorry – month-end is a busy time for me, so again, there’s not much colour today!

However, I was most interested in Accrued Interest’s essay on the implications of the Florida Money-Market Fund Freeze, together with the most recent Bloomberg story.

According to Bloomberg:

BlackRock, at a Tallahassee meeting today with officials from schools and cities in the Local Government Investment Pool, said it will recommend putting about 86 percent of the pool’s $14 billion of assets that have no risk of loss or default into a “fund A.” The remaining 14 percent will go into a “fund B,” said Simon Mendelson, chief operating officer of BlackRock’s cash management business.

“We want fund A to be really clean,” said Barbara Novick, vice chairman of BlackRock, who made the presentation with Mendelson. “We want to run it as a money-market fund.”

I don’t get it. When I look at the October 31 Holdings of the Florida fund, I don’t see 86% of the securities having “no risk of loss or defaults”. The only securities without default risk are central government securities denominated in the national currency (and their guarantees, if you want to be picky). Even then, “no risk” can be something of a relative term, as those who read about hyperinflation in the German Republic will remember:

The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar. That was in 1914. In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper.

That was then and this is now, you say? I know a man with first-hand experience of Serbian hyperinflation:

In October of 1993 the created a new currency unit. One new dinar was worth one million of the old dinars. In effect, the government simply removed six zeroes from the paper money. This of course did not stop the inflation and between October 1, 1993 and January 24, 1995 prices increased by 5 quadrillion percent. This number is a 5 with 15 zeroes after it.
…
Many Yugoslavian businesses refused to take the Yugoslavian currency at all and the German Deutsche Mark effectively became the currency of Yugoslavia. But government organizations, government employees and pensioners still got paid in Yugoslavian dinars so there was still an active exchange in dinars. On November 12, 1993 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 1 million new dinars. By November 23 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 6.5 million new dinars and at the end of November it was 1 DM = 37 million new dinars. At the beginning of December the bus workers went on strike because their pay for two weeks was equivalent to only 4 DM when it cost a family of four 230 DM per month to live. By December 11th the exchange rate was 1 DM = 800 million and on December 15th it was 1 DM = 3.7 billion new dinars. The average daily rate of inflation was nearly 100 percent. When farmers selling in the free markets refused to sell food for Yugoslavian dinars the government closed down the free markets. On December 29 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 950 billion new dinars.
…
At the end of December the exchange rate was 1 DM = 3 trillion dinars and on January 4, 1994 it was 1 DM = 6 trillion dinars. On January 6th the government declared that the German Deutsche was an official currency of Yugoslavia. About this time the government announced a new new dinar which was equal to 1 billion of the old new dinars. This meant that the exchange rate was 1 DM = 6,000 new new dinars. By January 11 the exchange rate had reached a level of 1 DM = 80,000 new new dinars. On January 13th the rate was 1 DM = 700,000 new new dinars and six days later it was 1 DM = 10 million new new dinars.

So anyway, the moral of the story is: nothing is certain in this wicked world. There is default risk everywhere.

That being said, I find the holdings of the Florida fund rather surprising, in that (i) I don’t recognize a lot of the names held, and (ii) A lot of the names are of the form “XXX Funding LLC”. So, I’ll repeat, yet again, another moral we should all remember from the credit crunch: Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!

Without having had anything more than a casual once over of the Florida holdings, it seems to me that the managers were well diversified by name and tenor, but very poorly diversified by industry … I mean, geez, look at all those XXX Funding LLCs! You are not diversified if you have 1% of your portfolio in each of 100 different companies if each of those companies is in the business of manufacturing Britney Spears Fan Club kits.

As with Canadian ABCP – I have nothing but sympathy for portfolio managers who held 5-10% in the sector; it looked pretty good to me too, and (with the exception of Apsley Trust) the credit quality was fine – it was simply the liquidity that suddenly disappeared. But too much of a good thing is simply too much.

Accrued Interest‘s conclusions as to how the whole affair will play out look entirely reasonable to me … with one quibble:

Finally, government money market funds will likely become permanently more popular.

Permanently? I have my doubts. There have always been periodic flights to quality in the investment world, and sooner or later investor greed beats investor fear and competition forces the assumption of increased risk.

In sort-of related news on the MLEC/Super-Conduit front, Harrier Finance and Carrera Capital are being bailed out by their so-called off-balance-sheet sponsors, to the tune of $11-billion and $4.8 billion, respectively.

“Every day that goes by we are seeing more restructuring and liquidity provision by sponsors,” [Dresdner Kleinwort analyst Priya] Shah said in an interview today. “The longer M-LEC takes, the less of a need there will be for it.”

Another day of good volume and positive returns! Holy smokes, can this be the preferred market we’re looking at?

There were twenty-five other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

An extremely busy day to finish the month!

There were seventy-four other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

Well … today the TD Bank and National Bank financials were analyzed … and, in addition, month-end is a-coming and duty calls with a shrill, unpleasant voice.

So there won’t be much colour today.

American ABCP outstanding was down another $11-billion this week, continuing its decline as the overleveraged economy continues to unwind. Domestic Financial CP outstanding was up $25-billion; although this figure has not picked up all the slack since the peak, this illustrates the Banks Advantage in Cushioning Liquidity Shocks.

The Florida State-sponsored Money Market Fund mentioned yesterday has suspended redemptions:

Florida officials voted to suspend withdrawals from an investment fund for schools and local governments after redemptions sparked by downgrades of debt held in the portfolio reduced assets by 44 percent.
…
It wasn’t decided how long the suspension would last. The trustees meet again on Dec. 4.

“We’re getting a lot of calls,” said Mike McCauley, the spokesman for the State Board of Administration.

The Florida pool crisis is a sign of poor risk management by state officials, said Harvey Pitt, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“In the longer-term, it’s unlikely that those whose funds have been frozen will leave their money in the investment fund once the freeze lifts,” Pitt said. “All of this could, and should, have been avoided by careful due diligence, constant reassessment of risk, and paying close attention to market trends.”

Mr. Pitt did not disclose his own track-record as a money manager. His criticisms are the kind that really drive me wild – post-hoc criticisms of fund managers by guys who’ve never done it. It’s very easy to be wise after the fact.

The big danger is that such public funds will eventually migrate to nothing riskier than three-month T-Bills; why would a trustee allow anything else if he’s going to be vilified whenever he’s wrong on something?

One can only applaud Henri-Paul Rousseau in his testimony to the Quebec legislature’s public finance committee:

Executives of Canada’s biggest pension fund agreed after careful study that what constituted a crisis was open to interpretation, but believed the financial institutions would honour their commitments, he said under questioning at the provincial legislature’s public finance committee.

“There was some thinking out there that this was very risky,” Mr. Rousseau said. “We thought it was not plausible and it happened. That’s it.”
…
“Were we prudent? Yes. Did we miscalculate in terms of the probability that this would happen? Yes,” he said. “Unfortunately, that happens in our business.”

Way to go, M. Rousseau! I have no idea whether you’re a good or bad manager, either of people or of money, but at least you know the right things to say – and on this occasion, when things have gone wrong, you’re willing to wear it. My own question is, regardless of whether or not it was prudent to have $13-billion out of total Caisse assets of $207-billion in Canadian ABCP, was it prudent to have $13-billion in a $35-billion asset class? M. Rousseau’s full remarks have been published by the Caisse. He points out that while liquidity is a problem, the credit quality is entirely acceptable. I will confess that I haven’t even checked to see what proportion of the entire Money Market portfolio was comprised of ABCP, or what the investment rationale behind the MM allocation might have been.

The US bond market is on fire, with a buying panic and lots of corporate issuance; Bernanke seems to be guiding the market to expect an ease.

Another day of good volume for preferreds, with some evidence of rationalization of prices, although overall performance wasn’t all that great. Split shares had a great day, but are still basically clobbered on the month, while floaters are getting hit … trouble is, it’s hard to separate the company specifics (BAM & BCE) from the asset types. Still, that’s what makes it fun, right?

There were forty-one other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

Arthur Levitt brought his travelling anti-Credit Rating Agency roadshow to Toronto yesterday, giving a speech at the 2007 Dialogue with the OSC. The Globe has a video of his remarks; they were reported as the same old same old:

Credit rating agencies have lost the trust of investors following the recent meltdown in commercial paper markets, leading to a “systemic shock” in capital markets, a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said yesterday.

Arthur Levitt, who led the SEC between 1993 and 2001, told an Ontario Securities Commission conference yesterday the rating agencies are deeply conflicted because they take money from companies to rate their securities, and also offer them consulting services.

“The agencies have become both coach and referee,” he said. “Indeed, I believe we’re facing the prospect of a systemic shock directly as a result of investors’ loss of confidence in the ratings that they have relied upon for so long to evaluate risk.”

He said regulators must examine the conflicts of interest that “plague” rating agencies. Beyond simply prohibiting them from doing additional consulting work for companies they rate, he said the SEC should be given more authority to regulate agencies.

Well, fine. Levitt believes the agencies have lost the trust of investors. My first question is “Where’s the evidence?” and my second is “So what?”. There are plenty of shops around, well staffed and just aching to sell a subscription to their services to anybody who wants to pony up the cash. Unless, of course, having decided that the agencies screwed up, the regulators want to start awarding and yanking licenses on the basis of track record …

David Wilson, Chair of the OSC, mentioned them briefly in his published remarks:

And, we’re talking with credit rating agencies that do business in Canada.
Global securities regulators are carefully reviewing:
• the use of credit ratings in regulated instruments;
• the conflicts inherent in the rating process for structured products; and
• the transparency of the assets held and leverage embedded in these structured product vehicles.

Wilson’s remarks are reasonable enough (a regulator should certainly have some vague idea of what’s happening in capital markets!), but the fact that they invited Levitt to speak at their showcase event is more than just a little odd. 

It’s worrisome. Same old story. If there’s one thing that drives a regulator crazy, it’s the thought that somebody, somewhere, is not filling out a form. To address this issue, the agencies should hire some staff away from the regulators at, say, $200,000 p.a. + benefits, and get some of that good old revolving door regulation going – just like RS is so proud of.

Perhaps I’m feeling a little grumpy today, but I didn’t really see anything new and interesting in a Financial Times essay on the credit crunch referenced by Naked Capitalism. There was an interesting graphic, though:

Note that the sawtooth pattern for the Euribor rate is due to anticipation of well-telegraphed policy increases.

There’s more on the story about the Florida government money-market funds, which were briefly mentioned on November 14 (with friend Levitt labelling them “disgraceful”). Clients are pulling out their money:

Florida local governments and school districts pulled $8 billion out of a state-run investment pool, or 30 percent of its assets, after learning that the money- market fund contained more than $700 million of defaulted debt.
…
The Florida pool, which was the largest of its kind in the U.S. at $27 billion before the recent spate of withdrawals, has invested $2 billion in SIVs and other subprime-tainted debt, state records show. Connecticut, Maine, Montana and King County, Washington, are among other governments holding similar investments, in smaller quantities.

The Florida pool’s $900 million of defaulted asset-backed commercial paper now amounts to almost 5 percent of its holdings. The paper, which carried top ratings from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings as recently as August, was downgraded after declines in the value of collateral affected by the subprime mortgage slump.

I’ve had a look at the State Board’s 2005-06 Investment Report, an extremely glossy puff-piece with little worthwhile investment reporting, but there is a description of the fund in question.

When local governments in Florida have surplus funds to invest, they often rely on the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). As a money market fund, the LGIP invests in short-term, highquality money market instruments issued by financial institutions, non-financial corporations, the U.S. government and federal agencies. In managing the pool, the SBA strives to maximize returns on invested surplus funds to generate revenue that helps local governments
reduce the need to impose additional taxes.

It will be most interesting to see how this pans out!

There was some bad news on the US Housing front brought to us via a National Association of Realtors press release:

Single-family home sales were unchanged from September at the seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.37 million in October, and are 20.8 percent below 5.52 million-unit level in October 2006.  The median existing single-family home price was $205,700 in October, down 6.3 percent from a year ago.

Existing condominium and co-op sales fell 9.1 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 600,000 units in October from 660,000 in September, but are 20.2 percent below the 752,000-unit pace in October 2006.  The median existing condo price4 was $223,500 in October, up 4.9 percent from a year ago.

The month/month figures is just noise; it’s the year/year statistics that look worrisome. The Wall Street Journal prepared a graphic of inventory:

I love the handy little arrow they added, to ensure we didn’t look at the chart upside-down or something. They also provided a round-up of commentary.

Prof. Stephen Cecchetti continued his VoxEU series today, which commenced on November 26. He concludes:

So, here’s the problem: discount lending requires discretionary evaluations based on incomplete information during a crisis. Deposit insurance is a set of pre-announced rules. The lesson I take away from this is that if you want to stop bank runs – and I think we all do – rules are better.

This all leads us to thinking more carefully about how to design deposit insurance. Here, we have quite a bit of experience. As is always the case, the details matter and not all schemes are created equal. A successful deposit-insurance system – one that insulates a commercial bank’s retail customers from financial crisis – has a number of essential elements. Prime among them is the ability of supervisors to close preemptively an institution prior to insolvency. This is what, in the United States, is called ‘prompt corrective action,” and it is part of the detailed regulatory and supervisory apparatus that must accompany deposit insurance.

In addition to this, there is a need for quick resolution that leaves depositors unaffected. Furthermore, since deposit insurance is about keeping depositors from withdrawing their balances, there must be a mechanism whereby institutions can be closed in a way that depositors do not notice. At its peak, during the clean-up of the US savings and loan crisis, American authorities were closing depository institutions at a rate in excess of 2 per working day – and they were doing it without any disruption to individuals’ access to their deposit balances.

Returning to my conclusion, I will reiterate that the current episode makes clear that a well-designed rules-based deposit insurance scheme should be the first step in protecting the banking system from future financial crises.

I quite agree with him. The Northern Rock episode – discussed in the context of deposit insurance on October 18, shows that politicians – and, by contagion, government sponsored departments – have squandered the trust placed in them. There have been too many broken promises, too many excuses. Additionally, it is completely unreasonable to expect small retail depositors to monitor the health of their friendly neighborhood bank, particularly at the height of a crisis. Banks should be supported by government sponsored deposit insurance as a social good; in exchange, they must pay insurance premiums based on their risk and submit to regulation of their capital adequacy.

The recent crisis is showing us that there is some cause for concern that this inner fortress of stability may not have been insulated enough from the outer, much less regulated, ring of the general capital markets; but I feel confident that the gnomes of Basel will be reviewing their stress tests over the next few years to account for new ways around the rules. As I mentioned on October 3, guarantees of liquidity and credit, particularly, need to be charged to risk-weighted assets at a higher rate. The default assumption must be that if the bank’s name is on a product – or if the bank is profitting from the product’s existence – then the risk of the product should be consolidated onto the bank’s books.

People invest in these things because of the banks’ reputations. The bank has a good name due largely due to regulation and deposit insurance. When – not if – a product fails, the banks’ reputation is harmed. Therefore, regulation should not pretend that there is no risk to capital from an off balance sheet sponsored product.

VoxEU also published an interesting paper on capital integration within the EU by Sørensen and Kalemli-Ozcan. Essentially, the authors argue that capital markets in the EU are, at least to a certain extent, balkanized, with saving regions refusing to invest in growing regions due to lack of trust.

Our findings suggest that Europe has a long way to go before its capital markets are as integrated as the U.S. market is internally. However, our work also suggests that much of the fragmentation stems from things that the EU cannot directly affect in the short run. Trust and confidence are things that evolve slowly. Policies that reward transparency and punish corruption may help but this is likely to take generations as exemplified by the low level of confidence in East Germany.

Good volume today – and at least some of the completely wierd prices that have become normal lately are starting to rationalize. I just hope there weren’t any Assiduous Readers waiting for the bottom on BNA.PR.C … but on the other hand, I don’t know where it’s going to open tomorrow. One shot wonder, or trend-reversal? Place yer bets, gents, place yer bets…

There were thirty-five other index-included $25.00-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

Update: cowboylutrell in the comments points out I screwed up the asset coverage for FTU.PR.A in the ‘Price Changes’ table. It has been corrected. Sorry!