PrefBlog

In a post remarkable for its vitriol, Naked Capitalism has attacked a rather innocuous article by Robert Shiller that mounted a defense of financial innovation. So today I’ll comment on the commentary and try to get past the slogans du jour.

Shiller: The entire sub-prime market is largely a decade-old innovation – the word “sub-prime” did not exist in any language before 1994 – built on such things as option adjustable-rate mortgages (option-ARM’s), new kinds of collateralized debt obligations, and structured investment vehicles. Previously, private investors in the US simply did not lend to mortgage seekers whose credit history was below prime.
Naked CapitalismFirst, option ARMs are not a subprime product; they were targeted to prime borrowers (see here and here from the esteemed Tanta). This is a striking error from a supposed expert on housing markets. Second, financial innovation does not equal “securitization of subprimes” which is what his second paragraph implies. CDOs frequently contain heterogeneous assets; many CDOs contain only corporate bond exposures.

Naked Capitalism is factually correct – option-ARMS (these are adjustable rate mortgages in which the borrower has an option regarding how much principal to repay … this can be a negative amount, giving rise to negative amortization) are not a sub-prime product.

As Table 9 in Ashcraft’s paper (reviewed on PrefBlog) shows, Option-ARMs have next-to-no representation in subprime MBS pools. However, the proportion of option-ARMs in Alt-A pools increased rapidly in recent times: from 1.7% in 2003 to 42.3% in 2006. Given that the second Calculated Risk post referenced by Naked Capitalism notes a 15% delinquency rate in Yuba City (north of Sacremento) I don’t quite see that this slight inaccuracy detracts from the credibility of the piece as a whole.

I am completely mystified regarding NC‘s second point: Shiller does not mention “securitization of subprimes” at all, despite NC‘s quotation marks. And while tranching and CDOs have been seen before, the widespread adoption of tranching in creating AAA securities from junk via subordination, which has confused so many commentators, is indeed a new thing.

Naked Capitalism then goes into a long rant, taking issue with Shiller’s statement that:

A study published in 2005 by economists Geert Bekaert, Campbell Harvey, and Christian Lundblad found that when countries liberalize their stock markets, allowing them to operate freely without government intervention, economic growth rises by an average of one percentage point annually.

NC claims a strong belief that this is in reference to a paper titled Growth Volatility and Financial Liberalization, going in to great detail to show why the paper does not show this. Unfortunately, a thirty second search of the SSRN site turns up a paper by the same three authors titled Does Financial Liberalization Spur Growth?, with the abstract:

We show that equity market liberalizations, on average, lead to a one percent increase in annual real economic growth. The effect is robust to alternative definitions of liberalization and does not reflect variation in the world business cycle. The effect also remains intact when an exogenous measure of growth opportunities is included in the regression. We find that capital account liberalization also plays a role in future economic growth, but, importantly, it does not subsume the contribution of equity market liberalizations. Other simultaneous reforms only partially account for the equity market liberalization effect. Finally, the largest growth response occurs in countries with high quality institutions.

It would seem that NC is very eager to confound financial liberalization with depredations of investors! There are other problems with his post; mainly attempts to portray innovation as the antithesis of regulation, but I’ll leave those as an exercise for the student.

Fascinating disclosure about Bear Stearns’ ownership today:

Bear Stearns Cos. Chairman James “Jimmy” Cayne sold his shares in the firm prior to a shareholder vote on the company’s pending takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Cayne sold 5.6 million shares at $10.84 a piece on March 25 on the New York Stock Exchange, according to a regulatory filing today. Bear Stearns spokesman Russell Sherman had no comment on why or to whom Cayne sold his shares.

I think I’ve mentioned my interest in CIT Group before; a number of interesting things have happened recently. They announced they were tapping their bank lines to build up cash and pay off their un-rollable commercial paper; short interest skyrocketted; Option volatility went way up; the price of CDSs soared (it’s a member of the investment grade high volatility index); and bonds tanked.

So … I’m trying to figure out investment strategies that would relate all thes data (bonds / CDSs is too easy. No marks for that one). I do recognize that all this could be happening completely independently … but I have real trouble believing that CDSs at +1300 is a rational response … even at +1000, that was being quoted at 25 points up front and 5 points a year. That’s not default risk – that’s “how much recovery will there be from the carcass?” What I’m saying is, I suspect that there’s some kind of amplification/transmission mechanism that’s operative and I’m trying to figure out how such a thing might work.

I’m not expecting to find a perfect arbitrage, I’m just trying to find a transmission mechanism. How about … short the stock at $10. Buy a call option with a $15 strike to cover. Sell 5-year Credit protection at 1000bp (net. get some points up front!). Do all this for $10-million notional on each position.

Scenario #1: CIT taken over. Stock goes way up, option exercised, loss $6-million. CDS comes in 700bp, gain about $3.5-million. Net -$2.5-million. Hmmm … maybe the hedge ratio on that one needs to be changed…

Scenario #2: CIT goes bust. Stock goes to zero, option expires worthless. Gain $9-million. CDS settles at 40% recovery. Loss $6-million. Net +$3-million Hedge ratio again … but this is beginning to look interesting.

Scenario #3: Nothing happens. Replace option, cost … Oh, call it $4 annually, or $4-million annually on the position. Receive credit protection payment of $1-million. Net loss $3-million annually

Scenario #4: Nothing happens, but you got 25 points up front. Wait one year, buy back the stock at $10, stop replacing options. Cost of options $4-million. Receive CDS payments of $2.5-million up front + $0.5-million for the year. Net loss $1-million; left with written CDS of 4-years at 500bp

So it doesn’t quite work (with these prices, which probably aren’t 100% executable), but I think there’s something there. And it’s the CDS prices I think are abnormal anyway, so that strategy’s in the wrong direction. How about … buy $10-million stock, buy $25-million notional credit protection?

Scenario 1: Company goes bust in one year. Lose $10-million on stock. Pay $6.25-million up front on CDS, pay $1.25-million annual charge. Make 60% (assumed) on notional CDS = $15-million. Net loss $2.5-million … $2.50/share

Scenario 2: Company taken over at $20. Make $10-million on stock. Pay $6.25-million up front on CDS, pay $6.25-million (total over 5 years) for four year’s credit protection on acquirer. Net = four year, $25-million CDS on acquirer for total cost $2.5-million = 25bp That’s very very cheap, could be sold for … um … 150bp? Then $25-million x 4 years x 125bp = $1.25-million profit. So the break-even takeover price is about $18.75, with full exposure up or down. You’re paying $8.75 for the chance at the other two scenarios.

Scenario 3: Nothing happens. Sell stock, no loss or gain. Have very expensive credit protection on CIT.

… Hmmmmm … still doesn’t quite work.

Any ideas for transmission between asset classes will be appreciated! I do appreciate that a drop in stock price accompanied by a rise in volatility will lead to a higher CDS price according to some models – I’ve mentioned the BoC study – but … but … I want something more direct.

Volume was light on the preferred market today, but there were some violent price moves amid a sharp decline. BCE issues did very well, but quite a few PerpetualDiscounts got hammered.

There were thirteen other index-included $25-pv-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.

There’s a bit more colour on the Clear Channel deal today, which will of intense interest to those watching the BCE / Teachers deal:

Banks financing the $19.5 billion buyout of Clear Channel Communications Inc. stand to lose about $3 billion on the transaction because loan prices have tumbled since they promised to fund the deal.

Banks led by Citigroup Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG agreed in April to provide $22.1 billion for the purchase by private- equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners LP and Bain Capital Partners LLC. Since then, losses on subprime-mortgage securities spread throughout credit markets and loan prices for similar LBOs fell to as low as 85 cents on the dollar
…
“It doesn’t appear to be a gentleman’s market anymore,” said Neal Schweitzer, who analyzes the bank loan market as senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service in New York. “The larger the transaction, the greater the potential for bigger discounts” when selling the debt.

The BCE buying group has repeated the same old party line.

Econbrowser‘s James Hamilton voices his support for Jeff Frankel’s explanation of high commodity prices mentioned here yesterday and follows up with a warning:

I have long argued that the broad increase in commodity prices over the last five years has primarily been driven by strong global demand. But I am equally persuaded that the phenomenal increase ([1], [2]) in the price of virtually every storable commodity in January and February cannot be due to those same forces.
…
Nor do I agree with those who attribute the recent commodity price increases primarily to the falling value of the dollar.
…
Instead I believe that Harvard Professor Jeff Frankel has the correct explanation– commodity prices at the moment are being driven by interest rates, with a strongly negative real interest rate increasing the incentives for speculation in any storable commodity.
…
Swings in relative prices of this magnitude are destabilizing. The Fed would like to stimulate more, but it also has to be realistic about what it is capable of accomplishing through manipulation of the fed funds target. Bernanke also needs to be mindful that one of his most valuable assets, if he hopes to be able to accomplish anything through adjustments of the fed funds rate, is the confidence on the part of the public in the Fed’s long-run inflation-fighting resolve.

I agree. As written here on March 19:

I agree with him, as I agreed with his recently expressed view on limits to monetary policy. It seems to me that as far as the overall economy is concerned, the Fed should be waiting to see what its cuts – now 300bp cumulative since August – do to the economy. At the moment, the problem is land-mines of illiquidity blowing up unexpectedly, and the TSLF, together with the occasional spectacular display of force are the best defense against that.

I will also note that a linking of commodities with short-term rates seems in large part to be an attempt to treat them as money market substitutes … we’ve had far too much problems with money-market substitutes in the last year to start inventing more! Well … it’s not my money, and I suspect that the speculators will – eventually – pay through the nose for their presumption.
Accrued Interest mourns the lot of fixed income analysts in this environment:

In the case of mortgage-related credit risk, for instance the ABX index, prices should obviously be drastically lower. This is the kind of risk pricing that capital markets can handle. In fact, that kind of risk pricing is exactly why capital markets are an important part of our free-market system.
…
But the second major theme is interfering with the market’s ability to properly price risks. Potential buyers of risk, from hedge funds to banks to broker/dealers, became overextended during the credit bull market and now need to repair their their own balance sheets. No matter how attractive various pricing levels are, these buyers are are not a position to take advantage. Some of those that became overextended have been forced to unwind some or all of their positions.
…
As a result, classic investment analysis, pouring over 10K’s and analyzing cash flows, has not been a winning strategy. Until very recently, investors who dabbled in anything that looked fundamentally “cheap” got burned. Sector after sector suffered historic spread widening amidst persistent forced selling.

A major (major! major!) problem this time ’round is that we are currently experiencing the very first credit crisis in which it has been possible to short credit on a large scale – via Credit Default Swaps and Index shorts, for instance. In every other crisis to date, anybody who wanted to speculate against corporate credit had to arrange to borrow physical bonds, preferrably for a long term … at the very least, this added to frictional costs, even assuming a counterparty could be found.

No more. Just buy protection on a billion corporates and wait for the money to roll in.

The problem with this strategy is that shorting credit is ultimately a losing game. Issuers short their own credit because they can (or think they can) use the funds to invest in profitable ventures; ventures not available for the speculator, especially one who isn’t actually getting the funds but is just paying the spread. Shorting credit is a game for the short term only.

From a policy perspective, the ability to short credit is disturbing due to its procyclical nature – that is, speculation may be counted upon to exaggerate legitimate price swings.

Which is not to say I am in favour of banning the practice! However, I do think the margin requirements applicable to players in the core banking system and investment banking system should be reviewed to ensure that speculation is contained. This is similar to regulatory margin requirements on stocks: set partially in order to ensure that there are no destabilizing bankruptcies; and also to discourage ‘walk-away’ trades, in which a player just walks away from a losing bet. We’ve seen quite enough walk-away trades in the US housing market, thank you very much!

As an aside … I mentioned BMO’s new issue of sub-debt yesterday, as a note to the the 5.80% pref new issue announcement … that was a 10+5 year deal at 10s + 260. I have now been advised that TD is also issuing sub-debt, a 7+5 deal at 7s + 225.

In a speech that may be laying the groundwork for massive regulatory changes, Treasury Secretary Paulson has opined:

the Federal Reserve should broaden its oversight to include Wall Street investment firms that borrow from the central bank at the same interest rate as commercial lenders.
…
“The Bear Stearns action was a sea change,” said Gilbert Schwartz, a former associate general counsel at the Fed, and now a partner at Schwartz & Ballen in Washington. “The Fed should be the umbrella agency for all these institutions. The SEC is not set up to handle this.”
…
“We don’t think the SEC has the tenure and the expertise in a lot of these global capital adequacy, funding and derivative issues that the Fed would have,” said David Hendler, an analyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York. “If you’re going to extend the money you should have the right to look over the books.”
…
“The Federal Reserve should have the information about these institutions it deems necessary for making informed lending decisions,” said Paulson, whose three decades on Wall Street culminated in seven years as chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “Certainly, any regular access to the discount window should involve the same type of regulation and supervision.”

I’m not sure how much I agree with this. I am opposed to regulating investment banks on the same basis as regular banks, for reasons that I have stated until I have bored even myself: they represent part of the grey zone between banks – that should be ultra-regulated – and hedge funds – that should not be regulated at all. If the Fed extends only over-collateralized to brokerages, how necessary is it that they have supervisory responsibilities? Many countries – Canada included – separate central bank & bank supervision, a separation that I feel is sub-optimal, but not all that much sub-optimal.

Is there really anything wrong with the Fed simply seeking an opinion from the SEC regarding solvency of a brokerage prior to extending an over-collateralized loan in emergency circumstances? One thing’s for sure: we don’t want too many rules. Get good people at the Fed, pay them well and give them discretion; that’s the winning formula.

An increased field of operations for the Fed has been endorsed by Dallas Fed President Fisher.

Maybe they can lend money to the monolines next! FGIC dropped a bomb today:

Bond insurer FGIC Corp said on Wednesday that its exposure to mortgage losses exceeded legal risk limits and it may raise loss reserves due to litigation related to stricken German bank IKB.
…
FGIC in a statement also said it has a substantially reduced capital and surplus position through December 31. As a result, insured exposures exceeded risk limits required by New York state insurance law, the New York-based company said.

Moody’s downgraded FGIC in mid-February … there’s no word yet on the implications of the new revelations. They recently downgraded Security Capital Assurance when:

elected not to declare the semi-annual dividend payment on its Series A perpetual non-cumulative preference shares.

In other monoline news, Fitch has published a monograph on their ratings model, which takes note of the special characteristics of municipals.

Not a very good day for the markets, but no disaster and volume held steady. I regret I don’t have time for the indices tonight … I’ll try to get to them tomorrow.

There were nineteen other index-included $25-pv-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.
Update, 2008-3-27:

Naked Capitalism provides a very good round-up of the BSC/JPM deal commentary. I will quibble with the repeated suggestion that formal bankruptcy Monday morning was the only alternative to a deal. I agree that their options (speaking strictly in terms of their economic interests as shareholders, not as employees and creditors) were both limited and unpalatable – I pointed that out on March 14, but there is the question of the Japanese banks. Naked Capitalism – Why didn’t Bear use its credit lines? – couldn’t understand why they didn’t draw their lines; and the Japanese banks have previously advertised their willingness to lend to any player who is sufficiently desperate.

So – I think – Bear had a choice, albeit one with which Hobson would be familiar. Of particular interest in the post is the discussion of the alleged contract glitch that I briefly mentioned yesterday. Dealbreaker has posted twice on the issue, claiming that the conference call was crystal clear and then backing up his statement with the transcript. Upon thinking about it a little more myself – and reviewing the transcript – I’m inclined to believe that Dealbreaker is correct and the alleged glitch was in fact an explicitly desired thing.

Look: What’s the point of the guarantee in the first place? To ensure that Bear can operate until they’re formally taken over, right? If Bear had difficulties finding counterparties on the Friday, those difficulties were going to double on Monday (assuming that they did not file for bankruptcy at the crack of dawn). In order to serve its purpose, the guarantee had to be absolutely binding – who’s going to enter into a trading committment of a year, say (CDSs and Swaps will typically be 5 years) on the basis of a guarantee that might vanish in a month? JPM had to make the guarantee binding and lengthy, or there was no point going through the motions.

In familiarly cheery news, the US housing price drop is accellerating:

Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas fell in January by the most on record, a sign the housing recession is deepening, a private survey showed today.

The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index dropped 10.7 percent from January 2007, after a 9 percent year-on-year decrease through December 2007. The gauge has fallen for 13 consecutive months.
…
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. forecasts home prices as measured by Case-Shiller will decline another 10 percent by the end of 2009. It predicts new-home sales will bottom in the middle of this year and existing-home sales and housing starts will reach a trough in the third quarter.

“Prices have reached what might be called a fair value,” Dan North, chief U.S. economist at Euler Hermes ACI in Owings Mills, Maryland, said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the report. “However, prices have still got to go substantially past that” to trigger demand and a recovery.

A separate report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise today showed home values fell 3 percent in January from a year ago, and 1.1 percent from December.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index measures repeat home sales in 20 U.S. cities, regardless of mortgage size, while the Ofheo monthly index excludes sales of homes with mortgages higher than $417,000, the maximum allowed during that time for homes bought by government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There is further commentary on the WSJ Blog.

In other news of interest Jeffrey Frankel argues that commodity prices are rising due to low real interest rates rather than due to new demand from the BRIC bloc.

Assiduous Readers will be familiar with my view that banking regulation needs to be improved; primarily by drawing a brighter line between the core banking system and the shadow banking system (e.g., by increasing capital requirements for committed – or effectively committed, as is the case with bank-sponsored SIVs – credit lines) and reviewing capital requirements for non-core-but-still-bloody-important institutions like investment banks (such as margin requirements on derivatives, as mentioned yesterday). I’m not alone in this view: Mark Thoma of Economist’s View got some ink in the WSJ Blog by musing about the need for reform:

There is quite a bit of discretionary authority in the hands of regulators. As the philosophy of both parties has drifted toward a hands off approach over time, and as appointment after appointment to this or that agency has reflected that changing philosophy, the accompanying regulatory oversight has changed along with it. The changes have been more dramatic under Republican administrations, and the current administration strongly prefers a hands off approach on all matters involving economic policy (with the exception of tax cuts for the wealthy), so it’s no surprise that the same philosophy has, over the last several years, filtered into the offices charged with regulatory oversight more so than in the past (and appointments based upon how much someone contributed and the strength of their ideology rather than their competence hasn’t helped).

Very – very! – light on specifics, but it’s a start. I might as well stake out my position pretty clearly right now … I want a core banking system, an investment banking system and a shadow banking system, with exposure between the levels being determined by margin and capital requirements rather than flat prohibitions and directives. What’s more, I believe that the appropriate policy response can better be described as “tweaking” rather than “reform”. The pendulum never swings half-way however, so it will be a fight – and certainly the political response so far has been to erode capital at the GSEs and FHLBs to protect Americans’ God-given right to McMansions.

The Fed has announced that yesterday’s TAF auction ($50-billion, one month) came in at 2.615% for one month money – about 4bp less than current LIBOR. This continues to be a good sign – a rate significantly above LIBOR would imply that there were players shut out of the interbank market desperate for funds. For those having trouble with the plethora of new Fed acronyms, remember that the TAF is restricted to banks and is fully collateralized.

In news that will cause fear and trembling amongst BCE investors (the equity kind, anyway), the Clear Channel buy-out looks sick:

Clear Channel Communications Inc. dropped in extended trading after the Wall Street Journal reported its $19.5 billion private-equity buyout is close to falling apart.

The buyout group, led by Thomas H. Lee Partners LP and Bain Capital Partners LLC, hasn’t been able reach an agreement on terms with the banks financing the transaction, the newspaper said today, citing people familiar with the matter. The lenders include Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Wachovia Corp.
…
Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio broadcaster, dropped 14 percent to $28 after closing at $32.56 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Since the buyout was announced in November 2006, the stock has traded below the $39.20-a-share offer price because of investor concerns that the deal won’t be completed. Credit-market turmoil has made it harder for buyout firms to obtain financing.
…
Clear Channel’s 5.5 percent notes due in September 2014 rose 2.75 cents, or 4.4 percent, to 65 cents on the dollar to yield 13.9 percent, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

A day enlivened by the BMO new issue of 5.80% perps. Volume picked up nicely, but perpetualDiscounts got smacked as players adjusted their portfolios to account for … for … for … for what they think the new standard is. Or something.

There were twenty-four other index-included $25-pv-equivalent issues trading over 10,000 shares today.