PrefBlog

Somewhat to my surprise, the problems in the bond insurance industry continue to make headlines – much to the chagrin of the risk-control specialists at Royal Bank:

At the time, “we had noted there that we had exposure to one monoline [bond insurer] that was rated a single-A, that we had taken a provision against that exposure, and [that] the current mark-to-market as of Oct. 31st was $104-million,” RBC chief financial officer Janice Fukakusa told a financial services conference Tuesday.

“That monoline subsequently is in difficulty, so we have written off the balance of our exposure there in our first quarter results,” she said. That quarter ends this week, on Jan. 31, and the bank will release its results in late February.

There is the usual speculation regarding the monolines – Naked Capitalism sticks to its gloomy view:

So the benefit of this operation is not to assure payouts, but to prevent a downgrade because that leads to forced sales by investors who can only hold paper than falls in certain ratings buckets, and in turn forces the Street to price similar holdings lower. But the level of capital required to maintain an AAA is far larger than that required to merely assure that claims are paid for the next year or two 

… while CreditSights (a subscription-based ratings agency often quoted in the press) feels that the monolines are in a losing race against time:

“Given the number of competing interests and levels of commitment of participants involved, we think it is unlikely that an agreement sponsored by Dinallo could be hammered out within the appropriate timeframe,” CreditSights analysts Rob Haines, Craig Guttenplan and Joe Di Carlo in New York wrote in a report. “In the offchance that any deal could be solidified, the rating agencies are likely to have already taken action.”

The Fed will announce its rate decision tomorrow. The target rate for FedFunds is now 3.5%, but the futures contract is showing almost certainty of a cut to 3.0% … and about 2.5% by May. Economic concern is growing as the real (after inflation) rate approaches 0%; this concern is dismissed by others:

To be sure, inflation excluding food and energy prices — so-called core inflation — has exceeded the upper end of the Fed’s implicit comfort zone during most of the past four years. Including food and energy prices, the overage has been much more pronounced. Therefore, the emphasis of some Fed officials on preventing further increases in inflation is understandable. However, core inflation exhibits substantial inertia, so upward movements in inflation usually occur gradually. In contrast, output and employment can slump more rapidly, and the fragile state of the financial system today accentuates the risk of a reinforcing downward spiral. With a possible plunge on one side of the road and a less abrupt embankment on the other, a wise driver stays on the side of the shallower drop.

Not much new regarding the SocGen Futures Fiasco today … but a Jerome Kerviel fansite has been started! (hat tip: Financial Webring Forum). Apparently, SocGen is having a little difficulty convincing the authorities that actual criminal fraud was involved.

French prosecutors will not appeal against a decision to throw out the accusation of fraud levelled against a trader blamed for huge losses at Societe Generale, a senior judicial source said on Tuesday.

If confirmed, the move would represent a blow for SocGen managers, who last week branded trader Jerome Kerviel a “fraudster” and said the bank had been the victim of “massive fraud.”

The refusal to lay fraud charges will, in fact, be appealed, which leaves the “senior judicial source” looking a little silly.

In other enforcement news, the FBI confirms it’s looking at sub-prime:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating 14 corporations for possible accounting fraud and other crimes related to the subprime lending crisis, officials said.
…
The probes add to federal and state scrutiny of the home- loan industry as prosecutors and regulators seek to assign culpability for the mortgage rout that has forced people from their homes and resulted in losses to investors. The biggest banks and securities firms have posted at least $133 billion in credit losses and writedowns related to the loans, which are typically made to buyers with the weakest credit.

And also related to sub-prime, the current House Resolution 1540 increases the maximum mortage size for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & the FHA, e.g.:

For mortgages originated during the period beginning on July 1, 2007, and ending at the end of December 31, 2008:

• (1) FANNIE MAE- With respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, notwithstanding section 302(b)(2) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b)(2)), the limitation on the maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by the Association shall be the higher of–
  • (A) the limitation for 2008 determined under such section 302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size; or
  • (B) 125 percent of the area median price for a residence of the applicable size, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of the limitation for 2008 determined under such section 302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size.

… and the jerks are so desperate to appear to be Doing Something that they didn’t even bother to extract any capitalization-related concessions from the GSEs as a condition of increasing the limit.

Naked Capitalism is very concerned about a precipituous decline in non-borrowed reserves at the Fed, but I’m not convinced there’s a story here. In the current H3 release, it is disclosed that, of $41,475-million in reserves, only $199-million are non-borrowed. Usually, non-borrowed reserves will be roughly equal to total reserves – implying that net free reserves is about zero. The chart tells the story:

So … what are reserves? The Fed has the answer:

• Reserve requirements, a tool of monetary policy, are computed as percentages of deposits that banks must hold as vault cash or on deposit at a Federal Reserve Bank.
• Reserve requirements represent a cost to the banking system. Bank reserves, meanwhile, are used in the day-to-day implementation of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.
• As of December 2006, the reserve requirement was 10% on transaction deposits, and there were zero reserves required for time deposits.

There are two things to note here: first, Canada does not have a fractional reserve requirement and second, banks get ZERO interest on their reserves:

The Fed has long advocated the payment of interest on the reserves that banks maintain at Federal Reserve Banks. Such a step would have to be approved by Congress, which traditionally has been opposed because of the revenue loss that would result to the U.S. Treasury. Each year the Treasury receives the Fed’s revenue that is in excess of its expenses. The payment of interest on reserves would, of course, be an additional expense to the Fed.

Thus, all banks will attempt to keep their reserves as close to their requirements as possible. If they have any excess in the system, they will either try to lend them on the Fed Funds market – at the infamous Fed Funds Rate – or withdraw them, to invest the money in … basically anything. Even a one-week T-bill, even now, pays more than ZERO.

Now, along comes the Term Auction Facility. Its value of $40,000-million is – surely not fortuitously! – roughly equal to the total US bank reserve requirement … and it’s available cheap – 3.123%, as pointed out by Naked Capitalism.

If these borrowed term funds were to be left at the Fed – on top of the reserve balances that had been held there previously – then the banks would be borrowing at 3.123% and lending at ZERO. It is my understanding that this sort of negative margin on loans is not considered the road to riches at banking school. But an American stockbroker heard about this, got all excited and appears to have stampeded Naked Capitalism into unnecessary worry.

A good day in the preferred market – as noted by a New Assiduous Reader on another thread – but the index is still negative on the month. Volume was on the light side, but reasonable.

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

There were some very interesting tid-bits of news today. Naked Capitalism posted an article regarding some of the unintended consequences of Credit Default Swaps. I have commented on this news more thoroughly on the PrefBlog CDS Primer Post.

And the SocGen Futures Fiasco continues its fascination:

Europe’s largest futures exchange queried the bank about its trades as early as November.

“Eurex was alarmed by the size of the positions,” Prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said at a press conference today, citing Kerviel. He said the trader was able to explain away the concerns.
…
Jean-Pierre Mustier, chief executive officer of Societe Generale’s corporate and investment bank, said on a conference call yesterday that trades by Kerviel that exceeded limits had been caught by the bank’s back office before.

“He would admit he had made a mistake, the transaction would be canceled and he would replace it by another one that would be controlled by another department,” Mustier said. “He wasn’t making more mistakes than other traders.”
…
The case has raised fresh doubts about risk management at the world’s biggest financial institutions and prompted calls for increased disclosure from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He also suggested top managers should bear a greater share of the blame.

“When someone is very highly paid, even when it’s probably justified, you can’t avoid responsibility when there’s a major problem,” Sarkozy told reporters today after giving a speech outside Paris.
…
“There was clearly a fault in the bank’s control systems,” said Jean Peyrelevade, a former CEO of Credit Lyonnais and a member of the board of Barings when Leeson’s losses brought down the bank.

It pains me to have to quote Sarkozy actually saying something sensible on a topic related to capital markets, but hey – even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Apparently, Kerviel didn’t take his vacations:

He took only four days off last August and postponed a vacation at the end of the year, Societe Generale said. Banks often make trading staff take time off so any concealed positions will become evident in their absence.

… and, although I can no longer find the link, was mentioned somewhere as having a departmental password that gave him some information. Well … maybe a departmental password is acceptable for access to the page that provides information about the staff Christmas party, but I can’t see any other rational use! And, of course, there’s the “calendar of the controls” issue that I mentioned on Friday.

There’s no real information available. It’s in the bank’s interest to make this guy out to be a combination of Einstein and Satan … it’s not in their interest to provide a full and dispassionate account of how the little accident occurred. This is particularly the case since given the short period of time since the discovery, the only people who really have a thorough knowledge of the situation and industry comparables are the ones with their asses on the line.

But really, it’s sounding to me more and more like everybody involved in the policy-making for the controls, from the department manager to the risk committee of the board of directors, now has the onus to explain why they should be allowed to keep their job.

Naked Capitalism also ruminates on the bond insurer bail-out and the failure of the ratings agencies to update the status of their reviews:

there is every reason to expect the rating agencies to knuckle under if Dinallo can raise a modest amount of dough, even as little as, say, $2 billion. The agencies through their mistakes have now created the situation where they could be the ones to Destroy the Financial World as We Know It. They will take any route offered to keep from pushing the button, in the hopes that either the economy will miraculously recover or other events will lead to credit repricing, so that the eventual downgrade of the insurers has far less impact than one now.

I still don’t think a bailout is likely to succeed, despite the considerable costs of a bond guarantor downgrade. But the fact that the rating agencies will probably go along with any remotely plausible scheme means that a smoke and mirrors version might be put into place.

With respect to this particular tale, it is fascinating to learn that JPMorgan has increased its Ambac stake to 7.7% from 5.4%.

And, in news that will be not be welcomed by those speculating that BCE / Teachers will succeed, another LBO in the States has bitten the dust … but for a novel reason:

Blackstone Group LP’s $6.6 billion leveraged buyout of credit-card payments processor Alliance Data Systems Corp. may collapse because bank regulators have placed “unacceptable” requirements on the acquisition.

Alliance Data plunged 35 percent in New York trading today after Blackstone said conditions requested by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would impose “unlimited and indefinite” liability on the firm. It will try to keep the deal alive, the New York-based company said in an e-mailed statement.
…
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. also regulates Alliance Data because it operates an industrial bank. Before today, Alliance Data shares had dropped more than 10 percent four times since Nov. 29 on speculation the transaction will be reworked or abandoned. Three times Alliance Data issued public statements that the two sides were working to complete the deal.

Now, I don’t believe that banking regulators have any direct involvement in BCE / Teachers, but this deal’s collapse seems to have had a ripple effect anyway! BCE was down $1.34 on the day, to close at $34.95.

The TSX is late again with my daily prices. The indices (and HIMIPref™) are being updated at various odd hours, but will be unavailable on a daily basis until the data becomes available at a reasonable time.

The bond insurance business gets more interesting every day! Naked Capitalism has two pieces on it today, the first attempting to quantify the problem:

Bill Ackman of hedge fund Pershing Square has gotten a considerable amount of flack for his outspoken, negative views of the bond insurers, particularly MBIA and Ambac, which his firm has shorted. Ackman has been circulating a detailed analysis that estimates that the additional equity needed to maintain an AAA rating at the two biggest firms is roughly $15 billion.

This calculation is sharply contested by new rating agency Egan Jones (which also downgraded MBIA to a B+, a junk rating) which says the industry needs more than an order of magnitude more capital, namely $200 billion.

Egan-Jones was mentioned in PrefBlog on November 7. As a subscription-based credit advisor, they have an interest in saying exciting things … which is not to say they’re wrong, of course, but it is something to keep in mind. They received NRSRO status in December.

Naked Capitalism also takes a rather gloomy view of the New York Insurance Regulator’s bail-out facilitation – even gloomier than the one I remarked on yesterday. Until shown otherwise, I’m just going to assume the whole NY bail-out thing is plain-and-simple grandstanding … Mr. Dinallo, the head of the NY regulator, learned all about grandstanding in his last regulatory job:

Superintendent Dinallo served at the Office of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer from 1999 to 2003. As Chief of the Securities Bureau, he was charged with combining that bureau with the Real Estate Finance Bureau. The resulting Bureau was named the Investment Protection Bureau to reflect its focus, and Mr. Dinallo was named its first Chief. In that capacity, he led the reinvigorated Bureau’s investigations into the Wall Street Cases – conflicts of interest in the financial services industry, including research analyst cases and the spinning of hot initial public offerings. He produced more than 40 major civil and criminal matters, and led the Bureau through the beginning of the mutual fund industry investigations.

However, Barclays Capital has opined that there may be very serious knock-on effects should the insurers fail:

Banks that raised $72 billion to shore up capital depleted by subprime-related losses may require another $143 billion should credit rating firms downgrade bond insurers, according to analysts at Barclays Capital.

Banks will need at least $22 billion if bonds covered by insurers led by MBIA Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corp. are cut one level from AAA, and six times more for downgrades by four steps to A, Paul Fenner-Leitao wrote in a report published today. Barclays’ estimates are based on banks holding as much as 75 percent of the $820 billion of structured securities guaranteed by bond insurers.

I will have to do some more research into the bank capital regulations … it seems to me that having such levels of exposure to single names should attract a concentration charge on capital … I’m honestly not sure whether or not it does.

And Naked Capitalism draws to my attention (very good crop today, Yves!) an opinion piece by Willem Buiter, who is something of a regular on this blog:

Even with a few days worth of hindsight, the Fed’s out-of-sequence, out-of-hours 75 basis points cut in the target for the Federal Funds rate continues to look extraordinary and deeply misguided. Indeed, it looks less and less like a decisive pre-emptive move in response to unexpected bad news designed to meet the Fed’s triple mandate of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates, than a knee-jerk panic reaction to a global stock market collapse.

Did the sharp global decline in stock values at the beginning of this week reflect a rational re-assessment of fundamentals? The only two candidate explanations I have heard are (a) that the collapse was probably triggered by concerns about the financial viability of the monolines and (b) that it was intensified by the unwinding by SocGen of the long equity positions taken by its employee of the year (not!). I find neither explanation convincing. If the collapse was a spurious, non-fundamental event, there is no reason for the Fed to react to it. The ability of the Fed to meet its fundamental objectives is seriously undermined if it is perceived as the poodle of the equity markets.

So sign up another member of the “But what about inflation?” camp.

Assiduous Readers will be familiar with my grumpiness about US Fiscal policy – the last six years have been permanent stimulation – but I’m in good company:

[Harvard Professor Jeffrey Frankel] explains:

“In 2001, very aggressive monetary and fiscal expansion reduced the severity and length of the recession. It is true that this time as well the Fed has been busy cutting interest rates and the government is working on a fiscal stimulus. But this time, before long, our policy makers will run into constraints. The government can’t keep cutting taxes, because the national debt is too high, the path of future deficits too steep, and the costs of the baby boomers’ retirement too imminent. The federal government needs to retain the confidence of the bond markets.

“This is different from 2001, which we entered with a record budget surplus, allowing room for stimulus. Similarly, the Fed can’t keep cutting interest rates because the dollar has been falling steeply, and America needs to retain confidence of foreign investors who are financing our deficits. This is different from 2001, when the dollar was strong, inflation was all but dead, and the Fed could cut interest rates by [5.5 percentage points].”

A few more details – and a bit more rational commentary – is emerging regarding the SocGen stock futures fiasco:

But a top French presidential advisor revealed that Kerviel had positions of more than 50 billion euros (73 billion dollars) — more than the bank’s current market capitalisation of 35.9 billion euros.
…
Many experts said it was difficult to believe a lone trader could have successfully hid such colossal losses.”

“The feeling in the dealing rooms is that it is not possible for an individual to do all that. They think Societe Generale has overdone the fraud to cover up some bad market operations,” said Elie Cohen, an economy professor and research director for the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).

One example of such feelings as were noted by Elie Cohen is:

Let’s get this straight: the MainSwamp media (who are such profoundly ignorant whip-kissers that they think that the wankfest at Davos is worth reporting on) would have you believe that a single trader whose entire remuneration package (including bonuses) was 100k euro, had such free rein that he could rack up positions with aggregate losses of A$9 bill, with nobody noticing. (To get to an aggregate loss of A$9 bill, you need an actual position larger than that, no?)

A bank with owners equity of about $20 billion, and its processes are so poor that such a thing could happen? The Banque de France – who audits every bank every year, and knows if an individual Frenchman passes a bad cheque – knew nothing of it?

Sorry lads – no sale.

What has happened here, I bet, is that SocGen has found an internal culprit, and is hanging as large an amount on him as they think they can get away with. So this geezer might have sent $100 mill to Money Heaven – that amount could possibly be hidden for a week or so – and the Bank has used him as a scapegoat and has attributed half its subprime-related losses to him rather than the subprime book.

… and a bit more delicately:

“That’s when he made his first mistake,” said Jean-Pierre Mustier, head of investment banking at Societe Generale. “He no longer knew the type and calendar of the controls.”

The trading loss raises questions about the bank’s risk management procedures.

“I find it really improbable that this trader was not abetted by at the very least incompetence, if not assistance from others,” said Joseph Mason, a risk-management researcher and professor of finance at Drexel University in Philadelphia. “Ultimately, we’re talking about a breakdown of fundamental operational controls.”

“Calendar of the controls”? No wonder SocGen’s lost so much. And finally (hat tip: Financial Webring Forum), Jim Sinclair reviews the data and offers the opinion:

The USD $7,000 million loss reported as an action of a junior trader hiding a losing position for a considerable amount of time as stated is total bull.

You would have to be totally IGNORANT of market mechanics to buy that plausible denial.

The public and much of the media are.

The reported loss was a buyout of a failed to or chosen not to perform derivative.

One theory regarding the mechanics of the scheme that has been suggested to me is that the trader was writing single puts on multiple futures/forward contracts rather than multiple puts on single futures/forward contracts, then fiddling with the documentation to make it look like one put = one contract, rather than the actual one put = multiple contracts.

Well, that may be. I responded that most cases like this aren’t very complicated, really. It’s usually just a matter of dumb stealing from dumber. Or, perhaps, dumber turning a blind eye, as long as dumb was making money.

I’ll admit, one thing that makes me a little nervous about the whole episode is the continued emphasis on his background in operations:

Kerviel drew on knowledge he acquired during six years in Societe Generale’s back office, where he went to work in 2000 after completing a degree in market operations at the University of Lyon II, according to an alumni Web page. He had to breach five levels of controls to get away with his trades, Bank of France Governor Christian Noyer said at a press conference yesterday.

His “intimate and perverse” knowledge of the bank’s controls let him avoid detection, co-Chief Executive Officer Philippe Citerne told reporters.

This is the type of thing that might make a particularly overbearing, paternalistic and incompetent regulator (please don’t cry, Assiduous Readers, some such do exist) forbid such transitions.

I came up through operations. It was while working in operations on starvation wages that I got interested in finance. The background has served me well … back-office bullshitters find I’m asking them questions they’d rather not answer, on occasion. I’m hardly alone in this; the traditional manner of becoming a trader is by first becoming a traders’ clerk – something I wish I’d know when I got my first full-time operations job and spent several years kicking myself for asking for the higher-paying dead-end choice.

But we’ll see.

There’s a new inhabitant of litigation-land!

this move by New York City and State to sue lead manager Goldman, 25 other underwriters and accounting firms over a Countrwide stock offering is routine securities fraud, in this case making misrepresentations about the company’s prospects. No one has yet to develop a legal theory to go after Goldman for the move that has many offended, being net short subprime related debt while continuing to sell them to investors. And the latter is unlikely to go anywhere (saver perhaps serving as fodder for Congressional investigations) because that action didn’t violate any securities laws.

There is no indication as yet as to whether the New York City and State portfolio managers have even been asked as to whether they did a due diligence.

Well folks …. sorry! Prices are not yet available from the TSX and I’m going out for dinner. I’ve been keeping the HIMIPref™ indices up to date, by the way, after cramming in the prices at odd hours, just not reporting them. But I’ll see what I can do over the weekend to – at least – get today’s index levels up.